Talk:List of photo and video apps

Inclusion criteria?

What should be the inclusion for the list?

There are countless photography and videography apps so a proper inclusion criteria is of importance here.

I'm not sure if there's too many apps to include if it's restricted to a specified number (e.g. 1 or 2) of reliable sources reporting about it?

So instead a Wikipedia article for the app could be required.

--Fixuture (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

To do list for cleanip:

• remove all prices per WP:NOPRICES
• unlink bold title per WP:BOLDTITLE
• if the criteria is "notable" then it should say it's a list of all photo software with Wikipedia articles. They are in Category:Photo software.
• ...so a complete list is not insurmountable. Complete it and remove the "incomplete list" disclaimer
• remove external links in body and use footnote per WP:ELPOINTS
• The style "MixBit | MixBit's website lets users create dynamic shared videos" is redundant, saying the name twice in a row. Just say "MixBit | website lets users create dynamic shared videos.
• sort the entries in some kind of order, alphabetic or chronological or something, not random
• add number of downloads or user base size
• discontinued apps should be marked as discontinued, or removed if criteria is only for extant apps

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Remove all external links to Google Playstore and iTunes. WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking about how this page could be improved. However I'd oppose removing prices as WP:NOPRICES is no policy and the prices very useful for readers. They are a crucial information to the entries and allow for comparison.

Also I know that category and the page isn't just about those apps with articles but about all notable photography and video apps - many of them don't yet have an article.

(also @Ajf773:) Furthermore I strongly oppose removing the external links to the apps in the table. That's a main use-point of the list. I want Wikipedia to be useful and thrive so please don't be too quick in judging how the list should look like. So for instance let's imagine a real-world example of this page's use: some person interested in creative photography or so might have opened up this page on his smartphone-browser as he'd like to find new interesting apps to create innovative art, he then would sort the table by the apps available to his OS and skim the description and screenshots of the 3 most interesting ones via a very convenient click on the link which he allows him to quickly open up the app without any hassle in the small phone-browser.

Those are table-cells and it's fine like it is.

I'll work out the other todos later if nobody else does.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'no prices' essay is based on the policy wp:NOTCATALOG: "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers." The two uses you want this article to be put to are specifically prohibited by the policy. Not a price comparison service, and not an internet link directory. If we were to ignore policy today and leave the list this way, tomorrow some other editor will come along and fix it. The only way it will remain in violation of policy for very long is if nobody is reading it, which is also not useful. There are other wikis that welcome shopping guides or directories. Wikipedia is not all things, it's only an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guide. Providing prices pertaining to be a software catalogue is in clear breach of that policy. The linkfarm policy is also self explanatory. Ajf773 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)