Talk:.NET Reflector

message: The wording of the Red Gate section of this article sounds like it has been written by Red Gate themselves.  Statements such as "A new version, V6... is the result of a great deal of work with the community of .NET Reflector users in beta-test" are unsubstantiated and unquantifiable.  Therefore, I'm adding a 'neutrality disputed' flag to the article.
There has been a great deal of controversy over Red Gate's acquisition of Reflector... I am considering adding a section to discuss the issues, with links to well-recognized authorities in the software development field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sngbrdb (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that the whole article suffers from a lack of neutrality. I agree that the bit you quote could do with deleting or rewording, but that's a fairly simple point fix. Feel free to add a section on the purchase, but be careful that it doesn't stray into being WP:ORIG. Not saying that you'd go there, but there will obviously be a danger that people will run with a section in a direction that isn't very constructive. Mrh30 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the offending remarks, and otherwise edited and restructured that whole section to improve the accuracy and bring it up to date. Also therefore removed the NPOV dispute section at the top. Bart.Read (talk) 17:54, 8 Sept 2011 (UTC)
Note that the link to Red Gate reversing their decision on Reflector 6 is dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.9.39 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement 

message: This is the best of its type IMHO, but I'm not sure it warrants an entry of its own. The history of decompilers for .NET could be a good article, with a better title perhaps :-), if someone has time... Mark Hurd (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: "Red Gate has announced that it will charge $35 for version 7 of .NET Reflector upon its release in early March." 69.181.161.106 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it too soon to update the article? Maghnus (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already some information in the article about the fact that it will become a paid-for product. But feel free to add to it. Remember to keep to WP:NPOV though. Mrh30 (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soon to not be free 

message: The paragraph this article starts with reads as this is a must have tool. The two recommendations it quoted were from when the tool was free, and virtually every .Net developer I worked with had a copy. When you had to pay for the tool, every .Net developer I know has changed to a free alternative and it certainly isn't the "must have" tool it used to be. The paragraph reads more like a sales pitch and is not reflective of the true state of affairs.
I'm not sure where I could find evidence to suppport this claim that would satisfy Wikipedia standards. I don't know if Redgate have ever provided download figures when free vs sales figures when pay for. I imagine it was a steep enough drop for them to partially reverse their decision. Likewise how reliable would download figures be for the free alternatives.
Never the less that first paragraph is so misleading that I felt obliged to raise this point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.63.25 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's misleading at all. The lead section just repeats what others said, and they did say that. Though I think it makes sense to explain the change from freeware in the lead section, so feel free to edit it to say that. User<Svick>.Talk(); 12:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph Summary Is Not Reflective of Current State