Talk:UnrealIRCd

Second paragraph
"According to SearchIRC's statistics, UnrealIRCd is used on the largest number of IRC servers. The largest IRC networks, however, do not use it."

What is that supposed to mean? No reason is given why and the last sentence has some grammar issues. Do not use them, perhaps? -- But still - no reason is given why. /Tense (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is because they have developed their own, specifically tailored IRC servers for their own use, however there is no reliable source which states this, so I have not included it. And, "The largest IRC networks do not use UnrealIRCd on their servers" would possibly be a better wording, but I think the current wording is fine, though.  -- Cobi(t 10:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the existing text makes sense to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worded like that because although many many smaller and medium-sized networks use UnrealIRCd, the five largest use mainly their own IRCd or something that is different than Unreal. --cmelbye (t/c) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. I'm sorry. I should have read it more carefully. It makes perfectly sense to me now aswell. Thank you. /Tense (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable sources
Please refer to the AfD here, for a page using identical sources to the unrealircd page, give or take interviews with unrealircd developers as you can see none of the sources are notable. Can someone please help find some more notable sources, news reports (from real news sites), book chapters (that give more than a passing mention and url) etc? I will help if required, i just like to see proper references on all pages. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "none of the sources are notable". I don't follow, there is absolutely no requirement for a source to be notable. SQL Query me!  20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources just need to be reliable. —Giggy 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and per WP:RS, self published sources are not reliable, and may be - or lead to - original research. Quite a lot of the source material here seems to be suspect, which is what I believe the comment was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.231.149 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Update three years later: Actually, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be reliable about themselves, and WP:SPS self-published sources can be used with great care if by an established expert in the field, but neither are sufficient for whole articles, or the majority of article content. Independent reliable sources are needed, and have (as of the time of this writing) been added: two books. --Lexein (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement Notice?
Is it really necessary to keep the Advertisement Notice on the article? After looking it over a dozen times, I can't see any form of Advertisement.Anpu777 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It was added to the article minutes before he tried to take it to AfD.  Remove it if you like, I've just been removing unnecessary infoboxes as I update and rewrite the articles. The tone of the article does indeed need some work but advert probably isn't the right infobox to use. I'd been trying to focus on the smaller articles before tackling the larger more established articles such as this one. This last week I was also working on finally getting the IRC WikiProject set up right. Tothwolf (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion opposed
I refer you to the Wikipedia Chairman's call for clemency and editor encouragement of May 2011.
 * Reason #1: you are never going to get notable sources for daemons. Yet the entire internet runs on countless daemons.
 * Reason #2: it's not a bad article. Deletion proposer - have you read any articles on wikipedia?
 * Reason #3: last but not least, this is Cobi's article. If Cobi, with literally millions of anti-vandalism edits can't have an article on a topic in which he has expert opinion, then what hope is there for any of us?

Go on, "Be Nice" - please lend a hand. Wikipedia Chairman appeals for kindness,here, discussed here. Are you in? Geoffjw1978 TL C 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1: Reliable sources quickly found: two books, with Google Books search, and use of source expanded greatly, based on extensive coverage in both books. #2: "bad" is not a reason for deletion: see WP:Arguments to avoid - that should have been brought up at the deletion discussion. #3. Editors don't WP:OWN articles, so the fact that Cobi made major contributions doesn't help, if he didn't find the needed sources.  --Lexein (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with deletion of related article
I don't know where to put this and it has been some years, I stumbled over this article again and it came back to me, and it seems worth bringing up after so much time has passed. I did actually delete my Wikipedia account over this out of frustration, and so far haven't returned apart from very few anonymous edits.

Back in the day I helped on various IRC-related articles, among them one on InspIRCd which in actual widespread usage in same niche of small IRC servers, more modern code & functionality, ... had taken over UnrealIRCd as the most-used IRC server in total numbers probably a decade ago, and I'd eat my hat if it's nowadays not at least almost even in numbers. However, UnrealIRCd is older and more ancient, and therefore happens to have just a tad more book references, and InspIRCd was therefore deemed not notable enough.

As an outsider, this makes no sense to me! Is it really right that this should be what makes the difference, even though in practice among all of the relevant audience of IRC server admins and users InspIRCd is probably the more encountered one? Shouldn't the notability lean more towards the software that had actually been used predominantly for years even if nobody in print had decided to care to catch up on that yet?

A source for these numbers by the way could be found on searchirc.com which by now sadly has folded and been taken over by Mibbit which no longer seems to provide such IRC server software numbers. But the original deleted InspIRCd article had these sources and it might be still possible to find them on archive.org or other places. (maybe netsplit.de could be convinced to collect & publish such numbers?) Edit: here is one source of interesting numbers: https://www.openhub.net/p/5114 you can also see mention of searchirc in the original discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/InspIRCd

What I am hoping to achieve is that the deletion practices especially regarding IRC topics are reviewed. Also, it might be useful to resurrect that article in particular if it's still archived somewhere; it has been a while and I don't know how wiki works well enough.

Full disclosure: I'm not affiliated with any of the two projects, although I had one or two superficial technical conversations with other IRC server developers although I don't think with any of these two projects. (charybdis orcd devs mostly, it has been a while.) However, I did write an IRC server back in the day, super niche and not on wiki, but that does make me more invested in this topic, and I suppose more biased, than many other people. 2003:EA:7F2B:5100:FCDC:4D19:924E:99BB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)