Talk:.nfo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Intro is wrong

"The purpose of an NFO file is similar to that of the FILE ID.DIZ which can be found in many ZIP archives today and during the era of the BBS." Umm, no it's not. The DIZ file is just a descriptor that gives the name of the archive, and file count. An NFO provides release notes. 0Day groups have been packing NFOs and DIZs together for years, because they serve a completely different purpose. 153.111.226.201 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct sir! — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFO Tools

Can another editor come by and take a look at the edit dispute between me and anon over the NFO tools? Im afraid of running over 3rr. Copysan 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. I think links to programs that work with NFO files is fine. As I noted back in July, a collection of links to sites encouraging the breaking of copyright is something that we can just do without. But then you just reverted me with no discussions here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do NFO files encourage violating copyright? In that case, we should remove links on the page for isonews and/or nforce and the link to the "first" nfo file. Plus I was trying to avoid advertising by linking to the defacto list of tools, which includes all the tools already listed and more. Copysan 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now comes the link spam. THis is what we reap for allowing some nfo tools. Now everybdoy feels their iteration of nfo viewers is improtant. Copysan 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

==

What are "Folio Infobase" files and how do I read them? Bastie 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAMN-NFO link

For some reason, Phobie (talk • contribs) and misc anon IPs (the latest being 84.176.241.182 (talk • contribs) with the same message that Phobie used previously), continue to change the link to a .biz domain. .biz domains are notoriously spam and ad heavy. The link to softpedia is a more well-known internet resource with a known good reputation (and less likely to hit corporate firewalls). I am not the only one, Copysan (talk • contribs) seems to have implicitly agreed when they did the same revert. So, the people pushing .biz, please feel free to participate in this discussion. Continuously changing article text without discussion is considered vandalism, so please give us a reason softpedia is not good enough. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby explicitly agree. Copysan 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)