Talk:GIF/Archive 1

message: The pronunciation information seems trivial.  I think rather than interrupting the flow of the GIF format history it should be placed at the end of the article. Evan Donovan 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article structure - pronunciation

message: A source which states that the algorithm for creating GIFs can be freely used for non-commercial software:
http://www.rasip.fer.hr/research/compress/algorithms/fund/lz/lzw.html 
(at the bottom of the page)
: Is this a Unisys page? If not, it can hardly be used as a source for the statement that the algorithm can be used freely for non-commercial software.--branko
A Unisys page doesn't mention this http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/ but the page is not specifically addressing free software.
: If Unisys only mentions that they are asking licensing fees for LZW, and does not specifically mention libre or gratis software, then this means that Unisys is expecting money for ALL use of LZW, even in libre and gratis software.
: Just because Unisys does not go after each and every instance of patent infringement does not mean they won't go after you.--branko
The GNU netpbm package contains about two hundred file converters for graphical file formats. It is accompagnied by a file COPYRIGHT.PATENT, which gives the following information:
''
Unisys owns a patent on LZW compression, which is used by ppmtogif,
and maybe on LZW decompression, which is used by giftoppm.  IBM also
owns a patent that may cover the GIF tools.  Unisys offers a license
of the patent for trivial use for $5000.  Its patent expires in 2003.
Neither company has ever enforced the patent against trivial users of
it.  <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1713278.html> is an 
article dated April 18, 2000 on the issue.  
<http://www.unisys.com/unisys/lzw/> is Unisys' view of the matter.
For information from another perspective, see <http://burnallgifs.org>.
The following Netpbm components may be restricted by this patent:
ppmtogif, giftopnm.
A good substitute for GIF if the patents are a problem is PNG (see
pngtopnm, pnmtopng), which was developed with a primary purpose of not
using any patented technology.
You can also use the -nolzw option on ppmtogif to avoid using the LZW
patent.  The images so generated are larger than traditional
LZW-compressed GIFs, but any GIF decoder can decode them just the
same.''
This doesn't really answer the issue. Any comments?
In its animated form, GIF seems to be used mainly for annoying, bandwidth-intensive banner ads and unnecessary animated junk on websites, like rotating text headings, flashing bullets and obnoxious animated icons. 
Animated GIFs take up lots and lots of CPU cycles in Netscape for some reason. 
most people who make amateur animated GIFs don't do any optimisations, making them hideous to use. 
Unisys waited until GIF was a de facto standard on the Web before springing license fees on people. Thus, the compressed GIF format is a TOOL OF EVIL!!! (why don't Microsoft have anything to do with it?) 
However, before Unisys sprung its booby trap on the Web, the GIF format(s) were a Good Thing, nicely complementing the JPEG format. Then, two graphics file formats covered most anything you wanted to do (except vector images). Now, all sorts of different formats are being used...
The seventh reason is that the compression algorithm it uses is patented by Unisys (under U.S. Patent 4558302), who have been known to charge licensing fees to coders who write software to maniuplate GIFs.
That's the wonderful thing about standards... there are so many to choose from! 
Oh, and 256 colour palette limitation is actually appropriate for an indexed palette graphic file format... now, if only there was an RLE GIF compression format... (sigh) and error correction has never been much a part of most image files, either... 
 
#The palette maxes out at 256 colors!
#Its many variations make it hard to implement.
#Its alpha channel is just one transparent palette entry.
#The interlacing takes too long to render readable text
#No error correction
#It pretends to be a VIDEO compressor as well!
:It seems the last poster here has written a general anti-gif rant rather than posting stuff in appropriate sections as for the patent issue that is now pretty much dead and burried (there is the IBM patent but that has never been enforced and i'm pretty sure that the unisys patent would be rather strong prior art against it). Plugwash 01:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the patent info is to be localised anywhere it should probablly be at LZW though i'd like to see at least a summary and any gif specific info kept here. Plugwash 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there was the replacement of compress with gzip by gnu. I dunno if that was in response to actual threats or just the knowlage they could happen though. Plugwash 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: patent issues

