This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Since the DYK process is over, let us continue. There is no A-class in this article's WikiProjects, so the next goal is the FA-class. These are the criteria.
Feel free to overwrite this status to reflect the discussion.
Regarding "well-written", this should be left to a professional writer when all the other criteria have been dealt with.
About "comprehensive", I really feel that major facts are missing: e.g. Debian Women. Although modern literature like "The Debian Administrator's Handbook" barely mentions Debian Women (Krafft wrote more in 2005), it is an important part of Debian. Besides the diversity statement, female ratio, financial support, etc, incidents like this one eventually happen. I will not go further with this issue, but someone else should give the "comprehensive" OK.
Concerning "well-researched", I will check once more that claims are verifiable. There are some sentences that do not sound neutral; verification will help with this.
The article looks stable, with a good lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations and enough media. Citations could be improved a bit more.
I am not sure whether the article stays focused. I will leave this assessment to another editor. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the "well-researched" criterion is met. The article was fairly neutral already and the information is presented without bias; the "neutral" criterion is met too. Although other featured articles have shorter tables of contents, I do not find this one overwhelming.
The next goal should be "length". The article is more focused but another opinion is needed. I will wait one week before doing a first pass for this criterion and then ask for a review, unless another editor wants to take over. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 00:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A little help opening the peer review would be appreciated ("Engineering and technology" link at the top of the page). 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Because of events that have led to this , I will refrain from working in this article for one week, unless the Peer review or the FAC process (which I cannot initiate either) start. I hope that the article gets improved in the meantime. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Despite this , I am sure that GamerPro64 has nothing against Debian. May the user review this article or open the peer review at the PR list as intended? The peer review has not been advertised. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
It be helpful to run the Featured article tools. Lentower ( talk) 03:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This section is meant to receive feedback from Wikipedia users that have been selected randomly. The purpose is to make the article useful to different types of readers. Of course, users are not expected to read the whole article. The question is: what else do you want to know about Debian?
GamerPro64 is reviewing the article; the review should continue in this page. I should clarify that the article is not prepared, e.g., the "well-written" pass is missing. The review was meant to check the "length" criterion and a couple of questions. Nevertheless, GamerPro64's input is more than welcome.
Regarding the use of Debian Wiki as a source, I agree that it is unreliable if used "as is". [1] However, this is no ordinary wiki, because many Debian members are contributors. A claim should be reliable if the information was added by a confirmed Debian member (diff) and it is uncontested. This is equivalent to an email sent by a Debian member.
I will revise the Debian Wiki references. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 23:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the peer review is to check the "length" FA criterion. Also, an answer to the following questions would be appreciated:
Jun 17, 1996 | 1996-06-17 | 17 Jun 1996 | ||
Dec 12, 1996 | 1996-12-12 | 12 Dec 1996 | ||
Jun 5, 1997 | 1997-06-05 | 5 Jun 1997 | ||
Jul 24, 1998 | 1998-07-24 | 24 Jul 1998 |
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 08:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter for
images makes much more sense. —
Dsimic (
talk |
contribs)
19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)letter-spacing
; font-size
is another option. However, resizing does not address accessibility for a lower resolution, but for a bigger one, otherwise scrolling would be unnecessary; we should not try to fit 4096×2160 into an unreadable 1024×768. Resizing would be a sign that the table contains too much information to be useful. If MDY without abbreviation is chosen, other information should go elsewhere.
84.127.80.114 (
talk)
06:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)"No personal attacks are intended." [3] Let us focus on the subject.
Strictly answering the question, sacrificing content merely because of width minimization is harmful for the article. The article is the most important, the understanding of the subject, major facts and key details.
That said, tables should present information in a useful way. Tables with too many details are less useful and they are not a substitute for prose. Concerning content, no relevant information has been discarded because of my decisions on accessibility, although my criteria about what is relevant may be questioned (and has been questioned). 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There are copyright problems with File:Debian Installer graphical etch.png, uploader BorgHunter, and with File:Debian Etch-ja.png, uploader Green from Commons. Regarding the History section, my choice of screenshots would be:
Unfortunately, image uploads are out of my reach. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 18:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
"Community support" seems ambiguous. This section should be under Features and the layout would be:
I will wait one week before adding this content, just in case someone wants to give it a try. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this , these code names have been announced. However, this kind of future event is not appropriate. Jessie is not released, but there is an actual distribution (testing). Unless distributions for Stretch and Buster exist, this information should be left for later. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "not appropriate" is not appropriate here. 91.9.127.47 ( talk) 17:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
According to http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Freeze-fuer-Debian-8-Jessie-2443508.html?wt_mc=rss.ho.beitrag.rdf, Debian 8 "Jessie" was freezed around 2014-11-06. Unfortunately, I can't find any more information about it in the net. But I think it's time to update some timeline information. 195.141.2.242 ( talk) 08:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Current hierarchy of the following elements in the article is:
What is meant by "features"? Policies are also a feature of the Debian project. If Policies are outsourced, then why are Derivatives included? I suggest something like:
91.9.127.47 ( talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Debian Jessie is currently frozen right now as i have googled it this week the release date for Debian Jessie is TBA -- User:superusergeneric hello ( talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The current image of Buzz Lightyear seems out of place, but I thought I would bring it up here. Is there any reason for its presence, apart from the fact that he has a swirl on his chin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.250.246 ( talk) 23:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The article says "Testing becomes Stable, and Unstable becomes Testing", which is incorrect. Unstable doesn't become anything, but rather packages migrate to Testing from it after a few days. I'd fix this inaccuracy myself, but I'm not sure of how to reword this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8101:8F9F:2225:64FF:FE7B:9B52 ( talk) 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is useful information to add to the article. I wanted to ask where it should go.
