Talk:Stylish (software)

On 29 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Stylish to Stylish (software). The result of the discussion was moved.

source

anyone managed to find the source? i see the license mentioned everywhere, but no link to the actual code repository with the license there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcbwiki (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source code for newer versions has not been released. https://github.com/stylish-userstyles/stylish-chrome https://github.com/stylish-userstyles/stylish 107.77.212.225 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The packaged extensions are .zip archives of the (in this case) unobfuscated source files. The source is contained in the packaged extension. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a load of bull puckey!

"Since January 2017, following the sale of Stylish to Israeli company SimilarWeb, the extension has contained tracking functions that sends information on all visited URLs and HTTP requests, and information contained on search engine results pages, to SimilarWeb servers. In July 2018, after these issues were publicized by a software engineer, Stylish was pulled from both the Chrome Web Store and Mozilla Add-ons, as well as being automatically uninstalled for all existing users"

Horse hockey! The extension is still there and I hightly doubt it was ever pulled. I know because I was using it last year not long after this article says it was pulled. Also, Stylus company, NOT another one. Check here and here. Go to their web pages and read the privacy policies. Same company name on both sites. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion one or more insiders are editing this article? SentientParadox (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The extensions were removed and, months later, replaced with "opt-in" versions that display a prominent opt-in splash screen on first run. The former has WP:RS support, the latter awaits an interested editor. We thought it best to let you sleep through it; apologies.

(2) Stylus is a Stylish fork which removed the URL and referrer info reported by User styles user Hideheader, and which increasingly diverges from Stylish. There is no evidence that Stylus and Stylish are otherwise related. Check GitHub for development history, and forum.userstyles.org for a taste of the acrimony of Stylus developers towards the Stylish owners.

(3) There are certainly insiders editing this article. For example, WP:SPA User:Justjup is almost certainly the Justin who originally claimed to be the new owner of the Stylish extension and the userstyles.org website. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/EL in body of article

As discussed in edit summaries and on Yappy2bhere's Talk page, stop adding spam links to this article. These links are either WP:SPAM or external links in the body of the article. Either way, they need to be removed and not added back. Happy to discuss this here, to continue the discussion on Yappy2bhere's Talk, on my Talk or on the EL noticeboard. Stesmo (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they are spam links, and I don't find support for your claim in the guidelines you cite. Specifically, how do any of these links qualify as WP:SPAM per the guideline? A cogent explanation will be welcome. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Yappy2bhere. The explanation is pretty simply put on the WP:SPAM page. I'm not sure how much more cogent I could put it. Please take a quick look at the spam page.

If you've had nothing but the most altruistic intentions and weren't intending to drive traffic / promote the destinations of the link, we do not include External Links in the body of the article. And, we minimize external links, as we are not a link farm for all possible external links for Stylish. We have an external link to Stylish in the infobox and EL section. As you'll see in the first couple paragraphs of the WP:EL page, "Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." If you believe we're handling EL incorrectly, the EL page has both a Talk section and a Noticeboard.

Please Ping me or otherwise notify me if you wish to continue the discussion here or elsewhere. You can do that by using the {{u|Stesmo}} string (without <nowiki> tags) in your comment or by leaving a talkback notice (Template:Talkback) on my Talk page. Happy to continue the conversation. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the guidelines you cite; how condescending of you to suggest otherwise. There is nothing in WP:SPAM that supports your assertion that these links are spam. If there was, you'd surely have taken 30 seconds to cite specifics from the WP:SPAM guideline; "the explanation is pretty simply put [elsewhere]" admits as much. Notice too that the links you deleted do not fall into any of the nine "Links normally to be avoided" categories of WP:EL.

First, removing repository info from the infobox was simply WP:VANDALISM. If you're acting per the guideline, then you should rather remove that option from the template. Second, you evidently did recognize that the links to mozillazine.org were simply lazy cites (else why remove the links but leave the "spam" URLs in place?), but why then didn't you simply improve the reference instead of removing it entirely? Similarly, you removed the links to addons.mozilla.org supporting the list of Stylish derivatives but left the list of forks, uncited, in the article.

None of it is WP:SPAM per the guideline, though this last does invite abuse. By all means improve the cites, and reduce the list to the most relevant if you like, but all you've done so far is make a poor article worse. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icon needs update

The icon for Stylish has been changed, and the image on the article needs to be updated to reflect that. Sebastian^{Talk | Contrib.} - 23:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Stylish will be redirected to Style and that page will have links to Stylish (software) and Stylish... added to it. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stylish → Stylish (software) – Not the primary topic over Stylish... (formerly named Stylish...E) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. No clear primary topic for "Stylish", so the base term of "Stylish" should redirect to a disambiguation page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.