Talk:Unity (user interface)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unity (user interface) 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

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.

Linux C‑class High‑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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Software: Computing C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).

/Archive 1

This huge article needs to be pruned. In particular, the reception section.

I think the sheer length of this article is too much. Unity is just one shell for Linux, I don't think it is notable enough for such detailed coverage. In particular, the "Reception" section is bloated. We don't need a detailed timeline of Unity's reception. I am going to try to prune this section. I ask you to continue my work and prune the rest of the article. -- Jorge (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there is such a large reception section is that this interface is very controversial, far more so than any other desktop user interface has been, hence the extensive coverage and criticism. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But 2.5 pages of text about reviewers' opinion on a Linux shell? I think it should be pruned a little. The 2010 and 2011 subsections sum to 2 pages, and deal with obsolete, unsupported Ubuntu versions (the 2010 subsection even reviews an alpha version!). Can we prune (by removing some of the detail) at least the 2010 and 2011 subsections?

On the specific subtopic of reviews of preview software, user User:Estevezj seems to agree with me. See Talk:Unity_(user_interface)/Archive_1#Critical_reception -- Jorge (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we reorganize the Reception section to show the current reviews (since 12.04) first, and only then the historical reviews of obsolete Ubuntu versions from 2010 and 2011?
Please see #Reliability of sources -- Jorge (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

Some of the sources are bad. I am studying Wikipedia policy on source reliability and evaluating each source in the Reception section. One source that already stands out is http://desktoplinuxreviews.com. The writer does seem to have professional writing experience (see http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) but it still is a one-person blog with no Wikipedia article about it, a very low Alexa rank (322,029), and no hits in Google Scholar. -- Jorge (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxDesktopReviews is a self-published blog by Jim Lynch. The reason it is a WP:RS is because his reviews are also widely published in other publications, making him an established expert in the field as outlined at WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fdesktoplinuxreviews.com_and_http:.2F.2Fwww.omgubuntu.co.uk -- Jorge (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

I think a To-do_list is good to focus efforts. If you agree on making one, I have some suggestions for the Reception section:

Find a better source (Slashdot is low-quality) for the claim that images are anonymized before being sent to the user's computer. See if reviewers have changed their minds. If so, reorganize the section to list first the current reception, and later the past controversy.
Consolidate information from List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Ubuntu_12.10_(Quantal_Quetzal)
Possibly read [1] (which is notable because it was cited by [2]) and maybe report it, if it is still relevant (I think the shopping lens has switched to HTTPS since that analysis) and has anything notable that is not covered by [3]. -- Jorge (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree, except I don't think the section List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Ubuntu_12.10_(Quantal_Quetzal) needs to be cut down. The shopping lens was very controversial for both that release and Unity. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for the reasons explained in Don't repeat yourself it is better to consolidate this information in one place, and add a quick summary and a reference in all other places. Like I did here -- Jorge (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done using the "Main" template, but right now I think there is enough lack of ref and quote overlap to leave it as is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]