Announcing availability of Debian GNU/Linux as an endorsed distribution in Azure Marketplace
Microsoft brings Debian GNU/Linux to Azure cloud
SarrCat ∑;3 03:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across the "Multimedia support" section, and it appears to be ready for an update.
Because this article has acquired
Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology status, it is worth discussing such an update here so that article quality status is maintained (and hopefully improved).
I see two primary issues:
What are some
reliable, authoritative sources that should be cited for this section?
Possibilities include:
Any additional suggestions for sources to cite?
-- OnTheGas ( talk) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I added file:Linux stake holders.svg to this section as the scheme should explain some implications: by compiling Debian for a certain instruction set we not only make Debian run on it, but we also inevitably create a version of the Linux kernel user-space ABI. In case somebody cares to run proprietary software on this Debian, the packagers of the proprietary software need to compile it in a way compatible with this Debian port ABI, else it wont run!
Now in case you have multiple Linux distributions targeting some specific platform, they could or not care about sharing an identical ABI, so that proprietary software runs well on all of them.
My diagram was removed with some explanation I cannot fathom. User:ScotXW t@lk 09:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
fragment the GNU/Linux market for ISVs and by that, segregate the users from each other, that want to purchase proprietary software (e.g. video games)!
This article used to include a table with release histories and dates for each release. This was incredibly useful, in fact, I regularly referred to it. I'm not sure why it was deleted but if I were an editor working on this page I would consider it worth another look. -- 82.132.235.139 ( talk) 09:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Debian is NOT an operating system, it is just a distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.200.200 ( talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
https://bits.debian.org/2016/04/results-dpl-elections-2016.html -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris ( talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Since the DYK process is over, let us continue. There is no A-class in this article's WikiProjects, so the next goal is the FA-class. These are the criteria.
Feel free to overwrite this status to reflect the discussion.
Regarding "well-written", this should be left to a professional writer when all the other criteria have been dealt with.
About "comprehensive", I really feel that major facts are missing: e.g. Debian Women. Although modern literature like "The Debian Administrator's Handbook" barely mentions Debian Women (Krafft wrote more in 2005), it is an important part of Debian. Besides the diversity statement, female ratio, financial support, etc, incidents like this one eventually happen. I will not go further with this issue, but someone else should give the "comprehensive" OK.
Concerning "well-researched", I will check once more that claims are verifiable. There are some sentences that do not sound neutral; verification will help with this.
The article looks stable, with a good lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations and enough media. Citations could be improved a bit more.
I am not sure whether the article stays focused. I will leave this assessment to another editor. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the "well-researched" criterion is met. The article was fairly neutral already and the information is presented without bias; the "neutral" criterion is met too. Although other featured articles have shorter tables of contents, I do not find this one overwhelming.
The next goal should be "length". The article is more focused but another opinion is needed. I will wait one week before doing a first pass for this criterion and then ask for a review, unless another editor wants to take over. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 00:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A little help opening the peer review would be appreciated ("Engineering and technology" link at the top of the page). 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Because of events that have led to this , I will refrain from working in this article for one week, unless the Peer review or the FAC process (which I cannot initiate either) start. I hope that the article gets improved in the meantime. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Despite this , I am sure that GamerPro64 has nothing against Debian. May the user review this article or open the peer review at the PR list as intended? The peer review has not been advertised. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
It be helpful to run the Featured article tools. Lentower ( talk) 03:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This section is meant to receive feedback from Wikipedia users that have been selected randomly. The purpose is to make the article useful to different types of readers. Of course, users are not expected to read the whole article. The question is: what else do you want to know about Debian?
GamerPro64 is reviewing the article; the review should continue in this page. I should clarify that the article is not prepared, e.g., the "well-written" pass is missing. The review was meant to check the "length" criterion and a couple of questions. Nevertheless, GamerPro64's input is more than welcome.
Regarding the use of Debian Wiki as a source, I agree that it is unreliable if used "as is". [1] However, this is no ordinary wiki, because many Debian members are contributors. A claim should be reliable if the information was added by a confirmed Debian member (diff) and it is uncontested. This is equivalent to an email sent by a Debian member.
