Talk:List of applications

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 22:16, 10 October 2012 by Karol (Talk | contribs) (Improving the title: rm closed discussion)

Jump to: navigation, search

Mark common applications? (previously named "What is common?")

I wonder who defines what is a "common" application. Just one random (potentially bad) example: Among the pkgstats users the package "freetalk" is installed by 1.17%. Is that common? If it is, why is another jabber client named "kadu" not common (1.53%)? Of course, I do not know how representative these statistics are. But could they be better than adding everything someone thinks is common (or wants to be common)?

One way could be to list all applications in a category that are installed by more than 10% of pkgstats users. If this yields less than 3 applications, list the 3 most common ones regardless of their installation percentage. --Markus00000 09:19, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Another simpler way would be moving the article to List of Applications, which already redirects here anyway. You can add kadu if you want, I don't see any harm in having a page that tries to group packages/applications by genre independently from their usage share. -- Kynikos 07:39, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Personally, I would find a page listing only the most commonly used applications for each category, split into graphical and console applications, very helpful. As we all use the same distribution, I found that applications recommendations from Arch users where usually exactly what I was looking for (e.g. Light and Fast Award). Conversely, a long page listing many applications seems to me no more useful than a web or pacman search. --Markus00000 08:22, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm quite sure that if we do it that way, a discussion like this will be created once a week or so :) You are supposed to decide by yourself what's the best application that you want to use for a particular purpose, not basing your decision on its "popularity" (we'd all be using windoze that way :P ), but reading reviews and user opinions, official documentation and yes, even trying many apps before finding the "right" one.
By listing only some "common" applications, using a filter that would always be in dispute, we would bias the preference of users, that's the main reason I don't support such a method. What's more, it'd be much harder for new applications to be noted and increase their popularity.
About the pacman search argument, AFAIK the database doesn't store a "type" property for packages.
-- Kynikos 08:50, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Then the obvious solution is to make List of Applications list packages, and, in case I or anybody else cares to create it, Common Applications list the most common applications based on objective pkgstats statistics. Sounds good? --Markus00000 09:10, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
We managed to merge two lists of applications (Lightweight Applications and Common Applications) just 2 weeks or so ago, because it was difficult maintaining both.
As a compromise, I suggest to highlight in bold (or some other way) the objectively most common packages in the list, and write a proper introduction where this method is described.
We may also wait a while for more opinions.
-- Kynikos 09:20, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Instead of bold (which I don't like at all) we could prepend simple marks like in:
  • [+] Firefox — The Firefox Web Browser is the faster, more secure, and fully customizable way to surf the web. || firefox
or [!], [*], +, !, *.
-- Kynikos 09:36, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Status? Should we employ notability guidelines like Wikipedia? ;P -- Karol 16:25, 25 December 2011 (EST)
Status is open for discussion. My opinion is still the one expressed in my other replies: I'm against any form of filtering, I'm in favour of using marks based on objective (read "indisputable") rules. If some sections become too long they can be moved to other pages or subpages like Games or Backup Programs (I'd prefer subpages, so these two examples should be moved). I'm in favour of renaming the page List of applications.
Readers are invited to share their thoughts :)
-- Kynikos 06:43, 26 December 2011 (EST)
+1 for renaming the page List of applications, I'm fine with the marks. What would the objective rules be? -- Karol 08:05, 26 December 2011 (EST)
Good, the rule for discerning between common and uncommon apps may be based on pkgstats as proposed initially by Markus00000, I'd say an application is common when it's installed by more than min(10, N*0.75)% of pkgstats users, where N is the percentage of installation of the most common application in the category. (I hope it's clear, may need to be rephrased, values 10 and 0.75 may be adjusted)
We may also find a rule for marking lightweight applications, any ideas?
Then we should also find users interested in actually do the marking thing, otherwise if we just end up having 3 or 4 marked entries in the whole article it may not be worth it.
-- Kynikos 05:57, 27 December 2011 (EST)
I don't think that determining if some app is lightweight/common or not can be done in the Wiki. There is simply no objective criteria of this. Is dwm common? Probably less than 1% of GNU/Linux users run it, but among KISS-aware geeks it is very common. Is Opera common enough to be listed? Is Firefox lightweight? Is emacs lightweight? And after such questions.. THE EPIC FLAME BEGINS! To avoid flames and Wiki-wars, we should not start such classification in the first place. Is not it user's deal – to determine which app is lightweight and which has the best userbase? IMHO the only thing one can do is to write proper application description and (if enough spare time is present) create article about that app. The rest is for the readers.
PS "List of applications" is proper title but I'd suggest "Recommended applications" as more honest.
--AlexanderR 21:26, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Lightweight Applications

What happened to the list of lightweight applications that used to be on the wiki? Now it redirects here. That list was useful for people (such as myself) who don't want (or can't run) heavyweight apps requiring KDE or Gnome libs. Now we have to pick through the list and find out for ouerselves whether it's light or heavy? How is that an improvement?

