Talk:Elive

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 26 May 2023, see discussion.
delete, December 10, 2019, see discussion.
delete, March 22, 2016, see discussion.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Thanatermesis (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
Triantares (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
TheTechRobo3641 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
2a02:f6e:ebba:1:47af:dc0b:893:1ab8 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Duplicate "Older releases may have security vulnerabilities."[edit]

Reading the article, I see two instances of "Older releases may have security vulnerabilities."; one in #Releases and one in #System_requirements. I don't think it really belongs in the "System Requirements" section. TheTechRobo (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stable and Beta are repeated in both sections, with a statement of praise of older versions in both sections, so why shouldn't the statement on security issues be repeated? I wouldn't oppose moving the System Requirements info into the Releases section, to avoid duplication. That said, I would also support removing both sections entirely (non-encyclopedic, WP:NOT). The only other cite is out of date and may not really match the info' shown, but I hadn't checked carefully. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the System Requirements section could probably go entirely, not sure about the Releases section (indeed, it doesn't have any modern cites atm). TheTechRobo (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New 'Retrowave' stable release[edit]

Elive recently made a new release, titled Retrowave. Should probably mention this, at least in the "Latest release" part of the table. There aren't currently very many secondary sources that I can find about it (though I didn't look too hard), so might not belong in the History section for now? TheTechRobo (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Why do so many people want to duplicate every last detail of their websites in Wikipedia, requiring constant updates for trivial info'? Isn't it enough to have the link to the website to get more details? Maybe you could get the infobox setup properly so it will automatically update with new versions. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree, except that there hasn't been a major release in awhile. But then again, I'm not too experienced with WP so I don't know much about what goes and what doesn't.

I'm not sure that Retrowave has a version number, so what would be put in the infobox? TheTechRobo (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a totally free Stable special release (at last) a trivial detail. Triantares (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrowave is a 4th LTS Stable release and totally free. It breaks with the numbering sequence, the 'donate to download' requirement and has it's own dedicated name so I would think it certainly is relevant in the History section like 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are. Triantares (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BUTITSTRUE. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What goes in lead section[edit]

Regarding this deletion "Removed a duplicate comment which doesn't belong there in the first place." by Triantares: Guidance in manual of style says "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Appropriate weight is a judgment call, subject to consensus..., but expecting zero duplication is incorrect. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags for close connection and advertising[edit]

According to statistics,[1] significant portions are still from connected contributors, but I feel the tone has shifted from advertising to more neutral, with significant amounts of criticism included. I will be removing the tags. If anyone disagrees, please comment and undo. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I still think this article needs a bit of rewriting— a few parts of it are still just direct ripoffs from HandWiki. Dawnbails (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

I meant to strike this earlier, but since it was a misunderstanding on my end, I'll do it now. Dawnbails (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated before .... the handwiki is a verbatim copy of the article on https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elive and was published at a later date than the original article.

Please, at least make an effort to check facts before throwing these kind of accusations around. Triantares (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too active on other wikis and I haven't seen you state this, but I appreciate the information. Dawnbails (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but this was a wiki you definitely were active on but .... I'm not saying you should've read my statement but that you should at least do simple homework before slandering others. It makes you look biased at best or stupid at worst. Triantares (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're being passive-aggressive towards me; I told you that I don't usually check other wikis, and my only activity on Simple has been while I was in a voice channel in the Discord. I also don't see how my comment was in any way slanderous; I simply read off of the AfD, remembered said comment and mentioned it. Rereading the AfD, I've seen your comment and I apologised in my previous comment. If you continue to edit, I encourage you to assume good faith. Dawnbails (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add new screenshot?[edit]

The old screenshot was removed previously, and I understand why - the screenshot was of a heavily-customised version of Elive and it was hard to tell that it was actually a screenshot of the distro.

It might be nice to include another screenshot, though. This one is from the official website. TheTechRobo (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the old screenshot, because it's useful as an illustration, even if out of date.

It may be best to contact the Elive project directly for licensing, because screenshots on the elive website do not come with a declared license, which means the default copyright rules apply under berne convention.

If the elive project can put a license like creative commons on them, then one of us could edit the article to include a new screenshot. Personally, I'm a fan of this one:

https://www.elivecd.org/wp-content/uploads/screenshot-elive-3.7.x-alpha-06.jpg

which is taken from https://www.elivecd.org/screenshots/stable/ Libreleah (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The developer has updated the screenshots page to add licence information: https://www.elivecd.org/screenshots/stable/

These screenshots are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, meaning you are free to use them in anyway you want but do need to credit the Elive project.

TheTechRobo (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]