Talk:Neofetch

This is notable and should not be removed

Yes it is a stub but it can be expanded. This should not be removed for lack of notability as it is a program with high install rates and would be included in any Unix encyclopedia Omi745 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think that one of the roles of Wikipedia is to give people a place to find information

So, it isn't quite as detailed, or relevant, as the Cyp450 3A4 protein, but that doesn't mean it isn't a page that provides people with useful information. It is a little program that does a few things. I think you will find most notable Linux software and utilities are like that. If you Google "screenfetch" it still pulls in the long-deleted (and mistakenly, looking at the musings of the three wizards who decided that Wikipedia users should not be able to look up a minor, but popular, tool.

The fact that you don't use it, or even run Linux/Bash doesn't mean it isn't relevant to people who are looking for what it is.

Given it is a common, albeit hardly critical, script run by many users of Linux it should be retained. Moreover, there is a substantial culture associated with these scripts and I think Wikipedia needs to describe the software, what role it plays, maybe even how it was written, and leave the popularity contest to Redit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think one of the major problems with a page like this is that it's being targeted quite a bit. Some just coming out of nowhere just to edit the page to remove content without any consensus being agreed upon about the idea of removing or not. Literally sockpocket accounts with one person who just insults people that revert their edit. PinkBunnyBun (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for why the page should have content removed or not.

While the content on this page will likely never be removed, I advise those looking into doing that to consider explaining why it should be removed. Because the edit wars have shown that people need to talk about it instead of just deleting it, I don't think the content about other fetch tools should be removed. If anything, It's comparable to vandalism with how it's removed. Also the person who did that previously was a proven user of sockpuppet accounts which shows it was done in bad faith. PinkBunnyBun (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose a compromise and say we do something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofetch&diff=prev&oldid=1186049561

I find that most of the projects aren't notable enough to be mentioned, but I still think it's important to note that some alternatives have been created. TakodaNotDakota (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It will likely not resolve any future edit wars, if I'm being honest. Too many would otherwise revert it back. My advice is to likely just leave it alone for now. Also it excludes the much more updated hyfetch fork, which was made to provide more updates to the codebase of neofetch. PinkBunnyBun (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Mention screenfetch

I've known neofetch forever. I've just learned (thanks to the "Other implementations" section) there are about two dozens other implementations. Nice. However, the article is missing an important mention of screenfetch, which, I believe, is the original fetch that spawn all these functional clones to different extends. According to the article, neofetch is 7 years old. screenfetch, however, dates back to 2010, making it 13 years old. Hot basket (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)