Talk:XMedia Recode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Should be kept because its kinda relevant (about 190,000 search results at google and I'm trying to improve it.

I'm going to remove the CSD for now. The article when I first read it, appeared to be a spam advertisement. I will tag it for expansion. Thank you for your contribution. --ANowlin: talk 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I helped[edit]

I added lots of stuff. I added a picture, added a list of supported input and output formats as well as a list of output profiles for various devices. I added a lot to the list of Features and I added a section for Limitations.

--Neillithan (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xmedia Recode is Free. Why does it not belong in the "Free video conversion software" category?[edit]

Subject pretty much sums it up, however a user removed XMedia Recode from the "Free video conversion software" category with the claim that XMedia Recode is not free. I reverted his change and then it got reverted again.

Somebody please explain.

Neillithan (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the category is poorly defined. It may either mean "free software for video conversion", where the term free software has an official, unambiguous meaning (free software does not mean "software available for free"), or it can mean "video conversion software available free of charge", which can also include freeware or other forms of software available at no cost. People who revert your edits think it's the former, you think it's the latter. The fact is that the category lists both free software and freeware (SUPER), so the question is whether it's intentional or just an error. A proper way to rectify the situation would be, in my opinion, fixing the category (possibly by changing its title) so that it has a clear, unambiguous meaning.—J. M. (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert Neillithan's change because I believe the meaning of the category is clear (it clearly isn't), but because he did not answer the previous editor's edit summary.--Regression Tester (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that in an easy to understand way. I now realize Wikipedia treats "free software" and "freeware" with separate meanings. In my opinion, I think the category should be renamed to "Free Software and Freeware video conversion software" to encompass a wider range of free-of-charge video conversion software. I think having 2 separate categories would be diluting (considering "Freeware" may utilize "free software", yet the main GUI may not be "Free Software"). Again, that's just my opinion. I will leave the category decision up to somebody else. Neillithan (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


4th and final reference links to the site of a competing piece of software[edit]

Pretty much sums it up, as of right now the official ffmpeg website's hall of shame page is blank due to maintenance. My worry is more the link http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/shame.html could be a conflict of interest. This may be an issue of bias or simply someone linking to a copy that happens to be part of a site that offers software in the same field without thinking too much of it. At any rate I suggest and will change the link to point to the wayback machine at archive.org, specifically

http://web.archive.org/web/20100622191216/http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html

Which should be changed to point back to http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html as soon as it's back up.72.67.68.100 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Still actively being developed?[edit]

Two edits ago on 27 Dec 2012, the first sentence became "XMedia Recode was a...". Maybe that was a typo; it seems to have regular updates including one just days ago. The editor seems to changed "is" to "was" in addition to adding some 3rd party download links due to apparent downtime of the main site which is now back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trep26 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

underrated program[edit]

Why the article is so rough on this software? I use it for lots of video/audio/subtitles/container conversions, and it works GREAT. It has audio/video pass through, feature that even Handbrake doesnt have. I'm suspecting the ffmpeg editors polluted this article because they say Xmedia Recode violate their free license., Jan/9/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.120.172 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. It seems to me to be very good software and it's odd that the page is rather negative with a list of "issues" etc. I am not affiliated with the software in any way.82.71.30.178 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XMedia Recode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)