Add BG merge to History
- Either that, or we remove the last entry about the Beginners' Guide, which is now irrelevant (so many important articles have been restructured/merged etc.), and we rename the section "Early history", and maybe we point users to ArchWiki:News for the more recent events.
- If we add the merge of the BG, then we could/should add other events, e.g. the birth of the Maintenance Team and the first Translation Team.
- -- Kynikos (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, as long as we don't delete revisions, all events are already automatically documented in the articles' histories.
- The question here is more about notability and consistency: what is currently in the History section is actually more analogous to a "pre-history", i.e. they are events which cannot be found among the page revisions, or marked the boundary between pre-history and history, therefore it makes sense to list them here to satisfy people's curiosity about how the ArchWiki was born. Listing (arbitrary) events of the regular "history" of the wiki feels like a different goal to me, and I think that if something really notable happens it naturally ends up in ArchWiki:News, so I don't see the point in duplicating those events here. (Yes, the BG merge didn't make it into the News, in my view it's simply because it was a long and gradual process, more than a breaking change it was an evolution not more notable than that of any other wiki article.)
- I lean in favor of renaming the section to "Early history" as I said, so we'll have to wait for more opinions.
- -- Kynikos (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be better to keep just the "Early history" on this page, there are too many notable changes that happened since then. I'd also note that the list is not meant as a log of article rewrites or merges, which should be clear after removing the last current entry. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Larivact for giving your authorization to proceed. I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to accept different opinions without clearly getting irritated, it's immature and creates a bad environment in a space where we should just be coming to relax and have a good time. -- Kynikos (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- ArchWiki:About: "anything Arch Linux can achieve is within the scope of ArchWiki"
- ArchWiki:Contributing#Creating: "think about what others may want to read"
- Help:Editing#Creating pages: topics need to be relevant to Arch Linux and of interest to others
I think we should elaborate on our scope in a new Scope section and link to it from the above mentioned sections.
Scope section draft:
The ArchWiki documents how to install and use Arch Linux and software available through the official repositories or the AUR. We only document the latest version of software and archive articles about software when it is no longer packaged for Arch Linux. Articles about software from the AUR are also archived when the software has been abandoned by its developers. The ArchWiki strives to not needlessly duplicate upstream documentation. Last but not least the ArchWiki also describes the Arch Linux community and hosts the DeveloperWiki.
- Arch Linux is already linked once at the start of the paragraph, I don't see the reason to link to it again. I agree about MediaWiki and changed it. -- Kynikos (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Technically, Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation#First_instances talks only about first instances of terms or names, not first instances of target articles. I guess the principles are important and distinct enough to be highlighted, it's not like the paragraph would be all blue due to links... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)