Talk:Winamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Winamp is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Online services[edit]

Moved this here:

  • MetroLyrics: is default on-line service displaying lyrics[1] to songs played in the Winamp[2].

So far, Winamp "online services" have received little RS coverage. It can't be an exhaustive list, anyways, so choosing which online services to include becomes problematic, unless we have a source or two to support a limited list. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Winamp 5[edit]

As was stated in numerous places (in various degrees of officialness) at the time of its release, the reason for the version number of Winamp 5 was to stress that it combined the benefits of Winamp 2 and Winamp3, which were totally different codebases. The jokey statements currently in the history section are all very well, but they should be replaced with the real reason. I would do it myself, but it really needs a citation and I don't have time to dig one out at the moment. Quietbritishjim (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations in lead paragraph[edit]

Per WP:LEADCITE, a long time ago, I moved citations (and their associated full text) out of the lead and down the article, and used the lead to merely summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. Although it's true that in the extreme, there are no rules, I and apparently most other editors of this article agreed that this lead section looks better "clean." If an editor thinks the sources they found are better than those in the article, feel free to add them in the article, not the lead, and/or discuss them here. --Lexein (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly this is a non-controversial issue, and doesn't require discussion. There are many many good articles that have references in lead, I somewhat agree to adding too many redundant cites, however adding three distinct reliable sources adds value to any article. But if dates and names are mentioned there should be cites with them, specially if its the start of the article. I'd say we can have additional cites in the history section, to keep the lead tidy. As a test I'd suggest you remove cites from lead sections from the Wikipedia or iTunes articles and see how that goes. I didn't find any discussions by most other editors on lead citing? I will be restoring those cites soon, unless there is consensus with your argument with other editors and they disagree with my understanding.--IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 11:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Controversy per se is only one trigger for discussion. Avoidance of edit wars is another. WP:BRD is another.
Consensus: the lead cleanup occurred in March 2010, and was not disputed by several highly interested editors. If you look, you'll see that there was quite a little battle trying to save the article from a deletionist who was not interested in finding sources himself. But moving the cites down from the lead was not disputed by the other interested editors. And keeping the lead clean has only been disputed by you. So, though it was not active, discussion-based consensus, it was tacit consensus. The article was improved by the addition of lots of citations in the body, and editing of the lead to merely summarize, sans cites.
See WP:BRD. Recently, the cites were boldly added to the lead, against the status quo, tact consensus, and the WP:HIDDEN#Appropriate_uses_for_hidden_text hidden comment to editors. So, per WP:BRD, I reverted, so now we discuss.
As for comparisons with other articles, a better example for comparison would be a WP:Good Article or Featured article. They tend to have clean leads which merely summarize the following article, without too much detail, leaving the citations for later.
Please don't add them back to the lead. Please actually refer to WP:LEADCITE
"...balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source"
and its sister section MOS:LEAD. If you feel the claims in the lead are challengeable, and it's too difficult for a reader to read the article body for the citation, or that lead does not adequately summarize the article, or is so specific so as to require citations, please consider a minor rewrite instead. Further, please, instead of plopping those cites back in the lead, just add sentences which they uniquely support in the appropriate section in the article body, and thereby improve the article.
I suggest the following changes. We're in discussion mode, which is why I'm not just making the following changes.
1. The History section is the better place for the individual authorship and location details.
2. Moving the History section up makes the verifiability easier for those details. Seems to me, though, that most software articles discuss features first for ongoing, existing software products.
Thoughts?--Lexein (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Boldyrev edit warring[edit]

Boldyrev is reliably sourced as an author of Winamp, so I'm supporting the non-controversial reinsertion of that claim, with these sources.

97.06.01: Nullsoft licenses the AMP® 0.7 Layer 3 Decoder for MP3-Playback in Winamp. Now the world's most popular MP3 music player for the PC.
97.02.01: Dmitry Boldyrev, creator of MacAMP, becomes the first licensee of the AMP® 0.7-series MP3 decoder for the now-legendary MacAMP MP3 player for the Macintosh™ operating platform. Shortly thereafter, Boldyrev introduces MP3 technology and the AMP® decoder itself to Justin Frankel. Boldyrev and Frankel subsequently form Nullsoft (now a unit of AOL) with Branden Williams and others.

Note: There is a 2004 posting on BetaNews ("Death Knell Sounds for Nullsoft, Winamp". BetaNews. Nate Mook. November 10, 2004.) with a comment #291693861 by "mewse" who claims to be Dmitry Boldyrev. I don't consider this a reliable source, but it does contain a link to the CNN article above.

The assertion in this edit summary and in the article Wikipedia has somehow become a source of this claim, is provably false. Until we get a source that definitively asserts that Boldyrev was not involved, stop deleting Boldyrev. I don't know Boldyrev or Frankel or anyone at Winamp, Nullsoft, or AOL, I just support what multiple reliable sources have stated about Boldyrev's (to me) uncontroversially sourced involvement. Yep, it was easily researched. --Lexein (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A way to download winamp help file?[edit]

Winamp.com will not be available after 20 Dec. 2013. Is there a way to download the help file? Or at least relevant information from the site? other than copy and paste??? I have to say that I have about 5 different music players and winamp has the best sound, something I discovered only recently. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.73.133 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has an extensive archive of the winamp.com site as it looked at various stages in the past, dating back to December 1998, including the help section. This means that even after the site is taken down in December 2013, researchers will still be able to see what was on the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much!```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.73.133 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There are also versions of Winamp at OldApps dating back to the original 0.20 version in April 1997.[1] These links could be added to the external links section of the article after December 20.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect license type[edit]

Hello, Walter

Long time, no see! Oh, and a belated happy new year!

It's been long time since you and me disagreed on something but here we go: Template:Infobox software/doc only mentions a few "examples". There are a lot of licensing scheme that does not list, including Apache license. In fact new ones may be created every day. But please look at MOS:COMPUTING § License. It defines exactly what construes a software license.

Now, freemium fits that definition. Freemium is both a licensing model and business model. (Why, supporting business model is one of the goals of licensing model.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Freemium does not meet that definition. It is only a compensation model. It does not describe what sort of license the end-user accepts when they install the product. The anon was right that it's not a license type. While I agree that the infobox lists a few items, I do not believe that they are examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Well, the doc page itself says they are examples. The word "example" appears in there. But you can ask the original author of that section. However, a guideline like MOS:COMPUTING is more binding than a doc page that may easily go out of date. MOS:COMPUTING explicitly list freemium as a license type.
In any case, your proposed "Commercial proprietary" and the anon's proposal "shareware" are unquestionably wrong: Winamp has a gratis version and payment is not compulsory. Compulsory payment or delayed compulsory payment are one of the conditions of "shareware" and "commercial". Freemium best describes what it is: The basic tier of Winamp is gratis, while the Pro tier is commercial.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Unquestionably wrong? No freemium is unquestionably wrong, but I understand what you mean. I'll take it up at the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I did just add a definition of Freemium to the docs there. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).