Talk:List of applications

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


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)
As I see, CD/DVD Burning Tools are already a part of Multimedia. Screen Capture, I think, must be in Utilities.
And there's another question from russian users. OCR software isn't a reader or viewer, so it must be before or after 1.9 Note taking organizers with corresponding number 1.9 or 1.10
UPD. Also, there's a good idea to add in this section some (or all) progs from Optical Character Recognition -- Kycok (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Um... "Utilities" is practically a default category for applications that don't fit anywhere else: since "Screen capture" is kind of related to "Multimedia", it would probably be better to leave it there (thus changing the opinion I expressed above, I think I'm allowed, after more than 2 years :P ).
I'm quite neutral about moving "OCR software" in the tree: it is related to "Scans", but maybe not so closely. I'm also neutral about merging Optical Character Recognition there: actually that article doesn't contain anything except for a short list of applications, so it could indeed be merged.
Anyone with a stronger position on the topic? -- Kynikos (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So, I've made corresponding changes in Documents section. Also I've merged Pdf and DjVu, because many progs in Pdf works with DjVu. I've deleted tool fbdjvu, because, as I see, it's merged with fbpdf.
Let's talk if there's another opinions about my changes -- Kycok (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well done, except you forgot to redirect Optical Character Recognition, fixed now :) -- Kynikos (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted a AUR package for sendanywhereAUR, a cross-platform p2p file sharing utility (similar to Pushbullet, but with standalone software client). I am not sure under which section I should include it. It is definitely not FTP based or bittorrent based. Should it go under Downloaders or Communications; also, shall I start a new subsection, maybe called p2p file sharing/pushing? Jadelord (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just created List_of_applications/Internet#Other_P2P_networks, I think that's the best place for the moment. — Kynikos (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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:

This page has various categories of programs and points to lists of programs in those categories. It is a useful starting point for finding a program for a specific application. [Introduce console versus graphical.]

Internet including network configuration, and clients or browsers for web sites, FTP, file sharing, chat and email messaging, web feeds, and microblogging

Multimedia including viewers, players and editors for raster, vector, 3D, CAD, audio and video, GUI capture, systems for accessing audio devices, audio CD rippers, and e-book programs.

Utilities, which covers package management, file managers including space usage, compression and merge tools, optical disc burning, clipboards, GUI taskbars.

Documents: readers for printable files like PDFs, office suites, word processors, spreadsheets, text search, OCR

Security: firewalls; file, network and log monitoring, scanning and analysis; backup

Games: native and emulators

Science: calculators, visualisation, design, programming environments and other tools for maths, chemistry, biology, astronomy, electronics and physics

Other: note taking and scheduling; translation; desktop environments and window managers; terminals; OS monitors; text editors

See also [other general lists of programs]

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)

IRC clients: Conspire fails to build

Moving here Conspire from the IRC clients section, since it's reported to fail to build and it had been commented in the list (bad practice):

  • Conspire — Lightweight, simple, and powerful || conspire-clientAUR

-- Kynikos 17:02, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Multi-Protocol Downloader section

Similarly to command shells, a downloader section is missing. Here we find good the same one: pyLoad#Alternatives JDownloader#Alternatives. Plus aria2, curl, wget, kget should be added. Is it ok? Could you point me more downloaders? As kget and aria2 would be doubled we can do a "Multi-Protocol Downloader" section like List_of_Applications#Multi-Protocol Clients and delete original entries liting supported protocols. -- Flu (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Good plan, +1. -- Kynikos (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of things?

Is there any special order to these lists?

For instance, under "Internet" it would seem more intuitive to begin with "Network Managers", then "Browsers", then a section for "Downloaders". and so on. Idomeneo1 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Intuitive" is subjective, I'd just simply use alphabetical order, although I know it's not used anywhere at the moment... -- Kynikos (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Call it chronological? i.e. an order in which people (especially beginners) would think of setting things up - network, browser, communication, downloads, media etc.
The problem with alphabetical lists is that even if we decide on "correct" terms for things, some people will, i.e., look for 'console', and others for 'terminal'.
Idomeneo1 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Eheh a similar objection could be made for the "chronological" order, which, as I said, is subjective, e.g. some people may want to install messaging apps before p2p or vice versa. Maybe what you really mean is a "dependency" order, i.e. if in a group of sections there's one that lists applications (e.g. network managers) that may be necessary for applications in other groups to work, then put it at the top. I can agree with that, also because other sections like the various "Other" should instead better be kept at the bottom. All the in-between sections, though, should be sorted alphabetically: the problem of synonyms would affect any kind of odering we may choose, and in general it affects all kinds of word lists (e.g. dictionaries), so users are used to dealing with it.
If you're willing to do the reordering, please do it in several little edits, not a single big one.
-- Kynikos (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, having "Other" at the end is exactly the kind of order I mean.
Idomeneo1 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

