Talk:Vista Transformation Pack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2008. The result of the discussion was No Consensus, defaults to Keep.

This page really needs some work. In its current state, it is very hard to follow. As someone who uses VTP, even I find it difficult to understand what the author is trying to convey. Let's work together to make this a better article. Anyone interested in helping? --Tech Nerd 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, got some thoughts here. The most obvious things to change:

• Change the picture so it shows a screenshot of VTP -- not the real Vista -- or has VTP really come that close?
• Remove the details of the version listing. The contributions of each new version release should be summarized in one or two sentences, respectively. An encyclopedia is no place for technical documentation. If that's interesting, link to the online documentation of VTP, do not include it.
• The name of the pack is VTP (Vista Transformation Pack), no "Windows" in there, right?

• Perhaps we should move this article? (DeathShot39 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

• VTP warrants an article on Wikipedia, but as it stands now, it is as about long as the article on WWII... So, needs to be kept short and concise... Relrel 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this page...a lot. I hope it helps. --User:NOT A CURRENT USER BUT WILL BECOME ONE!!!! 19:37, 16 October 2007

I have created an account and will check up on this article sometimes. --DeathShot39 20:26, 16 October 2007

Thanks deathshot and yes you and me will be able to help each other on this artical, omg i dident evn know how to make a licence for images! --Larry 141094 12:44, 18 october 2007

I don't think I made the license for that image though O_O --DeathShot39 12:10, 5 November 2007

O NO! the picture of the vista transformation pack is actuly vista!! CHANGING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry 141094 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The image of VTP8 is in need of changes! Please add copyrights and other things if you can. -- 70.51.167.49 DeathShot39 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like a list

Right now, the article is basically one long list of features. I'm going to try to clean it up a bit. --Tech Nerd 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, clean things up. It is quite a mess and quite unreadable. I could get a screenshot for one of you guys. The 'Future' section should be removed now as it has been released. Ribeirowaldo (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'Future' section has been modified now. I'll try to summarize the lists a bit. A screenshot would be great, I would've gotten one but ver 8.01 seems to hate me... (DeathShot39 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

The article should not contain so many downloads links. This is an encyclopedic article, not a personal website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phobos11 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Most links have been removed, along with the huge lists for each version. DeathShot39 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great edits, now this article is beginning to shape up! --Relrel 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move page to "Vista Transformation Pack"?

I'd like to propose moving this article to "Vista Transformation Pack", since that is what it's called - they don't have the "windows" part in front on the website. Opinions? If nobody objects after a week or so, I'll just go ahead and move it. --Tech Nerd 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea, please go ahead --Relrel 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, go on ahead and move it! DeathShot39 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your right, but next time you should contact me first larry 141094 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.228.158 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Promotion?

The article claims this is "a popular choice" for Windows XP users, which seems a titantic exaggeration, with in fact the populer view on the product being "what? Never heard of it". I put a ^{[citation needed]} tag, but suspect that the claim is sheer nonsense, presumably placed by someone pimping the product, and should be removed. --Kaz (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)