Talk:Amarok (software)

Note: Due to a cut-and-paste move, the talk pages didn't get swapped. For old discussions on this article, see Talk:AmaroK.

Easter Egg

Added a reference to an easter egg the software contains, if someone thinks if it's inappropriate or this should remain a "secret" please remove it...

Merge

The histories of amaroK and Amarok (audio) need to be merged. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. These articles are almost identical. King Bee 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've done the history merge as my first exercise of these Awesome New Admin Powers. Please let me know if I screwed it up. Thanks. =) (The only snag is that the talk pages are now kind of swapped...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wolf logo - gone?

From the article:

The 1.2 release originally had a wolf icon, but it was later withdrawn due to similarity with the logo of WaRP Graphics Inc.

Is it correct that the logo is gone? Everything indicates the Amarok wolf is alive and well. Twinxor t 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There original version of the wolf logo had to be pulled due to similarities. The new one is a lot less like the the original logo: It's mirrored and is more crystally. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

nonsensical

How can something be voted most popular? Popularity is based on something measurable (like sales or usage or downloads), not on a vote. Voted favorite? Maybe. I've added a "citeneeded" tag to that nonsensical sentence in the intro. -- Mikeblas 00:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

mp4 tag support

Whoever wrote that amarok 1.4.4 supports writnig of mp4 tags should be able to explain, why many people including me are not enjoying this capability yet... or take it out of the features section.

David Andel 19:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a comment at the end (before I saw your comment), but let me know if this needs clarification. I had trouble getting mp4 tagging to work, and ended up having to build it from source after adding the required packages. I inserted a statement on this generically for all features, but it should be OK to specify AAC/MP4 as well. Josh 19:24 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the "advert" tag?

The feature list section has been tagged as advert.

I beg to differ. Amarok's list of features is really very impressive, and while it may look a little like boasting, IMHO it is not an advert. The features are described in a neutral tone, and there is no soliciting or anything. I have removed the sentence "The new release also includes a slew of other features, as well as under-the-hood improvements and bugfixes." which didn't add anything to the article, and is the only thing I could see that could possible be viewed as advertising.

Is this enough of a change to remove the "advert" tag?

Scratchy 03:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The advert tag was placed because a bulleted list of features looks like an advertisement; like it was copied straight from a product flyer. Enumerating features isn't encylcopedic. Describing why they're important, what they do, how they came to be, and so on, generally is. -- Mikeblas 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to edit it to remove the sense of enumeration, although I left the technical bullet list in place. Would removing the truly technical information (i.e., regarding engines) help, so that bullet list is gone? This information seems a bit in depth or technical to be encyclopedic to me, but I could be wrong. I took the liberty of removing the advert tag, but if someone puts it back I understand and can take another go at writing that section. -- Josh 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro to article is mostly useless

The last two paragraphs of the intro (about the artwork and "amaroK" vs. "Amarok") don't really give any useful information about Amarok itself. I'd suggest moving these to a new section later in the article, and instead adding another paragraph or two about Amarok itself (e.g. a summary of the most important features.)

Colin M. 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedians focus disproportionately on proper naming and referencing. They write detailed histories of names and provide fourteen "common alternatives," as if perhaps to show off. It seems an offshoot of the anal retentive Slashdot userbase that primarily frequents Wikipedia. 130.76.32.23 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

I think "Amarok (audio)" isn't a good title because Amarok is not a type of audio or something like that. I would prefer "Amarok (audio player)" (or "Amarok (media player)" or "Amarok (software)") -- ZZyXx 07:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Amarok (software) makes the most sense to me. The parenthetical "tag" should be as general as possible while identifying the topic. General terms are by nature more well known and are the most useful to wider audiences.

Still, someone like my father could get nothing out of this article. 130.76.32.23 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Can someone please clean up the criticism section? The grammar is horrible.

Delete it or improve it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.17.2 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms moved to talk

Complaints have been brought up as to the size of Amarok's code base, with fears of it starting to contribute to a bloated feeling, which is rare in Linux. (This is unreferenced. If anyone can find a notable source for concerns that Amarok has too many features oh my god then it might be reinserted into the article) This troubles many as Amarok is open sourced and these issues haven't been addressed directly.(What? This is bizarre. We have no serious sources for criticism, and no reason for it to be addressed). Some of it is based more off of interface concerns, weird looking feeling,(not like gnome... some concern) but it is more a matter of generality than specifics.(this means nothing) Others associate this disability with the K Desktop Environment environment in which it is placed in - and its faults in the underlying design of the window manager.(what 'disability'? it's not like gnome... more crap blah blah. weasel words, etc.) John Nevard 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Free software: Amarok is now the selected article

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was OpenBSD security features - and since the name explains the topic, I'll just mention that the content is very interesting.

For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Things moved on and the new selectee is Clam AntiVirus - the antivirus which is available for GNU/Linux (as well as Windows and Mac), and which has been part of recent (ongoing) patent lawsuit news. --Gronky (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gapless playback

Amarok claims that it supports gapless playback, but unfortunately in many cases it doesn't. It doesn't work for me, and if you type "amarok gapless playback" into google you'll get posts of lots of users complaining about it. As far as I understand, it's problem with xine, not amarok itself, and xine will be replaced with phonon since version 2. Anyway - until now getting gapless playback with amarok is not possible in many cases. It should be clearly commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.89.51 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also: in Gapless_playback#Player_support Amarok is put on the "partial solutions", and this link is add as a reference: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/2006-September/thread.html#1273 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.174.189 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have applied the change since I see no discussion about it. My english is not perfect so maybe somebody could write it better?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.178.116 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Amarok 2.0 Lacking 1.4.X Features

I believe the Amarok 2.0 section under "More Technical Features" should note the fact that it currently lacks several features found in the 1.4.X line. Specific examples include lack of the ability to queue tracks, no visualizations, the ability to use external databases, etc. While I'm sure these majority of these features will be addressed eventually (either through plugins or in the app itself), but the fact that they're lacking on the final 2.0 release is worthy of note. -SDNick484 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)