Talk:LinuxConsole

DistroWatch and notability

This article relies way too heavily on DistroWatch, which is not a reliable source that does anything for notability. All you have to do to get your distro listed on DistroWatch is pay them; it's not a reliable source for information. The other sources, such as softpedia, aren't much better. My initial reaction is to take this immediately to AfD, but let's see if maybe it can be improved with actual sourcing first. As it stands now, however, it lacks notability and would fail AfD, judging on similarly deleted Linux articles. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Asukite: I don't believe the article was ready to be moved out of draft space, based on the quality of the sources. The only two sources that go towards notability is Fossbytes and Linux Journal, and that's insufficient to survive an AfD, which I'm strongly leaning towards if this is the best shape this article can be in. - Aoidh (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aoidh: On second look, I may have been a bit hasty. I might move it back to AfC and let it wait a bit if nobody disagrees, I'd rather avoid wasting anybody's time at AfD. A S U K I T E  03:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Asukite, sorry for jumping into this conversation. Technically speaking, the article is beautifully written But, it lacks credible citations. Can we try to fetch something from Google Books or Google Scholar or any IEEE/Arxiv indexed journals? - Hatchens (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Asukite: if you don't mind, I think the article should be moved back into draft space for now; the sources as listed don't convey the kind of notability articles require. It can be moved back if sourcing improves but I've looked online and haven't found any sources that would help with the notability issue. - Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we just have a difference of opinion about independent and reliable sources. I base the opinion about my sources on policy and reason, which both say that the majority of all sources used today have some financial benefit to gain by distributing information from the topics they report on, or else they wouldn't be in the reporting business so making a profit from, or "hosting" information about, the topics they report on is a very poor reason to cite lack of reliability, and an even more poor reason to cite lack of independence since policy dictates that evidence of a legal, or financial relationship must exist between the source and the topic before anyone can quote that a "vested interest" exists between a source and a topic. Simply claiming that a source makes money, therefore it only stands to reason that there just absolutely must be a legal or financial relationship between them and their topics is not nearly enough I'm afraid. That's the equivalent of saying, "I suspect it's the case, because it appears so." In other words, it's only an opinion based on appearances without producing any factual evidence. Huggums537 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have some other sources in my sandbox that still have not been written into the article and I have recently been in contact with the developer to get permission to use his photograph in the article and during that process he let me know that there will be a new version coming out soon so I expect more sources to cover that. Taking all of this into consideration, I think there's no question of notability just a matter of processing the sources as they develop. Huggums537 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't waste my time writing an article without first checking WP:RSP to check about the reliability of sources. I found nothing about Distrowatch, and it specifically says Softpedia is considered reliable for it's software reviews. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The user who has stated that Distrowatch isn't a reliable source and Softpedia isn't any better has not provided any links to any discussions or any other evidence to support the idea that Distrowatch accepts payments for reviews. On the other hand, I've provided a link to discussions where it has been discussed at length that what the user is saying about one of the sources in this article is different than what they have said about it. The credibility of what this user is saying about Distrowatch now becomes questionable unless they can somehow substantiate it. Huggums537 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I was on the fence about Distrowatch and Softpedia, but I couldn't find anything against Softpedia myself. My main concern about Distrowatch is that they allow devs to submit their own distros for listing, even offering faster processing for a fee. I'm not sure how much of their content is independent: [1] this one consists primarily of a block quote, making it mostly primary, so I can see the concern. I of course didn't notice any of this until after I'd approved this. I wasn't comfortable approving the article until I saw the Linux Journal source, but as long as there's a chance it will survive an AfD, and since it seems there's some debate, I'll give it a minute. If I can find any new sources I'll be sure to add them in as well. A S U K I T E  15:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about Distrowatch, and I would like it to be known that when I was crafting the article, I never intended for any of those sources to be used for notability, only for citations to individual segments of the article. The notability was mainly reliant upon softpedia, Linux journal, and foss bytes, but mostly softpedia because 1) the guidance specifically said it was a reliable source and 2) softpedia has been covering this distribution for over a decade: [2] so I figured it was pretty much a slam dunk. Huggums537 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Softpedia isn't an independent source; they host the software in question and have a vested interest in promoting it. - Aoidh (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, and see that you don't agree with the community decision to make it a reliable source. Nevertheless, the community has decided to make softpedia a reliable source for software reviews. It's on the list in the link I posted earlier and it says so in the listing. As an aside, another way to say that this article relies too heavily on sourcing from Distrowatch is to say that this article recognizes that Distrowatch has been a source of extensive coverage for this topic year in and year out for well over a decade and has taken advantage of that fact by sourcing an abundance of the material in the article. However, if anyone feels that they should challenge any of the information provided in the article as factually inaccurate or incorrect for any reason based on the reliability of the sources I have used, then please feel free to dispute any of the material I have provided. Huggums537 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying it's not a reliable source, I'm saying it's not an independent source. I've been reviewing Linux articles and taking part in AfDs for over 10 years; I'm very familiar with the relationship Softpedia has with the software it hosts and what role it plays in articles. Per Wikipedia policy, article subjects require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). I'm not arguing about its reliability; I'm noting that it's not independent from the article's subject since it's a host for the software in question. Being mentioned by DistroWatch and Softpedia don't convey notability because they are not third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any distro can easily get listed on DistroWatch and any software hosted by Softpedia is routinely mentioned by Softpedia to promote the software they are hosting. - Aoidh (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't have any more proof that they are associated with the subject than you first did when you tried to say the source wasn't reliable. I proved the source was reliable, and then you switched gears to attack it's independence, but you've offered no proof so far and I have. Huggums537 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Show me a diff that shows that I said Softpedia wasn't reliable. This strawman argument you're setting up doesn't fly; I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Softpedia is not an independent source. That's not a controversial statement, it's a statement of fact; they host the software in question and thus have a connection with the software. Argue all you'd like, it doesn't change that core fact. You can claim you've shown "proof" all you'd like, but you've shown nothing but a misunderstanding (at best) of what you're even arguing against. - Aoidh (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's your diff: [[3]] where you implied that none of my sources are reliable and specifically mentioned softpedia by name; This article relies way too heavily on DistroWatch, which is not a reliable source that does anything for notability. All you have to do to get your distro listed on DistroWatch is pay them; it's not a reliable source for information. The other sources, such as softpedia, aren't much better. There is more "proof" for you. Also, hosting software does not give them a legal connection to each other. That is what is required for a vested interest according to the guidance as I explained in the comment below. I'm afraid you have shown the misunderstanding, and your refusal to listen is becoming tiresome to the point of being disruptive. Huggums537 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. I asked for a diff where I said Softpedia wasn't a reliable source. DistroWatch is not Softpedia. Perhaps you should pay more attention when you accuse others of things. I never said Softpedia wasn't a reliable source. If this is what you call "proof" I can see why you're struggling to come up with any concrete argument for anything. Pay attention in the future; it's hardly disruptive to dismiss incoherent rambling. Unless you can provide a diff for your baseless claims, we're done here. You go ahead and get the last word in, it won't change the lack of substance in your argument. - Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Aoidh, I guess that's fair because technically the only source you said wasn't reliable was Distrowatch, and since you did say that Linux journal and Fossbytes do go toward notability only a couple minutes later, then I suppose I might have taken your comment out of context a little bit. That was my fault. I didn't realize your comments were only a few minutes apart. Maybe I'm just a little defensive about the article since I put so much effort into it. Oh yeah, and so anyway I guess I'll shut up then too... Huggums537 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:IIS says, Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. You have no proof the source has any financial relationship to this topic, only your general assertions that it is in their best interest to promote the software they host. Your idea of "vested interest" is clearly not what was ever intended to be used as the demarking of a first party, or non-independent source. It is a gross exaggeration of the meaning. Huggums537 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If it were easy enough to simply say that a source benefits from mentioning a topic, and that makes it a first party non-independent source, then you could say that about almost any source since just about all sources benefit in some way by mentioning their topics or else they wouldn't be in the business of mentioning them at all. It's a mind-numbingly senseless argument to make unless you can actually establish proof of an existing financial relationship between the source and the topic. Huggums537 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Status of this page

