Talk:Free Studio

Discussion
It may be a good idea to rewrite the program (is it a program or a toolset?) description. "..unites ..into one program". The rest of the article allows to suppose this is not "one program" in the narrow sense. Further, the product includes not converters only. Thus "..unites multiple converters into one program" seems to be incorrect at all. Let the author to correct this. B7elijah (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A Brief Review
The article in the present state contains rather short but non-nonsense description of free software package developed by DVDVideoSoft. Some stylistic moments can be argued though almost all serious drawbacks (if any) have been corrected by now. The candidate for correction IMHO are as follows: overload of enumerations, lack of comparisons (key/unique features) and absence of screenshots (other figures, maybe some charts/trends). As for a overall quality of the article is concerned, I think it is well written and interesting. I also think it would be good to add links for some IT terms (for example, one of the top IT terms, MP3, is not provided a hyperlink) and references to similar/related articles (e.g. Comparison of free YouTube downloaders). B7elijah (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Free Studio. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724142629/http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/convert-transfer-youtube-videos-onto-your-ipod-with-dvdvideosoft/ to http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/convert-transfer-youtube-videos-onto-your-ipod-with-dvdvideosoft/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110625202544/http://video-converter-software-review.toptenreviews.com/dvdvideosoft-free-studio-review.html to http://video-converter-software-review.toptenreviews.com/dvdvideosoft-free-studio-review.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710160932/http://www.dv.com/article/97142 to http://www.dv.com/article/97142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115114550/http://codecpack.co/download/DVDVideoSoft_Free_Studio.html to http://codecpack.co/download/DVDVideoSoft_Free_Studio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518030500/http://www.zdnet.de/download/455087/free-studio.htm to http://www.zdnet.de/download/455087/free-studio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge from DVDVideoSoft
I've completed the merge and from merge from DVDVideoSoft and achieved a post merge consolidation to the best of my good faith ability over several edits. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion. Restore 'DVDVideoSoft’ article.
Almost a year has passed and a great job has been done to launch and complete the merge process since then. Allow me nonetheless to express my opinion. To my mind the DVDVideoSoft page should be restored. The Free Studio page contains the description of the product that is now less popular. As far as I can see from the website other apps are more important for the developer. Still I do agree, that the DVDVideoSoft article needs updating. Besides more sources should be added to make it notable. To my mind DVDVideoSoft should stay as a stand alone article and Free Studio should be nominated for merging instead. The reason is: the developer has shifted the focus from Free Studio towards YouTube downloaders and other apps. This makes information in Free Studio article irrelevant. DVDVideoSoft is a company name and should be mentioned on top. Melomanny (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what the company currently focuses on. Popularity is irrelevant (and difficult to measure), too. What really matters is notability. This applies to products and companies as well. Please read the notability guideline for companies for more details (in short: an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources). Besides, notability is not temporary. Once a product proves to be notable, it stays notable even if it is falling out of favour with its creator or users. Just because it becomes outdated does not mean that it is not notable anymore or that the information in the article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tech trends magazine.—J. M. (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps should be updated
According to reviews I have seen online, this isn't freeware anymore, it allows only 30 minutes of video download and that with a watermark. I say this only because it is referred to as "freeware" in the article, so maybe this should be noted. 82.46.123.120 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)