Talk:RealPlayer

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

CorporateM (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Trimming

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

As mentioned on user:Drmies' Talk page the article is need of some trimming. I suggest we trim the "Supported media formats" section and the "Formats supported by optional plug-ins" as an indiscriminate collection of information. I have also not found any sources for the bold claims made in the "Access restrictions" section. For the "Real Alternative section, the BLP information at the very end looks citable to citation 67. The statement "Meanwhile, Download.com[62] and FileHippo[63] continue to host the software product, unchallenged.[64]" does not appear to be sourced, except to FileHippo and Download.com and could be trimmed. CorporateM (Talk) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed FileHippo ref as somewhat promotional. Left Download.com link; they're notable enough not to be linkspam. John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Access restrictions" section. That's just the list of countries (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) to which the US prohibits all exports. It has nothing specifically to do with this particular product. John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the Real Alternative section. Inter\^Echo 08:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!! Quick note: I would add "allegedly" to Inter's re-write of the Real Alternative section. One other item is this unsourced statement: "but in the 21st century, Adobe Flash has become the preferred option for this purpose (demonstrated by the comparable success of the BBC iPlayer)." I did a few quick searches but didn't come up with any sources for this (does anyone know if this is true?). I would do a few things differently regarding weak or primary sources, but then most of the article is poorly-sourced and I don't see anything else that seems just really bogus. Thanks again for your time! CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC iPlayer does use Adobe Flash. It is a widely used technology for web players to stream content. Oz\^Echo 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, is it the "preferred option" over Realplayer as alleged in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of FileHippo creates a very big problem. You see, providing only one example defeats the purpose of the discussion by making "Download.com" the exception, not the Dutch guy. This is no longer WP:NPOV. In fact, we need at least three examples. I suggest adding PC World and Chip.de as well. In addition, FileHippo has a very good reputation. If it was something like Softonic, I'd have agreed.

Removing "Access restrictions" section is unjustified. User:Nagle's sentence is just a paraphrasing of the section, not a reason for removal. AFAIK, not only an article is perfectly allowed to mention the export restrictions by the home country of its subject, it is in fact mandated by WP:FACR which says an article must extensively cover all aspects of a subject and be self-contained.

Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Access restrictions" section is uncited. No objection to covering it if there's a citation. As for downloads, no objection to listing some major site. I was jsut concerned about it being a promotional link for FileHippo. John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call a good reason for removal. Yes, content without source can be removed. I'll see if I can get a source for it. If I didn't find any, yes, you can delete it. I admit that I didn't realize it didn't have a source. Sorry. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both links are primary sources and the Techdirt source at the end does not actually say anything about either. I'm a little surprised an experienced editor would advocate so strongly about restoring unsourced content about a bold claim. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you believe Primary sources are either evil or forbidden in Wikipedia; this is not the case. TechDirt says "It's not hard to find all sorts of sites, including big names like CNET, that still distribute Real Alternative". We are strengthening this claim by adding sources that show that it is indeed the case. Cheers. (Or should I start writing "Best regards" too?) Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right - I didn't see that in the Techdirt source and supplementing a secondary source is a good use of a primary one. Yes, I do think primary sources often have a tint of evil to them ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RealPlayer is now RealTimes

2015-09-21

Please see http://real.com for details.

More information: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/05/19/realnetworks-launches-realtimes-an-update-to-its-photo-sharing-cloud-service/

Fushigi-kun (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on RealPlayer. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on RealPlayer. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]