Talk:Zathura (document viewer)

Notability

WP:GPG is clear that a subject needs multiple independent in-depth references. Not lists or quick capsules, not self-reported, etc. Please find and add so this article doesn't wind up going to WP:AFD. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:GPG doesn't exist so I can't verify what you've said for myself. I also would hope that Wikipedia's policies are applied consistently. I'm aware that the meromorphic page only has one in-text citation; furthermore, one of it's three uncited references is just a generic textbook, and one of the others is another encyclopedia. We can also compare the present page to other document viewers such as Sumatra PDF (which is clearly biased) and Skim (software) (which has four citations accessed eight years ago).

Also, just to be clear, there's no self-reporting here. I'm not affiliated with the Zathura project. I just think it's good quality software and I was surprised it didn't already have a wikipedia page.

Cryptarch (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Grr, WP:GNG. Spent too much time working on GPG in real-world today:) See also the "notability guidelines for products and services" link in the big box at the top of the article itself. By "self-reported", that means who writes (or supplies the information for) the cited ref. So a company's or product's own website can prove facts about the company/product, but doesn't support that anyone else finds the product notable. It's that third-party aspect that matters, otherwise it can all be true but true about something that itself doesn't merit an article. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I'll take a look at WP:GNG and think about the other things you said. In the meantime I've been adding more material and citations, hopefully we can eventually get that notability flag removed ;) It would be a shame if the article were nominated for deletion. Cryptarch (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation reliability

I'd like to have a citation for the claim that the Zathura document viewer was named after the Zathura film. I thought it was fairly self-evident since the software is created by a group called "Programs with Movie Titles", but I also placed a citation to a Linux and Life article.

This citation was removed however with the edit summary: "I don't believe this ref will pass WP:RS since it seems anyone can write articles http://www.linuxandlife.com/p/write-for-linux-and-life.html".

I'd like to rebut that although anyone can submit articles to Linux and Life, they need to be reviewed and accepted by an editor. This potentially makes Linux and Life more like a newsblog than a self-published source.

My contention seems similar to WP:RS/Noticeboard#Softpedia Linux Software Reviews. In that discussion, no firm consensus has been won, but the balance of opinion seems to be in favour of admitting such citations.

I wondered if I could get more opinions about whether the Linux and Life link is a valid citation, or other ideas about what might make a better citation. Cryptarch (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

While responding to an edit request at Zathura (film) I noticed the claim here wasn't sourced, so I added {{cn}} and denied the eit request due to lack of reliable sources. This source was soon added, while looking a the reference I noticed along the top of the link bar here there's a link asking visitors to write for the site, this doesn't sound like a site where statements can be trusted, longer story shortened, if consensus determines that this reference can be trusted, then by all means use it. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

zathura is lowercase

Look at how it's referenced at https://pwmt.org/projects/zathura/. zathura should not have its first letter capitalized. 108.200.140.213 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Kile

I don't believe the section on Kile is relevant to this page; it should be removed.

I've gone ahead and removed that section, as it is clearly written in a how-to style and thus doesn't seem to fit here.

For reference, that's the section I've removed:

Modifying the python codes in https://texwiki.texjp.org/, with the file name 'zathuraforward.py',

#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import sys
import re
import subprocess

if __name__ == '__main__':
    m = re.match(r'file:(\S*)#src:(\S*) (\S*)', sys.argv[1])
    if m:
        pdf = m.group(1)
        line = m.group(2)
        tex = m.group(3)
	args = line + ':0:' + tex
    subprocess.call(['zathura', '--synctex-forward', args, pdf])

followed by

$ chmod +x zathuraforward.py
$ sudo cp zathuraforward.py /usr/local/bin

Zathura is ready for the forward search. In Kile → Setting → Configure Kile → Build → Forward pdf, set the viewer command to be zathuraforward.py with the option '%target', which will pass the line number, tex file name, and pdf file name to Zathura through the python script. To get inverse search done, add following two lines to ~/.config/zathura/zathurarc

set synctex true
set synctex-editor-command "kile --line %{line} %{input}"

References