Talk:VP4

VP4

As far as I know, VP4 isn't a complete new codec, instead it only brought an improved encoder for the same bitstream format as VP3. VP3 redirects to Theora, although Theora really is a new codec with a new bitstream format. Therefore I think we should have a VP3 article and include the contents from this VP4 article there.--Clavipath (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

VP4 → VP3 —VP4 brought just an evolved encoder for the same bitstream format as VP3.--Clavipath (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the current contents have nothing on VP3, but the redirect VP3 points to an article that has info on VP3. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, that VP4 isn't a separate, new codec, but merely a new encoder for VP3. Therefore I think that VP4 doesn't deserve its own article, instead I would incorporate information on VP4 as a subsection into an article on VP3. Because VP3 isn't Theora - it didn't just change its name into Theora but instead Theora has evolved into a new format based on VP3 -, I think Theora is to be seen as a fork from VP3(/4).

So I have put together an article on VP3 from content of the old VP3 article, from the history section of Theora and from this article here. Now I ask(ed) myself how I can get the history to reflect those content migrations. Maybe instead of having the VP4 article moved I should just give hints and links in the edit summary?.. Maybe it would have been better to file a merge proposal instead of the move request, although VP3 is currently empty?.. So maybe I'll just get it done - with hints and explanations in edit summaries and on talk pages - and redraw the move request...--Clavipath (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]