This page was moved from article space back to draft space. It is now my understanding that its author disagrees with the move back to draft space. If so, I encourage them to move this page back from draft space to article space. Any further discussion of whether it should stay in article space or be moved back to draft space a second time should be done by AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thank you to Yann Le Doaré and Raydann for chipping in to give me the boost I needed to finally get the article into mainspace. I really had some more work I wanted to do on it before going live, but I was taking way too long to do it and I suppose it will actually be easier to work on it while it is live since there won't be the 6 month time limit to worry about and readers will be able to access what we do have until the improvements are made so the benefits of being live are better than sitting in draft even if it isn't fully where I would like it to be yet. Huggums537 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries! The article is worth publishing, and also keeping in mind the statement here (above topic) by Robert McClenon. Just don't let the article become too technical. I had to remove excessive NPOV and technical terms to make it more encyclopaedically legible to readers. Happy editing! ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguating the title

Before this article was even in draft, I had deliberated on the title a fair bit over at the Linux console article. By the time the article went to draft, I had named it something along the lines of Draft:LinuxConsole (Operating System), but later decided to have that draft moved to just Draft:LinuxConsole and had the previous draft deleted. That was a mistake. Given that we have both Linux console, and LinuxConsole here, I think it will be easier to just go ahead and disambiguate the title here to LinuxConsole (operating sysyem), and then also create a redirect to that new page for LinuxConsole so people searching for that will find it. Huggums537 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. It has been 11 months since I proposed this idea and I forgot all about it, but since there has been no feedback in all this time I will assume there are no objections and will boldly make the move now. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

DigitalIceAge has reversed the page move and created a redirect to the suggested page name so I think that solves the problem and I think I will go ahead and create one more redirect just to take care of any potential mis-spellings. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggums537 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)