Talk:Tux/Draft

From Citizendium
< Talk:Tux
Revision as of 18:37, 21 October 2008 by imported>Robert Daeley (→‎Typo correction: not done and page locked)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article has a Citable Version.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  The name of the penguin, official logo and cartoon mascot for the Linux computer operating system. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Computers [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2  English language variant:  American English

Suggestion

Please see CZ:Topic Informant Workgroup: it seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for us to do some interviews of some of the people involved, and/or to have them look at the article and suggest corrections and expansions. Let me know if you're interested. --Larry Sanger 15:47, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm interested. I'll try to track down a current e-mail for each of the guys mentioned in the article. --Joshua David Williams 18:50, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

New version

Thanks to Thomas, I believe the toapprove tag can now be updated. He did a wonderful job! --Joshua David Williams 18:09, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Why a Linux mascot?

I remember reading in some Usenet post by Linus that he liked the concept of a mascot because more can be done with it than a static logo. He mentioned that the Windows logo is nice, but there's not a lot that can be done with it. So I think the last paragraph needs to be changed slightly after I track down that message. --Joshua David Williams 19:41, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Non- Computer group reaction

For the general reader this is shaping up a a great little story. David Tribe 19:52, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Stephen has contributed quite and Thomas have contributed quite a bit to the flow and readability of this article. If you like this one, you should check out the BSD Daemon article as well. I've been writing back and forth with the copyright holder asking questions about it. When it's done, it may be the most complete history of that mascot that's ever been compiled. --Joshua David Williams 21:22, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Alright, I am pretty much done with what will be any of my major additions. I am satisfied that this has gone a long way from "encyclopedese" to, as David described, "a great little story". Stephen Ewen 23:32, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Haha I get the feeling that when Stephen has said that about an article it has approached perfection :) Eric M Gearhart
hehe. Yes, I think so, too ;-) And I agree, also. The only thing I want changed before this is approved is the last paragraph. As far as I know, Gown and Penny have never been expressed as Tux's lovers, just friends. --Joshua David Williams 14:03, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Pre-approval issues

  • Ref #1, Matt Hartley (1996-05-5). Linux logo. - this points to nothing indicated in the text.
That's the first post in the Usenet thread. The lin64.jpg image is the picture of the Earth with the inscriptions "LINUX" and "Take your computing to another dimension." --Joshua David Williams 14:02, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
  • Sourcing - Each statement should be sourced. This is because I doubt we have a Computer Workgroup editor on-board who is completely versed in the "history of Tux"! We need to provide confidence, therefore, by providing for full ease of fact-checking.
  • Continued "distributions" of Tux section - we need a small image gallery of some of the best interpretations of Tux.

Stephen Ewen 01:22, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I haven't had a chance to cite all the information yet, but I've been looking through some images of Tux and thought I'd post the links to some pages we should link to:
I'm planning on updating this after I've found some more. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me come up with some questions to ask Marshal Kirk McKuskick, the owner of the BSD Daemon. There may be more to the story that could be extracted, but I'm having a hard time thinking of the right questions. Got any ideas? --Joshua David Williams 13:46, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

More cool images:

Stephen Ewen 22:08, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

HAHAHA! That first one is the best Tux image I've ever seen! :-P --Joshua David Williams 22:10, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Image:Tux_the_Penguin_by_Vik_Oliver_GFDL.jpg is all ready for use. Stephen Ewen 14:46, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Just a note here for posterity... that image is now in the gallery, and a one liner describing Tux tattoos is in the article Eric M Gearhart

I'd prefer to see several things before this is approved:

  1. The Linux article completed and approved on the same day. Pretty big wish, but. I have to claim only introductory-level knowledge on the subject, so I probably will not write much, but I hope I can play a role in making the article read well.
  2. All the facts checked and everything cited.
  3. A very nice and pretty large picture gallery--not a gallery, per see, but a "pictorial history of Tux"! There are already plenty of Tux galleries online, so if we can tell the Tux story in pictures with captions, that would be a really great addition to this article and a good contribution to what is available online, I think. It may take up to two weeks to decide on photos and track down releases/permissions.
  4. About Tux, and Gown and Penny. Aw, c'mon, can't we have just a little teentsy-weentsy bit of fun with that? :-) Call it a "creative contribution" to Tux. ;-)

—Stephen Ewen 00:08, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmm. I suppose the Gown & Penny section could stay. It's a bit humorous ;-) As for the facts and citations, I think it's ready for someone to look over. Although I realize that not every sentence has a ref tag, I believe everything is included in the citations I've provided. The vast majority of it is in the "A Complete History of Tux" link, as well as in the mailing list posts I've referenced. That reminds me that we need to remove the word "Usenet" if it's in there still. I just found out yesterday that the kernel mailing list is actually an e-mail system and not Usenet. --Joshua David Williams 00:25, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
I think having a laugh after reading this--perfect! It'll make the knowledge better "stick".  ;-) Stephen Ewen 00:27, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Some free images we can consider

Other
I like the very first one with the story of Tux and x-ray Tux the best. I also like the juice carton one, but I'm not sure it's appropriate. That's actually really neat that you found some pictures of the penguins at the zoo Linus went to. --Joshua David Williams 09:24, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Gallery

I think we need to find a black line between the images we want in the article, and those that should only be in the gallery. I have several very neat ones I'd like to put into the gallery, such as the popular flyswatter one (see here; I have the original image, but can't find it online at the moment). I think we have quite a few images in the article. Which ones, if any, should be moved to the gallery only? --Joshua David Williams 15:33, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

The ones supported by the narrative should be in the article. I once found the original one mentioned "LINUX: Take your computer to another dimension", and that would be a good one to include. Basically, whichever images best capture the evolution of the logo should be in the article. The other ones, as I see it, are to document in the gallery some of his best, later iterations. As for placement of the image gallery, perhaps place it as a thumb of a screen capture of the image gallery at "Continued 'distributions of Tux", which once clicked would lead into the gallery itself (is that possible with wikimarkup?). We might also experiment with placing the actual gallery in the article at the bottom of "Continued 'distributions of Tux", with small thumbs. That's my take. Stephen Ewen 15:47, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I originally had the BSD Daemon/Gallery linked from the image, but that wouldn't allow the user to (easily) see that infamous image at its full resolution (this can be done by putting a redirect in the image description page, see Biology). Perhaps we should take the same approach as the daemon and put a link beneath the famous drawing. --Joshua David Williams 16:02, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I've got to be honest with you here. I can't say that I like the way you suggested to do the gallery in your last edit :-( --Joshua David Williams 20:41, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Sure, please do be honest! Are you meaning you do not like the way it is now? Stephen Ewen

Yeah, I'm not really crazy about the way you linked an image of thumbnails. --Joshua David Williams 20:47, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

How would a montage of Tux's be, linked to the gallery? Stephen Ewen 20:50, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure a montage would be the best approach in this particular instance. I think that worked well for the Biology article because it wasn't really about the images, sort of like a graphic in a text book, while this article is all about the images. I think we should put it back the way it was, though perhaps we should move some of the images to the gallery and say something in the text like "See a photo of this in the gallery." --Joshua David Williams 20:52, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

The problem with that is that only those who carefully read the article all the way through will ever see the gallery, because it will only be pointed to with a text link. But let's sleep on it tonight, eh? Stephen Ewen 21:10, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Oh, idea! The gallery should be a "history in pictures" with captions. Stephen Ewen 12:44, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
I like that idea. How about we come up with an attractive image similar to what you made for the person to click to that history gallery? --Joshua David Williams 12:25, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

This is something usable. Stephen Ewen 13:06, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

The original proposed image: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/ftp-archives/sunsite.unc.edu/Sep-29-1996/logos/lin64.jpg Stephen Ewen 15:51, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Any idea what the license is for it? --Joshua David Williams 15:52, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
We'd have to find out from David Christiansen. Any ideas how? Stephen Ewen 17:02, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

A Google search for "David Christiansen" +linux turned up this, oddly, only right above the CZ article. I'll send him an e-mail and ask for permission :-) --Joshua David Williams 17:06, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

That e-mail address is dead. I'll do some more digging, and perhaps ask some of the other guys who were involved with it. --Joshua David Williams 17:10, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Its very important you keep the email that shows the attempt to contact him turned out a dead-end. If we cannot find him yet still wish to use the image, we have to show evidence of at least several good-faith attempts to do so. —–Stephen Ewen 18:21, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Getting images for the "A Tux history in pictures" gallery

Section to be used for linking to pages documenting attempts to gain licensing data / permissions for images when it is difficult to obtain. Please carry on talk about the attempts at the respective pages, not here. The pages and their talk will become the "permissions pages" should all reasonable attempts fail.

