Talk:K-Lite Codec Pack

Redo the whole article

Somebody needs to put some actual information here. Maybe rename the article to 'K-Lite Codec Pack' too. Why is this a company stub anyway? As far as I know, "KL Software" are just a group of programers who publish their codec packs anonymously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.107.32.100 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

YeaH, Programmers! And I'm the president's dog... They just compile the setups with a program called InnoSetup and violate copyright laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.91.210.116 (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

K-lite Mega Codec Pack

As of the first week of June, 2007, every trace of K-lite Mega Codec Pack was deleted from its site. Nevertheless, a new version was already published in unofficial sites. No official reason was given for this. -Lwc4life 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They returned it one week later as a new version that does no longer include QuickTime Alternative. -Lwc4life 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam and revert war over "official site"

I have semi-protected this article for a nominal period of 1 month because people are revert warring about which site (codecnews.com or codecguide.com) is the official site for this codec. Initially I wasn't sure which was the right site, but upon examining Alexa data, I see that codecnews.com has no traffic data, compared to codecguide.com which is around the 6000th most-visited site on the internet. This clear disparity suggests that codecnews.com is a domain registered to cannibalise on the traffic to codecguide.com, and is not the official site. A check of the WHOIS data on the domain confirms that it was registered in October 2008, compared to August 2004 for codecguide.com. In light of this, and without any references in favour of codecnews.com being the "official site", I am treating any link changes to codecnews.com as spam, and reverting accordingly. If the semi-protection is ineffective to prevent this spam, I will fully protect the article from editing. - Mark 13:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

History

It would be interesting who created this pack initially, when it happened and so on. I was not able to find any page containing v1.0. I suppose they didn't start with 2.5.0 :) Rryk (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 2, 2003 version 1.0 Release Candidate 1 of the K-Lite Codec Pack was released on mirror.edskes.com followed by four more Release Candidates. Version 1.0 Final was released on February 5, 2003 and had a filesize of 3 MB. They have an old versions page, although not all versions are online anymore, but you can request them there is you're interested. Tony Rualdi (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Advert?

I think, that {{Advert}} is not needed for this article. Alex Spade (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Newer versions are not spam

Newer versions are not spam, so do not revert, but check the site to verify instead. SoftwareGuide (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

They are spam. And the offical website of these products is not the one which you obstinately try to introduce. Fleet Command (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

About the info I added

In fact, some past versions of K-Lite do contain BSplayer, but since BSplayer began to be adware, later versions of K-Lite remove BSplayer (I found that info from a P2P book). Now the statement about this fact in fact is not referenced, but I'll look for good sources to verify it, so please do not remove the info (and SnapFile's review, BetaNews' internal link, they are important and useful to some extent, though not as useful as Softpedia and CNet's review). The section "malicious impersonations" should not be removed immediately as well, since it may be verifiable through Secunia, ZDNet or similar sources.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In regard to your edits:

1. Both Wikipedia reliability policy and Wikipedia notability policy must be taken into consideration about BSplayer. Find a reliable source but only add information about when it is notable. Don't just say that it is notable because I don't believe you. Notability requires evidence.
2. Your wikilinks to BetaNews and SnapFile were dead, so I deleted them. Please be careful about your links. Otherwise, it is our right to clean out the junk.
3. Information about malicious impersonations also must conform with Wikipedia reliability policy and Wikipedia notability policy.
4. Do not tell us it has source, because we don't believe you. (Especially given the number of time this article has been vandalized.) Show us the source, i.e. provide citations in the article.

Fleet Command (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S: Neither Secunia nor ZDNet have anything about K-Lite Codec Pack. Therefore, we do not keep those fake pieces of information regarding malicious impersonations. Stop vandalizing this article. Fleet Command (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But wikilinks to Betanews and SnapFiles are still needed, since these two sites are important to downloaders. Also information about SnapFiles' rating is still important since it gives the software five stars.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No they are not needed because:

1. There are no such articles called BetaNews and SnapFiles.
2. SnapFiles rating is an outright invalid: It does not praise K-Lite Codec Pack at all. Only two users have reviewed K-Lite Codec Pack. Although it says "K-Lite Codec Pack (Full)/(Mega) includes 99% of all the audio and video codecs you will ever need", this is just cliche weasel word statement because it contrast the facts that K-Lite Mega Codec Pack has more codecs than K-Lite Codec Pack Full has; so how comes they both have 99% codecs that you need? What is the other 1%?

