Talk:libpng

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libpng 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.

Article policies

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

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer graphics

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Computing: 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 (assessed as Mid-importance).

Code example

So now over 50% of the article consists of a piece of sample Windows code. Issues:

It's either original research or unsourced.
It doesn't actually describe what it's doing.
It's an obvious piece of howto info.

I reckon this should be removed. The rationale given ("with an example the rest doesn't make sense") doesn't hold; there are plenty of articles on software libraries which can hold their own on WP without code examples. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how else do you think the article can be expanded? I know the article obviously needs to explain various structures and functions. The code example, I mean this particular one, is not an original research at all because it is very straightforward way of demonstration of various features in the library. I agree the code probably needs some more comments, but I didn't meant it is perfect. Finally, it is not good that the large part of the article is just a program code, but then the right course of action would be expand the article not remove the code, just like in any other articles in wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uses, history, functionality compared to spec. Original research means anything which isbn't directly appropriated from sources. The code doesn't add anything because it's unintelligible to non-programmers and of little value to actual programmers (who are far more likely to read API docs than to study Wikipedia for details on libraries. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

API docs? This is libpng we are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.25.1 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Two hopeless stubs could be merged into one notable libpng, the libpng License needs no extra page, it can be a footnote on zlib License or a section with an infobox here. I've added {{commonscat|Zlib/libpng}} on zlib License, so that way to get a wikidata item for libpng License automatically should be blocked soon. –89.15.238.96 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]