You can search the page for the word 'lightweight' and you will find e.g. "zathura — Another lightweight PDF viewer similar to apvlv, only lighter".
You can access the lightweight list here. -- Karol 16:10, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
If we decide to implement the idea above to mark the most common apps with a special symbol, we can do the same with lightweight apps, provided we find an objective definition of "lightweight". -- Kynikos 11:19, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
We still have Netbook Games, which isn't perfect either. -- Karol (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That is already discussed in Talk:Netbook Games#Merging, let's only discuss the possibility to define "lightweight" and implement marks for lightweight applications here :) -- Kynikos (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Page title guidelines

I'm missing the exact rule that defines casing guidelines for article titles O_o Help:Style#Title doesn't, and the same goes for Article Naming Guidelines, Writing Short Article Names and Help:Editing. -- Kynikos 07:21, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Help:Editing#Creating pages states Titles should be capitalized appropriately: Title for New Page; not Title for new page. For some reason I thought I had seen this copied over the the style guide, too... -- pointone 09:53, 17 January 2012 (EST)
Oops I went to Help:Editing and searched for "case" and "casi" but not "capit", sorry. However it's not the correct place for a style rule, and that "appropriately" is not very clear, nor it is the example. I propose moving the rule to Help:Style and be more accurate, probably taking inspiration from wikipedia:Letter_case#Usage. Want to discuss in detail in Help talk:Style or do you already have a definite idea? -- Kynikos 11:02, 17 January 2012 (EST)
This is discussed in Help talk:Style#Title case, closing. -- Kynikos (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Further improvement

  1. Use GentooWiki/Wikipedia links in place of the current redlinks where possible.
  2. Remove dead links unless they can be fixed somehow.</s> EDIT: both moved to new discussion
  3. Clean up last unformatted entries.</s> EDIT: will be continued in separate articles
  4. Add apps
    1. Listed at this Gentoo article
    2. from Commandline_Tools
      1. New: Does mentioning core applications like more, less etc (like done in Commandline_Tools) make any sence?
  5. Finally move everything to separate articles.
    1. Add entries from "Arch Package Management" to (separately) AUR_Helpers and Pacman_GUI_Frontends
    2. Merge "Graphics and Image Manipulation" with Multimedia
      1. New: Can "CD/DVD Burning Tools" be considered part of "Multimedia"?
      2. New: Should "Screen Capture" section be part of "Utilities" or "Multimedia"? Should such potentially controversial sections be made top-level?
      3. This especially makes sense because moving top-level parts like Common Applications#Backup Programs to split articles effectively hides its' internal structure. EDIT: no longer relevant
  6. Rewrite Desktop_Environment article. Even Wikipedia article, linked from Common Applications#Work environment is less Ubuntu-ish. Then merge current contents of Common Applications#Work environment into Desktop_Environment.
  7. New: Split article into several smaller similar to Beginners' Guide? EDIT: splitting started, last entries should be moved to separate pages (see Template:Common Applications navigation). EDIT: done

