Talk:K-Lite Codec Pack

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redo the whole article

message: 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)
replies: text: They returned it one week later as a new version that does no longer include QuickTime Alternative. -Lwc4life 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-lite Mega Codec Pack 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spam and revert war over "official site" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete or version article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion coming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ad-supported