Read this first
-- The ArchWiki Administrators 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the following projects from this article since they appear to misuse the Arch Linux trademark:
- 3du Arch, 
ArchBang, , 
- Arch Rescue Kit, 
- Arch USB OS, 
ArchMerge, update Arch Anywhere, update Artix Linux
- Happy Hacking Linux, 
- Reborn OS, on screenshots, *2017, previously Antergos Deepin
- Zen Installer,  *2016, previously OBRevenge, Revenge OS
See  for the email I've sent on this regard to
email@example.com. If I get a response that said distributions have authorization to use the Arch Linux trademark, they can be readded to this article. -- Alad (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Artix Linux has now changed its tag-line from "Your Arch, your init" to "Your GNU/Linux, your init", and so, is no longer in violation of the TrademarkPolicy. The entry has been added back. —This unsigned comment is by Drumal (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2017. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- I've sent an email to 3du Arch, ArchBang, and Happy Hacking Linux developers to address this issue on their part. At what point should I contact
firstname.lastname@example.org, especially in more serious cases like Arch USB OS which may be possibly mistaken for official ISOs and be compromised? -- Svito (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to prefer Wikipedia links over SourceForge links if the intention is to avoid marketing these other distributions? SourceForge pages are managed by the distributions themselves and no one else. Wikipedia pages, like ArchWiki pages, are managed by neutral third parties as well as the distributions themselves. Moreover, Wikipedia provides information about the latest release of a distribution at the top of its page making maintenance easy. All-in-all, it seems that Wikipedia is *better* than SourceForge at addressing the points mentioned in .
I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that, unlike Wikipedia, SourceForge is a for-profit venture. They have done horrible things in the past like injecting adware into popular open-source projects like GIMP and Firefox . While it appears they are under new management as of late last year, I still feel more comfortable linking users to websites which don't have a financial incentive to take advantage of them.
With that, I propose that we amend the preference for SourceForge links to a preference for Wikipedia links. Alternatively, I propose that we at least prefer Wikipedia links to SourceForge links to homepage links. Any objections? Amendments? Comments?
- It is up for those projects to decide to use or not use SourceForge for hosting their files. We could have used regular website links if they weren't so filled with subjective opinions and catchphrases. -- Svito (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- BlueLight, Website  - Can we add this to list of distros? (Formerly OS.js Linux)