Talk:Chocolatey

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 4 October 2021, see discussion. merge to NuGet, 8 April 2016, see discussion.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 19 August 2013 by reviewer Lugia2453 (talk · contribs). Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

I've corrected this claim as neither of the two referenced sources makes that claim (nor do I think they're reputable enough to cite without their own source). This means at best we can say that two developers say this. I'll check whether they even are notable developers next or if this boils down to "two bloggers recommend". --92.76.195.57 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're first and foremost tech bloggers, no authority as developers. I'll adjust the claim even further. --92.76.195.57 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for "some tech bloggers" or "some people" and noticed how inconsequential that sounds. This is no claim at all and I don't know why it's even on the page and will remove it altogether. --92.76.195.57 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the author's names of those two references, both of them say they are developers, not "tech bloggers". The site "dev.to" claims to have an "editorial team", and "onmsft.com" claims to have a paid writing staff, which at first glance seems to be at least a little bit more reliable than a typical blog. (Such as, for example, developer Keith Dechant's blog, which also recommends installing both).

Would somewhere near Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources be a better place to discuss whether those are reliable sources? --DavidCary (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely open to have this discussed at any and all places if need be, including that one, provided that enough unbiased people will perform this discussion. I don't have a stake in this and just want to reach a factual base without fluff marketing or fandom. --2003:C9:4702:B000:753C:E2DF:178F:C435 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]