Talk:List of password managers

Do they HAVE to have articles on Wikipedia?

What is the reasoning for removing the entries already included in the table? There are plenty of lists that do no contain only items with their own articles. Just look here, here, here, or plenty of others in the comparison and list categories. Why not include as many entries as people are willing to source info for? There's no reason not to. It is a comparison/list after all. I'm adding those back. I invite discussion on this, but at this point "nn" just isn't enough reasoning for removing valid information. --Wikisian (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have an article criteria, lists like these become spam magnets. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, requirements such as this make it very difficult for legitimate items to be listed. In the case of BitWarden, their Wikipedia page was created by two different authors and subsequently removed. Then some drive-by author removes their link from this page (which I added about a year ago before said "requirement" and then others jump in to start an edit war. If you see spam, you remove it. You shouldn't put up so many barriers we're not able to put obviously non-spam material on Wikipedia. If this was the way things were there would be no Wiki in the first place. --Jhabdas (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Then (1) What exactly is the criteria, and why do so many other lists exist just fine with inclusions that have no article page? (Are you going to go delete all the entries from those too?) and (2) Why not let the list develop and intervene if it becomes spammy (like is the policy on the rest of the encyclopedia) instead of trying to enforce a policy of prior restraint (which is not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia)? --Wikisian (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because other articles have a lot of non-notable cruft doesn't mean that this one has to. WP:IAR is certainly not a good justification to open the spam floodgates. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Spam floodgates"? Again, you're talking about prior restraint (on a simple list of password managers, no less). If spam is such a problem, then why is this article not locked? Where are the spam edits in the history? And why are all the other lists managing just fine without locks? What is the evidence that this particular article would be filled up with spam if two entries that don't have their own articles (yet) are allowed to remain on it? Virtually every other list I've seen has entries without articles, and I don't think I've ever seen a list locked. I'm just not seeing the reasoning here. --Wikisian (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually do agree with you. I'll remove the caveat, but there really does need to be a standard, as there are a bunch of companies out there who wish to promote their product via juxtaposition methods, and that means including it on lists like this. I would say that at least 3 reliable sources would indicate it, but not guarantee it. Though I can also see ItsJamie's thoughts, since individual articles are required to meet things like WP:NOTABILITY guidelines and having a corresponding article would prove that they likely meet that. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Jamie's thoughts are entirely correct. There are many lists with a history of spamming with the same simple inclusion criteria. As this is a fork of the problematic history of the Password manager article, which such problems manifested frequently, you will need to be specific about inclusion criteria. At the moment, you proposed something vague above, but seem to be reverting to a different set of criteria, which seems to be "notable in your judgement". This is clearly too vague, and requires only slightly less effort that actually establishing an article for the topic; especially for software articles, which get to avoid A7 deletions. I would propose keeping the WTAF restriction on this article, until a suitable set of inclusion criteria can be established. Kuru (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean 'WTAF' restriction? Tutelary (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A references to the essay at WP:WTAF, which summaries this recurring problem. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been a month without any meaningful reply. As is most often the case, the "list" has devolved into crap since no one is watching it and there is no inclusion criteria. I'll clean it up. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not your purpose to decide what managers are "fit" to be on the list; especially when using a clearly manipulative criteria to remove managers you do not like or have bias against. If someone makes a push to get an article removed (as several of the "doesn't have an article" managers USE to have articles) which then gets removed here, all you've done is proven how you can create favoritism.

And let's take a look at what keeps getting removed... proprietary... proprietary... proprietary. So it is now Wikipedia's stance to "remove" "proprietary" pages due to product placement... but add in "gpl" pages under the SAME EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES? GPL projects are not "free" as in "not a means of making money and hence should be immune to product placement rulings", donations are often more significant than they let on, or other negotiations to allow the software use in a proprietary environment.

Due to the nature of these revisions, I hence declare this is in violation of NPOV and is, in fact, a product placement page designed to drive MARKETING to GPL software which gain MONETARY benefits. (Honestly though, it's just things like this that make me hate wikipedia all the more, do what you want)173.168.16.66 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The criteria is not manipulative; it is objective. It should be easy to simply create an article for any notable software product. If there is some favoritism at play, it would be helpful for you to specifically point it out; vague hand waving is not terribly productive. I agree that products do not need to be "proprietary" to be promotional. I would go further and note that it need not even be commercial to be promotional. If you have a proposal for alternate inclusion criteria, make it. Kuru (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In my mind, the criteria here merely demonstrates why Wikis don't work. In the case of BitWarden, for example, the item was listed before the criteria was added, then removed because it didn't fit the criteria. Both the BitWarden author and myself (an unaffiliated, happy BitWarden user) have created pages for BitWarden which themselves were removed. So the criteria should not be HAS a page it should be HAS A PAGE OR HAS A PAGE IN DRAFT. It's only a matter of time before BitWarden is added back. And it starts with B so it's going to be near the top of the list and the players who charge for the same kind of software will start losing market share. Too bad so sad. --Jhabdas (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Other password managers

Certainly there are other password managers, such as Norton Identity Safe, which could be in this list and also have articles created. Yes, I know that would be useful, and useful is not a reason to keep an article if challenged.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also missing Password Depot by Acebit Appalousa (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Google's password manager is also missing Whyme943 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Google's password manager is also missing Whyme943 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone just pointed me at Roboform, also missing User:Pcrow:Pcrow (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dashlane

I added Dashlane in anticipation of immediately accepting the draft article from Articles for Creation. Unfortunately the target had been previously SALT'd, therefore there will be a delay before the article can be moved. I'd be grateful if other editors would wait before removing it from here - after all, it actually is supported by a source, an extensive review in the NYT! Sionk (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

KeePass vs KeePassX

Having made a good faith edit to the page referring potential readers to the useful and respectable free software package KeePassX, I was a bit surprised that my edit (the second to cite an independent source) was undone. The only thing currently in common between the two packages is the name "KeePass" and a legacy database format. Different implementations should merit different mention, if relevant. KeePassX is relevant enough to merit its own logo in the list of ports from KeePass on the KeePass Wikipedia article.

Moreover, the differences between the packages have only grown since the initial fork:

• KeePassX started as a port of KeePass to Linux and was called KeePass/L. It has since moved on to be fully portable C++.
• KeePass 2.x is written in C# (.NET/Mono) now. Note that .NET/Mono technologies are unfortunately hostile to Free Software due to patent licensing concerns .
• KeePassX is written in portable C++.
• KeePass 2.x uses a new database format, which KeePassX cannot read.
• KeePassX and KeePass are both actively maintained as independent forks.

References

I hope it is clear from the reasons noted above that these two packages are not the same, and thus merit separate mention.

Jdpf (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be fully forked, but KeePassX is merely a redirect to KeePass. There's no full article for KeePassX. That goes against the guidelines for the list unless I'm missing something. As is, there are only a few mentions on that page. So in the *article* page it isn't even put on the same level of distinction. tedder (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notfiying @Jdpf, Kuru, and Mcmatter: of this discussion. tedder (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several lists where redirects are used when there are minor deviations in the version; I'm not usually worried about that unless it becomes overwhelming (100 versions of Excel, etc). In this case, it seems to be (as noted) a long forked version of the original that is now its own independent software. I think that creating an article if it is notable is the right thing to do; are there other sources that could be used to make one so that there is not a redirect? Kuru (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Some other Password managers

Hey, i dont want to create a page for every piece of Software. But the List is incomplete. So, here are some links:

• http://rattic.org/
• http://simplevault.sourceforge.net/
• http://sourceforge.net/projects/corporatevault/
• http://sourceforge.net/projects/webkeepass/
• http://teampass.net/
• https://clipperz.is/open_source/clipperz_password_manager/
• https://code.google.com/p/webpasswordsafe/

Funfun2142 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another open source one I authored. well I was trying to add to the list but it kept getting deleted. The reason was "an article is required". But to create an article, it "have to meet the notability guidelines" which basically means, the product has to be well established at least for years and been used or reviewed by a large population of users. Is this the true intention of the List of password managers? Then wouldn't the list become like "a List of well established password managers"?

• MHISoft eVault

Tony Xue (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to document everything in the world. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The intention regarding inclusion stated in this article's lead is applicable. I expect that it's in furtherance of the precept that Wikipedia isn't to be used to draw attention to things that haven't already received it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the previous discussion about what's included in this list. Largoplazo (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Open source password managers

Suggest to add a new column "Open Source (yes/no)" so we know if the password manager is open source or not. Tony Xue (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is already a column in the top table for "license". "Open source" would basically mean anything not marked "propietary" in that column. - IMSoP (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

List if not complete

• What's the point of the list if it is incomplete and not up-to-date? The list apparently favors the commercial products rather than the open sources because the commercial products will most likely meet the "notability guidelines" because they advertised more elsewhere across the web. New open source code won't. And how you check if a product meets the "notability guidelines" is to google it and see how many results comes back? it is biased.

Tony Xue (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are biased in the sense that an article with a "List of American business people" will include Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos but not your neighbor who owns a local shop. This isn't surprising, so I understand your objection only if, despite the context I've already given you, you see this, not as an encyclopedia, but as a directory service to which you're being unfairly denied access. It isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To my point, change the title to "A list of American famous business people" in your example please, then I have no objections. and YOU can decide who is famous or not in YOUR Encyclopedias. Tony Xue (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The "famous" (or, rather, "notable") is implied by the general policy of the encyclopedia that *all* such articles have that restriction. To the question "what's the point?" the answer is therefore "to serve as an index to articles about items which meet the encyclopedia's notability rules". See also the venerable page WP:NOT for what this site is not aiming to provide. - IMSoP (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Table legends

There are headings in the tables whose meaning is non-obvious. E.g. 'Digital Legacy'. The creator of these columns should have included a table legend to explain what the various headings mean. JeffMDavidson (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The second table came from the merged article Comparison of password managers, and most of its headings apparently came from the initial revision which in turn was taken directly from this PC Mag article. It doesn't have a legend as such, but each feature is discussed in the article, so you could probably create one or find some more descriptive phrases by reading through it. For instance, "Digital Legacy" apparently refers to this paragraph:

On a grimmer note, what happens to your secure accounts after you've died? A growing number of products include some provision for a digital legacy, a method to transfer your logins to a trusted individual in the event of your death or incapacity.

- IMSoP (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The PC Mag article mentioned was last updated May 1, 2019. I wouldn't call it an article at all, but more of a sales device. The current title of the article is "The Best Password Managers for 2019". The concept of Digital Legacy is unclear in general, and because the article doesn't strictly cover all the NO's given in this column I feel it needs to be removed or question marks added to those products where digital legacy is unknown. --Jhabdas (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requirement for password managers to have their own page

I understand the purpose for establishing notoriety by requesting password managers have their own article/page on Wikipedia. However, in the case of Bitwarden, a libre open source solution competing with proprietary solutions, some leeway should be given as the page to the product was removed unexpectedly, the link redlined and then the product removed here. Bitwarden is certainly noteworthy. I have restored the draft article which was deleted, added even more information to it to help establish its (already obvious) credibility and submitted to the Wiki gods who seem to control which password managers are or are not able to be listed here.

Open Source always wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhabdas (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That isn't how things work on Wikipedia. Notability is a requirement for inclusion on lists just as they are with standalone articles. See the previous discussions above going back to 2014. Leeway is not and should not be given to open source solutions. Open source does not automatically make software better, more noteworthy, or deserving of a listing. If you can not establish notability with significant, reliable, independent sources then the software will be removed from the list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fairly certain that requirement was not there when I added BitWarden to this list over a year ago. I made some comments above which would establish a more appropriate means for what and what not to include. Unfortunately, you don't get to make they rules. We all do. See you October 16th. --Jhabdas (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been enforced since 2014 on this page, for sure, but this isn't about who makes the rules, or what the precedent is, Wikipedia has a fairly consistent set of goals and Gogo Dodo is keeping things to a viewpoint that matches consensus. There's no need to get petty about it, the goal is consistent improvement of Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The page notice was added in 2014. You can be "fairly certain" all you want, but it was there years before you made your first edit to this article. The linked policies have also been around longer than the article itself. I have no idea what is happening October 16th, is that when you will finally establish the software's notability? Because you're certainly not going to change a fundamental policy by that date. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are referring to on October 16th. I will warn you ahead of time that re-adding the listing will likely still be viewed as edit warring as it has been removed by multiple editors, the article still doesn't exist, and you have no consensus towards altering the inclusion requirements of this article, the notability guideline, or having an exemption for the listing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the policy then. It was an honest mistake I made. Perhaps I was blinded because software freedom is important to me. But now we have BitWarden on the list. I felt it was noteworthy when I added it, and I'm please to see Wikipedia consensus agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhabdas (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Change price of Dashlane to $59.88/ yr & indicate the current version number is 6 (six) 24.5.81.228 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I removed the 4 as I don't think that was a version number, but instead of footnote from ages ago that got deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

97.85.197.151 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose to add date/year column?

I propose to have the date/year the product originated / launched as a column appended to this list. That way it would give a perspective how old the concept of password mangers have been around? Conrad Kilroy (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Recommend that you add Master_Password to the list of password managers.

Recommend that you add Master_Password to the list of password managers. I would like to see the experts discuss Master_Password. It has an unusual approach. A wikipedia.org article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Password 24.96.122.175 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Fields/Column Choices and Potential Additions

I want to highlight what is currently on the page in order to discuss a few suggestions for improvements:

Section 1: Basic Information - Name - License - OS Support - Browser Integration - Delivery Format

Section 2: Features - Provider - Price - Import from browsers - Import from competitors - Multi-factor authentication - Export data - Automatic password capture - Automatic password replay - Forms - Multiple form-filling identities - Actionable password strength report - Secure sharing - Digital legacy - Portable edition - Application passwords - Browser menu of logins - Application level encryption

1. What constitutes 'basic information' and a 'feature'? Wouldn't 'OS Support' and 'Delivery format' be considered a feature?

2. In terms of the columns which are answered with a Yes or No, it would be best to have a brief definition of what criteria we are basing the answers off of in order for the reader to understand as well as anyone editing. If I wanted to add a new tool to the list, it would be difficult for me to answer the Yes and No questions if I don't know what 'Forms' means.

3. More a general question, but is having one master table of all the password managers(that meet the requirements to be on the page) on one table the preference or would it be easier to consume if it were separated into logic groupings of criteria. For example, 'Browser Features' could be its' own table, which would include the major browsers with the features such as 'Import from browsers', 'Automatic password capture', 'Automatic password replay', 'Forms', 'Browser menu of logins'. The reason why I think a separation is needed is because certain aspects of a password manager are more important to users and by grouping similar items, we give the reader a clearer picture of how the products compare.

4. For additional columns or section, I believe that known security issues should be listed for the products. This can be accomplished by using the NVD results for the product in question. For example, LastPass has 2 high and 1 medium security issue. (https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Basic&results_type=overview&query=lastpass&search_type=all). Further to that, those issues may have further details through other articles on how easy it is to exploit, thought that is included in the technical severity of the security issue(using CVSS).

5. I also believe that being independently audited is another criteria that would be of interest to readers. It isn't a perfect criteria, as it can be 'gamed' by having favorable 3rd parties audit your software, but it does still provide some insight.

I also have a general question, how is the table at the bottom of the page showing whether the product is open source or not maintained? I see some products on the list which no longer appear on the above tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinveerman (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Difference between "Secure sharing" and "Secure password sharing"?

The features table has two columns "Secure sharing" and "Secure password sharing". Since the list is about password managers, what is the difference? 143.50.237.1 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Delivery Format - Incorrect links

The Delivery format column contains incorrect links.

"Local installation" links to "Application software" "Cloud sync" and "Cloud-based" link to "Software as a Service"

These are misleading, but there don't appear to be any articles that define the terms. I think it would be better to drop the links until there are suitable descriptions. Tommassammot (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)