From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Any reason, why there is no article about foswiki? Was there a deletion discussion? I can't find it ... -- (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Articles for deletion/Foswiki, WP:Requests for undeletion/Archives/December 2009#Foswiki and WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 6. Here is the problem:
  • The situation is tricky because in most editors' minds the substantial publications about pre-split TWiki do not contribute to Foswiki's notability simply because of the different name. That Foswiki is "the" continuation of TWiki (assuming it's true; I have no idea) does not matter under this logic.
  • Only very few non-trivial press mentions, if any, existed at the time of the AfD. Anything that looks like a press release is not helpful.
  • The article might have survived given tact and careful maneuvering. Instead, a horde of angry people from a substantially different wiki culture (compared to Wikipedia's) arrived here and happily created enemy after enemy.
If you know of any good sources mentioning Foswiki, or better discussing it in detail, by all means list them here. Once we have enough of them I will make sure that the article is recreated. Normally it would make sense to discuss TWiki and Foswiki on a single page, but there are ownership issues with the TWiki article. Hans Adler 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Foswiki is notable as part of the History_of_wikis. That aside both projects, TWiki and Foswiki, feel the desire to maintain a wikipedia articles each on their own behalf more than trampling on each other's feet. See the recent edit history and related talk on the TWiki article. Please don't delete the Foswiki page. Thanks. Nuddlegg (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians, I am not a foswiki developer (or even an user for that matter) but I believe Wikipedia standpoint doesn't hold anymore. The discussion made 3 years ago was that foswiki was only a fork of Twiki. This fact isn't true anymore. I check those facts: Foswiki had 15 releases since the project started; it has an user base and a healthy community of developers. I talked to them on #foswiki on and they were very polite and helpful. So I ask to remove the AfD flag on this article. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Lack of notability is a problem that other software projects also have to deal with. To a Wikipedia outsider it is hard to understand why notability is held up strictly, while other pages seem to exist without discussion. As a Buffy fan I can read everything I would ever wanted, but still, why do separate pages exist for Daniel_"Oz"_Osbourne or Scooby_Gang_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer) - without "objective" references and which contents are covered elsewhere already. In the same manner, TWiki and Foswiki could reference each other. Or take somewhat comparable wiki engines, MoinMoin and DokuWiki which only contain references to pages from the projects. Again, to a Wikipedia outsider it is hard to understand the rules. ArthurClemens (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait... which way did they go?!? ...ok, sure, let's talk here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foswiki_(2nd_nomination) -pbr 4/20/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulReiber (talkcontribs) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Letting the Past stay in the Past[edit]

I'm adding this in hopes the Foswiki page is NOT deleted, and NOT re-redirected to TWiki, so that it can remain its own independent page - which it deserves.

Assuming we get to that, I'd like to recommend some minor edits which are in the best interest of both Foswiki and TWiki. It all comes down to not finger-pointing.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

The second paragraph for this page currently reads:

The Foswiki project was forked from the TWiki project by the bulk of the active development community after assumed direct control of the TWiki project and requested that all contributors agree to a new code of conduct before being allowed to continue working on the project.[1][2]

I recommend simplifying that:

The Foswiki project was forked from the TWiki project on 2008-12-26.

Period. End of sentence. Why get your hands dirty rubbing salt in old wounds?

Likewise, I would recommend a rework of the "Origins" section.

It could be as simple as something like this:

As sometimes happens when corporate interests interfere with open source projects, the TWiki project alienated a lot of its active developers when influence from management collided with the needs of the development community. The Foswiki fork resulted, banding most of the active independent developers into a new team which is actively improving and extending Foswiki.

I'll not be so bold as to edit the page myself - however I do hope that you all consider my recommendations above and act on them.

Kind regards,
PaulReiber (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree on:

Foswiki launched in October 2008 when a dispute about the future guidance of the project could not be settled resulting in the departure of nearly all key TWiki contributors.

This is actually quite accurate and doesn't go into all of the details. Nuddlegg (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding. Great job, Nuddlegg. I love it! +1. PaulReiber (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Further ways to improve the article:

  • The article mentions Twiki 17 (seventeen) times. That's definitely too much. (done)
  • The name isn't explained: Fos = Free and Open Source. (done)
  • It needs more examples how this software is used and by whom.
  • There are no screenshots.
  • The Extensions section needs to be elaborated more as that's an important way to customize the software.
  • The Foswiki Association e.V. needs to be mentioned. - done Swandodger 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuddlegg (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential references[edit]

I'm moving the list of resources that were added the past couple of weeks here that aren't actively being used in the article. Some of them are pretty marginal (a paper that references Foswiki as an example is not very useful). Hopefully some of the Foswiki proponents will be able to pull the notable information about of these sources and add them to the article. As that's done, it would probably make sense to remove the reference from here as it should be on the main article at that point. Ravensfire (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


References that were added to the article are marked accordingly.

Selfpublished advertisement[edit]

Steven Walling, could you please explain why you added these two banners recently to the article? Which parts of it make you think so? Thanks for the feedback. Nuddlegg (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the banners again as previous edits seem to fully address the concerns, imho. Steven, would you mind to review them and drop some comments in here? Nuddlegg (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to the banner about advertising - which I personally consider to have been quite valid - I toned down the "sales pitch" nature of the description and tried to focus it back onto the features that make Foswiki stand out. --Swandodger (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay the claim that the article "may contain improper references to self-published sources" is back again without reacting on the related talk that we started here. Why? Nuddlegg (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article primarily cites the Foswiki website. That is inappropriate. Please use independent secondary sources. Tech blogs are the bottom of the barrel, while books, magazines, and newspapers are best. Steven Walling • talk 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of release history, flagging feature list[edit]

There have been some recent edits to the page that I don't agree with, i.e. the deletion of the release history as well as flagging the list of features as being in list format. After reviewing a couple of other software products on wikipedia, it seems common habit to in fact have a release history as part of the article, as well as listing the features of the software in list format. So I'd like to revert these two edits as they don't seen to be appropriate or at least not taking into account common practice on the rest of wikipedia with regards to articles about software. Before doing so, I'd like to hear the opinions of those who made those changes just to get a clear picture. Steven could you please shed a light on this? Thanks. If I don't get a reaction within a week, I'll revert these changes. Nuddlegg (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is full content that is poorly cited to the Foswiki site, and in general needs strict cleanup. You and most of the other editors know that it just barely passed the most recent deletion discussion after multiple times being merged back into TWiki for lack of sourcing, and need to be more careful to not be promotional or sloppy. As for the release history, the golden rule is the unreferenced content may go at any time. In addition to being uncited, the release history is just plain boring. It doesn't give any info beyond the numbered releases. Second, the features list should be converted to prose to keep it to summary style and enforce strict neutrality, particularly because the article contains a lot of flowery features descriptions to begin with. Lists may be appropriate for large projects or noteworthy individual releases (such as the latest version of GNOME or Firefox), but not by default. Steven Walling • talk 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made a number of updates to the article today. I removed a few statements that were full of marketing speak, cleaned up some grammar, turned the feature list to prose, and added secondary and tertiary citations. Some of them come from France and Germany, which I hope helps to improve the case for general notability for this article (given worldwide influence). I admit that some of the sources aren't airtight newspaper and magazine grade, but some of the added citations I added are from online magazines. Check the history for my changes. There's still more work to do, but I have run out of time to do it today. I'll try to squeeze in some more improvements at a later date. Lostraven (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)