Talk:CalyxOS

Since when?
I could not easily find a date for when CalyxOS started. --Error (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First CalyxOS website archive was April 2019. Calyx Institute annual report for 2018-2019 says it was publicly announced during that fiscal year. So looks like 2019. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

GoFoss.net citation
This GoFoss citation will be added. The about looks good, their team has diverse backgrounds, and their articles indicate they are updated, not just static "posts". The content of the cited article is thorough. GoFoss has not been used elsewhere in wikipedia according to my search, but I give it benefit of the doubt for now. Other opinions are welcomed. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * GoFoss is completely user-generated; it's hosted on Gitlab, which anyone can edit, and it has a prominent disclaimer (making no warranties about its "completeness, reliability and accuracy"; we always treat sites like that as unreliable). AlternativesTo and the F-Droid Forum are also user-generated. PrivatePhoneShop is a primary source with no dueness (it's a shop). I expect MakeUseOf or AndroidAuthority to be mostly reliable on minor fact, but ultimately, they're "blog-like" and have very low standards, so I don't think they confer any notability. Kuketz-Blog is allowable as a self-published expert, but WP:SPS don't confer notability either.
 * Which leaves just three sentences from Moritz Tremmel as reliable, out of this whole article. I'm very tempted to AfD this. When we can't build a basic wireframe of an article (who, what, why, when, how good) without being forced to rely on primary or junk sources, WP:GNG isn't met. DFlhb (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure the F-Droid source has oversight by F-Droid staff who are more or less independent from CalyxOS, so it may be user-generated in a sense, but it has editorial oversight. Yes, citations are somewhat weak, but this is the usual in the alternative "ROM" topic area at Wikipedia. 3 citations from a good reliable source should be sufficient; the excerpts could be expanded. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the website's About page, gofoss.net appears to be a group blog with no editorial oversight. As there is currently no opposition to the removal of this content (due to the opposing editor being community banned in July 2023), I've removed the content from the article in Special:Diff/1176795662 and Special:Diff/1176796398. —  Newslinger  talk   04:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

cites too many primary sources
fix it 2A01:C23:75F8:A300:9F6E:39C2:1C99:E0CB (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)