--AlexanderR 03:01, 15 January 2012 (EST)
--AlexanderR 22:27, 15 January 2012 (EST)
--AlexanderR 01:45, 16 January 2012 (EST)
--AlexanderR 08:00, 16 January 2012 (EST)
--AlexanderR 21:10, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Not sure if that's what you meant in 5.1, but I disagree if you want to merge AUR_Helpers with Pacman_GUI_Frontends, I think they should be kept separate. -- Karol 07:47, 3 January 2012 (EST)
Re: (I needed a non-indented line here...)
  1. Do you mean you'd use GentooWiki/Wikipedia links in place of the current redlinks? EDIT: fixed directly in the original post
    I don't have a position yet on this idea, redlinks can have their own purpose too, for example they feed Special:WantedPages even if it's broken by the i18n template currently... More opinions needed!
  2. Remove unless they can be fixed somehow EDIT: fixed directly in the original post
  3. Yes please
  4. Why not
  5. This is the most controversial point: what do you mean exactly? You're talking about "separate articles" and then about merging some others, it's not very clear at the moment EDIT: the original post has been modified
    I would move to separate articles (better subpages) only the sections that have more than N entries (and discuss what the value of N can be)
    1. Makes sense now
    2. Also this one seems a good idea
  6. Please let's discuss this one later, otherwise we are having too many irons in the fire. Also I'd like you to explain better why you moved Desktop Environment to X Desktop Environment. I consider it a superfluous change and would like to restore the previous title. The same goes for Window Manager and X Window Manager. Please discuss this kind of changes before performing them. More opinions are welcome.
-- Kynikos 08:22, 3 January 2012 (EST)
Finally, please, do not edit your posts in place, otherwise it's very very difficult to follow the discussion and even more to reply.
-- Kynikos 19:09, 15 January 2012 (EST)
>> please, do not edit your posts
Reposting whole lists wastes so much horizontal place :_; Ok, I will care more about readability.
>> why you moved...
Thanks for discussing this. I guess, I should explain:
curently this change may look as a bit superfluous as X is the only base of all major DEs, but this is subject to change due to Wayland development. There are also surprisingly huge number of Arch users experimenting with lightweight WMs and even framebuffer-based systems. Can such environments be considered "Desktop"? Without doubt, yes. Anyway, until Desktop Environment's contents change to something else than redirect to X Desktop Environment it is not so big deal, is it? And yes, in context of written, Window Manager currently describes X Window Managers, not, for example, ones compatible with Wayland or even console dvtm. --AlexanderR 21:12, 15 January 2012 (EST)
I do not think it's fair to change "desktop environments" in "X dekstop environments", because the page on the desktop environments must describe the various projects that are by definition "desktop environments", not because run under X or "Wayland." The same goes for "window manager". I think that this division only creates confusion and is redundant. Within the same article you can mention if a DE runs or less on "Wayland", and how to make it work must be described on the page of DE. Otherwise you risk having in the future some wiki, "Wayland dekstop environments", "X dekstop environments", "X kde", "Wayland KDE", etc. In "desktop environments" there is a table # Desktop_Environment Comparison_of_desktop_environments, add here, a voice on the support or not to X, Wayland, etc.Veleno 06:26, 16 January 2012 (EST)
>> ...must describe the various projects that are by definition "desktop environments"
Can you please specify this "definition"? The one that is currently present in Desktop_Environment is almost incorrect and relates to classic X-based DEs only.
>> you risk having in the future some wiki, "Wayland dekstop environments", "X dekstop environments", "X kde", "Wayland KDE"
There are already Wayland article with explicit instructions for kwin... Can it be considered the first sign of danger :) ? --AlexanderR 08:00, 16 January 2012 (EST)
First thing I admit it's not easy to follow this discussion and your edits, AlexanderR, but I also have to say that the idea of Template:Common Applications navigation is quite brilliant ^^ I liked it. However, please, I wouldn't like to repeat myself, do not edit your posts, just add new replies or even consider creating new discussions, like for all those News in the list. I'd like to ask you to remove the new additions to your old post and move them to a new discussion or even some subdiscussions (subsections) of this very discussion.
About the X/Wayland problem, I'd like not to "cross our bridges before coming to them": Wayland is still a marginal and experimental project, when we will start having more Wayland-related articles and some kind of conflict with X-related articles will actually rise we will change the titles appropriately. Until then, however, I'd stick with the previous policy where X is assumed unless stated otherwise.
-- Kynikos 19:10, 16 January 2012 (EST)
>> I admit it's not easy to follow this discussion and your edits
Sorry for this – I copied last questions to new discussions (and thanks for mentioning subsections).
>> I'd like not to "cross our bridges before coming to them"
Ok, I agree, such edits should at least follow improvements in articles instead of preceding them. I undone both. I guess, this thread can be safely removed now.
Before creating too many Common Applications subpages and navigation templates, perhaps we should first settle #Improving the title? -- pointone 23:04, 16 January 2012 (EST)
(Reopened) I guess we're too late for that... :) That would have been better indeed, I've replied to your answer to #Improving the title, let's make a decision and do the rename soon. -- Kynikos 07:31, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Summary of related changes


Core apps

Does mentioning core applications like more, less etc (like done in Commandline_Tools) make any sence? --AlexanderR 21:10, 16 January 2012 (EST)

