![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Moved back to Plex (software). |
There is a lot of detail that was brought over from the XBMC article that is probably too much for an article. Examples include the Plex_(software)#Video_playback_in_detail, Plex_(software)#Audio_playback_in_detail, and Plex_(software)#Add-on_plugins_.28widgets.2Fgadgets.29_python_scripts sub-sections. There are others like these that are impenetrable to most people who are not programmers. My thought is to refer back to the XBMC article with a section that discussed the heritage, but not have this level of detail included. It's repetitive and frankly, I'm not sure how much of it is accurate since we don't have a source the directly connects it to Plex. Comments? Mattnad ( talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This article states in several places that Plex Home Theatre is closed-source proprietary software. I don't think that's the case: it's open-source and available on GitLab here: https://github.com/plexinc/plex-home-theater-public/blob/pht-frodo/README-BUILD-PLEX.md
I'm not updating the article myself in case I've misunderstood (eg. maybe only a portion of Plex Home Theatre is open-source, with some closed-source part).
(Note that the article is correct in that the back-end software - Plex Media Server - is closed-source.)
I noticed a request in the Plex forums for a comparison of features for each of the Plex clients applications.
Thought we could just create a regular tabular comparison chart. Any ideas if there is an existing comparison list we could build on?
Cheers 196.215.171.134 ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Plex (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The article appears to go to great efforts to add as much text and links as possible. Remove, consolidate, unduplicate? The 'See also section lists List of video player software and Comparison of video player software, both low quality, both with somewhat similar content.
Glad to see some serious effort here, but I have two concerns: 1) There's significant dependency on primary, non-reliable sources (Plex site, forums) which raises issues of notability, and a related 2) this is highly detailed and technical, so much so it's gone beyond encyclopedic content. There are far to many sections/subsections with sometimes a little as a single sentence in each. I don't love the earlier version, but it's better than this one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Thoughts? Mattnad ( talk) 17:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like this article is deserving of some sort of disclaimer recommending cleanup. The voice of the article does not seem consistent with what I am accustomed to with Wikipedia or an Encyclopedia. While rich with content, IMHO it reads more like a blog than an Encyclopedia entry.
For example Plex is introduced as software, but there are large sections where the "they" pronoun is used to refer to it.
Another example is the uncited and direct assertion that it violates the GPL.
72.169.81.105 ( talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included? NO Is the source code completely missing? YES Is there a written offer for source that's incomplete in some way? NO Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution? NO Is some of the source available? no
FFMpeg - https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html, FreeImage - http://freeimage.sourceforge.net/license.html cygwin - https://lwn.net/Articles/307918/ OpenSSl - https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html libiconv - https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/ opencv - http://opencv.org/license.html zlib = https://github.com/orlp/ed25519/blob/d4c1fa44ae1e07f7ad578032efa5d9d9959188b0/license.txt that a list without even reverse engineering abit of the code which i dont have time to due right now it just from first install directory.last time i went threw plain text files there where 72 GPL-Violation the only source code they even come close to acknowledging is python and that only in half compliance got source code but no license even the Font there using which has one of the easiest license there is right now MIT license permits reuse within proprietary software provided that all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms and the copyright notice.and they cant be bothered with that. outside of using your own eyes you would need to admit that you reversed engineered the software while most of the code is made up of open source code which they fail to provide license or source code as required by GPL and I would have to check but i believe a few require payment if used in a project like Plex (closed sourced),there may be some proprietary code which iam sure they would sue you. You also only need to check dates on several DDL of alot of the open source software there using. you can see that it way out of date any many have put out security fixes.
As the article is basically a free whole page ad for them .it should be pointed out that the software has some issues
6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 12:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The Privacy section says that Plex changed their forums to use Vanilla forums instead, but currently (as of early March 2020) the forums are actually Discourse. Gwyneth Llewelyn ( talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article seems extremely suspicious. I think there needs to be a source for the claim that plex is foremost a streaming service and not a media player. 2601:8A:500:57A1:C52E:A187:56F7:99A7 ( talk) 01:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'd like to reopen the discussion regarding this page and the tone the article is written in. I still feel like the article sounds like a hidden advert. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to clean the article up, nor do I have time to at the moment. Unless there are any objections I would like to put the advert template back in. Please ping me in the discussion thread!
/VFD Very Fantastic Dude ( talk) 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved back to Plex (software). I'm reading this as a revert of an undiscussed move, as there haven't been any arguments for moving. It does look like the article is definitely about the software and not the company. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Plex (company) → ? – this was renamed from "Plex (software)" to "Plex (company)" here. as it is currently, this feels wrong. either the article should be renamed to something more appropriate, or the lead should be rewritten to describe it as a company that makes a media player and a streaming service and the infobox updated appropriately as well. – alexia a (she/her) 13:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
https://www.plexflim-movie.com There is any type Plexfilm movie rating earning money platform.please provide me is this a real platform because I'm invested huge amount is this plat form now my money was in hold.i was thinking it's a scam, please help me out. Senaakash01 ( talk) 09:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Moved back to Plex (software). |
There is a lot of detail that was brought over from the XBMC article that is probably too much for an article. Examples include the Plex_(software)#Video_playback_in_detail, Plex_(software)#Audio_playback_in_detail, and Plex_(software)#Add-on_plugins_.28widgets.2Fgadgets.29_python_scripts sub-sections. There are others like these that are impenetrable to most people who are not programmers. My thought is to refer back to the XBMC article with a section that discussed the heritage, but not have this level of detail included. It's repetitive and frankly, I'm not sure how much of it is accurate since we don't have a source the directly connects it to Plex. Comments? Mattnad ( talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This article states in several places that Plex Home Theatre is closed-source proprietary software. I don't think that's the case: it's open-source and available on GitLab here: https://github.com/plexinc/plex-home-theater-public/blob/pht-frodo/README-BUILD-PLEX.md
I'm not updating the article myself in case I've misunderstood (eg. maybe only a portion of Plex Home Theatre is open-source, with some closed-source part).
(Note that the article is correct in that the back-end software - Plex Media Server - is closed-source.)
I noticed a request in the Plex forums for a comparison of features for each of the Plex clients applications.
Thought we could just create a regular tabular comparison chart. Any ideas if there is an existing comparison list we could build on?
Cheers 196.215.171.134 ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Plex (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The article appears to go to great efforts to add as much text and links as possible. Remove, consolidate, unduplicate? The 'See also section lists List of video player software and Comparison of video player software, both low quality, both with somewhat similar content.
Glad to see some serious effort here, but I have two concerns: 1) There's significant dependency on primary, non-reliable sources (Plex site, forums) which raises issues of notability, and a related 2) this is highly detailed and technical, so much so it's gone beyond encyclopedic content. There are far to many sections/subsections with sometimes a little as a single sentence in each. I don't love the earlier version, but it's better than this one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Thoughts? Mattnad ( talk) 17:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like this article is deserving of some sort of disclaimer recommending cleanup. The voice of the article does not seem consistent with what I am accustomed to with Wikipedia or an Encyclopedia. While rich with content, IMHO it reads more like a blog than an Encyclopedia entry.
For example Plex is introduced as software, but there are large sections where the "they" pronoun is used to refer to it.
Another example is the uncited and direct assertion that it violates the GPL.
72.169.81.105 ( talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included? NO Is the source code completely missing? YES Is there a written offer for source that's incomplete in some way? NO Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution? NO Is some of the source available? no
FFMpeg - https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html, FreeImage - http://freeimage.sourceforge.net/license.html cygwin - https://lwn.net/Articles/307918/ OpenSSl - https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html libiconv - https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/ opencv - http://opencv.org/license.html zlib = https://github.com/orlp/ed25519/blob/d4c1fa44ae1e07f7ad578032efa5d9d9959188b0/license.txt that a list without even reverse engineering abit of the code which i dont have time to due right now it just from first install directory.last time i went threw plain text files there where 72 GPL-Violation the only source code they even come close to acknowledging is python and that only in half compliance got source code but no license even the Font there using which has one of the easiest license there is right now MIT license permits reuse within proprietary software provided that all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms and the copyright notice.and they cant be bothered with that. outside of using your own eyes you would need to admit that you reversed engineered the software while most of the code is made up of open source code which they fail to provide license or source code as required by GPL and I would have to check but i believe a few require payment if used in a project like Plex (closed sourced),there may be some proprietary code which iam sure they would sue you. You also only need to check dates on several DDL of alot of the open source software there using. you can see that it way out of date any many have put out security fixes.
As the article is basically a free whole page ad for them .it should be pointed out that the software has some issues
6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 12:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The Privacy section says that Plex changed their forums to use Vanilla forums instead, but currently (as of early March 2020) the forums are actually Discourse. Gwyneth Llewelyn ( talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article seems extremely suspicious. I think there needs to be a source for the claim that plex is foremost a streaming service and not a media player. 2601:8A:500:57A1:C52E:A187:56F7:99A7 ( talk) 01:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'd like to reopen the discussion regarding this page and the tone the article is written in. I still feel like the article sounds like a hidden advert. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to clean the article up, nor do I have time to at the moment. Unless there are any objections I would like to put the advert template back in. Please ping me in the discussion thread!
/VFD Very Fantastic Dude ( talk) 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved back to Plex (software). I'm reading this as a revert of an undiscussed move, as there haven't been any arguments for moving. It does look like the article is definitely about the software and not the company. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Plex (company) → ? – this was renamed from "Plex (software)" to "Plex (company)" here. as it is currently, this feels wrong. either the article should be renamed to something more appropriate, or the lead should be rewritten to describe it as a company that makes a media player and a streaming service and the infobox updated appropriately as well. – alexia a (she/her) 13:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
https://www.plexflim-movie.com There is any type Plexfilm movie rating earning money platform.please provide me is this a real platform because I'm invested huge amount is this plat form now my money was in hold.i was thinking it's a scam, please help me out. Senaakash01 ( talk) 09:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)