Talk:Better Portable Graphics

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...[edit]

This stub still does not have good, third-party sources, but that's because this new format has just been announced. I think this page should not be speedily deleted because soon will have more significance. --Netol (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and when it becomes significant, then it can have an article. Until then, it's simply too early. Trivialist (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok.. --Netol (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion and sent it to AFD instead for discussion. This is from Fabrice Bellard and is generating some web chatter so there might possibly be sources out there to establish notability (see WP:N for our cirteria). You can make your case for keeping the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Portable Graphics. SpinningSpark 18:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other alternatives to JPG[edit]

Other alternatives to JPG do not quite belong in this article. They may belong in the JPG article, or in a whole other summary article. They do not automatically have anything to do with BPG. As such, I'm moving the following text from the article to this Talk page:

Other image formats designed to replace JPEG include Joint Photographic Experts Group's JPEG 2000, Microsoft's JPEG XR, and Google's WebP. None of these have so far been broadly adopted.

--IO Device (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, of course it belongs. BPG is the latest in a line of attempts to replace JPEG - mentioning the previous attempts is a natural context to the latest attempt to replace JPEG. Also, this is just one line, hardly undue weight. Thue (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) [The one who added the line in the first place][reply]

Yes, I agree, it provides context. In the same way, our article on Windows gives some discussion of the Apple GUI, our article on Firefox gives some discussion on Internet Explorer etc etc. I don't see why this text is problematic, in my opinion, it is its removal that is problematic. SpinningSpark 10:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, restoring for now. --88.20.103.227 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add it to the JPEG article? No balls? --IO Device (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you are trying to say through all your passive aggressiveness. Thue (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not passive, just aggressive. What I was saying is that if you had any balls, you would add your statements where they really matter, i.e. to the JPEG article, but you don't, so you added them to this little article where nobody cares about them anyway. --IO Device (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original discussion here: can we reword the part that says "Several previous image formats are also technically superior to JPEG for similar uses, though not by the same margin as BPG". The first article that was cited doesn't mention BGP, and the second is a demo that doesn't state doesn't go into the science as to if the encodings are actually the most optimal. I'm not saying this statement is true or false, but I am thinking the cited articles don't prove that. Xamian (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these unsupported claims. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Is this page translated from Chinese or something? The language seems a bit.."off" Avalon Hamakei (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]