| Revision as of 16:25, 25 February 2010 editVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits →TM'd images: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:00, 2 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,214 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| == Deletion review == | |||
| {{WikiProject Software |importance=Low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | == TM'd images == | ||
| By unanimous decision on deletion review this article has been restored. See ] for further details. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | I have removed the images that incorporate other corporations IP until the licensing issues etc are resolved. In addition, the infobox should contain a screenshot - not a table of logos. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Reliable source supporting notability == | |||
| ::It's true that by convention a screenshot is included in the infobox but TurnKey is not your typical distribution. It's an appliance distribution. Having a table of appliance logos in the same space is more communicative which is why I replaced the screenshot. ] (]) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === English sources === | |||
| :::The icons have been deleted so I can't see what the table looked like and decide if it was better than the old screenshot. I'm going to guess it looked like a small version of the icon table on the TurnKey site. If so I agree with others that it's unusual but given the unusual nature of the project I might support it, if the IP issues can be resolved. The old screenshot just shows Webmin which isn't the focus here...] (]) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * . According to WP ] has been in circulation since 1979, online since 1995. | |||
| == Notability == | |||
| * . Linux devices is a Linux centered IT publication online since 1999. More | |||
| of this article agreed that notability had been established though sufficient sourcing. See, as well, . Is there any serious disagreement remaining as to notability? If so, we can look for additional sources or seek a decision at AfD. If the topic is not notable, it's no use cleaning up the article, it would be a waste of time. First things first. If there is no objection, the notability tag can be removed, clearing the way for further work. --] (]) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * . Linux Today is a Linux focused IT publication online since 1998. It is published by ] which also run other news sites such as and . The syndicated story was written by Joe Panettieri, AKA , a well known and respected IT journalist that has been writing since 1992 (). | |||
| ⚫ | :* I'm happy enough to take it to AfD (and had considered doing so but thought I'd try tagging it first). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small>]]</small></u> 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| === Non-english sources === | |||
| ::You can do that, Sam, but I'd suggest some discussion here first. Given the DRV and sources (remember, it was the third DRV after a speedy by an administrator, and after article improvement outside of article space), it's unlikely to succeed. It's been long enough that it would not be an abusive renomination, my opinion. So what is the basis for your opinion? --] (]) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Normally I wouldn't bother... I don't see it in many (read: enough) reliable sources and while I'm inclined to set the bar lower for open source projects the reason I'm here at all is because links to this article started popping up in a handful of articles & categories I tend to from time to time. Given they have shown no signs of quitting any time soon it seems the best way to dispense with the problem is to erase it. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small>]]</small></u> 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't add these sources to the body of the proposed article because they are not in English, but they should still count towards notability: | |||
| :::Alleged misbehavior on the part of an editor is absolutely no reason for deletion of an article. Ever. And, by the way, please take a look at ]. Notice, in particular, '''"Remember that conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion."''' Have you changed your mind? Why? You were more or less right, except that the only legitimate cause for deletion is lack of notability; other problems with the article call for cleanup, not deletion. --] (]) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Uh.... Sj hasn't changed his opinion. He doesn't want to delete just because of COI, he wants to delete because of other problems arising from COI (the COI editor adding links on other pages). --] (]) 09:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So, COI editor adds links to this article from other articles. Whether these are appropriate or not -- I'm in no position to judge yet -- how does this affect the notability of ''this'' topic? For every article on Misplaced Pages, there are people who are COI. COI editors will tend to promote their POV, it's expected, and that's why we have ]. If LS is abusively editing, the solution would be to warn him, and it should not be done by SJ, who is clearly way too involved. And then if he continues, improperly, he can be blocked. This has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of TurnKey Linux and whether or not Misplaced Pages should have an article. --] (]) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* I actually believe the subject is not verifiably notable, but so are many others. The thing that draws my attention to this particular one is that it is causing serious problems elsewhere by breaking copyright and trademark laws, stuffing inappropriate categories with images, modifying informative templates, etc. Had they not repetitively injected themselves into categories and templates I care about I'd probably have never noticed they were even here. But they did, and had the gall to take it to ] when I tried to fix it. