Talk:Syncthing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syncthing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Screenshot
editWelcome to 2016, the screenshot should be GIF or PNG file format, but never JPG. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
External link
editUser:FleetCommand - per your edit comment "WP:EL does not permit this link", please clarify EXACTLY how this link is not permitted in "External links" section per WP:EL. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it is you who should have given a reason for adding the link in the first place, but sure, I give you the details: See WP:ELNO, the very first item.
- FleetCommand is correct, Sbmeirow. The burden for justifying the inclusion of an external link is upon the link submitter. I don't see any real, encyclopedic value the OpenHub link provides that isn't already supplied at or through the official links already in the article. Which is why I also removed it a few days ago. Stesmo (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Stesmo, but I asked FleetCommand to clarify his "edit comment", which is a required burden when a person asks for it. The burden is a two-way street. Though WP:EL is basically unhelpful, WP:ELNO is somewhat helpful but still NOT exact, since there are 19 items under it, where as I asked for "EXACTLY" (see above). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Sbmeirow: Right. Now, are you satisfied with my clarification? If you are not seeing my clarification, do you want me to highlight it? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Advertisement
editThe article has been marked as containing content like advertisement in June 2019. A subsequent edit removed reception content looking like an advert. Reading the article now I do not get the sense that the content is promotional. Except for an edit I originally came here (replacing outdated terminology) I don't recognise any contributors to the article, obviously it's still likely that those editing it are Syncthing users and thus favourable to it. Being a Syncthing maintainer, I am clearly in no position to remove the advert tag, however I would be interested in hints as to why it still applies - thanks in advance. Imsodin (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- What I notice is how many of the links are syncthing.net, or its github page. If there were more external links, or some/most of those links were replaced with other third-party reputable sites, then I'd agree with the removal of that banner.
- Adding to/replacing the current links would be fine, even for a Syncthing maintainer. Thank you for you considered edits.
- peterl (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd love for 3rd parties to write our documentation, however no-one is doing that (I don't think I need to explain why). Some of it is written by "almost 3rd parties", aka people not directly involved in Syncthing's development (though documentation writer's contributions are just as valuable as coding). Looking at the text there's so many links because all the statements about characteristics/inner workings are directly linked to the relevant documentation section (likely both for reference and further reading). The amount of links could be drastically reduced by just linking once to docs and maybe removing the history (the amount of work to keep it up-to-date feels disproportional to the benefit, as evident in the missing latest few releases). However I don't see how that would improve the article in any way, quite the contrary. Most of the article is simply description, not judgement/comparison/praise where I'd totally agree 3rd party resources are needed, and as written it's quite natural that the source of the description is the project documentation. Imsodin (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Imsodin: This article doesn't have any "promotional content," so I removed the cleanup tag. Jarble (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd love for 3rd parties to write our documentation, however no-one is doing that (I don't think I need to explain why). Some of it is written by "almost 3rd parties", aka people not directly involved in Syncthing's development (though documentation writer's contributions are just as valuable as coding). Looking at the text there's so many links because all the statements about characteristics/inner workings are directly linked to the relevant documentation section (likely both for reference and further reading). The amount of links could be drastically reduced by just linking once to docs and maybe removing the history (the amount of work to keep it up-to-date feels disproportional to the benefit, as evident in the missing latest few releases). However I don't see how that would improve the article in any way, quite the contrary. Most of the article is simply description, not judgement/comparison/praise where I'd totally agree 3rd party resources are needed, and as written it's quite natural that the source of the description is the project documentation. Imsodin (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
History Section
editDo we really need a long table that is filled with the changelog for each version since it could be easily read elsewhere and in more detail like https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/releases.
I believe it would be better to just have a written summary of major changes that have occured to the program like in most other pages I've seen. Nathanielcwm (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm creating Draft:Syncthing version history which is where I will migrate the existing data from the table. I will redo the section in a prose style. Nathanielcwm (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
