XYplorer Beta Club

Marco wrote:Don, just in case, are we allowed to embed/reuse/relink/whatever the screenshots you use on the "main" site? Feels to me like a wikipedia page without one image at least sucks...

Sure, thanks for doing it!

admin wrote:Either XYplorerFree or XYplorer Free Edition.

The link to free should be: http://www.xyplorer.com/free.php

Okay, I did a more major clean up of those infoboxes. Can someone please review them for me?

I was going to add the logo and screenshots, but I haven't made enough edits to be a confirmed account so I cannot upload them. I also wasn't sure which screenshots to use so I planned on the one from the free page, but I thought I should find one that might show off the features only available in pro for the other.

(Sorry if I'm stepping on your plans Marco! )


Don it might be useful if you created a different logo for XYplorerFree - in the meantime I can use the same logo for each. I was thinking the normal logo with a nice stitched ribbon - such as this or that, but in green. My GIMP skills aren't quite good enough for this though.

Thanks, man, the facts are correct. So you sticked with "XYplorerFree"?

The main text could need a rewrite, too, of course. There is even wrong English IMO: "Checkout the Full feature list" should be "Check out", right, and the sentence is not very wikipedia-like anyway.

TheQwerty wrote:I was going to add the logo and screenshots,

Based on the dust-up we had with the wiki "overlords" some time back, I'd be VERY careful in what we do there...I would carefully look at what has been accepted at all the competing products and use that as guideline because if we can say that we're the only 1 of 10 that doesn't have it, adding it should be fine --but -- if we're in the minority having something, it could be problematic.

Addendum/Upd: Yup -- I agree that the "Checkout feature list" isn't a good thing to have -- I'd yank that as not something you would find in an encylopedia - that's the writing style one must emulate.
Update #2 - I removed that sentence just now -- not taking ANY chances! We MUST be careful to not offend the moderators/editors there, ok?

Actually, I was thinking about writing something ultimately pro like the page of WE, with several screenshots, history background and a TOC with the really unique feats of XY.
If there are other people who agree, I think we should write the draft here, where we can discuss about changes and test the layout (which is slightly different from what wiki renders).
Also, someone with W8/8.1 who can take really modern screenshots would be incredibly helpful. I think the screens on the XY main site can be nice to show how XY was years/versions ago.

Feats list imho: Access control, Background file op (very important!) with support for TC/FC, anything resembling Color Filters, 64bit context menu despite being a 32bit app due to VB6, nanosecond time resolution (unique, I think there are no other file man capable of this, and setMACE is not a FM), search abilities with pseudo-grep and dupe finding (but not IFilters), FVS, support for overlong filenames, Minitree (very important), portability in the widest sense (also paths), scripting (!!!), visual filtering, tags (!!!)

PS: compatibly with university duties

Marco wrote:Actually, I was thinking about writing something ultimately pro like the page of WE, with several screenshots, history background and a TOC with the really unique feats of XY.
If there are other people who agree,

Sorry but based prior history with Wikipedia and XY where the entire article was REMOVED for a while and I had to fight to get it restored because it was getting too much like our XY web site, and after looking at the DO, TC and X2 pages there, I have to COMPLETELY disagree and am actually beginning to think we need to TRIM the page down as it's getting too "sales" like, ok?

And while the WE page has a lot of stuff there, the big difference is that it's NOT a paid separate product and thus can't really be considered sales/advertising which we MUST avoid.

j_c_hallgren wrote:Based on the dust-up we had with the wiki "overlords" some time back, I'd be VERY careful in what we do there...I would carefully look at what has been accepted at all the competing products and use that as guideline because if we can say that we're the only 1 of 10 that doesn't have it, adding it should be fine --but -- if we're in the minority having something, it could be problematic.

My changes were mostly going through the Infobox Template and completing as many fields as I could.

I looked at the other file managers to see how they completed some of the fields (for instance no one else was listing Windows 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, etc. etc.).

I added and cleaned up references, and if need be I could footnote everything in those boxes. I added the markup for the logos and screenshots but commented it out when I discovered I couldn't upload the images.


I did make a couple changes in the body...
One of the paragraphs had an empty reference at the beginning so instead of "XYplorer is..." it was just "[6] is...".
Then I consolidated the languages footnote and start of XYplorerFree footnote to use the same ones I used in the infobox.

But for the most part I ignored the body text out of fear that I'd see too many opportunities to rewrite it when I shouldn't have spent my morning on Wikipedia in the first place.

admin wrote:Thanks, man, the facts are correct. So you sticked with "XYplorerFree"?

I didn't give it much thought actually - until now...
Feels redundant to have them both be "Edition"s.
Seems odd there isn't a plain "XYplorer", which the body text implies, though I think I understand why it doesn't exist now....
Not really a fan of omitting that space when the pro edition doesn't.
*shrugs*

There's no good answer, so I'm open to making them whatever you want and accepting that I might be a bit too picky on this.

j_c_hallgren wrote:

Marco wrote:Actually, I was thinking about writing something ultimately pro like the page of WE, with several screenshots, history background and a TOC with the really unique feats of XY.
If there are other people who agree,

Sorry but based prior history with Wikipedia and XY where the entire article was REMOVED for a while and I had to fight to get it restored because it was getting too much like our XY web site, and after looking at the DO, TC and X2 pages there, I have to COMPLETELY disagree and am actually beginning to think we need to TRIM the page down as it's getting too "sales" like, ok?

And while the WE page has a lot of stuff there, the big difference is that it's NOT a paid separate product and thus can't really be considered sales/advertising which we MUST avoid.

Who wrote it as if it was an ad/XY web site/sales? It all depends on the writing abilities of who writes the article. If the admins there took it down maybe they had their reasons.
And I think there are several things that need to be polished and reworked in that article, that a complete rewrite would be only beneficial. As of now, XY article doesn't sound "professional in a encyclopedic sense", but more an unstructured and unexplained list of facts. Imo.

TheQwerty wrote:Seems odd there isn't a plain "XYplorer", which the body text implies, though I think I understand why it doesn't exist now....
Not really a fan of omitting that space when the pro edition doesn't.
*shrugs*

There's no good answer, so I'm open to making them whatever you want and accepting that I might be a bit too picky on this.

I would call the paid one XYplorer, and the other XYplorerFree, and drop all the Edition stuff.

Marco wrote:

j_c_hallgren wrote:

Marco wrote:Actually, I was thinking about writing something ultimately pro like the page of WE, with several screenshots, history background and a TOC with the really unique feats of XY.
If there are other people who agree,

Sorry but based prior history with Wikipedia and XY where the entire article was REMOVED for a while and I had to fight to get it restored because it was getting too much like our XY web site, and after looking at the DO, TC and X2 pages there, I have to COMPLETELY disagree and am actually beginning to think we need to TRIM the page down as it's getting too "sales" like, ok?

And while the WE page has a lot of stuff there, the big difference is that it's NOT a paid separate product and thus can't really be considered sales/advertising which we MUST avoid.

Who wrote it as if it was an ad/XY web site/sales? It all depends on the writing abilities of who writes the article. If the admins there took it down maybe they had their reasons.
And I think there are several things that need to be polished and reworked in that article, that a complete rewrite would be only beneficial. As of now, XY article doesn't sound "professional in a encyclopedic sense", but more an unstructured and unexplained list of facts. Imo.

I agree that it should be possible to (vastly) improve the article without breaking any encyclopedic laws. It does not have to be big or let alone exhaustive, but the current impression is rather poor and punky. By all means it should be done in a neutral and understated. After all, XY does not need any exaggeration anyway.

I updated the infoboxes for v13.80.0100.
These boxes should be updated for every stable release, and I won't take offense if anyone does it before me.


It's essentially changing the versions, dates, ensuring there's still 16 languages + English, and then downloading each installer package to verify/update the sizes.

The changes for this release are likely what most releases will typically need.


Again, anyone should feel free to update it for stable releases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYplorer

I spent some time this morning giving the page some love - now might be a good time for others to take a glance and make changes / suggestions as well.

I didn't touch the actual body content (though others have) aside from adding two requested citations. I did update the pro info box to 14.70 and added the logo and screenshot - I think adding them for the free edition as well would be overkill; agreed?

I also updated the version information on the comparison page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... e_managers

Looks great!

Actively developed since 1997, by the way.

admin wrote:Actively developed since 1997, by the way.

I'm not sure which is best citation for that.

I don't think the copyright notice is enough so that leaves the About page or this forum post.

To me it feels slightly strange/wrong to cite the forum though.


Maybe one of our scholarly users who have written many papers with thorough references can decide and make that edit?

Does anybody know how to update the logo graphics? It should be this: