Talk:File format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Why remove links on file format page[edit]

I have an issue with you removing all the links on the file format definitions page. I tried to cleanup and remove some of the invalid spam links.

Some of the web sites in the external links ARE much more useful than the ones in DMOZ, can you please explain your reasoning:

I don't see how any of these links could be considered SPAM in any way:

- * File Signatures Database resource for forensic practitioners - * PRONOM technical registry - * Library of Congress file format information - * Introduction to Uniform Type Identifiers - * Magic signature database - Standard file format information and FFID registry

Ccodere (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place for comercial links, links to registries, databases ect. Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Additionaly, these are Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy.Its best to add Cited verifyable content, not links. --Hu12 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I currently cannot find ANY specific rule that does not permit any of the above links. Actually, to the opposite of what you are saying, all these categories fall in the
What should be linked
" 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
Please can you prove to me that one of those links is not usefull when trying to understand file format information?? There is no registration required, and no publicity. Any user interested in file formats (such as archivits and programmers) would be interested in these sites, you can ask any specialist. I really do not understand your reasoning....

Ccodere (talk)

I have readded the links listed above for completeness sake. If you want to remove them, i would like arbitration about this to other experts. You should not be allowed to choose by yourself what constitutes SPAM, especially not in this specific case. If I have expert advice agreeing with you, then it will be so. If you want me to add them as references, i can do it, since these sites point to information discussed in the article.

Ccodere (talk)

I've also readded two other specific sites that have been at this page for years (file-ext and Game file format central). These sites I always found most useful, and I often checked back here as I knew they were linked from this Wikipedia page. I hate that trigger-happyness of some people, who go over the top and remove all links. For your information, I'd let the public decide what is relevant, thank you. Both sites (especially game file format central) provide excellent information about many different file formats, and even tutorials on the subject. Why don't you take time to check out a site first, you would have seen they are aboslutely relevant and huge resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.10 (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DMOZ link[edit]

While the external links tend to be excessive, I'm curious why the insistence on keeping the DMOZ link. I've never found any of its content to be useful. Tedickey (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, on a closer look, the DMOZ link isn't great! Normally, such a link serves as a good substitute for what would otherwise become a sprawling linkfarm (which is what tends to happen here). Do you have any suggestions as to a better/fair selection for our external links section? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Aside from removing DMOZ also, nothing comes to mind (there aren't a lot of good resources for file-formats...) Tedickey (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally think that the old links should be put back in, especially those related to the government sites. On the other hand, for DMOZ, I noticed they have added the sites, including those of the government, but a lot of the links on DMOZ regarding this are not high-quality. Ccodere (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated DMOZ, since it is the best that can be done currently. Most of the important links are now on DMOZ. Unless someone provides a better alternative I strongly suggest that only DMOZ be allowed as an external link. Ccodere (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

examples of file formats[edit]

Hi. Here is page with examples. Is it good to add to links ? Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

developing mutimedia program[edit]

why is the file format one of the important factors when developing multimedia program ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.62.12 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chunk-based formats[edit]

This section is unsourced and pushing it's own agenda. It makes no sense to rank data structures like that, and JSON is definitely not "similar to XML". Why are we defining JSON in terms of what it hasn't instead of saying what it has? It is simply a primitive JavaScript type literal. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)