Great, let's use that as like a journal to document all attempts to reach him. Stephen Ewen 21:19, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
According to the message he posted about it, he himself doesn't know the licensing information. But perhaps he could point us in the right direction by letting us know where he found it. --Joshua David Williams 09:19, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

NOTC

I think the NOTC tag works great on this article since it's not an extremely long article. Nice idea :-) --Joshua David Williams 13:01, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval date - read this

Today is the 20th, and I see there are still a fair number of edits being made to this article. Remember that even if it is approved, there will still be a draft version where you can make edits/comments for the next version. The important question is whether or not it is ready for approval now. I (or another editor) can remove the template if need be, but nothing but copy editing should be happening now. If you have substantive changes you want to make, it would be better to wait and edit the draft page. If you think those changes must be made before approval, say so now. Greg Woodhouse 13:24, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

I think the article itself is ready. What we're working on at the moment is just the gallery pretty much. We have to get permission for several images to make that happen. At the moment, I think we should round off the rough edges of the article and work on the gallery for the next version. $0.02 --Joshua David Williams 13:27, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I see no reason why the gallery itself has to be approved (and thus made static). The article can be approved while work continues to be ongoing for the gallery! Stephen Ewen 15:07, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I fixed the partially-full image of the image gallery. After the style changes, that was my main quirk. I'd rather see this be approved along with Linux, but I am not going to say anything against it being approved now. Go ahead if you want. Stephen Ewen 15:50, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Can we get a newer version of this article put up for approval? As it stands now, the Gallery you guys have worked so hard on isn't even IN the version of the article up for approval (according to the Approval template at the top)... Eric M Gearhart

The article seems good to me - I think it can be approved. Rainer Typke

User:Robert Tito must change the version for approval. Or: Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors. See this. The version at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Tux&diff=100084365&oldid=100084288 is the latest and is the one that needs to be approved! Stephen Ewen 18:40, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Since there is only one editor so far to approve this article the conclusion seems evident: it cannot be approved. Robert Tito |  Talk  20:03, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval

Even ONE computer editor can approve the article if it was not written by that editor. Did both computer editors who are willing to approve act as authors here? Nancy Sculerati 20:13, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Since in the approval notice only ONE editor is added (there is no comma and another name) - and since I wrote no letter in here there is the need for another editor to approve it, better two editors making the total to three. Then a group approval might be applicable but even then the rules do not allow that as only editors are allowed to proceed in that area. Unfortunately this group does not have many active editors, a reason for the delay of many articles in other groups no doubt. Only after a second editor signs the approval tag things can proceed - not before. Since it is the 21st of april I will comment out the approval tag at the end of the day. Robert Tito |  Talk 

  • I approve, but only in the Author capacity. Jason Potkanski 20:37, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Computer workgroup editors Robert Tito, Greg Woodhouse, and Rainer Typke have posted to the talk page here only, and only about approving this article. It's basic content has been authored primarily by two authors, Joshua David Williams and Eric M Gearhart, with readability edits done by myself and several others. From CZ:Approval Process#Who may approve:

Individual approval. Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article. In this way, there is a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve her own work singlehandedly. If the article has already undergone an approval and is being re-approved with only minor typographic corrections such a spelling errors and spacing adjustments to an approved version ( that is, a 'bug fix' which commonly occurs with version 1.1), one editor approval is acceptable.
Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors.

Hence, any one of the editors Robert Tito, or Greg Woodhouse, or Rainer Typke, may approve this article, or all three may. I believe we have the concurrence of Robert Tito, Greg Woodhouse, and Rainer Typke. Or, any one may approve it, in this case.

—Stephen Ewen 20:51, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Let them put their names in the editors that approve part of the approval tag - since then it is merely a constable-task.

Robert Tito |  Talk 

Rob, if you will simply change the approved version in the template to the latest article version, it looks to me like you can approve this bird (pun intended) all on your own. Stephen Ewen 21:22, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Steve, that's not actually correct. Computers editors--don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful to you for taking this important first step!--please do read Approval Process. It says:
Anyone with "Sysop" permissions on the wiki--that is, personnel administrators, constables, and technical staff--may go through the following steps when initially marking an article as approved. An important exception is that no person with "Sysop" permissions on the wiki who has done any significant work on the article, or who is an editor in any workgroup to which the article is assigned may "do the honors." That means that Editors at work on the article who are also Constables must call another Constable to "do the honors."
But this is not a big deal. I'm just happy that you've done it! --Larry Sanger 18:51, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Ah, thanks for pointing that out to me, Larry. Stephen Ewen 22:02, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Pow pow pow! Woo-hoo! Now we just need a lock :-) Great job, guys; the first computer article to be approved! :-D --Joshua David Williams 21:28, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1

Discussion for Version 1 stopped here. Please continue further discussion below.

