Talk:Codeberg

Upload Logo
would be nice if somebody with the right to do so, could upload the logo. (as per ref)

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/src/branch/main/logo/icon/svg/codeberg-logo_icon_blue.svg No-bot-whatsoever (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In the repository link you shared, there is another folder with the license for Codeberg's logo. The Codeberg logo has a Creative Commons 0 license (which is equivalent to the public domain), so anyone is free to upload it to Wikimedia.
 * This upload to Wikimedia is valid and can be used for this Codeberg Wikipedia page. Koppleganger (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate from Codeberg e.V
The Gitea page talks only about the product, here we mention it as both a platform in the main section and as an organisation in the infobox, it probably should be one of those, I assume the intention was to describe the platform. Tranzystorek-io (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is primarily about the platform, but I don't believe it's possible to discuss it without also covering Codeberg e.V. I think the article as it is strikes a good balance. If you check out the articles for platforms like GitHub and GitLab you'll find they're more focused on the relevant entities than this article is. SkipperGeek (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to your feedback, I have edited this Codeberg draft and reorganized to match a similar Wikipedia article GitHub, which has sections for GitHub, Inc. (an organization) and GitHub.com (a website). I also added clarifying language to all references to distinguish between Codeberg e.V. (the organization) and Codeberg.org (the website).
 * Please review and let me know if this resolves the issue. Koppleganger (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late response, I believe this resolves the discussion. Tranzystorek-io (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

COI notice
At an early stage in the creation of this draft somebody added a COI notice. I believe the article as written is entirely factual and has a neutral point of view. However, although I am not closely affiliated with Codeberg I am a donor, so I would prefer if somebody else could review and decide whether it is appropriate at this point to remove the template. (edit: For clarity: I did not create this draft, but I have contributed to it.) SkipperGeek (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article and added a few edits. I also think it is written in a neutral manner.
 * Please review and let me know if the COI concerns have been resolved. Koppleganger (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also assessed that the article is neutral in tone and doesn't seem to be problematic in that regard. Being a donator to a cause is very weak as far as COIs go. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  07:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Codeberg.org reception citations
The second paragraph in the Reception section cites articles that supposedly indicate visibility increase and project migrations that happened "as a result" of the June 2022 "Give Up Github" campaign, but the following are not logically consistent with that statement:


 * https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/06/an-adventure-in-codebergorg-review-by-a-non-programmer.html - this is just the citation from the first paragraph repeated, and it hails from 2020
 * https://peppermintos.com/2022/09/one-year-since-we-moved-to-codeberg-org/ - the actual migration is reported to have happened in 2021
 * https://blog.freeyourgadget.org/release-0_40_0.html - the article and migration are from 2019

These are still probably valid proofs for Codeberg popularity, but should be separated factually from the anti-github campaign. Tranzystorek-io (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Alleged removal of a repo from Codeberg
Someone's repo got removed; they eventually posted this:


 * https://git.kescher.at/dCF/deCloudflare/src/commit/0f7f074bd9e84680eab67b8aed506d4f188d2fe7/subfiles/the_trouble_with_codeberg.md

In there, they alleged that one of codeberg's staff got added to cloudflare's helpers, then that repo got taken down and the repo's host was issued an email from Codeberg, alleging "libel" on the host's part. Any research would be good. Correct me if I am wrong. (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on the linked issues it looks like it was a simple case of Codeberg enforcing their ToS and their duties under German law by removing doxxing content. SkipperGeek (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what about the accusations of libel and defamation against the author? Doxxing and defamation are different things. Kangaeru Kitsune (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)