Talk:Partimage

On sourcing
I shouldn't even have to point this out, but documentation created by vendors does not count as an "independent secondary source". This would be blatantly obvious if the application were not free software, but the situation is exactly the same where it is. Independent sources are groups who, like, don't maintain and distribute the thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is no way that you could call Debian or Knoppix vendors, also the three, The project, Debian and Knoppix are not connected but 3 independent entities, the fact that Debian and Knoppix offer the possibility for a download of the software doesn't change that. Mion (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to look up the meaning of the word "vendor". Anyway, if this article remains sourced only to vendors I'll take it to AfD, as if the only recourse of its defenders is to revert tags it wouldn't appear that secondary sources would be forthcoming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noun	1.	vendor - someone who promotes or exchanges goods or services for money ,
 * 1 there is no money involved, 2 there is no legal framework about purchasing the goods, so I don't see the point you're making. Mion (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, evidently you don't. But if you're not going to add properly independent sources which establish the notability of the article, then I suppose you're going to have to take your word-parsing to AfD in the end. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but i did on your request, i added Debian as an independent source and about the notability of the article, at least 2 other projects Clonezilla and PING are build on top of partimage, removal of all information about partimage is a sort of censorship in the history of cloning software, I dont see any gain in removing elements in the software timeline, how else can we build the sum of all human knowledge ? Mion (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to look up the meaning of the word "censorship" too. Jeez. And while "the sum of all human knowledge" may occasionally be quoted as Wikipedia's goal, it still isn't a place to dump every random piece of information anyone knows. Software projects covered by Wikipedia must establish their notability through independent third-party sources, and distributors aren't the best examples of such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Something new ? pointing to "a place to dump every random piece of information anyone knows" sure, your personal opinion on the article, but its not a FAQ, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, News reports or Statistics, so nothing relevant to this article and no new arguments..... ? Mion (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was refuting the specific claim that Wikipedia was all-inclusive. I've ceased to believe that arguing over the fineries of the English language (or indeed policy) with you is productive, so I'll leave this for comment by additional parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Talk
Generally:
 * Thank you for having this article here. Regardless of anything else, however it is phrased or slanted, I am glad to have it here where I could quickly find out 'What is this beastie?', and move on.
 * IIUC, PartImage is not an on the fly solution. Like Clonezilla, you boot a separate media (e.g. CD), and then make your image. It would be useful if this article mentioned whether PartImage is on the fly. I would be happy to be corrected. But, either way, it would be useful if the article mentioned this.
 * IIUC, PartImage is not an on the fly solution. Like Clonezilla, you boot a separate media (e.g. CD), and then make your image. It would be useful if this article mentioned whether PartImage is on the fly. I would be happy to be corrected. But, either way, it would be useful if the article mentioned this.

Bs27975 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)