message: I believe the last person to edit over the way to say gif is wrong. The word is often said with the hard g but it supposed to be said like it was spelled jiff. I can't confirm this however.
I have updated the article to illustrate that there really is no definitive way of pronouncing Gif, and that there are in fact more pronunciations than the two choices put forward. Here is the text of my edit
"Gif" can be pronounced with either a soft g as in "giraffe" or a hard g as in "gift". Despite arguments to the contrary, both versions carry equal weight since no pronuciation was specified by the format's creators. There is no evidence to suggest that one pronunciation is in use more than another, and indeed, outside of the English language there are a number of further variants.
:mmm it should be mentioned that gif with a hard g is unambiguos whilest jif reffers to a common brand of cleaner and and alternative file extention for jpeg files.
::Also, a hard g is more like the original starting g in: "Graphics Interchange Format". However, people will usually pronounce something based on their first impressions, and good luck trying to get them to change! If you saw the acronym "GIFT", as an english speaker you would most likely pronounce it with a hard g, even if you later found it stood for "Generalised Index Facility Toolbox". There aren't any common words that start with 'gif-' in english using a soft g, and few that even contain it (like spongiform), so it usually defaults to a hard g. Just as a hypothetical side note, how would you pronounce the acronym "CIF", seeing as c should default to a soft s sound in all instances (meanings of CIF )
::But, I think the most obvious solution is, acronyms should not be pronounced. Especially such ones as WWW and WWII, where saying the acronym takes more syllables than saying the words they represent. If you say "Graphic Interchange Format file" instead of gif file, then everyone will be happy. Even the ones that think the last F stands for file, and say "It is redundant to say gif-file, and don't say pin-number either." Splarka 20:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what about if you had to say www.hotmail.com? saying worldwideweb.hotmail.com would be wrong thats a different (and probablly invalid address). Similarlly gif is the actual filename extention of gif files graphics interchange format is just an abstract name. So sometimes you have to pronounce acronyms because over time the acronym has taken on a different meaning from the base words it was formed from. Plugwash 01:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone using the argument that it should be a hard 'g' because it stands for 'graphical' had better start saying 'jay-feg', as the 'p' stands for 'photographic'. (unsigned comment by 83.146.62.110 moved to end of discussion by plugwash)
Can anyone provide a source for the statement that the soft-g pronunciation is more prevalent?  i've only met one person to pronounce it that way, but he also pronounced warez like juarez.  is it a regional or national thing? -- stubblyhead | T/c 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, provide evidence or this claim is ripped out. Plugwash 06:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats because an anon just ripped out the entire section. i've put the section back. (it seems someone had already removed the unsourced claims) Plugwash 21:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to say Gif 

message: It wouild be nice if there were some illustrative .gif, like the examples at JPEG and PNG. Something like one of the rotating globes or something would show the fact that .gifs are usually used for moving images. I did a Google search for all the .gifs in Wikipedia, but couldn't find anything appropriate. — Asbestos | Talk 12:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: The article states:
:All popular web browsers support PNG images, although it is interesting to note that as of the beginning of 2005, a number of popular browsers including Internet Explorer still have several issues with the PNG format.
I thought IE was the only one that had "issues". What are the others? --Yath 22:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser support 

message: Can anyone comment on the speed-of-animated-GIFs-in-different-browsers issue? I haven't been able to find anything definitive about this in Google, but it definitely is an issue. Image that are OK in IE are ridiculously quick in Firefox. pfctdayelise 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show us an example of a GIF file with this problem? --Zundark 09:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the delay per frames is set to something below 50ms (0, 10, 20, 30, 40, etc), can act oddly. Different browsers, viewers, and editors, and even different systems (the speed of the machine sometimes becomes the delimiter) will show them at different speeds. My mozilla shows them faster if I move the mouse, as does Irfanview (if I move it over the menu items), for example. To prevent this, I just make sure all frames are at least 50ms (20 frames per second is fine in most cases). Splarka (rant) 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have found that 50ms and below appears to cause Internet Explorer 6.0 to set the time between frames to a default of 100ms.  Bottom line is that if the time for a frame is 60ms or above, IE will respect the time you entered, if it is 50ms or below (or no frame speed set at all) then IE appears to set the speed to 100ms.  So, because of this, the slowest frame speed you can have in IE is 60ms.  This really is very annoying and hopefully it will be fixed IE 7, but I doubt that. ngamradt 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speed 

