Talk:Pitivi
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Computing: Software C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
redirect from Pitivi
Can someone provide a redirect so when someone types Pitivi, it redirects here? RaviC
plugins don't exist
No plugins exist yet; please mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.162.189 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- plugins m ust exist, some bug reports ask to move plugins to core. --Gnepets (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
no video effets
Yes, the picture shows video effects. But there aren't any. Use the damn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.76.124 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Clean up
Hi, I have spent some time generally cleaning up the article to make it look nicer and more readable.
Still a large problem with coherency, I will tackle that later if no one else goes for it.
- article is heavily uncrappified now, language/coherency needs a lot of work still. --Gnepets (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
--Gnepets (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Explanation of changes
I was contacted via email, by a concerned wikipedian who believes some changes I made reduce the clarity of the article or changed a large portion of the article, such that it was not clear. So I will just add some explanations of changes I think he could of meant
edits:
- 23:26, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,093 bytes) (→Development: remove information duplicated in history.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 23:24, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) m (5,475 bytes) (→Media attention: wiki-link Libre Graphics Meeting.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 23:23, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,471 bytes) (→Media attention: MoS correct citation positions.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 23:21, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,468 bytes) (→History: MoS correct citations, un-nest sentences and use flow instead.) (undo)
- this looked like a poorly written sentence, instead of moving from one point to another it moves from one point back to another.
- new lines for citations so they are easier to find when editing.
- 23:17, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,456 bytes) (→External links: add manual.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 23:16, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,408 bytes) (uncrappify start, by using useful high-level information rather than techno-babble.) (undo)
- this is the largest removal of information, GStreamer stuff is clearly correct in my opinion but
- it should not be in the start area, it should be in development
- it requires citations, although I believe it to be correct it needs to be verified by a third party source.
- the start of the article should quickly and clearly explain what the article is about, it is not a place for heavy technical info.
- this is the largest removal of information, GStreamer stuff is clearly correct in my opinion but
- 23:01, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,618 bytes) (→External links: remove duplicate portal.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 22:59, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,672 bytes) (→Development: third name for three people.) (undo)
- explanation not needed.
- 22:58, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,650 bytes) (add a cite that directly backs what is said.) (undo)
- research strengthens article.
- 22:42, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,557 bytes) (→Features: translate list into sentences. it is not very good, but much nicer on the eye so far. maybe you can beautify it.) (undo)
- Manual of style suggests sentences are preferable, espescially to long lists.
- some items such as "Clean, modular code with extensive test suite (test-driven development)" where not easily verifiable. it really requires a 3rd party experts judgement, wit ha citation.
- 22:22, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,424 bytes) (use consistent section names (with other pages), remove some rambling. restructuring.) (undo)
- re-name funding - development as that is what the section is really about, funding is not so relevant.
- removed parts of history that are not easily validated without citations. they really should be part of article, but no cites.
- re-word summer of code stuff to keep it in the article.
- 22:14, 26 December 2009 Gnepets (talk | contribs) (5,612 bytes) (→Features: represent only measurable features, others require cites to be here. still a very ugly section.) (undo)
- remove words such as high quality and extensive as these are weasel words when not cited. usability change was re-written in later.
well this is my reasoning, please feel free to respond here if you are going to fix up what you believe to be mistakes. --Gnepets (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Assessment
Well cited with good organization and readability. I think it is a bit early in the project to establish rich content and a strong case for notability so I can't give a higher rating than C. --Kvng (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
OMG! Ubuntu
It appears that there are some omgubuntu.co.uk fanatics around who are systematically going through Wikipedia and adding the personal opinions of the OMG Ubuntu authors to various Linux-related articles.
OMG Ubuntu is also being cited for references, which, being a blog, isn't permitted by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. People are also just inserting entire paragraphs into articles simply based on the OMG Ubuntu author's/commenter's personal feelings.
I appreciate that some people are trying to evangelise their pet distro and pet amateur news outlet but Wikipedia isn't the place for evangelism. Please keep it objective.