Talk:Apache Fortress

Revert

@I dream of horses: Hi, why did you undo my edits? Not civil, I don't understand.Smckin (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smckin: I chose the wrong message to send to you, for which I apologize. I actually reverted your edits because you removed a huge chunk of the page without giving an explanation as to why. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Thanks for letting me know. As a new user did not think to do that but understand your point. Next time will be comments of the change. Smckin (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability

@Intgr: I get the tag for too many primary sources but why the general notability concerns? There are dozens of wikipedia pages referring to apache projects and subprojects and they don't have notability concerns.Smckin (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Intgr: wrt to This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2016), I've added another outside source which brings up the number to three. I realize there isn't a hard rule on how many sources needed but what else needs to be done here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smckin (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smckin: wrt notability, merely being an Apache project does not make it notable, notability is not inherited. Significant coverage in multiple independent published sources is required, please see WP:GNG for the full criteria. AFAICT, the only source in the article that qualifies is the SD Times link. If sufficient sources cannot be found then that's usually a sign that it's WP:TOOSOON for the article.

And about primary sources, you're not supposed to just add a bunch of secondary source links to the article; articles should be written mainly based on secondary source coverage and using the sources as citations. See WP:PSTS, WP:V. -- intgr [talk] 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)]

@Intgr: According to your reference: "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." Which leaves this discussion open to interpretation despite your assertion of such being a hard rule. So I must disagree with your statement wrt notability on this subject, and in particular Apache projects which are notable due to the long list of public activity and artifacts that are generated. There are mailing lists where people discuss the software, websites where their artifacts are published, and conferences where their ideas as discussed. Have you looked? These sources may not fulfill WP's traditional definition of notability but that does not lessen their significance. The Apache projects, and the events that surround them, are of historical importance. Even projects incubating are noteworthy due to their inherent historical and technological significance. Having references on wikipedia will provide a context for understanding what these communities built, when and how. They help those that follow understanding what has already been done and what work remains. Smckin (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Intgr: says "wrt notability, merely being an Apache project does not make it notable" It is necessary to grant notability to apache projects so that they can then become tertiary sources for other projects. Smckin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not A Change Log

@Intgr: why do you delete the table with release dates? There are many other wiki pages for software projects that list the releases. Your explanation, not a change log, doesn't cover this situation. This isn't a change log. I reverted your changes. Smckin (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smckin: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the article should attempt to answer the question what Apache Fortress *is*, rather than documenting the minutae of its releases. For such detailed information, official sources are better and more up to date. Lists and tables on such details are discouraged by multiple guidelines, including WP:NOTCHANGELOG (see where it covers "Exhaustive logs of software updates") and WP:PROSE.

As for "There are many other wiki pages", yes, there are lots of Wikipedia articles that are poorly maintained. It doesn't make it a best practice to have such tables.

But regardless, if you insist on keeping it, I can live with that. -- intgr [talk] 08:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Intgr: Thus far there's been 18 releases of fortress. The release table is important to identify which project created what artifacts. First there was JoshuaTree Fortress, next, OpenLDAP, finally, Apache.Smckin (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)