message: This article did not help me answer my question about GIFs.
I had been told that GIF only "supports" 256 colors, and that graphic artists need to be careful to use only these 256 "websafe" colors when working with GIFs, because any other colors could not be faithfully stored usiig GIFs.
I wondered if this was true, and if so, where I could see all 256 colors laid-out side-by-side.
The article opens by saying, "GIF is a bitmap image format for pictures with up to 256 distinct colours."  Later it says, "the maximum number of colours available for each frame is 256...  The limitation to 256 colours seemed reasonable at the time of GIF's creation.."
But the article never made clear to me (a relatively unsophisticated graphic artist) whether it was referring to 256 specific colors, or not.  I just wanted to know if my favorite lime green (B5D81E)is supported by the GIF format!
So I had to turn to another source, and voila, the answer to my question (courtesy of Rick Matthews at Wake Forest University):
"GIF creates a table of up to 256 colors from a pool of 16 million. If the image has fewer than 256 colors, GIF can render the image exactly. When the image contains many colors, software that creates the GIF uses any of several algorithms to approximate the colors in the image with the limited palette of 256 colors available."
Why doesn't the article say anything that simple to understand?
Jrbrunger 08:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article didn't answer my question in a way that I could understand  

message: make up your mind.
:Um, why -- they are both valid spellings.  Or is it beyond the average reader to grasp that these are the 'same' word?  Should we always use the same spelling -- just, perhaps, to make it easier for the purveyors of spelling-check programmes?  :-)  quota
::If there's any dispute on the topic, the fact that Compuserve is a U.S. company would seem to incline towards "color"... AnonMoos 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? They didn't invent either color or colour :-). quota 11:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  color or colour? 

message: Would it be beneficial to outline the differences between these three?  Or is this terminology used only by Adobe Photoshop? Gordeonbleu 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us some more context on where exactly theese terms occour? Plugwash 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Photoshop, when using "Save to Web As", selecting GIF will bring up a drop-down menu with "perceptive", "adaptive", "selective", and "web".  "Web" seems to refer to web-safe colors only.  I'm not sure what kind of GIF differences the other three carry. Gordeonbleu 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: From the context I suspect they are options related to color reduction. I also stronly suspect they are photoshop specific terms. Plugwash 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perceptive, Adaptive, and Selective

message: I was just browsing the web, and I noticed that the site at  looks as if it was copied almost word-for-word from this article.  What should be done? ThefirstM 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plagiarism on another site? 

message: Removed the following -
Can you see the grain and colour-reduction without downloading larger versions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.22.115 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes. Did you remove them because the dithering is hard to see? Maybe the article needs better images to illustrate this phenomenon. But in the meantime, they are better than nothing. --Yath 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i most certainly can see the dithering and color reduction bands, have you tried a decent monitor test sequence recently? Plugwash 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 images removed 

message: Look at this edit by an IP user 16 days ago. They claim that GIF was an 24-bit image format. It seems if there's no interest in this article: Noone reverted it. --Patrick Maitland 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIF is a 24-bit RGB bitmap image format ???? It's not I think. 

message: There isn't any mention of IBM's patent held over the GIF format in this article. [NOTE: added tides post-comment]DevAnubis 22:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it was removed by JeffW with the edit summary "IBM not enforcing a patent isn't noteworthy" (i don't personally feel strongly either way on this issue). Plugwash 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, IBM are not "enforcing" it. but it still exists. and it still prevents the use of GIFs in a truly free software environment such as Gnu.DevAnubis 22:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Patent 

message: * Is it referring to YTMND as a side-effect of the GIF?  --MichaelAhlers 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorable mention? 

message: The rotating globe image shown in the article is 468293 bytes. I think this is inconveniently large for people with low bandwidth connections.
Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Size says "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size."
Jibjibjib 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of rotating globe image 

message: GIF format may now be used freely? Can we really jump into conclusion like this? I'm not so sure of this issue, it doesn't seem very clear for me. What about country not mention on the list? What about specific international patent trades ? --201.35.201.122 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it's true - the only patented part of GIF was the LZW compression method and the patents on that have expired. Just don't go using newer compression methods or you might get into trouble. Secondly it's said in the sources such as the "burn all gifs" site so it's not us coming to conclusions. The countries listed are the only countries where there were patents. I have no idea what you mean by "specific international patent trades".GDallimore (Talk) 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIF format may now be used freely 

message: The animations in this article do not seem to work in Firefox:
GIF Animation on the WWW - technical explanation of the GIF89a format and how it allows animation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitbut (talk • contribs) 
:They all move with firefox, (well iceweasel), v2.0.0.11, but this .gif animation of a nanotube, stays still.  The same nanotube .gif moves in iceape.  Linux box, FWIW.  --AC (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: can we link to a gallery of all of wikis .gif images? do we have such a gallery?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  gallery 

message: How exactly can one create a animated GIF from scratch? And which tools?Anwar (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools 

message: I arrived at this page on a redirect(animated gif) trying to learn specifically about animated GIFs. After reading the article and doing research elsewhere i added an internal link, UnFREEz, as i thought it would be helpful, a few minutes later GDallimore reverted it. After further reading a 'connection' emerged... GDallimore appears to have proposed deletion of UnFREEz about a year ago, i presume the deletion didn't go ahead. Any seasoned editors got any suggestions ?? 79.72.169.159 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UnFREEz has been nominated for deletion. Even if not deleted, Wikipedia is not a "How To" guide so there is no need to have a link to that article from here. GDallimore (Talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UnFREEz was twice proposed for deletion by GDallimore, ten minutes prior to leaving the comment above and approximately one year ago. There is scant information about animated GIFs on this GIF article, maybe GDallimore (self confessed patent attorney) has a incentivized agenda. 79.72.128.85 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you remove your personal attacks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated GIFs 

message: I propose this article be moved to GIF (graphics format). The fully-expanded name is correct, but not widely used or familiar. Compare with people - we don't include their full names if they're better known by a shorter name. Dcoetzee 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be just GIF, but was changed some months ago - probably because you shouldn't normally use the acronym as the article title. Also, GIF redirects here so it's not as if people won't find what they're looking for. But you're right, people always say "GIF". I think it's a balanced issue. Suggest not making an arbitrary decision here, but raise the discussion on a few graphic format pages, Portable Network Graphics and JPEG say, and see if there's a topic wide consensus. GDallimore (Talk) 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Image file formats#Naming_conventions_for_image_file_formats on naming conventions for articles on image file formats. Dcoetzee 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for image file formats 

message: I have copied the dithered image here and propose removing it from the main article. Showing a reduced-size version of an (inconveniently) larger image creates confusion about cumulative effects of the dithering and subsequent resampling for scaling. Some information about the available palette and the choice of dither process is desirable if this is to demonstrate the change that dither produces. At pixel level a normal .gif image cannot have more than 256 colours. Arnero, how did you calculate 44 000 colours? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dithered sunflower image 

message: I just changed the captions for the animated images, and wanted to add a clarifying note here about why I made changes to one of them:
First, it said the animation was an example of "3D" animation using GIF. But GIF doesn't do 3D animation per se; it does animation of a series of still images, regardless of how those images were created.  So saying that GIF can do 3D animation is the same as saying that any animation format can do 3D animation.  A flip-book can do 3D animation if it's composed of a set of still images rendered by a 3D renderer.  So I removed the word "3D" as misleading.
Second, the caption said the animation was an example of "fluid" animation.  But in my browser, it displayed with a low frame rate, not at all fluid.  So I removed that word as well.  --Elysdir (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both the above changes. We should look for a better animation example than BananaShoeShine.gif which has poor black level and is wrongly described as a stop-motion animation on its description page, Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "3D" and "fluid" animation 

message: There are 21 bytes in example, changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.142.221 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compressed .gif 

message: Being old enough to remember that Netscape played a big part in making animated GIFs popular, I was surprised to see no mention of Netscape in the article. So I added a paragraph about it. I hope I got it right.
I've used two refs I found via Google. Neither is very good. The only description I found of the layout of the Netscape Application Block was on a personal website. The only link I found for the fact that Netscape set things going was on a Russian site, which turned out to be an (illegal?) copy of a 1996 book. I really hope that someone with more knowledge or better Google skills can find better references.
Cheers, CWC 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netscape and animated GIFs 

message: LZW is based on constructing a dictionary, which makes sense for compressing text, but images?
Isn't any modern technique better? Like using filter + compressor.
Filter: Delta, RLE or quadtree
compressor: Huffman or arithmetic
Is GIF basically a thing of the past, historical interest, backwards compatibility?
The palette would still makes sense for technical drawing and comics if it wasn't for antialising ... okay the palette is also a thing of the past.
Can we state this in the introduction?
Arnero (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but we shouldn't add anything without a source. And if a source is found, it shouldn't go in the introduction - it should go in the body of the article. Then, the introduction might be expanded to reflect that new part of the main article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arnero, documenting things of the past is what an encyclopedia does. We are not here to invent things. GIF's indexed palette can be a cause of banding on colour gradients but that is not the same as aliasing on line drawings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And GIF is hardly a thing of the past.  It's still a very useful format for a variety of images, and it is still widely used on the web. Elphion (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why LZW for graphics? 

message: Years ago I remember GIF files that contained a number of images and also text. It had very primitive programming language like:
text "Hello world"
picture 1, 10 fade
text "Next one"
picture 3, 30 blink
text "finish"
loop
I know this because you could view the program and change it using a hex editor. Consequently, it was easy to change the adventures of "Mandy" to whoever you wanted to impress.
I have not seen any documentation of this anywhere. Does anybody have any examples of this? I don't mean the adventures of Mandy, as I am sure that by todays standards it would be somewhat grainy. However an example of any GIF using the inbuilt text format would be nice. It must have been 89a as it supported multiple animated images in a single file.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzbie (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Plain Text Extension is described in the 89a spec (see link under External Links in the article).  It's not widely used because there is little control over the font used to render the text (and the spec specifies monospacing, which generally looks pretty cheesy).  I've added a blurb in the History section. Elphion (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in GIF files 

message: Need section or comment on the decline in use of gifs over the last several years. 80.47.47.229 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that's not what I see.  GIFs are still the lion's share of the images served by most of the sites I visit. -- Elphion (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not used much anymore?

message: I'm currently programming a GIF decoder, and I'm using both the wiki and the GIF specification as a guide.
The sample image, provided with the example file layout, is not what would be display when the GIF file is properly represented. 
Why isn't there a link to the original file? Wouldn't it be better if the sample image and the discussion actually matched? (more then a graphical representation)
An analogous graphical representations shouldn't be in gif format, and a link to the original should be provided, so there would be no confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.122.182 (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be clearer to use the actual 3x5 image rather than the 32x52 enlarged representation, and to use  to blow it up to visible size.  I've left a note for user:Cuddlyable3 to ask if s/he could upload it for us. -- Elphion (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the listing. It defines the source file bytes under the heading "hexadecimal" (the omitted palette bytes at 011: to 309: are all "don't care" for this purpose). I have also uploaded the source file as "3x5 Sample image.GIF" which may be useful for testing a decoder. A problem with using this file in an article illustration is that it has no surrounding frame. That is why I made GifSample.gif which is used in the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to original GIF sample image 