I will revise the Debian Wiki references. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 23:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the peer review is to check the "length" FA criterion. Also, an answer to the following questions would be appreciated:
Jun 17, 1996 | 1996-06-17 | 17 Jun 1996 | ||
Dec 12, 1996 | 1996-12-12 | 12 Dec 1996 | ||
Jun 5, 1997 | 1997-06-05 | 5 Jun 1997 | ||
Jul 24, 1998 | 1998-07-24 | 24 Jul 1998 |
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 08:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter for
images makes much more sense. —
Dsimic (
talk |
contribs)
19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)letter-spacing
; font-size
is another option. However, resizing does not address accessibility for a lower resolution, but for a bigger one, otherwise scrolling would be unnecessary; we should not try to fit 4096×2160 into an unreadable 1024×768. Resizing would be a sign that the table contains too much information to be useful. If MDY without abbreviation is chosen, other information should go elsewhere.
84.127.80.114 (
talk)
06:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)"No personal attacks are intended." [3] Let us focus on the subject.
Strictly answering the question, sacrificing content merely because of width minimization is harmful for the article. The article is the most important, the understanding of the subject, major facts and key details.
That said, tables should present information in a useful way. Tables with too many details are less useful and they are not a substitute for prose. Concerning content, no relevant information has been discarded because of my decisions on accessibility, although my criteria about what is relevant may be questioned (and has been questioned). 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There are copyright problems with File:Debian Installer graphical etch.png, uploader BorgHunter, and with File:Debian Etch-ja.png, uploader Green from Commons. Regarding the History section, my choice of screenshots would be:
Unfortunately, image uploads are out of my reach. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 18:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
"Community support" seems ambiguous. This section should be under Features and the layout would be:
I will wait one week before adding this content, just in case someone wants to give it a try. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this , these code names have been announced. However, this kind of future event is not appropriate. Jessie is not released, but there is an actual distribution (testing). Unless distributions for Stretch and Buster exist, this information should be left for later. 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "not appropriate" is not appropriate here. 91.9.127.47 ( talk) 17:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
According to http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Freeze-fuer-Debian-8-Jessie-2443508.html?wt_mc=rss.ho.beitrag.rdf, Debian 8 "Jessie" was freezed around 2014-11-06. Unfortunately, I can't find any more information about it in the net. But I think it's time to update some timeline information. 195.141.2.242 ( talk) 08:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Current hierarchy of the following elements in the article is:
What is meant by "features"? Policies are also a feature of the Debian project. If Policies are outsourced, then why are Derivatives included? I suggest something like:
91.9.127.47 ( talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Debian Jessie is currently frozen right now as i have googled it this week the release date for Debian Jessie is TBA -- User:superusergeneric hello ( talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The current image of Buzz Lightyear seems out of place, but I thought I would bring it up here. Is there any reason for its presence, apart from the fact that he has a swirl on his chin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.250.246 ( talk) 23:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The article says "Testing becomes Stable, and Unstable becomes Testing", which is incorrect. Unstable doesn't become anything, but rather packages migrate to Testing from it after a few days. I'd fix this inaccuracy myself, but I'm not sure of how to reword this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8101:8F9F:2225:64FF:FE7B:9B52 ( talk) 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is useful information to add to the article. I wanted to ask where it should go.
Announcing availability of Debian GNU/Linux as an endorsed distribution in Azure Marketplace
Microsoft brings Debian GNU/Linux to Azure cloud
SarrCat ∑;3 03:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across the "Multimedia support" section, and it appears to be ready for an update.
Because this article has acquired
Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology status, it is worth discussing such an update here so that article quality status is maintained (and hopefully improved).
I see two primary issues:
What are some
reliable, authoritative sources that should be cited for this section?
Possibilities include:
Any additional suggestions for sources to cite?
-- OnTheGas ( talk) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I added file:Linux stake holders.svg to this section as the scheme should explain some implications: by compiling Debian for a certain instruction set we not only make Debian run on it, but we also inevitably create a version of the Linux kernel user-space ABI. In case somebody cares to run proprietary software on this Debian, the packagers of the proprietary software need to compile it in a way compatible with this Debian port ABI, else it wont run!
Now in case you have multiple Linux distributions targeting some specific platform, they could or not care about sharing an identical ABI, so that proprietary software runs well on all of them.
My diagram was removed with some explanation I cannot fathom. User:ScotXW t@lk 09:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
fragment the GNU/Linux market for ISVs and by that, segregate the users from each other, that want to purchase proprietary software (e.g. video games)!
This article used to include a table with release histories and dates for each release. This was incredibly useful, in fact, I regularly referred to it. I'm not sure why it was deleted but if I were an editor working on this page I would consider it worth another look. -- 82.132.235.139 ( talk) 09:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Debian is NOT an operating system, it is just a distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.200.200 ( talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
https://bits.debian.org/2016/04/results-dpl-elections-2016.html -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris ( talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)