From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Napster was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
August 12, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 7, 2014.
Current status: Delisted good article

Defunct yet implicitely presented as active?[edit]

The {About} tag starts with "This article is about the defunct peer-to-peer service" and the lead contains a mention of the company's acquisition by Rhapsody, but the infobox includes a link to (also in the "External links" section), which doesn't exist anymore. (The link is not technically dead because there is a redirect to Rhapsody, but this is still misleading.) Shouldn't these links be removed? Also, shouldn't the infobox contain a "Fate" line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC), these are all good and valid points. I urge you to Wikipedia:Be bold and make these changes yourself. If anyone disagrees, they will revert and then the matter can be discussed, but your suggested changes do not sound controversial, they sound useful. I also urge you to create an account, as many disadvantages exist for IP users while advantages exist for registered users (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't know what to put on the "Fate" line, especially in light of what appears to be contradictory information at the end of the "Current status" section. Besides, isn't there a preset list of values that such fields can contain? I don't even know where to search for this kind of information. (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I see now that this article's infobox is for software, not a company, so there is no "Fate" parameter, but there is a "Discontinued" parameter. I found that out buy typing in the search box "Template:Infobox software" then reading the documentation. But you're right, someone else owns the Napster brand now, so it is not exactly discontinued. Perhaps just remove the website. Prhartcom (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC), I saw your changes, it really looks good. Now, consider getting that username. Face-smile.svg Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Napster shutdown[edit]

Was Napster shut down in 2001 or 2000? Because cited article (and some other online sources) claim, that it was in July, 2000. See And this article claims, it was in 2001. (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Jordan Ritter to list of Napster Developers and allowing John Fanning's name to remain on the developer list even though it lacks a proper citation[edit]

Can Bbb23 or some Wiki authority in the know elaborate (perhaps in plain English) on Bbb23's redaction of my edit of the Napster Wikipedia page on April 20th, 2017 where I add Jordan Ritter to the list of Napster developers? My edit cites another Wikipedia page. But more importantly I cite a first-hand interview with Jordan Ritter available at that is conducted by a well-regarded podcaster who is documenting oral histories of the development of the internet. In effect we have a first-hand source. Put another way the cite is coming directly "from the horse's mouth." Also, if in your opinion my edit is not appropriately cited what can be said about the inclusion of John Fanning and Sean Parker as Napster developers? The page currently has a footnote with the label "Citation Needed" next to John Fanning's name. How is it that we are redacting Ritter' name from the developer list but allowing John Fanning and Sean Parker's name's to remain on the list? These people actually *were not* core Napster developers (they were instead involved with the business side of things). It seems like we may be applying different standards of evidence to these additions/redactions. In the interest of coherent and consistent citation can this problem be addressed please? Lfernandez (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Lfernandez

Edited the above entry: had mistakenly put in "Justin Harris" instead of "Jordan Ritter." Good grief. Lfernandez (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Lfernandez