Fleet Command (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having the articles does not mean Wikipedians should not create it, therefore BetaNews and SnapFiles should be wikilinked.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright,RekishiEJ. I do not want to turn this into an edit war. So, let's do it the fair way by assuming good faith. This is my offer for compromise:

1. I do not challenge your current edits for 30 days, during which you and other Wikipedians have time to prove your statements through reliable secondary sources and establish their notability.
2. I do not remove the red links for 45 days, during which you and other Wikipedians have time to create the mentioned articles and establish their notability as you promised.
3. I do not tolerate the weasel-wordy statements from SnapFiles but I won't delete them now. I'll tag them with {{weasel-inline}} and let them be there until 2010, during which you and other Wikipedians have time to copy-edit it.
4. If you managed to meet your promises during this period, then you'll have my respect and future support. But if you failed to establish your assertions, written Wikipedia rules (WP:RS, WP:Notability and WP:WEASEL) are obeyed to the letter: The challenged contents are deleted.
5. If any other Wikipedian intervened in the process and demanded the Wikipedia policy to be met during the given deadlines (15, 30 and 45 days) I shall stand neutral.

Do you we have a consensus? Fleet Command (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are many cases which articles about some topics have not been created for more than one year, but there are still some internal links pointing to them (such as O&O Software). I accept your other offers, though.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete or version article

Looking at this article with the intention of editing the copy, I concluded that the article refers to a deprecated/superseded software release, with some reference links (see, for example, ZDNET) having been overwritten for newer versions of the software. Editing the information now appears tendentious as it now seems of historical interest only, and the critical reception data cannot be verified using the cited sources.

My opinion: the title K-Lite Codec Pack should be preserved only for a wider consideration of all versions of that software. Options could include re-naming the article to K-Lite Codec Pack 5.2, or deleting the article, or merging it into a larger article about all versions of the K-Lite software.

--Peter S Strempel 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

Deletion coming

If no one here cares enough to stop this from being pretty disgraceful as an encyclopaedia article I will nominate it for deletion again. Personally I have used the codec pack, so it's not like I hate the product, but I don't think it deserves the mention in its current form.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats what people complain about when it comes to wikipedia. Assburgers like you. FIX IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. But its 5 years later, and it probably is right now. But just "DELETE DELETE DELETE". Typical Wikipedia Assburger --84.183.123.150 (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are what people complain about when it comes to Wikipedia. Someone who may or may not have something relevant to say, but who clearly has not bothered to read Wikipedia:Civility nor Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. No doubt you have no account because you've already been blocked for childish behaviour. Centrepull (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ad-supported

K-lite Codec Pack (Basic v12.1.0) is now described on its MajorGeeks download page as 'ad-supported'. I suspect this has been true for several versions now. I can't add this pertinent fact to the article, as I don't know in what way it is ad-supported (ads during installation? ads pop-up during use?). Readers would probably also like to know which was the first ad-supported version. Centrepull (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As of July 2017, installation of this codec pack from http://www.codecguide.com/download_kl.htm entails that M$ Bing becomes your homepage, and that all video file extensions are set to an obscure "Media Player Classic". Besides, a "Web Companion" installs itself, and claims to protect the user against all kinds of evils. And NO, there is no checkbox that allows you to skip installation of this crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj2006 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is all of this still true? I installed this codec pack multiple times in the past 3 years (the first time in February 2017) and don't remember ever having such issues. Billy7 (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's still true, it tried to install lavasoft, redirected my browser's default search to Bing and my homepage to a strange search site I had never heard of, and probably did some other shady things when I tried to install the latest version last week. There must be a better codec pack.47.145.108.23 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The only people who have this issue are the ones who just click next without bothering to read what they didn't untick. It's kind of like people who go on holiday to the arctic circle, then complain about the cold weather. 2601:CF:300:4B70:AD99:C516:E018:6ED9 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)