List dead projects or not?

Kino is dead, it doesn't even have a maintainer in the AUR. Is it OK to remove dead-but-still-working applications from the list in the wiki? -- Karol (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't really know what's best to do, but if the application is confirmed to be still working, keeping it in the list should be the default action until somebody proves that listing it is counterproductive in some way. Of course a note about the EOL should be added if restored. -- Kynikos (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The aterm project website has been directing people to use urxvt instead since 2008. I've noticed quite a few projects in the maintainer-doesn't-even-advise-using-it category on this page and I don't see what purpose they serve. Ryne Everett (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the apps whose upstream maintainers explicitly discourage using them can indeed be removed, possibly making sure that any indicated alternative is already present in this list, adding it otherwise. Just note that, taking your post literally, "not advising to" is different from "discouraging to" (the aterm case falls indeed in the latter case) :) Please state the reason for removing applications from the list using the edit summary. -- Kynikos (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose a deprecation warning, especially in the security subpage. there are numerous projects listed, that might still work, but are not developed anymore. this renders them insecure, as malware recognition needs to keep up with developement. This concerns rkhunter, chkrootkit and also the currently unlisted unhide. Fordprefect (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's too soon to talk on warnings like that when there's hundreds of dead AUR packages on the list... -- Alad (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, for packages meant to improve security concerning malware, frequent updates are no bonus, but crucial. a simple note would help users distinguish more and less active projects. Fordprefect (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
At least rkhunter is still in the official repos, and John Horne, the current main developer is still answering posts in the mailing list. — Kynikos (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Where should "full-stack" scanning software go?

Some software (two examples below, I can add a few more when I have times) provide some set of scanner/camera frontend, image processing, document layout analysis, OCR frontend and document writer. We have categories for almost all of these, but where should software that smoothly incorporates all the above go?

  • Scan Tailor — Image procesing, document layout analyzer, document writer || scantailor-git
  • gscan2pdf — Scans, runs an OCR engine, minor post-processing, creates a document. || gscan2pdfAUR

I had some difficulty finding software that did what I expected/desired, so perhaps others are too. Scientific29 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ScanTailor is not a "full-stack" software, it does just the image processing. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What is Xpra, really?

Where should Xpra go? Technically, remote desktop may be applicable, but it's not limited to remote stuff. You can run it locally on another X display.

Technically, all Xpra is is some persistent X sessions that you can attach to and detach from at any time. It's not really a remote desktop thing. Dillebidum (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it have to go anywhere? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Technically, yes. This is the list of applications, so why not? Xpra is a "screen for X". That way, the least vague thing to do would be to split terminal multiplexers into a multiplexers category and there would be two subcategories: terminal and X11. Xpra would, obviously be in X11. I say least vague, since screen is a multiplexer, yet Xpra isn't. The only thing it has in common with screen is the persistent sessions. Dillebidum (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It's just a list of applications, not list of all applications. The point is that there might be other, more appropriate places on the wiki, e.g. improving Allow a program to continue after logoff. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Add Org-mode as a markup language?

Org-mode is a markup language, but it is tied to the Emacs text editor. Any editor can produce valid org markup, but at present, only Emacs can export that markup to pdf, .tex, html, etc.

Org-mode is such a great markup language, but I wonder if being tied to the Emacs means we should omit it. What do ya'll think?

—This unsigned comment is by JoshuaBranson (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2017‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Scope of the page

It seems that this page is becoming a bloated index for all possible "lists" on the wiki, or maybe even the whole wiki itself. There are other pages to help users find what they are looking for, e.g. Table of contents, General recommendations and of course the full-text search. Therefore I think that the List of applications should be a comprehensible list of the most common categories of application software and not a comprehensive list of everything. I believe that the index pages can have separate targets and cooperate with each other to provide a complete picture instead of overlapping and hindering readability by linking to each other.

