Talk:Bink Video

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

reverting encryption stuff...

This is Jeff from RAD. Bink has absolutely no encryption (as a general rule, I don't believe in any of that). Rock Band is just wrapping our data with their own format. Any info on that belongs on the Rock Band page - not the Bink page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.22.222 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - as it happens, whether Bink had encryption or not, that kind of trivia/how-to guide does not belong in this article anyway. Thanks for removing it. A WHOIS request verifies that you are from RAD so again, thank you - both for taking an interest in your article, and for not attempting to turn it into an advert, as many companies who find an entry on Wikipedia do. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article already reads too much like an advert, but it's probably bad form for me to fix that... - Jeff Roberts (I have a user account, I was just lazy - sorry, about that.)

Smacker video

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 05:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smacker video is flagged as not notable, but FFmpeg decoding can't be too bad. How about a section here, as historic background? It would also allow to join the Template:Compression formats entries. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Smacker and Bink have been used in 2300 and 6200 video games, respectively, so by that measure, Smacker and Bink are approximately equally notable. Conquerist (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the Smacker video article is better than the Bink Video stub, so I guess at least the direction of the suggested merge was wrong. If you are confident that a merge only muddies the water remove the tags, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the two topics are separate enough to warrant their own articles. But the Bink article doesn't cover as much of the topic as it could. I think I'll add more details to the Bink article, its scope should be similar to the Smacker article after that. No need to merge after that I think. Conquerist (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge both to RAD Game Tools. Yes, all three are notable. Yes, we could keep standalone articles. That doesn't mean we must. There is certainly a lot of overlap between the three topics, and treating them all together would probably make for a better read. Otherwise I could support merging the two, though I'm not sure which to which, but for largely the same reasons. There's enough redundant content that the two can probably be better discussed in a single article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As Conquerist said, they have each been used by thousands of video games and are equally notable. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Both articles prove the topics are notable enough for their own article, there's no point merging them into one. As Conquerist said, they've been used in lots of video games throughout the years. Ana r chyte 12:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.