This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose: its true that this software is almost exclusively referred to as "KMPlayer", but there is completely different and independent Konqueror Media Player which is also known as KMPlayer. The current KMPlayer page is a DAB between these two, and I don't see a good reason to prefer one obscure video player to another obscure video player. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. So, you agree that I defined the problem correctly; but since the solution is a little complicated, you advise we elude it? But my friend, it is not that complicated: Konqueror Media Player is definitely not the primary topic, judging by the amount of sources that support it. But it can be named "KMPlayer (KDE)" to adhere with WP:COMMONNAME. So long as you agree that Wikipedia policy supports "KMPlayer" as the article name for this page, other auxiliary problems can be resolved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not as straightforward as you put it. First of all, on Wikipedia the natural disambiguation is preferred, which reflects the current state of affairs. Furthermore, there is a common trait of all the resources you link above: they are Windows software distribution services; I may provide several dozens (or even hundreds) of links to KDE KMPlayer descriptions and reviews by Linux distributions (these match the status of the Windows software distribution sites you link above), so probably the KDE player looks more like primary topic. FWIW it is a bad idea to compare the numbers of references in articles – these numbers don't necessarily show the number of sources actually existing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. First, I doubt that "the natural disambiguation is preferred" and I doubt "natural disambiguation" being "the current state of affairs". In fact, there seems to be evidences to the contrary. I have read both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS, and have seen  and . From what I gather, it seems the accepted way is to have the primary topic (this article, in this case) have the name and it seems this article is the primary topic by a margin of 7 to 0.9.
Second, I didn't use article sources. These sources are the result of my own independent investigation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title (do not, however, use obscure or made up names).
As these two players are equally obscure and no obvious primary topic is there, this is the guiding principle for this case. The WP:TWODABS does not apply here as the KMPlayer name is equally claimed here by both topic and no valid rationale to prefer one candidate over another is present.
I would also note, that I find hit counts-based rationale significantly flawed, as both topics are similar, though this article is linked (via navbox) from more relevant scope of media players, while another KMPlayer is only linked (via navbox) from KDE-related articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Your quote does not say that "natural disambiguation is preferred". In fact I see that WP:PRECISE recommends other courses of action as well. As of the rest, which are all your own opinion, well... let's just say I respectfully disagree. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
My quote says "if it exists", while here is the flow of Parenthetical disambiguation:
Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.
So this seems to be a straightforward resolution order. As to the other disagreement, I hope someone else weights in so that some consensus will be reached. I would kindly ask to disregard my opinion over primary topic if it appears to block consensus. (I'm removing this page from watchlist, so ping me if my input is wanted later on.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisting comment. Need some input on whether there is a primary topic for "KMPlayer". Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Given that K-Multimedia Player is a video player, it makes no sense to add a link to audio players.--Regression Tester (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Actually I think it makes perfect sense. People outside Wikipedia think if something plays audio then it is an audio player; they think one thing can be an audio player and a video player at the same time. So, including that links serves to tells them what is regarded what in Wikipedia. It is a matter of arbitrary definition (and not exactly a matter of perspective.)
I have another reason too: It is a good addition to See also section. It is not a hypernym but you can't deny that it is related. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Issue reported on AN/I, with potential legal and security aspects it would be unfair to try WP:3O first. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the reliability of the site, the current version of that page no longer contained the text being cited by the link in the "Reception" section. I've updated the ref to use an archived copy of the page from May 2012, so that the text in the article can have a valid ref. In the process I noted that the archived copy of the download site cannot be used to actually download the software - which would seem to also mitigate claimed concerns about that site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The "original" malware link in the reference is alive and kicking, cf. Download.com#Adware. I found another Download.com malware link and removed it, because it's not really necessary to explain the name issue, there are better references for this nit. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hardly a malware link. I don't think you understand what malware is. There was a concern raised in 2011, and there is some hearsay by random websites and fucking mailing lists that you're referencing - both of which are old anyway. There has been 0 evidence to outright state "this is a malware site". Your incompetence is concerning. Oh, and since you're technically reverting other editors, a case could very easily be made that you've violated 3RR. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)