Foobar2000 Talk:Foobar2000

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Foobar2000 article.

Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Use the forums instead.
Please read the wiki policy before editing.
Sign and date your posts using two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~).

Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).

Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.

Feel free to use these smilies by embedding their codes:
{{smiley|)}} {{smiley|D}} {{smiley|(}} {{smiley|;}}

New to Hydrogenaudio Wiki? Welcome! You may want to read our wiki policy and frequently asked questions.

Previous talk

<<snip>> Removed long dead conversations from 2005 Use history to view --Reglib 21:23, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

You do realize that somebody responsible for hydrogenaudio is blocking entire ISP's IP-address ranges? It makes your software (foobar2000) look kind of raunchy at best. I stopped looking further right there, when I was pointed to your forum on "hydrogenaudio.org" it said that I could not view that. Apparently this wiki is not blocking the IP-ranges, but that's besides the point. What I also dislike about the foobar2000 'official' page, is that it is way too anonymous and scary. WHO created it? Is it a human being, a company? Is there a contact or about page anywhere to look at? If it is on that hydrogen domain, we can't see it. Just so you know. I wouldn't put my info in their hands for a second if I were you. Kjhgkjg 18:10, 3 February 2006 (CST)

I'm thinking about reorganizing this page to be friendier for people looking to learn more about Foobar2000 while maintaining it as quick reference for veterans.

Pretty colors, probably using tables, to further delineate sections
Using keywords people are more used to such as: download, screenshots, support
Pictures that don't mean anything but look pretty

I hope you all like pink and unicorns! j/k

--Reglib 21:23, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

I see no unicorns... I :wub: unicorns :-D

--pepoluan 23:01, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Page reorganization

I added a talkpage header template to the wiki, borrowed from wikipedia ;) Now I'll be reorganizing the frontpage to look more like a software wikipedia page. I believe we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Beto 14:57, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

I also added an infobox software template to the wiki and used it in the foobar page. If you want to discuss anything please post it here. --Beto 20:34, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

The infobox collides with the heading's underline... can you put in some kid of margin-left around the box? --pepoluan 23:01, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

I tried but it appears not to be doable. It happens with the wikipedia template as well... --Beto 09:22, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Beto, I found out how to do it. Do check the infobox software template. An explanation is in the discussion page. --pepoluan 17:25, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Great!! Thank you. I already updated other infoboxes I created with your code.--Beto 07:26, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

New page layout!

What do you think? Another idea is I can make a template that puts the foobar2000 logo in the right corner, linking to the main foobar page (there's ones like these on wikipedia). This'd be useful for users and... stuff. ~Elliottmobile (talk | contribs) 10:44, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

I really like this layout

. I am not really sure about the second column though.... By the way, are you using an external editor to edit the pages? The built in wiki editor is featureless IMO....--Beto 12:17, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Second column was just to keep the table of contents to the right, really ;). I suppose it's useless... and nope, too many years of coding HTML in notepad does this to you :P ~Elliottmobile (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Replay Gain guide leading to false information

The replay guide at: http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/Replay-Gain.html is ok, comparing replay gain in winamp & foobar, but the article on lossy codecs is full of false information: http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/lossy_audio_2006.html It compares the average bitrate of wma, vorbis, mp3!!!!! There isn't even a comment section to tell the author how wrong he is...