Talk:Comparison of Start menu replacements for Windows 8

External links in article body (Copied discussion from my talk page to article talk page)

Hi, A Quest For Knowledge. I noticed you removed a tag that I put on the article List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. I placed the template because the links do not seem to meet the criteria at WP:ELYES and in fact some of them lead to promotional product pages (see WP:ELNO). If you disagree please let me know! --Noiratsi (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, at first I thought the tag was placed there by a bot. I'm not sure if I would have reverted if I knew it was a person. But yes, I do disagree. I've seen such lists before where the company website was listed as link. I can't remember any of them off the top of my head, but a search reveals List of software for molecular mechanics modeling that does this. There are others, too. Granted List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 isn't in a table format yet, but that's something that can be done later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:EL is pretty clear on this: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

"Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), 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."

Also WP:LINKFARM says "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories..."

You can note that WP:EL is a guideline, but WP:LINKFARM is a policy that must be adhered to. So if other articles have external links in the article text they need fixing, not emulating. Since you reverted my removal of the external links against this policy, I would ask you to revert yourself and restore the page in compliance with Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Official links are allowed in articles. So, for example, the articles on Microsoft, Google, Apple all have links to their respective web sites. See WP:ELOFFICIAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but official links are those which meet two criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. (my emphasis)

This article is not about an individual item but rather about a category of items, so WP:ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply. If the individual items (i.e. start menu replacements) listed are notable in their own right they can have their own individual article and that article may contain a single external link to the official page. At least, this is how I understand the guideline. As Ahunt points out, this article in its current form goes expressly against WP:LINKFARM. --Noiratsi (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tro agree with User:Noiratsi, the official link format is widely used in WP articles, but as that explains this is for one official link listed in the "External links" section for a single topic. What we have here is exactly a Linkfarm and by policy it has to be fixed. The article falls afoul of WP:SPAM right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia had articles for each of these programs, every single article would have links to their official site per WP:ELOFFICIAL. But since we don't have articles for every single one, the official link should go here. But either way, the net effect is the same: each program gets an official link. This is agreed upon policy. So, if the net effect is the same, how can you justify making the article less informative to our readers? Which brings me to my second point:
• Our purpose in creating this encyclopedia is to serve our readers. I have yet to see a justification why providing our readers with a less informative article benefits our readers. Would anyone like to take a stab at answering that one?
• Finally, as I pointed out earlier, other 'list' articles have links to each official web site. For example, there's List of software for molecular mechanics modeling. Yet, I've seen no one complain at List of software for molecular mechanics modeling about this. Why is that?

Look, I'm completely open to the idea that we should have a community-wide RfC on whether 'list' articles should have links to official web sites. Can someone start such an RfC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an RfC - we already have a policy that prohibits exactly this. You are quite correct normally a list like this would have wikilinks to the articles on each item listed. The fact that, with one exception, the Wikipedia articles don't exist says to me that the topics are non-notable. So what we have here is a list of non-notable subjects. To me that means that this list is non-notable itself and that the article itself should probably not exist, although I was willing to go with redlinks for a while to see if articles were created. To answer your question: why do some other articles have lists of external links in the text? Because they haven't been fixed yet to conform to policy and they need to be. The fundamental point is that Wikipedia articles are not just lists of external links, like this one is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As Ahunt says, external links policy is already pretty clear, if a little confusing at times. I second the view that List of software for molecular mechanics modeling and other similar articles need some attention and that they would need most if not all of their external links removed to meet policy. If they then become lists of redlinks, they may be eligible for deletion. It is never a good argument to say "such and such an article does it, therefore it's okay". Here are some links that outline the policy or guidelines editors have agreed on.

From links to be avoided:

External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Exceptions are rare.

[...] one should generally avoid [...] stand-alone lists [...] composed mainly of external links.

From What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia articles are not [...] mere collections of external links [...]

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. (my emphasis)

[consider] a well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable.

From the purpose of lists (navigation):

Lists contain internally linked terms.