I propose the following:

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've undone most of the structural changes to List of applications (starting with [1]) due to their one-sided nature. A radical restructure of one of the most popular wiki articles requires a consensus that isn't (yet) reached here. -- Alad (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
About Display managers et al., perhaps we should just have a general header such as "Graphical user interface" and link to General recommendations#Graphical user interface. The idea is that the sections in question contain little more than single wiki links and as such add TOC entries to little benefit. As touched upon in #Radical alternative, a comprehensive TOC is already served by Table of Contents and there's no need for this page to compete. We could remind users of this by placing a link to Table of contents somewhere at the top.
Other sections such as List_of_applications/Other#Window_tilers could further be moved to their respective articles (here Window manager) to have all information in one place.
If this approach works out, we could use it to reduce List of applications/Other and List of applications/Utilities in size and merge the articles accordingly, as a compromise until a better approach is agreed upon in #Radical alternative. -- Alad (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that "Graphical user interface" is too general, it might attract items or crosslinks to other sections for anything with a GUI. We might call it "Custom desktop environment" or something like that to group List_of_applications#Taskbars_.2F_panels_.2F_docks, List_of_applications#Application_launchers, List_of_applications#Wallpaper_setters, List_of_applications#Virtual_desktop_pagers, List_of_applications#Logout_dialogue and probably also List_of_applications#Screen_lockers. It could contain links to General recommendations, Window manager etc. but I wouldn't merge them anywhere until the recategorization discussed in #Radical alternative is finished. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
See [2], [3].
I've kept List of applications/Other#Window managers, List of applications/Other#Window tilers and List_of_applications/Other#Taskbars_.2F_panels_.2F_docks (latter could use a simpler name?) under the same List of applications#Desktop environments header because they're equally a part of a Desktop environment just like e.g. an application launcher is. We can always remove those items later on a restructure. -- Alad (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Some more candidates:
So yes, I've also taken on the hard task of properly classifying entries in the "Other" categories. Though I would say completing this will make discussing proper alternatives easier. -- Alad (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Radical alternative

Warning: extreme brainstorming, join at your own risk.

I agree with Lahwaacz about the fact that this page is becoming bloated and overlapping with the other index pages. However I also think that the very existence of this article (and its subsections) encourages Idomeneo1's approach, and honestly I don't think it's Simple anymore to understand what to keep here and what not, what to interlink where and what not etc., any solution still looks a bit arbitrary to me.

I was thinking, perhaps we could kill this page completely and merge the various sections in the appropriate Category pages, taking the chance to improve the Category tree, possibly also creating empty categories if needed, which would function as placeholders in that case, or each Category could still contain a main section and some subsections. I think that our current Table of contents already has some resemblance with the ToC of this article, so that scope overlapping/duplication may be the root cause of the parent discussion. Categories can also have multiple parents, which would address the current problem of having to interlink sections of this article with each other. Another advantage is that users would get more used to look into the Category page of an article, not only to find related articles, but now also to find related software that may not have wiki articles. Another advantage is that when creating an article about a piece of software it's already clear where to categorize it.

Disadvantages: we lose the ability to see all the applications in the same page. (and...?)

Last thing, I think that this idea would look the best if the app lists were changed to tables, as we discussed a long time ago in Talk:List of games and now I tried in User:Kynikos/App. Template:App can be changed to create a table row very easily, but I'd also like to discuss restructuring it as shown at the bottom of User:Kynikos/App#Terminal emulators, which IMO gives info less redundantly.

