This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Avidemux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
I was tempted to put this to the article, but removed it - its better read in the discussion at first I think:
The german Avidemux entry has been deleted Reason for the request for deletion was: "Begründung:Werbetext für ein Softwareprodukt zweifelhafter Relevanz. Eine Verbreitung wie sie zum Beispiel bei VirtualDub vorhanden ist kann ich hier nicht erkennen. Aber vor allem ist es purer Werbebläh. --Weissbier 09:49, 4. Mai 2007 (CEST)" That means "Reason:Advertising text for a softwareproduct of doubtable relevance. A widespread distrubution like par example VirtualDub has unfortunately I cannot see in this case. But above all it is pure advertisingbleh." Last Avidemux-entry at de.wikipedia:
Though 12:0 votes for keeping it was deleted "Begründung: Im Artikel stand, das es sich um eine Software handelt und was sie kann. Das war alles! Damit ist keine wie auch immer geartete enzyklopädische Relevanz erkennbar. Dazu wurde auch in der Diskussion nichts beigetragen. --He3nry Disk. 10:16, 17. Mai 2007 (CEST)" "Reason: The article just said that it is a software and what it can do. That was all! In this way was no encyclopedian relevance visible. The discussion also did not add to it."
I don't think that the "Future plans" section is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Firstly, users interested in Avidemux development can see all these details elesewhere (mailing list with patches, web forum, bug tracker), this is just general info page about the Avidemux application, i.e. what it is and what it can do, not a development info. Secondly, the "Proposed (but unconfirmed or undecided) features" section is just pure speculation that's not based on anything real. It's just fantasy. Anyone can ask for any feature in Avidemux and then, without getting any answer, put it the "Future plans" section, cunfusing the readers who may think that these are planned features. That's pretty much what this section represents (random suggestions from various users without getting answers from the developers). Only Mean or other Avidemux developers know what they plan to do. And only when they say it's planned, it can be considered a planned feature. And even then, it may not belong here, in Wikipedia. J. M. 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
the homepage http://www.avidemux.org/ appears to be down. 71.131.134.213 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it worth mentionning it, but I had huge desync problems with Avidemux. I think it lies in the way Avidemux handle NTSC source 23.976 played as 29.976 (with 3:2 Pulldown), it's not doing the job correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.150.95 ( talk) 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The OpenDML link, next to AVI, under "Supported input formats" is broken. Reason is due to website redesign at Matrox.com . I couldn't find the new URL to fix it. 85.228.120.179 ( talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I use avidemux as a simple editor. Comparing it with Adobe Premiere Pro is misleading, it is a vastly simpler piece of software that doesn't begin to do the same kinds of audio/video editing. However, it does open many more file formats without the fuss that Premiere sometimes makes about licensing. It's become a cliche to exagerate the qualities of anything open source, and in the long run, that doesn't help the reputation of the movement. DonPMitchell ( talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The only references to it being an Open Source alternative to "Adobe Premier Pro" that I can find are at sites like the Open Source As Alternative site [1], but there is no objective comparison to say that it is anywhere near as powerful as "Adobe Premier Pro"; indeed that claim is NOT made. If you go to sites where you can download it, it is described as being designed to do simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks [2] [3]and at their own web site [4]. I would suggest removing the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.109.161 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been a Linux user for a long time, and I avidly support open source and FOSS solutions. However, I don't like the way this article comes across. The constant comparisons with applications like VirtualDUB are problematic in 2 ways, I believe. First, it comes across as a "defensive advertisement," which is detrimental to the project in my opinion. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, readers may not have any experience using any video editing software at all, so these types of statements potentially don't tell readers about Avidemux at all; this is supposed to be a world-class encyclopedia after all.
I suggest the article be adjusted to simply explain Avidemux, and not compare it to other software solutions, except probably in a "Avidemux compared to other software" type section. This will first of all change the tone to one of professionalism, and second will be much more informative to the readers.