I think this is fairly clear. An RfC isn't required to help us figure out what the guideline is here, but might be useful if you wanted to try and change the guideline. --Noiratsi (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As regards the article itself, I think what has emerged from this discussion is that it's a candidate for deletion. I'm nominating it accordingly and I'll note this discussion in the nomination. --Noiratsi (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it for deletion, given the above conclusions I think that is the best place to have a complete discussion on the fate of this article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have a policy/guideline which explicitly states that WP:ELOFFICIAL links are not allowed in list articles for items where we haven't yet created an individual article yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always understood WP:ELOFFICIAL to refer only to (and sanction only) links in single-topic articles. If you interpret it differently, perhaps we should consider discussing it and rewording it. It also only specifically mentions organizations, websites, people and "other entities" (which I agree isn't too clear). Which particlar passage is it that suggests to you that it's okay to have official links in lists of software? Since WP:ELOFFICIAL is in effect suggesting an exception to the general 'no links in articles' rule, it's a question of whether it does specifically allow these links, not about whether it doesn't. --Noiratsi (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Do you actually have a policy/guideline which explicitly states that WP:ELOFFICIAL links are not allowed in list articles for items where we haven't yet created an individual article yet?" Yes, WP:ELOFFICIAL specifically says that: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." The subject of the article is "List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8" so any official links included would have to be about a "List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8", not the individual members of that list. Also as per that same page "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section." So they still don't go in the article text, they go in the info box (if there is one and in this case there isn't) and otherwise in the external links section. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asking for rule which explicitly states that WP:ELOFFICIAL links are not allowed in list articles for items where we haven't yet created an individual article yet, not your personal interpretation of why you think some rules means that. Since no one has provided such a rule, I'm left to conclude that it doesn't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I have quoted it but you keep on with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I guess we are done. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this discussion isn't getting us anywhere. The deletion discussion will decide the fate of this article; as for external links I am looking into how the guidelines can be made more concrete and I'll let you know if a discussion gets started. --Noiratsi (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that there's been plenty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the very beginning. But there's nothing I can do about that. Heck, I deserve a barnstar for all the hard work I've put into this article, not a hard time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Found that explicit rule you were looking for. The very last item in the list of links normally to be avoided: "Stand-alone lists or embedded lists composed mainly of external links. These lists are primarily intended as internal navigational aids, not a directory of sites on the web." DoctorKubla (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And the very first sentence says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". Hence the ambiguity. Official links allow our readers to find more information about the article's topic. No one has, in my opinion, been able to adequately justify why we should have less informative articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The many pages about external links already explain why external links in general are a bad idea. "Less informative articles" is one way to describe that, I suppose—but it is the general consensus of the Wikipedia community. As I've said before, the guidelines being discussed here are possible exceptions to that. I agree that there is ambiguity as to the meaning of official links. I am currently trying to get some clarity on that at Wikipedia talk:External links (and also re-reading all the policies and guidelines I can find) but I'd suggest that for now it's best to allow the two discussions to run separately. --Noiratsi (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity here. As you have quoted "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" - the article's subject is "List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8" so if there is an official list of "List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8" then that can be linked. The individual items on the list are not the subject of the article. It is like the article on the Ford Mustang linking to the company's official page on the Mustang (permitted) as opposed to providing external links to makers of the tires, floormats, etc (not permitted). People could argue that it would help Mustang owner to buy floormats to have those links there, but they are spam links and are not allowed on Wikipedia. It is not a case of being less informative, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of links to things people can buy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained this several times. Why it's not getting through, I don't know. But I doubt that explaining it again will do any good. So if you really want to understand why, I suggest you go back and reread what I already wrote. The information you're looking for is already there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maximum PC forum post

I found a forum post with titled "A List Of Start Menu Replacements for Windows 8"[1] that has several Start Menu replacements that should be integrated in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The forum post itself is of course WP:SPS, but the links in it are usable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added them all to the list. I'll start looking for sources later today. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added secondary sources to the newly added items. Unfortunately, I was unable to find sources for these items, so I'm moving them to talk:

• BringBack 8
• Handy Start Menu
• Ex7forW8
• Spesoft Windows 8 Start Menu
• Start Button for Windows 8
• StartFinity
• Start Menu X
• Taskbar Classic Start Menu
• Tweaks.com Start for Windows 8
• Viva Start Menu
• Wentutu Start Menu for Windows 8
• Win8StartButton

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a source for Start Button for Windows 8. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a source for BringBack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a source for Handy Start Menu. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a source for Win8StartButton. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Another editor found a source for Ex7forW8.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the article use a table format for the list?