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small>]]</small></u> 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have to back up samj by saying that some links to this have appeared where they aren't really justified. Doesn't justify killing the article, more a sign that the cloud computing category needs tweaking, which is something I will do. Looking at this article, here are my problems: it's mostly marketing and appears a historical list of product releases mixed with press releases. I'd like to some discussion of how the images are created, how the need to configure is addressed, how they are kept up to date. This would be interesting and useful. Knowing what version shipped in 2008 isn't. Really. ] (]) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * (). InfoWorld.nl is a Netherlands IT publication online since 1996, a subsidiary of IDG.com - the world's leading IT media, research and exposition company. | |||
| : It seems that notability was decided over a year ago when the article was undeleted. Since then the project has gotten even more links, including that award.] (]) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * () | |||
| == Cleanup needed == | |||
| * (). IT republik is a German IT publication that has been online since 1995. | |||
| The article contains old information no longer up to date, and some references are dead links - for example the Proxmox page for virtual appliances (4). I am not proficient enough in this domain to edit the article, but the information and some references are literally more than two decades old and seems to be out of date upon further inspection. ] (]) 18:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * (). A Swiss IT publication online since 1996. | |||
| == RfC: How can this proposed article be improved? == | |||
| This article was rewritten based on an earlier article that was deleted in a rather messy affair instigated by an anonymous IP vandal. | |||
| From: ] | |||
| ''I don't see that anyone noticed that the speedy deletion tag was placed by an IP editor, but I haven't read all the reams of discussion this generated. This affair is a poster boy for requiring AfD when speedy deletion is contested. Simple enough, and far, far less contentious. (AfD can be bad enough). Contested speedy deletion, if undeletion is refused, isn't speedy, and it's much harder for a "losing editor" to accept. I requested the article undeleted and userfied so that people can see it, it's now at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, and one of the first things I noticed was that the db-spam tag was added by 87.196.76.86. The IP geolocates to Portugal, and it may or may not mean anything that the editor also nominated NUbuntu (speedy denied), and quite inappropriately removed Alinex, a Portuguese distribution, from List of Ubuntu-based distributions. In four minutes on January 29, this anonymous editor created quite a splash. Maybe it's about time the IP gets credit for this. Is this the same editor who tenderly expressed some wishes today with a series of edits, including ? In any case, I suspect there are some lessons to be learned from this affair, so I'm starting a page, User:Abd/Open Source notability to examine the issues that LirazSiri attempted to raise here, without all the shouting. Anyone interested, join the salon. Be nice. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)'' | |||
| Full disclosure: I have a potential ] with this article, since it describes a project I co-founded and contribute to. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines that doesn't preclude me from editing/writing the article but I understand I have to be careful. I've tried my best to neutralize how this effects my judgment and edit the article from a NPOV, but just to be on the safe side I am requesting comments. ] (]) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] requested that I take a look at this RfC. I'm sorry to report that when I said that my real concern was with the process and I wasn't certain of my own opinion about the notability of the article, I was serious. With the current articulation of notability on Misplaced Pages I don't think I can endorse this as WP:Notable - not because of anything it says in the article but because without having fleshed out better notability guidelines for OSS (which I think LirazSiri and Abd are correct that we need) I honestly don't think this topic can defensibly make the cut for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (And consequently, under the current guidelines many other Ubuntu distro articles ''technically'' ought to be deleted too, although I would want to postpone any such destruction of content until more attention is spent on the OSS-specific guidelines.) | |||
| :One other bit of advice for LirazSiri: it might be an idea, if you have the time and wherewithal, to try fleshing out and organizing some entire category of articles that would include TurnKey Linux - all open-source operating system LiveCD distributions, for example, in concert with the development of OSS notability guidelines. This might help to convince the WP community that your efforts on the TurnKey article are borne genuinely out of an interest in improving Misplaced Pages and not solely for promotion of the software project. (Though of course I can't speak for anyone except myself. And if you're just completely fed up with Misplaced Pages at this point I would understand.) --] 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::At this point I think the matter of TurnKey Linux's notability can be addressed separately from the notability guidelines for open source projects. I would of course like to see a more sensible policy for covering open source projects, but from my research (summarized above) it seems