Talk:Winamp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateWinamp 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 5, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lyrics".
  2. ^ "MetroLyrics - Winamp". [Winamp]. December 16, 2009. Retrieved September 5, 2010.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you so much!```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.73.133 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did just add a definition of Freemium to the docs there. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified August 2015[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified February 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was 404 in the archive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Winamp. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Winamp. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Webamp?[edit]

Hello all! I maintain an open source web recreation of Winamp (webamp.org) that closely reproduces the Winamp interface. Given the inclusion of XMMS and qmmp in the "See Also" section I thought my project might be worth including as well. However, I know better than to try to add it myself, so I figured I'd leave some context here and see if existing editors thought it might merit inclusion.

It has been covered in several mainstream tech press outlets:

It was also called out by the W3C, the main standards organization for the web.

I've also collected a list of over 100 other articles and blog posts that have been written about it in ~25 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captbaritone (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it is a web based emulation of Winamp 2. It's fun to use, but is not affiliated to the official Winamp project. Possibly suitable as an external link, but not for a mention in the main text of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I thought it would make sense to include as a link in the "See also" section alongside XMMS and qmmp.Captbaritone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this as an external link.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Captbaritone (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the site is impressive, I removed it. MOS:SEEALSO makes it clear that items in that section should be internal (on Wikipedia) and so the site doesn't meet that requirement. Wikipedia:External links, specifically, WP:ELYES states official sites, sites about the subject or that add neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject should be listed. This site doesn't do that. I'm not sure what the copyright status of the songs are either, which may be a separate issue. Also, the UI may be copyrighted. We cannot link to copyright violations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to document your reasoning. That helps me understand why Audacious can be included but Webamp may not. 2600:1700:AB10:3A90:D921:441:8735:894 (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Gracenote?[edit]

According to the Gracenote article, Winamp hasn’t used Gracenote for several years, and I for one don't blame it. Though this does raise the question of what it uses instead… Mr Larrington (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Larrington (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of update to reflect Mar. 16 NFT announcement[edit]

On March 16, the winamp twitter account announced they were switching their direction into creating and selling NFTs. The article needs to be updated to reflect this, so I changed the banner at the top. I didn't start a new section because I wasn't sure if somebody wanted to lead the charge in adding this information. What details about this announcement should be prioritized and should a section make note that the original creators of Winamp don't have anything to do with this? Ctaetcsh (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the announcement does not say that Winamp 6 is cancelled. I still recommend to add a paragraph about the critics - it should be the first time that "Winamp" (whoever it currently is) received such a lot of negative comments. --Tuxman (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is something very similar happening at LimeWire. In both cases, the people doing this are not the original creators of the software, and appear to be jumping on the NFT bandwagon by using famous brand names from the past. The article needs to make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for online service?[edit]

The new Winamp launched today, and it's an online service instead of a new media player. Should we create a new article for this online service instead of reworking this one? WolfmanFP (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO: No. The new one is the official successor of the old one, and while it is an entirely different (and much worse) software, it still is the software covered by this article. --Tuxman (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it is a successor. Since the release of the online service the original app has also had an update. Their website currently offer both versions for download.
I do support creating a new article for the online part when it's made clear that it isn't a successor but complementary service. Sparetys (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winamp&oldid=1210560330"