Talk:Proxmox Virtual Environment

	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 articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 July 2015 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

Computing

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linux Land ?[edit]

What is Linux Land, and/or what's the address ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rautamiekka (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly slang used by developers and promoters. Usually indicative of a conflict of interest. W Nowicki (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Proxmox Backup Server into Proxmox Virtual Environment[edit]

This is apparently intended as a tool to work specifically with Proxmox Virtual Environment, which is much more likely to be notable DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - since when are things merged when they are intended to work with each other? Merge any Linux tool into the Linux article? 89.12.222.90 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a clear "straw man". What we are proposing is to follow the consensus guideline, which is an article only survives when the subject has enough independent coverage that does not mention the subject of another article. Not just if an anonymous reader of Wikipedia wants it to exist. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In both articles there are more external sources than internal ones, I hope that this is meaningful measurment. -- kocio (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the Backup Server is a standalone solution and intended to work with different clients. One of them - and apparently the first to be developed - is Proxmox Virtual Environment but the project is working on other backup clients for other operating systems as stated in their roadmap. So merging does not make sense to me. Manndl (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I hope somebody will also add Proxmox Mail Gateway page one day. Each (PVE, PBS and PMG) are produced by the same entity, have similar GUI and can be integrated together, but have their own versioning and are different tools. --kocio (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing instead of merge all the articles promoting each product into a company article. Alas, there already is one called Proxmox which is just three links, including one to its mail server, which has no article! Otherwise will probably need to delete, since most sources are primary, just product reviews that are often paid for by the company. For total disclosure: I worked on another backup product 30 years ago for a few years. I also noticed that the first of the few independent sources I audited (the 2011 ZDNet article) just calls the software "Proxmox". This is typical, marketing people want distinct products being named, while the common name for a product is just the company, until the company is huge enough (like, say, Apple) to be well-known in multiple product areas. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"since most sources are primary" - no, it's not, please count them - 13/25 are external sources (and one is just a remark). It's also good to check the pattern of marketing, but the informations about PBS are precise and not general as in typical marketing speech, so the fact that it could be marketing is not enough to demote this. Also merging for such a specific product is like merging Apache projects into one - just because they have something in common. The categories are clear that these are different types of software, so we would have to use "software" category, which is too broad and hides some important aspects (backup is definitely not the same as virtualization). -- kocio (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you count the sources? I do not read German, but there are only three ZDNet articles, and at least one just calls the product "Proxmox". Others like the github repo, blogs, reposts of press releases and articles or books that are mostly promotional (read like paid coverage) I consider primary as well. As for categories, just put the merged article in both categories, we do that all the time to save them from deletion. W Nowicki (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too many primary and unreliable sources[edit]

As of revision 1167643646, there are 48 unique reference URLs listed in the "References" section. There are 18 third-party sources, while 30 are primary sources.

Out of the 30 primary sources, Proxmox Administration Guide is referenced a total of 18 times (10 times to the PDF & 8 times to the HTML versions). If I've counted correctly, primary sources from the proxmox.com domain URL is referenced a total of 53 times for statements in the article (out of a total of 65 or 66 times something was referenced).

I've also counted the following generally unaccepted WP:UGC sources:

Four user-generated wikis (references 18, 19, 20, 32)
Three user-generated blogs (references 21, 35, 44), of which at least one is anonymous (44)
One third-party blog/product announcement / advert (reference 42)

Additionally, citation 43 seems to be original research or an unreferenced note thinly disguised as a reference.

So, out of those 18 third-party sources, this articles has only ~9 marginally reliable sources (7–8, 10–12, 14–15, 27, 41). For what the reliable sources are saying about the article subject, this article needs to be significantly shorter on this encyclopedia for verifiability according to policies than what it is right now. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of revision 1167643646:

12 primary sources (1-7, 10, 16, 18-19, 21) – six in article body, six in the infobox
10 third-party sources (8-9, 11-15, 17, 20, 22)
- 1 "generally unacceptable" user-generated wiki (20)
all three user-generated blog cites removed
advert / product announcement removed
original research ("citation 43") removed

Significantly shortened. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC); edited 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling narrative in History section[edit]

"Development of Proxmox VE started when Dietmar Maurer and Martin Maurer, two Linux developers, found out OpenVZ had no backup tool and no management GUI. KVM was appearing at the same time in Linux, and was added shortly afterwards". What? First, how is "the time that Maurer's didn't find some things" relevant to the starting of ProxMox VE development? Was it just coincidental? Did they design ProxMod to supply just these two things to OpenVZ? Was it general dissatisfaction with OpenVZ, as represented by these two missing things, leading to Proxmox as an alternative product that happens to include these two things?

The second sentence appears to say that KVM was subsequently added to the list of things that Dietmar and Martin didn't find in OpenVZ. How is this relevant? Did that increase their motivation?

Or is that second sentence completely misplaced, and actually about a feature later _added_ to Proxmox ? If so, it implies that, prior to that, Proxmox had only two features: a backup tool and a management GUI. That seems unlikely, as where is the rest of the Virtual Environment? Unless perhaps Proxmox was indeed just two or three add-ons for OpenVZ. But if _that_ was the case, then there's a whole bunch of history missing to get us to (apparently) a fully fledged independent VE. Gwideman (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]