Talk:GitHub
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GitHub article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Grammar mistake
"Concerns over the sale bolstered interest in competitors; both Bitbucket (owned by Atlassian), GitLab (a commercial open source product that also runs a hosted service version) and SourceForge (owned by BIZX, LLC) reported that they had seen spikes in new users intending to migrate projects from GitHub to their respective services." It says "both" for three different services. 75.177.11.11 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Malicious micro-change reverted
I undid the small change made on July 16, 2017 by an anonymous contributor which had replaced "can" by "cannot" in the sentence "Projects on GitHub can be accessed and manipulated using the standard Git command-line interface". This was clearly a malicious attempt to disinformation about GitHub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.165.42 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Project count
I have tried to update the project count from last year's 58M and I had inconsistent results using the GH API. I am not sure what's going on, but it seems the results are inconsistent from one search to the next. I've still added that as an additional source, as it is close to the April 2017 results, but it would be great to see what's going on there more clearly. That is, especially considering the current situation with the GitHub sale to Microsoft, which may mean repositories may migrate off GitHub... --TheAnarcat (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Removal of reference to major competitor
GitLab's sudden moves in the wake of this acquisition have been acknowledged by reliable sources. It is not "rather dangerous and potentially unfairly influential/promotional", it is tangible evidence of actual concern. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but no such reliable source was mentioned before the removal. Would [1] and [2] be suitable sources? [3] also mentions Atlassian, but no numbers are known about bitbucket. --Nemo 07:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Questionable reference to unreliable/biased source
Ehmke, Coraline Ada blog. "Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub,". Retrieved July 5, 2017.
One person's experience in blog format with zero corroborating evidence cannot be considered an encyclopedic source. At least tag with [citation needed]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.155.39 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- Unassessed San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- Unassessed company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- Unassessed Websites articles
- High-importance Websites articles
- Unassessed Websites articles of High-importance
- All Websites articles
- All Computing articles
- Unassessed software articles
- High-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of High-importance
- All Software articles
- Unassessed Internet articles
- Mid-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles


