Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 124.171.52.40 - "→This huge article needs to be pruned. In particular, the reception section.: added comment" |
|||
Line 17:
::::From my understanding of [[Wikipedia:Criticism]], controversy should rarely have a dedicated article. And Unity is clearly not notable enough for its own "Controversy about Unity" article. I propose that the reception of early versions of Unity be removed from here and integrated into the corresponding sections of [[List_of_Ubuntu_releases]]. -- [[User:JorgePeixoto|Jorge]] ([[User talk:JorgePeixoto|talk]]) 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Moving to [[List_of_Ubuntu_releases]] is a much better idea. I think that's probably the way to go.[[User:Estevezj|— James Estevez]] ([[User talk:Estevezj|talk]]) 03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::Comments like the ones above are why I have just about given up on contributing to wp. In actual fact, the depth of this article was perfect (up to Ubuntu 12.04 LTS! :-(( ), and was just what I needed to read. Then along come the nitpickers who know stuff all about the topic ready to get it to conform to the rest of wp. Wanting secondary scholarly sources re open source software?!!! (Hint: secondary scholarly sources re open source software ARE RARER THAN HEN'S TEETH, nitwit. Figure out the economics. Which should not equate with notability.) Meanwhile, the contributors who could have continued this article to cover 13.04 & 14.04 have dropped out (arrgghh!!!) and the nitpickers have run away. Wikipedia - dying the death of a thousand pruning nitpickers. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.171.52.40|124.171.52.40]] ([[User talk:124.171.52.40|talk]]) 21:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Reliability of sources ==
| |||