See also: Core Utilities. -- pointone 23:13, 16 January 2012 (EST)
I added the "Pager" entry there quite recently as a replacement for the most article, which was just 1 line of text. Note that most is not a core application, I don't know if we should have a "Pagers" section in Common Applications... thoughts? -- Kynikos 07:49, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Classification troubles

Can "CD/DVD Burning Tools" be considered part of "Multimedia"? Should "Screen Capture" section be part of "Utilities" or "Multimedia"? --AlexanderR 21:10, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Eh I'm afraid we'll just have to establish a convention: I'd say Burning tools in Multimedia and Screen Capture in Utilities? Let's wait for more opinions. -- Kynikos 07:53, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Split up completely?

Just wondering if it would be better to completely split the article up into separate articles, rather than transcluding everything back in as templates. Perhaps just include links and a brief summary of each category in the top-level page, maybe something along the lines of:


Smaller individual pages would be nicer, because often I’m only interested in programs for a specific application, such as (in the past) Science#Electronics, and Multimedia#GUI players (audio). Even using the TOC, I think currently it’s too easy to get lost or overwhelmed. Vadmium 00:18, 26 January 2012 (EST).

I think the main problem here is that if I'm looking for a particular subcategory I have to guess under which main category it can be, while currently, with the comprehensive ToC, that task is easier. Possible compromise: maintain a "manual" Table of Contents in the top-level page, with links to the various subpages/subsections. Let's hear more opinions. -- Kynikos 07:53, 26 January 2012 (EST)

See also visibility

Does somebody have any idea on how to improve the visibility of the See also section? -- Kynikos 07:13, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Its probably not in good style, but could we add an article overview, and have an article summary section containing the see also links?--Leocp1 16:59, 23 January 2012 (EST)
@Leocp1 What links are you talking about? Wiki links already should be covered by Template:Article_summary_wiki), among others I'd prefer to see only important ones (like links to software home page, documentation, own wiki etc) included included in the template. --AlexanderR 19:11, 23 January 2012 (EST)
I've written a summary in the subsection below and added some other ideas: currently I think solution 4 may be the tidiest and best looking, otherwise I'd try solution 1 as a second choice. Please add your opinions there so we can make a better decision.
@AlexanderR We're talking about the See also links at the bottom of the article, not the links specific to each application, which should stay in the proper App template and/or the related wiki article (I'm not sure if that's what you meant).
-- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Who in the world uses this links at all? Wikipedia does not have any links at the bottom of articles except proofs of written or ones in categories templates. We do not provide proofs.. Or do we? And it would be great to see statistics of clicks on such links... --AlexanderR 08:01, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Not sure if I'm on the same page as you, but many Wikipedia articles have 'External links' section at the bottom, below the references and above the 'Related articles' part. Have a look at e.g. article. It has 'See also', 'References' and 'External links' sections. -- Karol 08:43, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Ideas so far

  1. Move all see-also links to article summary --Leocp1 16:59, 23 January 2012 (EST)
    • PROS:
      • Currently style compliant (but see related con) -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
    • CONS:
      • There's little room for long URLs and/or descriptions, unless we want to see ugly line wrapping. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
      • It's possible that in the future the style for article summaries will be reformed not to allow external links anymore, requiring them to be in See also sections only. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
  2. Move only important see-also links to article summary --AlexanderR 19:11, 23 January 2012 (EST)
    • PROS:
      • Same as 1.
      • No problems with line wrapping. --AlexanderR 23:48, 3 February 2012 (EST)
      • In many articles links to site/Wikipedia/etc. are already located in random places in text. Placing them all into single template at the top will hardly make "See also" section less visible than now. --AlexanderR 23:48, 3 February 2012 (EST)
    • CONS:
      • Same as 1.
      • The See also section will be even more "buried" at the bottom of the article, becoming practically useless. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
  3. Find a new name instead of "See also", move the section at the top, as the first section (and change its layout, e.g. use 2 columns?). -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
    • PROS:
      • Links are immediately accessible and there's room for long URLs and descriptions. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
    • CONS:
      • Incosistent with the other articles, may look ugly. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
  4. Link to #See also from the introduction, with a sentence that enhances its visibility. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
    • PROS:
      • Style compliant. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
      • The main content of the article is still shown first. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)
    • CONS:
      • Links are not evident at a glance unlike the solutions above. -- Kynikos 07:38, 24 January 2012 (EST)