TurnKey Linux is already in compliance with Misplaced Pages's general criteria for notability. I just wish these same guidelines wouldn't advocate the destruction of all open source projects who have not yet received such media attention. ] (]) 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) <small>comment refactored here from above previous paragraph, where it broke up SB's comment. --] (]) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::I might do that if I had enough free time on my hands but competition from life and work prevents me from dedicating myself to single handedly crusading for open source notability on Misplaced Pages. I'm not fed up with Misplaced Pages but the community really needs to step up and get more people involved in a real discussion. IMO, Misplaced Pages is facing a real problem now that the bulk of the content has been written. Many of the people who were enthusiastically motivated to create seem to have left the stage and tipped the balance from "creationism" towards a destructive and irrational form of "deletionism". I'm only one person and I really don't want to be caught in the cross-hairs of this phenomena again. I've had enough of that for a life time. OTOH, I do hope that my contributions to ] will motivate others to pitch in and help as well. ] (]) 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the lack of specialised notability guidelines for OSS, I assume that the fallback position would be that of the ], would it not? In which case, the issue is whether or not it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm willing to accept the (although it should be used as a reference, rather than as an "External link", and it would be easy enough to add it as one), but I'm not convinced of the in terms of notability. So the main change I'd want to make is to find some more sources to show that TurnKey Linux has had sufficient coverage. - ] (]) 10:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that we would simply punt back to the GNG in a case like this. But I'd like to think that Linux Devices is a reliable source (if not a significant one) and between that and the Ubuntu newsletter that should cover a little more ground. Maybe those and the Information Week article makes "two" Significant Sources (but, then again, I'm a ruthless inclusionist). If nothing else this is the very bottom of what could pass for a supportable article. Very good work. I'd vote '''Keep and improve''' in an AfD. ] (]) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about the reliable non-English sources? Is there a rule I'm not aware of that says only English sources can be used to establish notability in the English Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sources need not be in English, though English sources are preferred. Google translations can be used (and referenced from Talk) or translations can be made by editors knowing the language. --] (]) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Try to find more references. I did a Google News search and found: (Information Week); (tectonic); (in German; I can read German (with difficulty and with the help of a dictionary) so if you think this reference would add notability, I can extract some facts from it for you if you ask me to.) There may be other places you can find references: maybe look through some IT magazines or something. I tried Google Scholar and found a few extremely brief mentions of "turnkey Linux" but I think they were referring to the concept in general, not to this specific project. I hope this helps. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :They are all three regurgitations from the same press release. Mind you, that they got a page at InformationWeek shows that they have some actual notability. Will be waiting for some independent sources. | |||
| :P.D.: (notice the german one is a newsticker with little news and tibdits). --] (]) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::More accurately, the media attention is all in response to the project's last release. Journalists receive an endless stream of press releases every day - they're THE standard interface between the media and various news sources. They (and the publication) still have to exercise editorial judgment and separate what is important from what isn't. These days most tech journalists just assume that if anything important happens they'll get a press release about it, which unfortunately reduces their motivation to go out and explore on their own. That kind of sucks but its the way things are. BTW the non-English sources (infoworld, Ubuntu Linux france) happened well in advance of any contact the project had with the English-speaking media. ] (]) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Be sure to review the criticisms at DRV: . Some of them are moot; Here, LirazSiri's COI is totally irrelevant; presumably consensus will be found here on the best article, most bullet-proof against AfD, before it moves back to mainspace. We can decide at that time what procedure to follow. The DRV was withdrawn, so we could go back there, if asking the deleting admin, nicely, to allow return doesn't come up with a satisfactory answer. Or, probably better, it could just go back to mainspace, because there never was an AfD on this; if it is properly sourced, etc., at that point, the speedy criteria should be even more questionable, and there may be no admin willing to speedy it. In which case, done. Please do ''not'' move the article back to mainspace without consultation here, and LS, you should not be the one to move it back, period. --] (]) 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. After doing a bit more research regarding reliable sources who covered the project I feel confident that the evidence speaks for itself. ] (]) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Good job. I think InformationWeek is a good reference to have, probably