Talk:Icon editor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Icon editor redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Merge (software articles)[edit]

How about if we merge in the contents of the short articles RealWorld Icon Editor, Axialis IconWorkshop, and @icon sushi? Each of these articles could be made into a section of this article. And if one day these articles are expanded a lot, then they can be given their a separate article again. —Remember the dot (t) 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to object, I've performed the merge. However, I am leaving the relevant software categories on the redirect pages for each piece of software. —Remember the dot (t) 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Icon editor is a general topic and should not list specific products. 85.71.219.121 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that the icon editors are notable enough to deserve their own articles. I think that it's more useful to have a single article comparing the various icon editors than it is to have a short article about each individual icon editor. —Remember the dot (t) 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge as well. General topic articles don't need sections on specific products, they are best reserved for their own articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. If you both oppose the merge, then let's just leave it how it is. —Remember the dot (t) 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

At the moment, not only does the list of software lack notability but so does the actual article itself. Unless we can find notability for the software titles in the list, they will simply have to be removed. I will try and provide sources for the more notable titles, any others must be removed unless you can provide notability. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Google Keyword Tool, "icon editor" scores about 50000 searches per month (plus "icon maker" which scores another 90000 searches, plus other variations); most download archives have a special category for icon editors; statistics from Software Informer and Wakoopa show that icon editors (well, some of them) are very popular tools. So why the icon editors (which have their own editing paradigm) are not worthy of having their own article?

As for the notability of the software titles — I find your selection of references quite strange. For any software title (including those you've removed) you can easily find at least dozens of news articles, blog posts, or reviews on software download archives; however, most of those sources mean nothing because they are created routinely just to fill the sites with some content (or even submitted by the software authors). And why do you think that Wikipedia article about IconEdit2 which consists of a single edit made by the creator of IconEdit2 proves something? So it is unclear which reference you consider sufficient.

The list of icon editors was almost complete before your cleanup. May be we should restore it without requiring doubtful proofs of notability?

—Ippopotamus (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

These may be popular terms, which is why this article exists. Any subject (almost) is permitted to have it's own article on wikipedia providing it has notability.

You can easily find sources for software titles from reputable sources using the "news" link in the notice at the top of this section. If there aren't any sources, generally the subject in question is not notable enough. I've simply used what sources were available to me as without any source at all, the entry would have to be removed. The sources I've used as references are within wikipedia's guidelines, where as an article with no notable sources is not a sufficient reference and doesn't belong on wikipedia.

--Hm2k (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a reliable source that describes what an icon editor is and/or reviews a few different ones, at the moment, i'm struggling to find one. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Resolved

Not only is this article short, but it lacks notability and thus may be deleted. Instead I propose be merged as a subsection of the parent article Computer icon also adding more weight to a sparse article. Please now agree or oppose, your feedback is welcomed. --Hm2k (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If specific icon editors have their own articles, there should be an article for the entire category —Ippopotamus (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's null logic, since none of the icon editors articles have notability and may be nominated for deletion, much like this article, unless it is merged. --Hm2k (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. Some guy (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Done --Hm2k (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software[edit]

Moved to Talk:Computer icon § Software