Talk:Guitar Rig

2011 version
It looks as though there's a version 5 out now (summer 2011). I acquired Guitar Rig 4 LE with a cheap electric guitar recently--quite good sounds with decent computer speakers--and when I checked I found v5 to be all over the place. Hopefully, somebody who knows details can write an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.94.219 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 August 2011‎

Unsourced Components section, acknowledged copyvio
Please stop restoring the unsourced material in the components section. One reversion said "These are not in the manual (probably for copyright reasons)" If they're a copyvio, they can't be here. If they're unverifiable and unsourced, they can't be here. The Dissident Aggressor 19:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And they don't belong on the talk page either! The Dissident Aggressor 19:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Component List Situation
Hi Everyone. Quick explanation: The reason companies typically don't publish lists of the hardware they emulate in software is that they would have to strike a deal with every copyright holder in order to be able to use the original brand name and model name in their software or its documentation. Listing the names of said brands and models on a Wikipedia page however is not conflicting with copyright in any way.

This also explains why there is no "official" source to back up the information given in the list - however, there are plenty of clues in the component naming and the sound characteristics of the modeled devices to safely deduct what guitarists and producers need to know. This is certainly "verifiable" information, the verification just requires the right set of musical background knowledge, and some time. You probably won't find this published in print anywhere, which is precisely why this article used to be so valuable.

I would strongly vote for restoring the list as I don't see any benefit in removing helpful information that contributors have collaboratively collected here over the different versions of Guitar Rig. And I would like to see a much more constructive approach by other editors if there are reasonable doubts about the content. Just removing it all is certainly not the way to go. --FlixFlux (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably won't find this published in print anywhere. Really?? Aside from it not being WP:VERIFIABLE and violating WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL what could be wrong with including it - if it's not a copyvio?  Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Components
I know I'm not the only person who was using this page for the list of components, since this little exchange occured, so here it is:
 * This list doesn't violate any copyrights, one user merely suggested that maybe that's the reason Native Instruments never officially published the list.
 * "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages).
 * According to this, this is a perfectly reasonable place for the list, no? I've gone ahead and reformatted it so it doesn't destroy the talk page. Darkwiz787 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dissident Aggressor 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC) ]]
 * No, probable copyright violations can't be put on the talk page either. See above.  The Dissident Aggressor 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)