Talk:Fast Duplicate File Finder

Request: updated sources and review of article

Disclosing per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline: I have a connection to MindGems Inc., the developer of this software, and am therefore posting here rather than editing the article directly. I would like to ask independent editors to review the article's sourcing and determine whether it could be improved with additional independent references. The article currently relies on a limited number of sources. The following independent coverage may be useful when evaluating whether the article can be expanded or updated: How-To Geek: https://www.howtogeek.com/1528/fast-duplicate-file-finder-easily-identifies/ OnlineComputerTips: https://onlinecomputertips.com/support-categories/software/find-duplicate-files-on-computer/ TechSpot: https://www.techspot.com/downloads/6653-fast-duplicate-file-finder.html CNET developer page: https://download.cnet.com/developer/mindgems/i-114140/ Additional software directories such as BleepingComputer and Uptodown may also provide useful factual information, although they may be less suitable as independent editorial sources. I am not requesting any specific edits. I am simply requesting that independent editors review the available sourcing and determine whether the article could be improved or expanded in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you for your time and consideration. JackTaylorMG (talk) JackTaylorMG (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply 2-JUL-2026

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

---

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

---

3. Using as the reference:

Prisha Harinath (2023). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.

---

4. Reason for change being made:

"The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request.

References

Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  05:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo

Thank you for the detailed guidance — I've prepared five specific edit proposals below, each following the requested format (text to remove, text to add, reference, and reason). These address the outdated content and the "more citations needed" tag using independent sources. Please feel free to adjust wording, trim, or decline any part you feel doesn't meet the article's standards.

EDIT: I removed the repeating edit proposals from here, as I did not see that you told me to open a new edit request. I did that now and moved them there.

--- JackTaylorMG (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: five sourcing and factual updates (per 3 July 2026 discussion)

Following up on the format requested by Spintendo in the thread above, here are five specific, sourced changes for review. Disclosure: I have a connection to MindGems Inc., the developer of this software.

Extended content

Change 1 — Fix outdated OS compatibility claim

1. Remove from the lead paragraph:

   "It is compatible with all Microsoft Windows versions including the latest Windows 8, Windows 7 and all Windows Server operating systems and their corresponding 32 and 64 bit versions."

2. Add in its place:

   "It is compatible with Windows 11, 10, 8.1, 8, and 7, as well as Windows Server 2008 and newer, in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions."

3. Reference:

   "Duplicate File Finder - Find and Remove Duplicate Files Free". MindGems. Retrieved 3 July 2026. Operating system: Windows 11 / Windows 10 / Windows 8.1 / Windows 8 / Windows 7 / Windows Server 2008 and newer

4. Reason:

   The existing claim is over a decade out of date and unsourced. This is a factual specification about the subject's own product, appropriate under WP:ABOUTSELF.

Change 2 — Add How-To Geek citation

1. Add to the Reception section, after the CNET sentence:

   "How-To Geek reviewed the software in 2009, describing it as an effective tool for locating duplicate files across a computer, including removable and network drives."

2. Reference:

   Brian Burgess (16 June 2009). "Fast Duplicate File Finder Identifies Extra Copies". How-To Geek. Retrieved 3 July 2026.

3. Reason:

   Addresses the "more citations needed" tag with a fourth independent, editorially-written source with a named author.

Change 3 — Correct mischaracterized Overclockers.com citation

1. Remove from the Reception section:

   "Overclocker.com commented on the quality of the results,"

2. Add in its place:

   "Overclockers.com praised the software's speed and ease of use, noting it located duplicate files in under ten seconds and that the reviewer was 'amazed at how many dupes showed up.'"

3. Reference: existing citation #2 (Overclockers.com, June 18, 2009) — no new source needed.
4. Reason:

   The current text mischaracterizes the source, which discusses speed and ease of use, not "quality of results."

Change 4 — Fix dead PCWorld citation link

1. Fix the URL of existing citation #1 (visible claim text unchanged):

   Old: http://www.pcworld.com/article/231456/fast_duplicate_file_finder.html

   New: https://www.pcworld.com/article/485841/fast_duplicate_file_finder.html

2. Reference:

   Preston Gralla (2 March 2011). "Fast Duplicate File Finder". PCWorld. Retrieved 3 July 2026.

3. Reason:

   The existing URL uses an outdated article ID format and is very likely dead. This is the live URL for the same review.

Change 5 — Add OnlineComputerTips citation

1. Add to the Reception section:

   "In 2026, OnlineComputerTips conducted a performance benchmark, scanning 1.3 million files and reporting no false positives in duplicate detection."

2. Reference:

   Dan Edmunds (7 July 2024). "Find Duplicate Files and then Copy, Move or Delete Them". OnlineComputerTips. Updated 3 July 2026. Retrieved 3 July 2026.

3. Reason:

   Adds an additional independent citation, addressing the "more citations needed" tag.

Thank you for reviewing. JackTaylorMG (talk) JackTaylorMG (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Reply 25-JUL-2026

  Edit request partially implemented  

• The review section in this article offers a unique set of circumstances. Where product reviews are usually straightforward, these reviews for the File Finding program found pros and cons with nearly every corner of this software.
• So, posting information from these reviews requires an editor who wishes to be brief to (1) cherry pick which part of the software to comment on, or an editor who wishes to be neutral with plenty of time to burn to (2) offer a properly-paraphrased, in-depth review of the entire software and all its numerous pros and cons. Both are unacceptable.
• A third option is to simply offer links to the reviews and let readers peruse them and all the detailed minutiae at their leisure. Seeing as how the article is a stub, I've opted for this third option. Unfortunately this deprives the article of any sources (I've applied the {{No sources}} maintenance template) but given the circumstances of these reviews and my wish to avoid the article from becoming WP:NOTECHGUIDE, I think it's the right choice.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to look at this. I want to flag one concern with the current version: the citations are now formatted as bare bullet points without <ref> tags or

, so they no longer function as verifiable inline references, which seems to be exactly why the

tag was needed. As it stands, the article has gone from having (admittedly imperfect) sourced prose to having no functioning citations at all, which reads as a step backward rather than forward.

On the mixed-reviews point, it's worth noting the software has been on the market for roughly 25 years, and each of these reviews covers a different version from a different year (2009, 2011, 2013, 2024). Some variation between reviews seems expected for a product with that long a development history, rather than a sign of inconsistent quality within a single version.

Would you be open to restoring the Reception section's prose, using the corrected wording I proposed earlier (particularly fixing the Overclockers.com mischaracterization), with the four sources properly wrapped in <ref> tags and a

? That would resolve the

tag while still addressing your concern about the reviews being mixed. The corrected text stays close to the neutral, factual tone of the original rather than expanding into a fuller pro/con summary.

Separately, I noticed the How-To Geek citation from my original request doesn't appear to have been added. Was that intentionally left out, or did it get missed in the update?

Happy to defer to your judgment on tone and phrasing either way. Just want to make sure the article ends up with working citations rather than none. Thanks for your patience with this. JackTaylorMG (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)