Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force

Help from "new page reviwer" needed

Someone sympathetic or familiar with the creation of FOSS articles. Please respond ASAP. Thanks –Daveout(talk) 21:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! What is it refering to? — K4rolB (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @K4rolB:. I'm working on a new article and I received a harsh response from a Page Reviewer. And I responded. (and by the way I copied some things from Vanced but I fully attributed as we are required.) I know the sourcing in my article isn't perfect, just like we see in so many small FOSS apps (like NewPipe, So I thought a Page Reviewer sympathetic to FOSS would be more understanding. Just recently, I was trying to save a FOSS game emulator from deletion that was facing similar issues. –Daveout(talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

nah nevermind, maybe it isn't so urgent afterall. –Daveout(talk) 21:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond on time – it is now a limited resource for me :D

Still, I've taken a look and the discussion looks very reasonable to me. Quality requirements for articles get higher over time on WP, that's why you can see some really bad articles published, while yours – even if objectively better – is being moved to draft.

I believe that you squeezed out every bit of notability from the Internet sources and IMHO it is just so barely enough to keep the article. Good job on your internet-scouring skills!

If I can have some suggestions about the article content itself:

• Functionalities section has no sources. Try to move some from lead section. We should minimize the references in lede, as it is supposed to simply summarize the rest of the article - it follows that one do not put in a summary anything that is not confirmed by the rest of the article.
• the list of capabilities in lead section is too big and the text does not flow naturally. The exhaustive list of notable features should be kept in Functionalities section
• When it comes to sources, I would stick to the reliable ones. Especially the reddit bugs me. We tend to use WP as a comprehensive database of all information, but if the broad world does not give us a good reference to some info, then maybe it is objectively not interesting (looking now at all those release history tables..).

Other than that, I agree with the conclusion, that we need to wait until the application gets more recognition to write something more about it. — K4rolB (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Thanks for the assessment and the tips. I agree that I should wait some more (the software is still in alpha stage). I think I just freaked out and overreacted when I saw it being drafted. 😅. But everything will be fine. –Daveout(talk) 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN Discussion of a source related to FOSS topics

is here FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting review of my edits

[[Talk:Open-source software]]

Hi, I'm a paid student editor and I have recently made some changes to the open source software Wikipedia page. I would appreciate it if someone could look them over and give their thoughts. Thanks!

Policy1257 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of ongoing merge request

A request was made to merge Free software and Open-source software into Free and open-source software. Sink Cat (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting assistance to get Bluefish (software) in good shape

Hi all! recently Bluefish (software) was soft deleted. Since then I've tried to get the quality of the article in shape again. I was convinced that I did it right, but the submission was declined. After that I used the list of reliable sources to improve the references. Before I submit again I hope somebody with more experience can have a look and tell if it is good enough or give me some tips to get it right this time. Thanks for your help! BlauweVis (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)