17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.83 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Avidemux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/multimedia/avidemux2/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Tagging an article for updates is okay, but posting some refs here that outlines what needs to be incorporated would be much more helpful. Got refs? - Ahunt ( talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
There is a content dispute about the "simple and easy-to-use" description in the intro. I can see right and wrong observations on both sides of the dispute:
So, my summary: Avidemux is a simple program for simple video encoding/editing tasks that is not necessarily designed to be user-friendly or easy-to-use (which does not mean it is designed to be user-unfriendly or hard-to-use). I think that "designed to be simple and easy-to-use", even if it was true, is not suitable for the first sentence, as it reads like promotional material. If the intro absolutely has to mention some characteristic, it can mention that it is designed for simple tasks, but perhaps this could be explained in more detail in the article, comparing the simplicity with more advanced NLE software.— J. M. ( talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Avidemux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
I was tempted to put this to the article, but removed it - its better read in the discussion at first I think:
The german Avidemux entry has been deleted Reason for the request for deletion was: "Begründung:Werbetext für ein Softwareprodukt zweifelhafter Relevanz. Eine Verbreitung wie sie zum Beispiel bei VirtualDub vorhanden ist kann ich hier nicht erkennen. Aber vor allem ist es purer Werbebläh. --Weissbier 09:49, 4. Mai 2007 (CEST)" That means "Reason:Advertising text for a softwareproduct of doubtable relevance. A widespread distrubution like par example VirtualDub has unfortunately I cannot see in this case. But above all it is pure advertisingbleh." Last Avidemux-entry at de.wikipedia:
Though 12:0 votes for keeping it was deleted "Begründung: Im Artikel stand, das es sich um eine Software handelt und was sie kann. Das war alles! Damit ist keine wie auch immer geartete enzyklopädische Relevanz erkennbar. Dazu wurde auch in der Diskussion nichts beigetragen. --He3nry Disk. 10:16, 17. Mai 2007 (CEST)" "Reason: The article just said that it is a software and what it can do. That was all! In this way was no encyclopedian relevance visible. The discussion also did not add to it."
I don't think that the "Future plans" section is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Firstly, users interested in Avidemux development can see all these details elesewhere (mailing list with patches, web forum, bug tracker), this is just general info page about the Avidemux application, i.e. what it is and what it can do, not a development info. Secondly, the "Proposed (but unconfirmed or undecided) features" section is just pure speculation that's not based on anything real. It's just fantasy. Anyone can ask for any feature in Avidemux and then, without getting any answer, put it the "Future plans" section, cunfusing the readers who may think that these are planned features. That's pretty much what this section represents (random suggestions from various users without getting answers from the developers). Only Mean or other Avidemux developers know what they plan to do. And only when they say it's planned, it can be considered a planned feature. And even then, it may not belong here, in Wikipedia. J. M. 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
the homepage http://www.avidemux.org/ appears to be down. 71.131.134.213 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it worth mentionning it, but I had huge desync problems with Avidemux. I think it lies in the way Avidemux handle NTSC source 23.976 played as 29.976 (with 3:2 Pulldown), it's not doing the job correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.150.95 ( talk) 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The OpenDML link, next to AVI, under "Supported input formats" is broken. Reason is due to website redesign at Matrox.com . I couldn't find the new URL to fix it. 85.228.120.179 ( talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I use avidemux as a simple editor. Comparing it with Adobe Premiere Pro is misleading, it is a vastly simpler piece of software that doesn't begin to do the same kinds of audio/video editing. However, it does open many more file formats without the fuss that Premiere sometimes makes about licensing. It's become a cliche to exagerate the qualities of anything open source, and in the long run, that doesn't help the reputation of the movement. DonPMitchell ( talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The only references to it being an Open Source alternative to "Adobe Premier Pro" that I can find are at sites like the Open Source As Alternative site [1], but there is no objective comparison to say that it is anywhere near as powerful as "Adobe Premier Pro"; indeed that claim is NOT made. If you go to sites where you can download it, it is described as being designed to do simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks [2] [3]and at their own web site [4]. I would suggest removing the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.109.161 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been a Linux user for a long time, and I avidly support open source and FOSS solutions. However, I don't like the way this article comes across. The constant comparisons with applications like VirtualDUB are problematic in 2 ways, I believe. First, it comes across as a "defensive advertisement," which is detrimental to the project in my opinion. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, readers may not have any experience using any video editing software at all, so these types of statements potentially don't tell readers about Avidemux at all; this is supposed to be a world-class encyclopedia after all.
I suggest the article be adjusted to simply explain Avidemux, and not compare it to other software solutions, except probably in a "Avidemux compared to other software" type section. This will first of all change the tone to one of professionalism, and second will be much more informative to the readers.
17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.83 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Avidemux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/multimedia/avidemux2/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Tagging an article for updates is okay, but posting some refs here that outlines what needs to be incorporated would be much more helpful. Got refs? - Ahunt ( talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
There is a content dispute about the "simple and easy-to-use" description in the intro. I can see right and wrong observations on both sides of the dispute:
So, my summary: Avidemux is a simple program for simple video encoding/editing tasks that is not necessarily designed to be user-friendly or easy-to-use (which does not mean it is designed to be user-unfriendly or hard-to-use). I think that "designed to be simple and easy-to-use", even if it was true, is not suitable for the first sentence, as it reads like promotional material. If the intro absolutely has to mention some characteristic, it can mention that it is designed for simple tasks, but perhaps this could be explained in more detail in the article, comparing the simplicity with more advanced NLE software.— J. M. ( talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)