Template talk:Ubuntu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Canonical/External[edit]

The important distinction is not whether the projects are run by Canonical or external but whether they are contained within the Ubuntu distribution. I've used the term "partner project" in the Official Ubuntu book so I think it's as good a term as other. I'll update this here but if someone has a better idea, please make the change or discuss it here. —mako (talkcontribs) 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Linspire/Freespire[edit]

Linspire and Freespire are based on Ubuntu or are in the process of being moved to an Ubuntu base and they belong in the list of External projects. I'm going to revert the edit by User:Flutefluteflute accordingly. Linspire has the same relation to Ubuntu as, say, Impilinux and it seems incorrect to categorize either relationship as "unofficial." They are derivatives outside of the company and are done in partnership with Canonical. Unofficial sounds like it's unblessed or without permission, which is not the case at all. mako (talkcontribs) 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will remove OpenCD though, because that is not really an external project. mako (talkcontribs) 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Studio[edit]

OK, thanks for making it clear why you reverted. However, there is no evidence Studio is an 'internal' release so I am going to move it to the external list.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Studio is internal. Please see its wiki page (on the official Ubuntu wiki) with links to its mailing lists, IRC channel, specifications, Launchpad team and more. All these are hosted at Ubuntu, by Ubuntu, and are quite clearly internal. UbuntuStudio is doing package selection and is similar to Kubuntu or Xubuntu. It is not an external project. It is also not finished. That might be a reason to not include it but it certainly doesn't belong in the External list. mako (talkcontribs) 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Now Ubuntu Studio is 'out' I'd like to readresse this issue. I admit the mailing is odd, but the IRC is not provied by Ubuntu. Launchpad can be used by any project including ones in no way related to Ubuntu (i.e. a Windows audio editor). The official Ubuntu main page has no link to Studio alomnside the K, X and Edu links. I also notice at the bottom of its site it says "Ubuntu Studio ©2007 Canonical Ltd." - However why has the site been down for some time? For the release of Ubuntu 7.04 the ubuntu.com site never went down for 3 days! It seems unlike Canonical. Plus the site is unlike those for the other official Ubuntu releases. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And what does these sites mean?

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuStudio/Applications https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio

I think also it is an official release. --190.10.174.165 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Copland ?[edit]

The "copland" link (first one of the "external" distribs) points to a disambiguation page, and I don't see any linux distro in the list.. What's up with that ?
FiP Как вы думаете? 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copland PPC. Removing. Chris Cunningham 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lubuntu[edit]

This new Ubuntu "flavour" has ben approved by Shuttleworth anmd is under development. It will feature the LXDE desktop. For background see this ref. This redlink should be left in the template to alert editors to create the article. Please see WP:redlink for more information. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NAVBOX: "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Chris. I think in this case it can be assumed that an article will be forthcoming very soon, since there are sufficient refs to create one and the editors who commonly work on the Ubuntu articles don't let much slip by. While normally the article is written first and then entered in the nav box it was my thought that putting it into the template might speed up the production of this article. Either way I expect the article will be posted in the very near future and will be entered in the template at that time, it the link isn't still there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to save the need for any further discussion I created the article. Hopefully now others will improve it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Lubuntu is not yet an official derivative. On their website it says, "The lubuntu team aims to earn official endorsement from Canonical". As well, it is not listed on the Ubuntu derivatives page: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/derivatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talkcontribs) 05:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That is true, it isn't, although it will probably be so in April with the release of 11.04. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Old software[edit]

In my opinion, software that is no longer in the distro should not be in the template. What is possibly significant or useful about including GDebi in the template, when it has been totally obsoleted by Ubuntu Software Center? Perhaps if it was a large part of the Ubuntu's history, or something to that effect, it would be worth including, but I don't see how having old software cluttering the template is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talkcontribs) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of what Wikipedia documents is history, many articles are nothing but history, and this template indicates all articles that have ties to the story of Ubuntu. By your argument List of Ubuntu releases should only have the present release and perhaps the most recent LTS release on it as the rest are no longer available. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what I'm saying. I do think that software like GDebi, which is not significant to the distribution in any sense, should be removed from the template if obsoleted. What makes it relevant to Ubuntu history as a whole? Software gets replaced, and if the template were to list every piece of obsoleted software it would be very long indeed. InverseHypercube (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Gdebi has been an integral part of Ubuntu software management from the start until quite recently, but if you don't think it is justified leaving it on the list then go ahead and remove it again. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's get some other editors' opinions. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Decorative title[edit]

There has been an edit war between User:Ahunt and User:Mahali syarifuddin about whether the title of the template should be decorative. I don't mind either way (I kind of like the decorative title though). Just wanted to open up a discussion on this. Are there any relevant policies? InverseHypercube 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is OK, as long as the following applies:
  1. The font is reasonably easy to read (seems to be the case)
  2. The "new" font works on ALL browsers/systems where the "old" one also worked/works (seems also to be true)
So I'd say its OK to have the new font, unless someone raises other issues. --SF007 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case it is more than changing a font, it is creating a product logo out of a font and an an icon. I believe the guidelines are WP:ICONDECORATION, which says "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration." and also WP:NAVBOX which says "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative...There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". In both cases this mitigates against using logos and icons in nav boxes and in both cases requires justification of which none has been given. The other factor is that I don't see any reason to provide free advertising on Wikipedia in the form of nav box icons and logos, this is an encyclopedia, we aren't advertising products here and it makes it look like we are not being neutral in our treatment of the product. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on the policies you linked to, I agree. InverseHypercube 23:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This has now been quiet for a week, so in accordance with WP:SILENCE I think we have a consensus that there is no reason to deviate from standard formatting for this nav box at this point in time. This can, of course, be revisited in the future, if a case is made. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this icon got re-added against consensus here, so I have removed it again unless anyone can make a better case here to put it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nautilus developed by cannonical?[edit]

I don't think Icaza think the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.10.105 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)