I was wondering if we should change the list's format to use a table, sort of like this:List of computer viruses. If so, what columns should we have? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. I'd go with three columns: Name, Developer, Price. Maybe a Notes column if you want to give a bit more detail about each app. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would save the effort until the deletion discussion is complete, because right now the list is more likely to be deleted than not and the work would be wasted. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure? Not one single person has even provided a reason why the article should be deleted. AQFK (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the closing admin is more likely to just count votes, rather than consider the validity of the "delete" arguments (almost all of which are based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of policy). I think it's a good idea to keep working on the article while the discussion's underway; it might swing the vote in your favour. (The nominator's already commented that the addition of a lead makes the article more credible). DoctorKubla (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not supposed to count votes. If they do, I'll take this to WP:Deletion review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

An alternative to a table would be to do the list in paragraph format. For example:

Classic Shell Consul senserit cu doctus deserunt repudiandae sed, fugit rationibus complectitur nam in. Eu mea ponderum probatus, et nam elit definiebas consequuntur. Ea paulo detracto sit, ne sea vitae persecuti definiebas. Altera deserunt te eos.

IOBit StartMenu8 Virtute eum, vis blandit appareat et. Stet tota sea ne. Mei ipsum gloriatur ad. Quo quis dolorem urbanitas an. Te nonumes veritus eam, in atqui lucilius vel. Eam posse debitis splendide te, ius id meis ipsum consulatu. Virtute eum, vis blandit appareat et. Stet tota sea ne. Mei ipsum gloriatur ad. Quo quis dolorem urbanitas an. Te nonumes veritus eam, in atqui lucilius vel. Eam posse debitis splendide te, ius id meis ipsum consulatu.

Pokki Pericula usu an, qui illud concludaturque ei. Postea deterruisset ex sea. Te stet commodo fierent sea. Meis voluptaria elaboraret est eu, sea ut minim oblique inermis. Mea dicant perpetua intellegebat cu, esse simul ad eum, id vix adhuc vocibus. Virtute eum, vis blandit appareat et. Stet tota sea ne. Mei ipsum gloriatur ad. Quo quis dolorem urbanitas an. Te nonumes veritus eam, in atqui lucilius vel. Eam posse debitis splendide te, ius id meis ipsum consulatu.

Power8 Omnesque quaerendum, ludus constituam in has, vidisse aliquip deleniti usu ex. Assum similique eos ne. Persius eruditi adolescens no qui, causae indoctum mei et, eum graeci delenit maiestatis ut. Eum te delectus aliquando. Habeo facer moderatius ut pri, vitae veniam mollis ei mei. Virtute eum, vis blandit appareat et. Stet tota sea ne. Mei ipsum gloriatur ad. Quo quis dolorem urbanitas an. Te nonumes veritus eam, in atqui lucilius vel. Eam posse debitis splendide te, ius id meis ipsum consulatu.

Retro UI Pro Veniam, nisl assentior necessitatibus duo ea, amet offendit consequuntur id has. Usu ex erat mandamus suscipiantur. Vis simul iriure indoctum ut. An pro eros falli quando, velit graece mea eu, summo audire nostrud nam in. Virtute eum, vis blandit appareat et. Stet tota sea ne. Mei ipsum gloriatur ad. Quo quis dolorem urbanitas an. Te nonumes veritus eam, in atqui lucilius vel. Eam posse debitis splendide te, ius id meis ipsum consulatu.

What does everyone think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Or a description list, using ; and : formatting? (as at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Description (definition, association) lists; sorry for epically long link ^^). I think before choosing what kind of list though we need to work out what kind of information the list needs to present. Somebody suggested a comparison between the products; a table is definitely better for that. --Noiratsi (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed bullet list to table.

I've converted the bullet list to a table format.[3] I could use some help in filling out the columns. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to Add Programs

Can you add "All Programs" by Openview Design [4] to List? Although it is not a full Start Menu, It does not eliminate the start button in Windows 8.1 but provides a quick way to access all non-metro programs - same as Windows 7 - Start Menu - All Programs 71.36.146.177 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Something is dodgy with Classic Windows Start Menu links

Not sure if this is the place to bring this up... The links associated with "Classic Windows Start Menu" in the list appear to be dodgy. They link to some kind of fashion page, which is not what I was looking for. I can't actually find any reference to Classic Windows Start Menu by a SourceCodeBoy in a quick Google search. I think this might be a spam link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcelcat (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hello, Maxcelcat. I confirm the link is problematic. For the time being, I replaced it with a Softpedia link. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Pokki bias?

This article seems to be heavily Pokki-centric. Perhaps it would be better to move that part of the discussion to the page for Pokki's author, notorious adware vendor SweetLabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.10.5 (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of Start menu replacements for Windows 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150802231115/http://1b.xeesa.com/ to http://1b.xeesa.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)