|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Linux||(Rated Stub-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article was tagged for speedy deletion under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion but a reviewing administrator or uninvolved experienced editor declined the request on the basis that: This was deleted and later recreated in a different form, with different references. G4 excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As the deletion reason in the AFD was "Specific sources are not cited for retention." it no longer applies. This article should not be tagged again for speedy deletion under the same criterion and, unless a valid, separate speedy deletion basis exists, further attempts at deleting this article should be made via the proposed deletion process (prod) if uncontroversial, or the article taken to articles for deletion (AfD) for debate on the merits.
Note: this template should be removed once the associated article has survived an AfD debate; or has been significantly changed such that further speedy deletion requests are unlikely.
Crushingly long library scan / loadup time
It took a literal total of about 180 seconds to scan my library. Figuratively long enough for empires to rise and fall, civilizations to crumble. How to remedy this? There is no mention in the mailing list but yet google search results are populated with this unanswered problem. The single biggest issue and roadblock to mass market exposure.
- I've read through the Afd policy now, and I see that it's not supposed to be a vote. Given the comments (and the clear evidence/citations that show this to be a notable project) I don't understand the reasons that MBisanz has closed the discussion with a result of 'Delete'. Surely 'Keep' has been justified here? -126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
While as a member of the Exaile team I probably shouldn't edit the page myself, I feel obligated to tell you how horrifically inaccurate this page is. Most of the text appears to be copied from old descriptions of 0.2.x, which are not fully applicable to the current series, 0.3.x, as Exaile was completely rewritten for 0.3.
Specific inaccuracies I noticed:
- info box:
- The "Operating system" category implies that we run on Windows. While it is true that it is possible to run Exaile on Windows, doing so is very much unsupported and involves a lot of manual work to get it running, so I feel the label is inaccurate, or at the very least needs a better description.
- The development version is listed as 0.3.1. This is incorrect, the development version is 0.3.1b, b meaning beta.
- paragraph 1:
- "aims to be similar ... Amarok." - While we originally billed Exaile this way, in truth Exaile has walked its own distinct path since fairly early 0.2.x. As of the 0.3.x series and the new amarok 2.x we are actively discouraging this phrasing, something like "inspired by amarok 1.x" should be used instead, or the amarok link dropped entirely.
- paragraph 2:
- "artist/album information via Wikipedia" has not yet been ported to 0.3.x and needs to be dropped from the list.
- "editing audio tags and set ratings" is very awkward wording, why not "advanced tag editing" instead?
- paragraph 3:
- "built-in SHOUTcast directory" - in 0.3, this is a plugin, not built-in, so the word 'built-in' needs to be dropped.
- "blacklisting of tracks (so they don't get scanned into your library), downloading of guitar tablature from fretplay.com, the ability to submit played tracks on your iPod to Last.fm, support for burning tracks to audio CDs (with the ability to choose which application to use). Exaile also includes visualizations and equalizer, with pre-defined sets." - NONE of this is in 0.3.0. The EQ will return in 0.3.1, however.
- paragraph 4:
- Technically its gplv2 or later, but im not going to split hairs on this one.
Really, while I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is allowing the page to continue to exist, if noone is going to actually bother to keep it up to date then I would rather that it be removed so that users don't get a false impression of Exaile. Reacocard (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reacocard, you clearly know a lot about this so I don't see a problem with you fixing the article yourself. You obviously understand that being on the Exaile team you need to be careful not to turn this article into one big advert, but there's no reason you shouldn't correct the inaccuracies you find IMO. I vote go for it, and let others tone down or remove anything that goes too far 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Update "Repository" Link Infobox
The present link to the Repository is outdated at
It needs to be update with the new link at
I tried to fix this but somehow that Repository is not showing in the Edit. Anyone know why? Maybe a glitch? Maybe those are protected for security reason? Francewhoa (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)