Talk:ConEmu

The foreign language sources don't help the topic, particularly since several of them are primary sources. TEDickey (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it better to remove all foreign sources, even if there is no similar english one? Maximus7792 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources given and your edits are largely covered in WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and WP:COI. TEDickey (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the limitations section, which said:

   There is opinion of configuration dialog is overwhelmed and hundred of settings 
   may be daunting for new users.[1]

That doesn't sound like a prima facie limitation, and the source given state:

   Your first glance at the settings dialog will leave you feeling a bit overwhelmed. 
   I still find new features and options every time I go into the settings window. 
   It would be nice to see the settings laid out in a more organized fashion to 
   reduce the overload. I would also like to see some of the more common and 
   useful setting made to stand out or be easier to find.

which isn't describing a limitation. Note: I'm not saying that ConEmu doesn't have limitations, just that this source isn't supportive of this limitation. TheBjorn (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Two more sources, but not sure if they are acceptable. ConEmu review by FossHub and Softpedia Editor's review. Both reviews do not affilate to software author.Maximus7792 (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Listed in MOSS/Projects in use by Mozilla. Maximus7792 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see reason to remove most quality terminal emulator for windows from wikipedia. You better to remove all this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terminal_emulators. Yes information is weak, but very useful for certain developers community. -- Firanolfin (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Look how great community is speaking about it http://habrahabr.ru/post/164687/ --Firanolfin (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if an established editor (particularly one whose edits were primarily on other topics) contributed opinions (see WP:SPA for context) TEDickey (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello TEDickey. I don't know if I would qualify as an "established editor", but I am a long time user of Wikipedia, mostly as a reader, with only occasional edits over the years, primarily on other topics.

My opinion is that this article should stay. ConEmu is very popular and well known among software developers, system administrators, and other heavy users of command line terminals, who are using Microsoft Windows on their workstations (whether by choice or forced by company policy).

It is notable for being the only actively maintained replacement for the native Windows terminal, that is still capable of handling native Windows console programs.

Most of the other alternatives (mintty, PuTTY, etc) can only handle simple stdin/stdout redirection for programs running inside the terminal, but as soon as a program attempts to access any native Windows console APIs, it stops working correctly under these terminals. The only other terminal (besides ConEmu) that can emulate native Windows console APIs is Console2, which unfortunately hasn't been maintained for years and is essentially a dead project now. Grnch (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.151.215 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a frequent user of ConEmu, please don't delete this article, but I can agree that the article could definitely be improved on the way that it is written.Zer0rest (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick vote for keeping this article around to give it time to mature. AmbulatoryCorpse (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ConEmu is one of (if not the) best terminal emulator for Windows, so removing this article just does not make sense. Einarth (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You all need to read WP:NOTABILITY which is the policy that governs whether an article stays or goes. WP is not a fan club where we keep or delete b/c of what people like, or find useful. What matters is whether there are sufficient independent, reliable sources about the article subject, or not. Grnch are there reliable sources that say what you wrote about what this program does and what makes it better than everything else out there? (think about really good ones, that every one would trust) Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the article already has several references to online publications, that seem pretty independent and reliable to me. I wasn't able to verify the Russian language ones, but the English references seem to satisfy the WP:SOURCES criteria. Is there anything about these references that makes them unsuitable in your opinion? Any guidance here would be much appreciated.

I would be willing to put some effort into fleshing out the article some more, as well as locating other references as needed to back up any added text, but I have a pretty busy day job and can't do this on short notice. I'll try to find a couple hours to look into this, but I probably won't get to it until the next weekend.

Is there any deadline associated with these deletion proposals? Wikipedia is mostly maintained by volunteers donating their free time whenever they can, so I would hope that it has more lenient timelines for article improvements. Grnch (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ConEmu was [project of the month for SourceForge on May 2015]. While this alone doen't cover the notability requirements, there are multiple reviews and awards from independent sources. While the author seems to push a little too hard for his program's visibility, that doesn't negate the fact that it is referenced very prominently on several review and download sites. Regarding SourceForge, it definitely has significant coverage (the article refers to ConEmu exclusively), it is reliable (even though the last years it's become a bit more shady, it still one of the largests sites of its kind), these are secondary sources, independent of the subject. GSchizas 11:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've verified the Russian language. The links looks satisfying the WP:SOURCES criteria. Please, do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiphon (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)