Checklist

I'm not exactly sure how that new checklist works, so I could use some help :-) --Joshua David Williams 22:26, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

You did great. All I did was cut the Approval section from the talk page and clicked on the red link on the approval template and pasted the text into the Tux/Approval page. Good work. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Also changed a couple of the spots on the article checklist. see history. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:56, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Tux Gallery discussion page

This conversation has been moved here from the Tux/Gallery talk page and that page was redirected here to keep the approved versions together. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:37, 14 May 2007 (CDT)


according to me this should be approved alongside Tux but open to new pictures in the draft section. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:03, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Fine by me. Stephen Ewen 19:39, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
I agree. In my opinion, we should go ahead and approve the gallery for Tux. Greg Woodhouse 20:41, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

<randomness>April 26th.. that's my birthday! :-P</randomness> --Joshua David Williams 08:52, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree that this can be approved. --Rainer Typke 14:15, 30 April 2007 (MEZ)

Approving galleries

Josuha, Happy birthday.

Rob, if we are approving this gallery then we also need to approve the biology gallery, see Biology/Gallery. Although, we may want to improve the figure legends before we seek approval. Chris Day (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I think for clarity we either include ***/gallery in the approval of the *** article or not. So far that is obscure - so I opt to play by the book - approve per article unless the editor council decides differently. I will bring it up there however since to me - frankly - it makes no sense to seperately approve an article and na accompanying gallery seperately. By the way have you been looking into the approve template to allow more editors? Robert Tito |  Talk  22:46, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Makes sense to me to keep the approval as one process for related sub-categories.
I had not looked into adding more editors. What options would you like? Up to three editors with parameters editor1, editor2 and editor3? Chris Day (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
4 max, the 4th makes the approval final - the article then should be approved only the final draft moves will have to take place, the 4th editor should initiate that - or can that be done per template as well? (i.e. mail to constables@ ???) thanks so far Chris, Robert Tito |  Talk  00:00, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
So we need four now for a final approval? I must have missed that. I'm also a little confused at the request for the email and the 4th editor. Are you talking about the ToApprove template in this case? Is there a discussion on another page? Then I'll have a better idea. So far everything you have discussed is possible. I just need to understnad the details. Chris Day (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Request for new approval

According to Larry Ewing http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/ Tux is the *unofficial* Linux logo. I have fixed this error. Since this is a significant factual error (in so far as Tux can be considered significant), I am requesting an editor re-nominate this article for approval 1.1. Stephen Ewen 22:24, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

I've removed the approval template for now. Though this page makes it clear that Tux is an unoffocial logo, I'm not sure that the draft language, "official cartoon mascot and unoffocial logo" (see Tux/Draft) is warranted. It seems simpler, and more appropriate, to just say "...the unofficial logo...", but if the current language ("official cartoon mascot") can be substantiated (i.e., the mascot is indeed official), let me know. Greg Woodhouse 07:35, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
I am not a computers workgroup editor and I have no comment concerning this problem- as to specifics.I do have general advice as approvals management editor. I would ask that you discuss this and in a careful way make revisions, review them, and follow protocol for nominating a new version- or not, as you see fit. As a starting point, I suggest that the original authors and editors who were involved in the recently approved version be contacted, as a matter of courtesy, and informed that this discussion is going on. Such discussions do go on in all media and there is no reason to jettison all the work done here in an effort to abandon this article or to instantly revise it. You have been transparent and honest in every way in your efforts- all of which are recorded here. Is there a mistake? I don't know. The artist may say one thing and the company (Linux) another.The world is complex and there are often conflicting statements in the recorded literature, web sites, etc. Who says that TUX is official? Who says not? What is meant by the word, "official"? Review the article draft in a scholarly fashion, compare it to the approved article, carefully. When you are confident that an improved version is produced, please follow the normal protocols for approval of a new version. :-) If you need my help in any way, please ask for it. I do not know if I can help you, but I will always try. Nancy Sculerati 07:42, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Part of the problem is that there is no (one) Linux company. The Linux kernel is open source (and GPL, making it even more complicated). Company A may say that Tux is the official mascot of their distribution of Linux (and whether or not they have the right to do so is another question to be addressed), and Company B may say not. This really isn't a question for engineers, it's a question for lawyers. Greg Woodhouse 08:15, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Typo correction

Trovalds > Torvalds. Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:38, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

This still exists in the Gallery. See "The sign describes the story of Trovalds catching "penguinitis" and the origins of Tux." --Robert Daeley 00:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

This now demonstrates {{Mixed gallery}}. Stephen Ewen 03:15, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Tux/Draft&oldid=187636"