Talk:VP3

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Untitled

I've undone the merge of two years ago for a variety of reasons.

The first is that the Theora page no longer has a VP3 section. A person looking for information about VP3 will no longer find it in the Theora article. The second is that VP3 is not, any more, Theora. Theora has been substantially worked upon since 2001 and while Theora is the anointed successor to VP3, it certainly isn't the same, any more than MPEG-2 is the same as MPEG-1.

I hope this change is uncontroversial. Some times merges seem to make sense at the time but end up destroying the original information because the new article doesn't have the merged information as its focus. VP-3 is notable, it's something that exists as an independent entity, and this merge is a clear demonstration that merging articles doesn't always serve to improve Wikipedia, even when done (as it clearly was) with the best of intentions. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it at the Theora talk page if you feel it should be resplit, but if it is no longer in the Theora article, its likely there is a good reason for it and VP3 just isn't notable enough for its own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who did the revert, I have to say that I'm glad coming back four years later to see you've retired even though you insist it's because of other people attacking you. I've had an on-and-off relationship with WP myself over this time, but quite honestly, I'm driven away by people who do things like attack me as a "vandal" for something that's obviously not vandalism. People like you. It's one thing to revert content you disagree with, it's quite another to go in, guns blazing, sliming other editors when:

- Those editors have given their reasons, both in Talk and in the editor summary (so they can't be missed, you can't pretend you didn't see the reasoning)

- You're not prepared to explain how those reasons are bad faith

- There's nothing obviously bad faith

- The reason given is 100% true and unarguable.

This is why I do a flurry of edits and then find myself leaving. Too many people believe that contributing to Wikipedia, ensuring it _provides information_, is secondary to arbitrary standards that must be imposed with personal attacks. I hope if you return, you'll accept the need to be constructive in future. 98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally to above reasons for having a separate article on VP3 here there is VP4, that isn't a separate, new codec, but merely a new encoder for VP3. So we have further developments on that codec from On2 after the fork that gave birth to Theora. Information on VP4 doesn't deserve its own article - and doesn't it fit into the Theora article.

So therefore now I'm gona reestablish the VP3 article with information from the old VP3 article as well as from the history section of the Theora article and the information on VP4 from the VP4 article incorporated into a special subsection.

If somebody indeed thinks that VP3 isn't notable on its own, then I think its best to have the VP3 article challenged in a deletion discussion...--Clavipath (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]