Talk:Manjaro Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux 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.
 

Notability[edit]

Wikipedia gets a lot of articles added about many obscure Linux distributions and most get deleted as not meeting WP:GNG. This article needs some independent third party refs to show notability or else it is on the way to deletion as well. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's no. 23 on distrowatch and on the up - about the same as Chakra, with which is shares similar goals, but not limited to qt. Since 0.8.0 was launched, it got quite a lot of attention, including in reviews. Ayceman (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As per this AfD precedent, because distro developers can pay to have their distro listed on DistroWatch that alone doesn't show notability. If there are reviews in independent third party publications (including websites) then these should be added to prevent the article from being sent for deletion. It would also allow the tags to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Where is the source that would show you can get a rank listing on distrowatch by paying. I think your a bad apple. How would you propose that an advanced distro like Majaro aquately demonstrate worthyness in your eyes? The Linux community is awaiting your answer....

Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And I think you need to read WP:AGF before you start accusing other people of bad faith editing. I also never said that people can pay to have a ranking on DistroWatch, but that they "can pay to have their distro listed on DistroWatch", which is the case. The distro rankings on DistroWatch are based on page hits, not popularity of use, so they are not indicative of any useful metric, as DistroWatch explains: "The DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking statistics are a light-hearted way of measuring the popularity of Linux distributions and other free operating systems among the visitors of this website. They correlate neither to usage nor to quality and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions. They simply show the number of times a distribution page on DistroWatch.com was accessed each day, nothing more." As far as paying to get your distro listed on DistroWatch that is all explained here: "there is some good news for those developers who absolutely and desperately want to have their distribution listed on DistroWatch today. All you need to do is to buy an advertising banner and your distro will be listed straight away." So in future before you accuse other editors of bad faith please check your facts first. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Three independent sources provided - there are more, but the article is too short to crowd it with refs. 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayceman (talkcontribs)
I removed one WP:SPS ref as these can't be used on Wikipedia. Almost anything with "blogspot" in the URL will be self-published. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you completely losing your prespective. The Linux Kernel itself is 100% self published. I think you need to take a step back and spend some time understanding how these distributions are formed. There mailing lists, and forums ARE the authoritiative locations for announcments and advences in the product. They are not anonounced in some mythological peer reviewed journal on Linux distributions and development. That peer review takes place on the forums and on the mailing lists.
Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Please aquatint yourself with WP:SPS to understand which self-published sources are acceptable and which ones are not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)