Talk:Gemini (protocol)/Archive 1

Is there any rule to only use http source?
Gemini sources are probably fine, but is there any rule to use https source for better reachability? --Greatder (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

&mdash; Black Walnut talk 06:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. After all, books aren't reachable by HTTP/HTTPS either, yet they make excellent references.

Removing external links
I'm removing the external links in the Software subsection. External links in article bodies are generally discouraged. See the external links policy page. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Gemini space into here + note of major problems
Hello. I rather like Gemini, but on Wikipedia we have to try and be neutral. I'm afraid that when I try to look at these two articles as strictly a Wikipedia editor, I see quite a lot of things that should not be.

I don't think there should be two Gemini articles at this point. How we got to the present situation is this: there was originally a draft called "Gemini (protocol)", but it was moved into mainspace under the title "Gemini space". This decision was based on the supposition that an article called "Gemini (protocol)" could only discuss the protocol itself. Shortly afterwards, a second article was created at "Gemini (protocol)".

I propose to merge Gemini space into Gemini (protocol) because:
 * Geminispace is not notable independently of Gemini itself. The sources that count towards notability do not discuss Geminispace in isolation, but always together with the protocol.
 * I currently see 4 potential sources that would count towards notability: the pieces in LWN, opensource.com, c't and Linux Magazine. I expect this should probably be enough to survive an articles for deletion nomination, but it's far from enough to justify two articles based on size - the amount of good encyclopedic content that can be written using the present sourcing should easily fit in one article.
 * "Gemini (protocol)" is the proper article title: the term "Gemini space" does not make sense unless you know Gemini is an internet protocol, so Gemini itself is really the proper article subject here. The supposition that the article title strictly limits the scope is incorrect.

I must also say both articles are currently in rather poor condition. Only a small part of the material is sourced to independent reliable sources; there is a lot of original research and also opinions stated as facts (and opinions of random internet people, at that). Those three links are to Wikipedia policies.

Notifying major contributors: Brevity, Mk270, Azertus, Dexxor. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on this merge proposal below.


 * Thank you very much for collecting the history in such detail. Sure, one entry should be more than enough. I'm glad to read that the article title does not strictly limit its scope. Thus, I'm very happy with a merge going forward. I hope that links to other language wikis can be maintained somehow. Cheers Brevity (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you to PJvanMill for the sensitive treatment above and for bringing this move to my attention. I support the deletion of the Gemini space page or its merger with the Gemini (protocol) page. Mk270 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Merged; please feel free to undo if we should proceed differently. Brevity (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Graph in article
A graph in the article, "Size of Gemini space over time", is unclear... Does it represent the number of gemini servers? or the number of selectors/documents available on gemini? What is the source? zcrayfish (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The graph was initially added in ; as its source gemini://gus.guru/statistics seems to be down, we might as well remove the data. --Brevity (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still gemini://geminispace.info/statistics, which appears to have the same data gus.guru did. Lovetocode999 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Gemini version of Wikipedia
Text-only dumps of Wikipedia exist (see the 'all nopic' version here: https://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content ), so could a gemini version of Wikipedia be possible? Would be nice to browse Wikipedia from the command line. RaymondHatstand (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * RaymondHatstand, see . At the same time, I should say see WP:NOTFORUM: bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 15:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)