Talk:Uzbl

all those maintenance templates

I've included some information from the german Version of the article. Now I think it can't be called a stub anymore so I removed the corresponding template. Also there is quite a bunch of references there so I also removed Template:Primary sources. (If somebody feels like there is still need for references I think there should be a more specific statement about that.)

What about the notability and the advertisment issue?--Wondigoma (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far (disregarding the anonymous postings), all you've established is that there's a program, and that its developers have talked a lot about it. Tedickey (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty objective and the software is not commericial so I really don't know where the advert accusation is comming from. Advert tag removed. This software is notable because it is the first browser to follow the unix philosophy. AndreasBWagner (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that opinion? (If so, there's something to discuss) Tedickey (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic borrows too much of the self-promotional text from the developer's website. It's either because the developers have written much of this topic (not uncommon on Wikipedia), or because the editors contributing to the the topic need some guidance on finding reliable third-party sources and presenting the information in a neutral manner. Your assistance might be helpful Tedickey (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence: "Despite being in early stages of development Uzbl already gained prominence as one of the best minimalistic browsers." Should be removed or have its context changed, it's cited but it's still an opinion.AndreasBWagner (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than being an opinion, the source is clearly from a small group of developers. Notability probably means something more than a dozen people Tedickey (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the many free software users in the world not related in any way with the developers looking always for alternatives and I find that this article should be kept here because of its value as an "authoritative" research start point.--Francisco Albani (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (a) Wikipedia is not a repository of knowledge, (b) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both are part of the guidelines. ymmv Tedickey (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted into the Debian operating system

That's misleading (there are many packages, most of which are non-notable). Tedickey (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha level programs

It's unlikely that there are any notable alpha level programs, simply because their user community consists mainly of the developers (who by the way contribute articles to various low-entry sites such as LWN). Tedickey (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot - an example of an unreliable source

Perhaps the topics to which Slashdot points contain reliable sources; Slashdot in itself consists of anonymous comments, which are inherently unreliable. Tedickey (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I just saw the notability warning. I'm not familiar with wikipedia guidelines (I don't even have an account) so I don't know if an article in an other language can be considered as a reliable source to establish notoriety.

If this is the case there is an article in GNU/Linux Magazine France n°125. You can see a preview here: http://www.ed-diamond.com/feuille_lmag125/index.html (pages 8 to 12). The article explain how to to use the software as well as some basic configuration file editing. The author is Carl Chenet. I'm obviously not in the best position to say that but after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability I think it's a reliable secondary source (but it's in french). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.113.103 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Will you add that link to external references? Or better yet, improve Uzbl with some words from that article?

As for notability, I think this satisfies the requirements (source language does not matter); but we'll wait for what Tedickey says about this, as he added those warnings.

-- MagV (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see some images which are too small to read the text. Perhaps we can discuss it after it's published Tedickey (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] indicates that it already is published, and I don't think they'll provide free hi-res images (they're more interested in people paying for them). At any rate, the article provides non-trivial coverage in a published magazine. Will you remove the notability warnings? MagV (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the images are unreadable - please find a source that we can read Tedickey (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No policy I'm aware of require sources to be available online. Don't mean to sound sarcastic, but if you know one, can you point me to it? MagV (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unreasonable to suppose that I can offer an opinion on something that I can't see Tedickey (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of establishing notability, you do not need to provide an opinion on article's precise content, only on it's existence. If you acknowledge it's existence, please remove notability tags. MagV (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. At least you didn't source it to one of the developers. So about all that one can say is that the topic needs extensive cleanup. Tedickey (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a "yes"? MagV (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the source useful. However, you appear to have an interest in promoting the topic, so there's little that I can do about it. Tedickey (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I'll remove the notability warning. FWIW, I too think that the article needs substantial rewriting all over the place; topic's notability however is a separate concern. To clear things up, I'm neither affiliated with Uzbl developers, nor have I ever used it; what I'm interested in is clearing notability concerns to avoid article's possible deletion. MagV (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]