Enough :) — Kynikos (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Currently we have a rule that if category A has a subcategory B, pages in B cannot be categorized also in A. I'd imagine that the application lists/tables would follow similar rule to avoid duplication, so we'd also lose the ability to see all applications in category A on the same page. Depending on how the actual categorization would look like, this might be important disadvantage - consider e.g. the subsections of List_of_applications#File_sharing.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that viewing the whole List of applications#File sharing section in the same page is so useful; seeing its section structure in the ToC is useful, but that would be preserved in the automated category tree. As I wrote, we could allow subsections in Category pages, for example to keep non-specific distinctions like console/graphical or client/server. We could also instruct to read section headings in Category pages and show them in the generated ToC (perhaps only under Category:Applications). Finally, it wouldn't be a violation of the DRY principle if we also generated pages that collate the contents of some Categories and their descendants, of course protecting them from manual editing. — Kynikos (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, Category:Applications currently has only 2 levels of subcategories so I think the problem mentioned above does not apply. If more levels appear in the future, I'd imagine it would be for a reason and even then it might not be so terrible. The parent tables or their captions might even contain a link to the subcategory tables to make them more visible instead of duplicating them. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
On third thought, we might even start with splitting up this very page, i.e. do #Split up completely? + an autogenerated ToC list of sections on all subpages. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of #Split up completely?, it works as an improvement and a compromise for me. — Kynikos (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that for applications which have a wiki page, browsing Category:Applications instead of this page should give basically the same results (maybe some small subsections are squashed together, but that's not a problem). To make things simple(r), we might just say that topics which have most pages outside of Category:Applications don't belong here and should be linked externally. Usually such topics have an introduction page, such as Server, Xorg or Desktop environments. There would be a huge problem with "Utilities" and "Security" though. Also this approach would probably not cut the bloat enough.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I think that trying to find a clear rule to define what belongs in this page or not is too hard, there are too many blurred cases, as also seen in the parent discussion. IMHO the bloat problem of this article can't be reduced to only some sections in List of applications/Workspace: I like your "I think that the List of applications should be a comprehensible list of the most common categories of application software and not a comprehensive list of everything", but to me "List of applications" practically does sound like "List of everything", which is why I say that the problem is the whole article itself. — Kynikos (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Well think that we can cut it in halves: I don't see many problems with List of applications/Internet, List of applications/Multimedia, List of applications/Documents and List of applications/Science - they are all with individual sections or even list entries, but the overall scope is clear. On the other hand, most of the "applications" listed on the remaining pages, List of applications/Workspace, List of applications/Utilities, List of applications/Security and List of applications/Other, fall simply under "Utilities". From what the current page looks like, I think it's roughly like "Desktop utilities", "System administration utilities", "Security utilities" and (shrugs) "Other utilities", but there are many overlaps so it's probably not very useful to make this differentiation and it would be better to call them just "Utilities". Btw. I think that the category tree has generally the same problem with arbitrary decisions: somehow I don't see a common idea behind Category:Command shells under Category:Applications and Category:Desktop environments under Category:System administration. So that's the problem - do you see a way out? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's use the branch above about the destiny of this article.
About the categories, as you say the problem is similar, I don't think there's much to do other than solve case by case: I'm in favor of moving Category:Command shells and also Category:Status monitoring and notification and Category:Terminal emulators under Category:System administration. Another thing that I'd do is rename Category:Networking to Category:Network administration, and move only to Category:Applications what doesn't fit there anymore, in particular Category:Internet applications, Category:Telephony and voice and probably also Category:Remote desktop, plus possibly recategorize some articles which are currently directly under Category:Networking. At that stage I would also consider renaming Category:System administration to Category:Host administration to remark the ideal complementarity of the two *_administration categories.
Kynikos (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The category tree / table of contents lists wiki pages, not apps - an app would have to have a special wiki page just to be mentioned, and even then, there is old cruft in the wiki pages as well. And that is much harder to clean up than a list.
I definitely agree the categories need improvement.
--Idomeneo1 (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably I didn't explain it very clearly, but my idea would be to merge the various lists here (turned into tables) in the editable part of Category pages, e.g. Category:Getting and installing Arch, so applications wouldn't need a wiki page to be mentioned there. — Kynikos (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I like tables, especially sortable ones, though I'm not sure how they simplify things.
An option could be to break the lists down into smaller sections, which could then be included in their respective wiki pages, as well as in a master list-of-apps page.
