Talk:Arch Linux

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arch Linux article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Free and open-source software C‑class Mid‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linux C‑class Mid‑importance

	Linux portal 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.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Logo Change

Official artwork and logo - [1]

Proposal for Removal of "listed sources may not be reliable" Template

Looking over the sources for this article, they all seem pretty reasonable and to be reliable sources of information on the Arch Linux project. I understand the templates inclusion as many of the sources draw upon the project's official wiki or website but considering this is a comparatively niche Linux distribution, most of the reliable information comes from the project's own sites. Is this notice really necessary? -Euphoria42 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Euphoria42: This is the nature of the beast. Multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject are what is required so as to demonstrate the value of the information in the article / the notability of the subject. This is in order precisely to prevent info or subjects that are too niche. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem isn't information coming from Arch, the problem is the wiki, it isn't WP:RS because it is user submitted content. We have no way to verify the accuracy of the information posted on the Arch Wiki and it is very much in the same vain as Wikipedia, hence should not be used as a citation. I have no problem citing the Arch Linux website itself, or content therefore within so long as it is being published by the Arch maintainers as they have authority on the subject. Though neutral sources are of course preferred. ShimonChai (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShimonChai: i am trying to get the arch wiki links out where there is other sources. just as a note, arch wiki has admins and they will not let you change e.g. the arch principles. and if they let, it is the real principles then. but i agree, most pages can be edited like wikipedia. noticing the difference without trying to change them is a challenge. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried several times to find alternative citations for these instances but could never find good replacements when I checked. At this point it may end up just needing to be fine to leave them in there just because the content doesn't seem to be factually incorrect, and I am not certain that removing the content just because the citation is technically a Wiki would actually improve the article. ShimonChai (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the recent talk from Arch Conf 2020 help with removing a few of the Arch wiki sources? https://media.ccc.de/v/arch-conf-online-2020-6379-arch-linux-past-present-and-future Foxboron (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Arch Linux logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated Arch Wiki page/section

The Arch Wiki functions as a wiki for many components that are common to multiple distros, and is widely accepted by users (and press) as a Linux wiki, not just for Arch.

There are many FOSS articles recommending its usage as a general purpose resource. Perhaps that merits its own page, or at the very least its own section? 2804:1530:104:A793:5C78:F849:343C:7 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if saying Archlinux is written in Python is correct

since only some tools such as archinstall is written in Python, I personally wouldn't consider an installer to be a part of the distro FallingPineapple (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The installer archinstall is a default package included in the iso. Being included as a default part of the distro makes it part of the distro.[2][3] - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If something being delivered on the iso then many many more languages could be included, would you consider arch to be written in shell? FallingPineapple (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What matters more is are there reliable sources that consider it such. Reliable sources describe the installer as part of the release, and the installer is a critical part of the iso. When a source says Arch Linux releases starting this month will include a guided installer it's hard to argue that it's not "part of the distro". - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso however are part of the archlinux repo FallingPineapple (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and how reliable are dade2.net and techradar? FallingPineapple (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is no issue with the reliability of TechRadar, and the problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso is an apples to oranges comparison which means the comparison doesn't highlight any issue, especially since what you're questioning is backed by reliable sources, which is what we use to guide the content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]