enough to meet notability requirements. I find the subject matter relevant and notable but this is my personal opinion. You may want to post on the Computer reference desk to talk directly to wikipedians that are involved in IT - but the deletionists would probably (cynically) claim you're forum shopping or some such. Abd is correct you should not personally restore the article to mainspace, but again there is a small question as to whether ultimately it should go straight to mainspace or if we should be going through Deletion Review. If Misplaced Pages functioned properly you should be able to go straight to mainspace; trouble is, most deletionists won't stop and think, they'll simply speedy delete citing "reposting of already deleted content". Therefore it might be 'wiser' to go through Deletion Review. Sigh, the system stinks. ] (]) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I understand the guidelines, previously deleted articles are open to speedy if they are ''not'' substantially different from what was originally deleted. Having compared the two versions, I believe that this article is sufficiently different. In addition, CSD G4 doesn't apply to previous speedy deletions, anyway (although the normal solution is just to argue that the original reasons for speedy deletion still apply, so it is a moot point). Thus the two questions to me are whether or not the article, as it stands, is blatant advertising (I'd say not), or if it has failed to signify why the subject matter was important (I'm presuming the coverage makes that case). | |||
| ::At any rate, DRV may be the way to go, but as it is substantially different the question isn't whether an old deletion should be undone, but whether a new article is ok. I'm not sure that this is the correct role for DRV, but I may be wrong there. :) - ] (]) 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can we nominate a proposed article for DRV? Also, from what I've read the correct procedure is to move back to mainspace when reliable sources become available. It doesn't have to go through DRV to get back into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the new sources, the best thing would be moving to mainspace and then inmediately nominating to AFD. (however, I'd wait a few months to see if new sources appear on the meanwhile. The article could fail AfD in its current state) --] (]) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why do you think it might fail AfD? It cites multiple reliable sources. Is my bias blinding me to something? ] (]) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it because most sources look like passing mentions, name checks (blindly covering all packages released in a certain week/month independently of their relative importance) and press releases. --] (]) 06:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I wouldn't go quite that far. The InformationWeek article is based on a press release, presumably, but it also has a byline and would normally speak to notability. The Inforworld.nl article isn't too bad, either - it predates the March press release, I believe, so I'd count it separately. That aside, predicting which way AfD will go is a tad tricky. One or two more good articles would make it a whole lot safer, and I don't see much need to rush. - ] (]) 06:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree, AfDs are tricky, and waiting would be wisest --] (]) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Tag removal == | |||
| Tags exist to encourage discussion of article problems. Simply adding tags to an article without describing the problems, if the problem is obscure and not blatantly obvious, is less than useless; it makes for an ugly encyclopedia page with no redeeming value. An editor placed tags on this article, another removed them, and the same editor just restored them. I have reverted this, but if the editor will detail the objections here, and if they are not objections that were already addressed, I would personally allow the tags. --] (]) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I have restored the tags as they seem fairly obvious. Someone with a clear COI has been heavily involved, so the text needs review. The notability of the products seem to be questionable, and the article seems akin to an infomercial at present. It is now tagged appropriately. By "I would personally allow the tags" I assume you mean self revert? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == TM'd images == | ||
| ⚫ | I have removed the images that incorporate other corporations IP until the licensing issues etc are resolved. In addition, the infobox should contain a screenshot - not a table of logos. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:00, 2 February 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library/Archive
TM'd images
I have removed the images that incorporate other corporations IP until the licensing issues etc are resolved. In addition, the infobox should contain a screenshot - not a table of logos. Verbal chat 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's true that by convention a screenshot is included in the infobox but TurnKey is not your typical distribution. It's an appliance distribution. Having a table of appliance logos in the same space is more communicative which is why I replaced the screenshot. LirazSiri (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- The icons have been deleted so I can't see what the table looked like and decide if it was better than the old screenshot. I'm going to guess it looked like a small version of the icon table on the TurnKey site. If so I agree with others that it's unusual but given the unusual nature of the project I might support it, if the IP issues can be resolved. The old screenshot just shows Webmin which isn't the focus here...Smdyson (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability
