This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MP4 file format article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about MP4 file format. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about MP4 file format at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Computing 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Software: Computing Mid‑importance 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. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

On 16 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to MP4. The result of the discussion was Moved to MP4 file format.

Archives ( Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Should the infobox indicate that MP4 is an open format, that it is not an open format, or say nothing about it?

Related RfCs:

• Talk:Open file format § RfC on requirements defining open file format
• Talk:ISO base media file format § RfC on whether ISO BMFF is an open format

Fernando Trebien ( talk) 22:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

should indicate that MP4 is NOT an open format, or simply dont have the "open format" key included in the box. I have received private communication today from Library of Congress confirming their position that MP4 is NOT an open format. I am happy to publish that communication here or verify however needs to be done. Svnpenn ( talk) 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Svnpenn The unpublished opinion of the Library of Congress is irrelevant. We need published answers in reliable sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

are you saying the Library of Congress is not a reliable source? Svnpenn ( talk) 03:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Svnpenn If it isn't published...it isn't a source. Get them to publish something. Or find something published. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• [1] indicates it is an open standard, so our article should reflect that. Private communications are not relevant per WP:V. VQuakr ( talk) 00:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  as repeatedly mentioned, MP4 also fails the open format as defined by these sources as well:

  https://opendefinition.org/ofd/

  https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format/

  also I am happy to verify the private communications by whatever means needed. the Library of Congress has privately refuted the only source in support of MP4 being an open format. if you want to ignore that information at this time, suit yourself. Svnpenn ( talk) 01:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:SYNTH. WP:V. None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision. Repeating yourself won't change that. VQuakr ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  here is another source as well:

  > Since using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only using open formats on our sites, WMF has opened this Request for Comments to seek community guidance.

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video Svnpenn ( talk) 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Commons is, of course, also not a source per WP:USERGENERATED. VQuakr ( talk) 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  > None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision

  this comment of course is incorrect. MP4 fails the definition on the linked pages, hence it is not an open format. Svnpenn ( talk) 03:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  In addition to that, this 66.600 word long forum discussion does not seem based on a common definition of "open format". Some comments there seem to work with somewhat different assumptions about the expression. It seems reasonable to assume that participants involved with a Wikimedia project would have largely adopted the terminology of free and open-source software projects on which much of Wikimedia's tools and culture are based, which are closely aligned with The Open Definition by the Open Knowledge Foundation. While it is perfectly ok for any community to use their own definitions in their communications and documents, prioritizing this source over secondary sources on Wikipedia would be giving it undue weight. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 03:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  there is a difference between giving something undue weight and no weight. the other two editors in this discussion seem to want to give no weight to any sources outside the LOC source, even though its already been revealed that the LOC themself disagree with the page in question. Svnpenn ( talk) 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  What are the aspects of reliability of this Wikimedia Commons request for comments? -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  this question doesn't make sense, because the person asking the question has already publicly given the opinion that they feel LOC is a notable source Svnpenn ( talk) 04:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:WEIGHT tells us to balance viewpoints based on the level of coverage in published reliable sources. No RS have been presented for the viewpoint you support, so no coverage can be given. VQuakr ( talk) 06:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  sadly your comments consistently fail to reflect reality:

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
  2. https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format
  3. https://opendefinition.org/ofd

  I was confused before by your level of confidence in your replies, but now I understand to look at the words themself rather than the tone. Svnpenn ( talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The first one is clearly not an RS. The second two probably aren't either, but in any case it's WP:Syn to say MP4 is not an open format based on them since neither of them mention MP4. And just to re-iterate, private communications are not a reliable source. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There is an almost identical RFC at Talk:ISO base media file format. Please participate in both RFCs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Also Talk:Open_file_format#RfC_on_requirements_defining_open_file_format. I have commented there. I don't think I want to copy my comments all three places. I think we should have a centralized discussion on this. It may be too late. :( ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  In previous discussions, different arguments were raised for each of the three topics, so I started three independent RfCs, but I'm not opposed to merging them. I think the RfCs on MP4 and ISO BMFF are closely related, while the RfC on open file format has a broader scope. The only thing I think is worth discussing about ISO BMFF is that LOC describes it as "International standard, fully disclosed" while it describes MP4 as "Open standard." It seems that the two wouldn't be in the same situation, but ISO BMFF is also published by ISO, as is MP4, so I wonder if there's anything missing for the LOC to consider it an open standard like it considers MP4. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply