Talk:Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities

Re-adding CodePlex entry based requirements update

CodePlex updated their project requirements page to say project requirement is compliance with the open source definition. Re-adding entry. -- jwanagel 10:54, 22 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Codeberg.org is missing

See here [1]https://codeberg.org/ 84.140.194.210 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a journal article that proves Codeberg is not in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamplevia (talk • contribs)

This is a list of facilities that have a prexisting Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has CodeHaus, Fedora Hosted and Tigris in it, but that isn't what interests me. I got what I want, see my Talk page edits. Admittedly, it's imperfect because the quote uses the word "currently". I did the commit message more to my liking. ---- Jamplevia (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the journal article or did you just look at what I quoted? LOL ---- Jamplevia (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A Codeberg article is on Wikipedia. Other Cody (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Framasoft

Isn't the Framasoft forge missing? -- Error (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

sourcehut and repo.or.cz are missing

sourcehut and repo.or.cz are missing. Xan2 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these have articles of their own. Greenman (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that they don't have yet their own page should not be a reason to discard it here. Sourcehut would have more features that many of the others according to the table. Also several of them have ceased its activity. I don't see why it is considered reasonable to keep a source-code-hosting facility that is not working since already 3 years, but don't include other that is active and have most of the features nowadays required by these source-code-hosting. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

'Has an article of its own' is the list inclusion criteria for this comparison, and we ought to keep following it. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog or a link directory, so anything that was notable enough to have an article can remain listed for historical purposes, even if the facility is no longer active.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Speak about Isaac Newton here is a non-sense comparison. You could explain in other terms. As the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it makes sense to include those that actually are relevant. There are cases relevant/notable without a page in wikipedia, and others non-notable with a page in wikipedia and therefore in these tables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEUL, there is no objective reason to consider that OSDN or OW2 are more notable that Sourcehut except for the fact that someone did a page in wikipedia. It is fine, it is the protocol, but explain it as a protocol. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If you know of anything that has a page that you believe is non-notable, you are welcome to submit it to the article deletion process found at WP:AFD. We should still list historically relevant information on Wikipedia, though. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your patience. Apologies that I did not know about the notable/non-notable before. I would not mark anything in this page as non-notable as they are source-coding hosting that provide/provided a service. However many of them are objectively less relevant that other not included. If I have time I will try to create pages in Wikipedia for them. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)