Talk:PotPlayer

How much of the current information is relevant?
Let me preface this by stating that I am not even a regular editor of Wikipedia articles, so I'd like to hear some insight before editing myself.

Before the overhaul on 21:02, 28 April 2016‎, by LocalNet, I agree that the page looked more like an article ("including, but not limited to", as an example). But the current state of the page has virtually no substance whatsoever.

The sidebar and the first line provide helpful information as to what PotPlayer is. Developer, supported languages, license, product website. The rest of the article is outdated, lacking sources, and lacking substance. If we are to analyze it step by step, or sentence for sentence, we can see what the article might need, and what is reasonable to remove.

"The player competes (...) Media Player Classic." Does it compete with specifically these players, as a freeware product? All the players, save KMPlayer, are GPL licensed players, and in some cases platform agnostic. This sentence poses that all these players are specifically targeted at the Windows platform and, regarding "with", also directly fight with PotPlayer for market position. The sentence also mentions "other popular", but there's nothing about PotPlayer's market share, or any of the other players' market share. So far that looks like a subjective mention, at best. The entire sentence appears irrelevant to me, as after reading the whole article I don't see how they're similar to one another. If something written raises doubt, then it might not be worded properly.

"PotPlayer's reception has (...) variety of formats." There are no reviews, there's only the one Lifehacker review from July 19, 2011. Is this still relevant? Besides, it's only referencing a review, nothing about the actual product's features?

"Among its criticisms (...) menu is "confusing"." This sentence is confusing. It's again referring to a single review, but stating there are multiple reviewers. There is the one link to Softonic, but I fail to see how that site is relevant to this article or what is quoted?

"PotPlayer contains a (...) a clean interface." Subjective, as well as old?

Again, the entire article's body feels highly irrelevant. There is no depth, only some subjective insight, and I'm not even sure how relevant some of the subjective content is. So far only "PotPlayer is a multimedia software player developed for the Microsoft Windows operating system by South Korean Internet company Kakao (formerly Daum Communications)." is relevant, everything else reads as the same advertising that LocalNet hoped to remove.

Possible suggestions for contributors:
 * Write about the history of the product (Five W's);
 * Write about the development of the product;
 * Write about the possible future of the product (if there is any, maybe it indeed has not developed since the review 5 years ago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.218.25 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Viruses?
The phrase "The installer packages for PotPlayer are regularly comprised of sophisticated computer viruses. Use of this software should be avoided." without any citation is suspicious... it seems like completely unsubstantiated FUD to me, I've been using this player for years and never had viruses. Is there any proof for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.219.71.98 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I must agree.
 * Any setup file for any app can be infected, of course. It's never a good idea to get software from a disreputable sources, or install them without virus-testing them.
 * That said, I've used PotPlayer for over ten years—installing every new version as it's become available (first manually, from Softpedia, then via PP's built-in updater), and I've never gotten a virus from it, nor seen any of the third-party software offers or in-screen ads this article describes. Ever. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pot player 1.7.18346.jpg

"Citation" that it’s okay?

 * As of 2022, the software no longer installs adware or shows ads.[citation needed]

What sort of "citation" could one find for such a thing? All I know (as I've described elsewhere here) is that I've used every version for at least the last ten years, and never seen a hint these things. I can only assume they were added by unscrupulous download sites. (It's actually not that hard to use a setup creator to "wrap" a normal setup file in other stuff.) It certainly wouldn't be the first time this happened. But documenting that it doesn't happen? I don't know what form that could take. Suppose some of us download and install it, and see for ourselves? Well, I already have, but feel free to join in. 😉 – AndyFielding (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)