Talk:List of file signatures

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Incomplete?

Isn't this list VERY incomplete?! ok, i can post it here... List of file signatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.99.208 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list there contains errors though, for example "46 4F 52 4D 00" is stated to be an IFF-AIFF file. "46 4F 52 4D" just shows that it's an IFF file, the next "00" is a part of the unsigned 32-bit length indicator, and could be any value. So the correct file signature for IFF AIFF is "46 4F 52 4D .. .. .. .. 41 49 46 46". I wonder how many errors might also be in there. JoaCHIP (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler's list

Isn't Gary Kessler's list rather unofficial? I know, there might not be a real "official" list, but his site seems informal. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No merge please

The file currently has a merge template. I think this is an informative and expandable list, which will be too long when completed to be merged. Thue | talk 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thue. This should NOT be merged with Magic number (programming), if with anything, perhaps with List of file formats. Jahibadkaret (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT] I also added an extended (public domain) list of the file extension magic numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahibadkaret (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in agreement that this should not be merged. This is a useful list and is far too long to be included in that page. Zell Faze (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge. While many file signatures are instances of magic numbers, not all of them are. And the reverse is not true, and there are far more other used of magic numbers than just file signatures. These are different topics covering different areas of computer science. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the initiative and close this merge request. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to merge. I'll remove the merge template as well. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation or scam?

This edit removed a lot of information from the article, claiming it is a copyright violation. The same edit also added an external link apparently run by the person responsible for the edit. How do we know this is true and not a scam to charge readers $25 for the same info? Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary said that he was removing updates by Franz Waldmann (talk · contribs), but he removed a lot more. My guess was that this was merely confusion about the edit history? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've politely asked the user to proceed with one of the processes at WP:CPI. In the mean time, we should probably leave it off until they respond. --NYKevin @048, i.e. 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the original list is available in public published sources? Surely those items can't be construed as copyright violations since they are not proprietary. Individual phrases describing the file contents can (probably) be copyrighted, but isn't it a stretch to say that a phrase such as "PGP Public Key-ring File" violates copyright? Or is there some bigger issue at stake here? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't put too much stock into these sorts of claims, but if it turns out this person doesn't own the copyrights in the first place, we won't have to fight that fight as strenuously. I did specifically mention that concern, however, when contacting this individual. We'll see what happens. --NYKevin @178, i.e. 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but don't expect much of a reply. The editor's only edit to date has been to remove the alleged copyright violation. Astronaut (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, I think this user might actually be complaining about a single action: [1]. This looks similar to the removed contents, and the history makes the net change look like a no-op, considering the other edits in between these two: [2]. In other words, this might actually be a real complaint about a specific set of information. OTOH, the idea-expression divide makes me continue to be skeptical that this is actually infringing, regardless of the intent of the remover. If they don't contact us soon, I would not oppose restoring the information. --NYKevin @845, i.e. 19:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page that I assume is related to this complaint, filesig.co.uk, is a bit painful to use but does seem to be established and probably legitimate. Whether the material is from there I don't know. I do know that a trivial google search shows an exact copy of what was posted has been online at http://code.google.com/p/baraeco/source/browse/trunk/utils/headers.txt since mid 2009. Is this the original version? Your guess is as good as mine. It is the only hit I can see on google that is a duplicate of the uploaded data though. Is the material copyright? I counter this with another question: is a virus signature database copyrighted? I'm not a laywer, but to me a file signature this trivial seems like nothing more than a list of public domain knowledge which I would think makes the copyright claim hinge on the quantity of original work placed in to curating the list. But don't quote me on that, ask an expert. 89.238.157.212 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]