Talk:OpenBSD

GA nomination

I noticed that an IP user nominated this article for GA status, and while I think it's well short of GA at this point, perhaps the article could be improved before the review is started. We could heed the advice from a few years ago during the FAR/FARC process and model the article off of FreeBSD or other OS articles, as has already been initiated in a rewrite effort. I can contribute some myself, but would like to see if others are on board. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:OpenBSD/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting this article to Good Article Nominations. Unfortunately, I will have to quick-fail this article because this article is a long way from passing the Verifiability criteria. Looking through the sections, there are at least one citation missing in the History, Uses, Third Party and Open source sections. In the Security and distribution sections, multiple sentences are missing citations. However, my main concerns are the Development and subprojects section.

With the development section, there are two full paragraphs that do not have any citations. With this section alone, there are six uncited sentences in the Development section. Similarily, with the Development section there are nine referenced statements, with eight of them being bullet points. If I were to count the other sections (History, Uses, Open source, Security, Subprojects and distribution) I see at least 9 additional unreferenced sentences.

Without taking a full depth review, I spot at least over twenty unreferenced statements. With this in mind, this article is currently not close enough to pass Verifiability. Also, I noticed that this nomination is your only edit so far. I'm not sure if you've edited under a different account, but it is preferable that the nominator should be a major contributor when nominating an article at Good Article Nominations per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Please feel free to nominate again once the article is in a better shape to be reviewed, especially with making sure that every sentence has been cited with reliable sources. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

@Lyanbox782: you should probably put the details of your proposal here at the beginning of the section, including the rationale for the merger, and an indication of which direction the merge should be done - OpenBSD Foundation into OpenBSD, or OpenBSD into OpenBSD Foundation - or an indication that you're leaving that as part of the discussion. didn't indicate into which direction the merger should be done; you should probably do that, or indicate that you're leaving that as part of the discussion. If you have a direction in mind, you should replace the {{Merge}} template in [[OpenBSD}] with a {{Merge from}} template, and replace the {{Merge}} template I put into OpenBSD Foundation (to let people reading that article know that a merger was proposed) with a {{Merge to}} template. Guy Harris (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEPROP for the process of proposing a merger. Guy Harris (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

oppose since the OpenBSD Foundation is parent of other projects, its own entity, and OpenBSD is well notable on its own, it makes little sense to me to shoehorn this established article into that stub. Strangerpete (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Just close this. The user has opened numerous bad merge discussions in their short editing career and they are indefinite blocked for CIR, refusal to communicate, and continuing to make disruptive edits following several previous blocks. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

While you're not wrong, not every edit they made was disruptive; I get the feeling that its a kid with good intentions who just wasn't getting it (either way, irrelevant)...and even though I'm not exactly on board with with merger proposal, I'm having vague second thoughts on whether or not the Foundation should in fact be merged here, and as Guy Harris pointed out that may have been their original intention (my prior oppose being based on the openbsd->foundation move specifically.) I think it would be just fine to let this discussion take the normal course. Strangerpete (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say every edit they made was disruptive. I still oppose this on the simple grounds of OpenBSD and the foundation being different topics. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you said that, I only wanted to balance your (correct) statement for others who may read this, as not to gain the impression that this was only a malicious editor...in that case I'd have agreed totally to revert the whole proposal Strangerpete (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Does not meet WP:GNG on its own for a standalone article. Merge into OpenBSD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per @Strangerpete:'s reasons Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the question about whether OpenBSD Foundation should be merged into this article really boils down to whether the OpenBSD Foundation is sufficiently notable like the FreeBSD Foundation to warrant its own article, or whether its notability as a standalone subject is dubious enough to warrant it being subsumed into the corresponding OS article as is the case for the NetBSD Foundation.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

OpenBSD version history merger

I noticed that User:FMM-1992 merged OpenBSD version history into OpenBSD#Releases without creating a discussion. While bold merges are allowed, I'm not convinced that this would be completely uncontroversial. I think it's best to create this discussion and revert if there is not consensus.
@Guy Harris, GoingBatty, Strangerpete, Glennglazer, Comp.arch, PowerPCG5, Bumm13, and Mindmatrix: Tagging recent OpenBSD article contributors. Please comment below if you support/oppose or feel that this should be reverted before consensus is generated. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You can't really have a release of an OS without a new version, so this doesn't bother me. Glennglazer (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Tony, I completely agree with you. Even though I personally don’t have a strong opinion either way, you are completely correct that a major change like this really should have first been proposed on this talk page to solicit feedback, and then, barring any strong objections, such changes could have been made in accordance with community feedback with the benefit that doing so would have the support of fellow editors, as well as having the benefit of getting other people’s buy-in, even making fellow editors more likely, friendly, and willing to help out. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative endeavor, built on a sense of community and consensus. But to be honest, there have been times when I myself have been hella motivated to contribute what I saw as improvements and perhaps may not have done as good a job myself of soliciting advance feedback and attaining consensus for big edits before the fact, so it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to criticize too severely. Btw thanks for keeping an eye out on this and similar articles! :)  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all please note that I'm not newbie to this article, my previous user name was "Editor-1", the "Find edits by user" tool on the history page shows "32 edits by FMM-1992 on OpenBSD (0.97% of the total edits made to the page)" and the first edit was on 23 December 2015.

Please read my rationale for the merge edit: Special:Diff/1037853453 and pay attention to what WP:SIZERULE and WP:Article size say to us, thanks.

To editors PhotographyEdits and Scaledish: tagging recent Talk:OpenBSD contributors -- FMM-1992 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't argue that you haven't been a major contributor, and the edit summary is appreciated, but it isn't the same as community consensus. As PowerPCG5 said, it is best to discuss on the talk page before making the change. Also, thanks for tagging two additional editors, since we can get more feedback on the matter. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: My only contribution in the last few years was recently changing a link from Apple (the fruit) to Apple Inc., so I have no input on this merger. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)