Talk:Network traffic measurement

I have a feeling that the tools section violates WP:NOT on the grounds of advertising and being a repository of links:

Examples:

Foo: does this and that. Price: $1 million

Bar: does something different. Price: 1 cent

This section may have to be rewritten to conform to WP:NOT. --Geopgeop 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed that section. Almost all of the items were red links and were written as little more then SPAMs. It looked like an impossible to keep updated list of softs that added little to the articel. 68.39.174.238 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that remove. This software is good - don't just delete the content, rewrite it to sound less like an ad. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The software list is not good. WP is not a linklist/web directory.  I've removed the list and copyedited the article so it can exist without the list. -- Moondyne 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moondyne,
 * Moved from User talk:Moondyne

Why did you remove all the links from the Network traffic measurement page? External links are genuinely useful, there is no decent collection of these anywhere, and some of the tools already have wikipedia pages. The Netflow page lists freeware and commercial applications, so why shouldn't this one? This is not fair.

I'm reinstating them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmw1 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed them because it was unencyclopaedic information. The article should explain what Network Traffic Measurement is, not be a directory of NTM tools.  Please read WP:EL.  Thanks for pointing out another article with similar problems - I'll have a look at that shortly. -- Moondyne 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it OK for software pages like [PRTG] and [MRTG] to exist, but not a page that links them together by some important category such as functionality? Chris Wilson 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because we are writing an encyclopaedia with content. We are not a directory.  Try Google. -- Moondyne 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. What is the point of See Also sections if they cannot link to related Wikipedia pages? Should all See Also sections be removed from Wikipedia? There are clearly very closely related pages which should be linked from this one, such as MRTG and PRTG. Chris Wilson 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, in hindsight I may have been overly zealous in removing the whole See also section. What I was trying to do was to remove a directory of external links which the vast majority of entries were.  This is outside Wikipedia guidelines.  I'd support reinstating the entries which had WP articles written, such as MRTG and PRTG, which makes the entry verifiable and notable.  Those entries should not have external links on this page though, as they belong in the respective articles, not here.  And I reiterate, packages with no WP article should not be there. &mdash; Moondyne 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. What the article needs is 1 or 2 quality external links that explain what NTM is to go into the External links section. &mdash; Moondyne 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see [BandwidthD] absent from the list. It's free software been around for over a decade, and it's used at my workplace. It doesn't have a Wikipedia page either, which is equally surprising. Does it need one to be listed? &mdash; Boltronics (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)