The Deletion Review of this article agreed that notability had been established though sufficient sourcing. See, as well, The 2009 Infoworld BOSSies. Is there any serious disagreement remaining as to notability? If so, we can look for additional sources or seek a decision at AfD. If the topic is not notable, it's no use cleaning up the article, it would be a waste of time. First things first. If there is no objection, the notability tag can be removed, clearing the way for further work. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy enough to take it to AfD (and had considered doing so but thought I'd try tagging it first). -- samj in 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can do that, Sam, but I'd suggest some discussion here first. Given the DRV and sources (remember, it was the third DRV after a speedy by an administrator, and after article improvement outside of article space), it's unlikely to succeed. It's been long enough that it would not be an abusive renomination, my opinion. So what is the basis for your opinion? --Abd (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Normally I wouldn't bother... I don't see it in many (read: enough) reliable sources and while I'm inclined to set the bar lower for open source projects the reason I'm here at all is because links to this article started popping up in a handful of articles & categories I tend to from time to time. Given they have shown no signs of quitting any time soon it seems the best way to dispense with the problem is to erase it. -- samj in 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Alleged misbehavior on the part of an editor is absolutely no reason for deletion of an article. Ever. And, by the way, please take a look at User:SamJohnston/Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime. Notice, in particular, "Remember that conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Have you changed your mind? Why? You were more or less right, except that the only legitimate cause for deletion is lack of notability; other problems with the article call for cleanup, not deletion. --Abd (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Uh.... Sj hasn't changed his opinion. He doesn't want to delete just because of COI, he wants to delete because of other problems arising from COI (the COI editor adding links on other pages). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, COI editor adds links to this article from other articles. Whether these are appropriate or not -- I'm in no position to judge yet -- how does this affect the notability of this topic? For every article on Misplaced Pages, there are people who are COI. COI editors will tend to promote their POV, it's expected, and that's why we have WP:COI. If LS is abusively editing, the solution would be to warn him, and it should not be done by SJ, who is clearly way too involved. And then if he continues, improperly, he can be blocked. This has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of TurnKey Linux and whether or not Misplaced Pages should have an article. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I actually believe the subject is not verifiably notable, but so are many others. The thing that draws my attention to this particular one is that it is causing serious problems elsewhere by breaking copyright and trademark laws, stuffing inappropriate categories with images, modifying informative templates, etc. Had they not repetitively injected themselves into categories and templates I care about I'd probably have never noticed they were even here. But they did, and had the gall to take it to WP:ANI when I tried to fix it. -- samj in 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, COI editor adds links to this article from other articles. Whether these are appropriate or not -- I'm in no position to judge yet -- how does this affect the notability of this topic? For every article on Misplaced Pages, there are people who are COI. COI editors will tend to promote their POV, it's expected, and that's why we have WP:COI. If LS is abusively editing, the solution would be to warn him, and it should not be done by SJ, who is clearly way too involved. And then if he continues, improperly, he can be blocked. This has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of TurnKey Linux and whether or not Misplaced Pages should have an article. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Uh.... Sj hasn't changed his opinion. He doesn't want to delete just because of COI, he wants to delete because of other problems arising from COI (the COI editor adding links on other pages). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to back up samj by saying that some links to this have appeared where they aren't really justified. Doesn't justify killing the article, more a sign that the cloud computing category needs tweaking, which is something I will do. Looking at this article, here are my problems: it's mostly marketing and appears a historical list of product releases mixed with press releases. I'd like to some discussion of how the images are created, how the need to configure is addressed, how they are kept up to date. This would be interesting and useful. Knowing what version shipped in 2008 isn't. Really. SteveLoughran (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that notability was decided over a year ago when the article was undeleted. Since then the project has gotten even more links, including that award.Smdyson (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Cleanup needed
The article contains old information no longer up to date, and some references are dead links - for example the Proxmox page for virtual appliances (4). I am not proficient enough in this domain to edit the article, but the information and some references are literally more than two decades old and seems to be out of date upon further inspection. SplatMan DK (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Categories: