Talk:WebP

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics 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.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Pronunciation

Some sources have "(pronounced ‘weppy’)", others contradict this. https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/ makes no mention of it. Does anyone have any inside knowledge of this ? Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Web pee" because it sucks and makes downloading pictures off google harder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:135A:2130:D641:6009 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detrimental Example

The example image (450px-Johnrogershousemay2020.webp.png) seriously degrades the case for WebP, as it is saturated with moiré. {:-)

200.68.170.33 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC) baden k.[reply]

The version http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Johnrogershousemay2020.webp/450px-Johnrogershousemay2020.webp.png mentioned by you exists, but is not listed on the image page. Where'd you get that version from?

Also, except for the original, all size versions, including the thumbnail are PNGs. The caption "An example webp image" is misleading - it's just a PNG copy of a webp original. The PNGs do not fulfill the expectation of the reader. --77.181.120.161 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public criticism

I noticed this page had a section which was outdated, specifically the newest citation was from 2013. I am willing to add more examples of criticism leveled against WebP, but most of the criticism does come from internet forums rather than from any reliable source. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

I am not gonna use these as citations, but the added text will have no citation as a result. I wanted to have a second opinion before performing the change because I am afraid it is going to be reverted immediately. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-partisan quality assessment

The current introduction made claims about quality that were not (explicitly) supported by the cited link.

Given that Fiona Glaser's "very early critique" explicitly assessed that the quality of the WebP-encoded result was the worst of three analysed image formats, stronger (explicit) evidence needs to be used to back up any counter-claims (i.e. either that WebP's quality is superior for a given file size, or that WebP's file size is smaller for a given quality).

I would also recommend that, where possible, citations should include non-partisan sources. In other words, assessments from people or organisations that don't have a stake in one of the competing image compression technologies. (Where that's not possible, the article should make the potential for bias or conflict of interest to occur apparent by mentioning the relationship.)

—DIV (49.186.238.246 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves (not associated Talk pages), or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking editing from mobile devices (not all devices) when viewed from designated IP ranges.

Invalid media type

The IANA's authoritative list of media types does not include image/webp. It nevertheless appears on Wikipedia and numerous other websites. Is this a case of citogenesis? SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, there is a draft RFC that defines it. I don't know why it isn't included in the IANA's list of draft media types, but that isn't a Wikipedia problem. SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]