An issue I see with the current Table of Contents is that it is entirely manually structured - no headings. How is a category tree "automated"? Does this automation preserve included lists/tables/cross-links?
--Idomeneo1 (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Tables in this case more than simplifying would reduce bloat, since many entries would be reduced to one line (at least on wide screens), and the various fields (name, description, website, packages) would be neatly and rationally separated, making it much easier to scan for the needed info. Tables are also a more standard and often preferred way to list and compare applications e.g. on Wikipedia.
About breaking the lists further and merging them into specific wiki pages, I'd be in favor if you want to discuss specific cases. However what is merged into other articles can't be duplicated in a "master list-of-apps page".
Table of contents is completely generated by a bot, there's no manual structuring. I'm not sure what you mean with your question about preserving included lists etc.
Kynikos (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Your User:Kynikos/App trial is a great approach, but I'm unconvinced tables being a good format for this information. If you look at the sections, each table has different column widths (for a reason, but not neat). There are too many other variances: the current template app allows for short or longer descriptions, a single bot comment may shift column width for a whole table, etc. Worst: Even on a wide screen (which can't be a precondition in my view) table data would always break URLs, which is neither readable nor a neat, positive presentation. --Indigo (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Just clarifying that my plan was to eventually switch to the format at the bottom of User:Kynikos/App#Terminal_emulators, which doesn't display urls explicitly. Other modifications in the 3-column table solution that I see as advantages would be to resolve the current Template:App's redundancy of always requiring to show the app's packages even when there is a dedicated article which already lists them. However I acknowledge that the idea of using tables isn't attracting much positive feedback, so ok, I'll keep it for the future generations ^^ — Kynikos (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Not displaying URLs would help, yes. Still I don't believe we would be able to make column width look neat across sections. Nested tables (for neatness) are not an option re maintainability. I see your point about showing duplication with the packages, but particularly in this list it can also be quite helpful to click through to content of alternative packages directly. It's not that a dedicated article would have immediate info on that. --Indigo (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
What I was suggesting was to break these lists up further into smaller "include" pages, such as Browsers, Window managers, File managers, etc etc, on separate, single "include" pages that could be simply "included" on the respective wiki pages, as well as the category pages, as well as the list of apps. This would provide simplicity, visibility, and coherence, so a whole bunch of app lists don't need to be maintained separately.
--Idomeneo1 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm every time that you added, split or removed an included page you'd have to remember to update all the articles that include it, and also you wouldn't be able to include section headings because their levels would have to adapt to the host articles, so it wouldn't be very easy to maintain. — Kynikos (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be true of any new wiki pages. The idea is to break the lists up into logical units that could be included on multiple pages and categories. Then, when you update the actual lists, such as fixing/removing broken links, you would only need to do it once, instead of editing multiple pages for every list edit.
--Idomeneo1 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think to a large extent the app list in this article is it's own meta information, and that diminishes the more we break it down into smaller (&detached) units. When I try to apply your idea to e.g. List of applications#Screen lockers (same goes for "file manager", "browsers" examples to me), it's hard to picture where we would want to include that list but easy to imagine it can be helpful to link to from, say, a window manager article. Even if that "screen locker" unit would list 100% applicable packages for window manager A and B, is it really that helpful to include the full list in A and B? Likewise I don't see how that section can be broken down into more units, such attempt is bound to be very arbitrary in every case. Not simple. What would be a practical example of an include unit with two targets? --Indigo (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Categories pose an important way to navigate wiki articles. Placing long lists of applications (that mostly don't have wiki articles) at the top of category pages would mean that you often have to scroll down category pages to reach their index and thus preventing you from quickly navigating the wiki by categories. –Larivact (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

TeX is general purpose and markup

TeX is not specific to scientific documents. Its most common use is in mathematics, which is not necessarily 'scientific'. But it is also used in the humanities (e.g. in philosophy, linguistics), business schools (to my surprise), for writing novels, for cookbooks and for drawing ducks, cats and witches. Putting it under 'Scientific Documents' is misleading. Fair enough to point out that it is more common in mathematics and the sciences, if you insist (this is probably true, though I don't have stats), but the suggestion that this is its (sole) function is just wrong.

It is primarily a document mark-up language, but is oddly not mentioned in the section on text mark-up at all. This is particularly weird since some of the tools there (e.g. pandoc) are commonly used in conjunction with TeX, as well as other formats.

I would suggest either merging it with the mark-up section or, probably better, put a link there and change the title to just 'TeX Documents'.

--cfr (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)