message: On my computer the posterisation in the blue areas isn't visible, because they're too dark. I've checked the gamma of my monitor, and viewed some real world gamut test pictures, and I'm sure it's okay, the problem is with the image. If I cover the off-white areas around the image with my hands I can see that there's a blue area, but the bright Sahara sweeping by every few seconds makes it impossible to see if any posterisation is going on. (Additionally, there's no way for the reader to check if this posterisation is necessary, or an artefact of a bad palette choice, lack of dithering, or something else.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.160 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see it either. I think that is becauset a user optimised the original palette, see the File history . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  posterisation in globe invisible 

message: There is no information about GIF interlacing on this page. The PNG page is very good reference to how PNG interlacing works, even including an animated GIF showing the process (ironically).83.216.149.7 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a short section on interlacing. -- Elphion (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Interlacing Information 

message: I modified the declaration where multi-byte data inside the GIF format were described to be little-endian. The GIF89a specification states: "Multi-byte numeric fields are ordered Least Significant Byte first", so they actually are big-endian. --Aldoaldoz (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "ordered Least Significant Byte first" is the definition of little-endian; see Endianness -- Elphion (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry --Aldoaldoz (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: no problem; we all make mistakes -- Elphion (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big-endian 

message: I believe this article is due for a section on the popularity of the GIF format in the modern internet. Animated gifs are used now more than ever on social sites like tumblr, reddit, 4chan, and internet forums, but you wouldn't know it based on the article here. Reaction GIFs as a phenomenon should be covered.76.199.7.225 (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To "resurge" in popularity necessarily implies the GIF went out of favour. I wasn't aware that it had. Despite the efforts of various anti-patent groups to stamp it out, and the assertion that patent protection would stifle it as a format, GIFs have always been an important and well-used format. Until such time as there is a section about falling usage of GIFs, there can't be a section about a resurgence in their popularity. GDallimore (Talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you.  GIFs have never gone out of style, but animated GIF's in particular have become a popular decorative art form worthy of mention. -- Elphion (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurgent Popularity 

message: Officially? Dictionaries don't make langugages; speakers do.80.103.84.224 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're objecting to the use of the word "officially", I'd agree. See if you can find a better word and improve the article. If you're objecting to the entire statement, I don't agree since dictionaries reflect usage, they don't make things up for their own amusement as you seem to be implying. GDallimore (Talk) 11:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 2012, the word "GIF" was officially recognised as a verb 

message: Maybe protection of this article is needed.  It seems there are constant changes over just one issue - the pronunciation.  While I accept that /ˈɡɪf/ is correct it must be acknowledged that  /ˈdʒɪf/ is also used.  Indeed I would say that the second pronunciation is much more common and pretty universal outside of experienced IT professionals.  The second pronunciation also fits in with pronunciation rules in many Indo-European languages (whereby a G followed by an e or i is pronounced /dʒ/ - this is more often than not the case in English too, for example germ, Geoff, Gemini, genetics, gentle, general, geography, giant..., although there are so many words which contradict such a rule).  I would also say that an inventor cannot control how a word is pronounced and used (patents and trademarks might control the latter though) It seems that it is best to include both pronunciations.--217.71.47.190 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that edit warring may only be temporary and related to today's article on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22620473).--217.71.47.190 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Functioning URL:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22620473 -- Elphion (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  If you think that will stop the arguments, just look at the comments there! -- Elphion (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  I agree, by the way, that both pronunciations should be given, because both are wide-spread.  I question your characterization of the hard G as "pretty universal" -- in my experience just the opposite is true.  I don't know whether this is a regional variation or an occupational one.  I've seen no solid evidence either way.  There is no "offical" pronunciation, of course, though there is an original one.  From there, usage is pretty much up for grabs.  Language does change, but as anyone that crosses the ocean knows, not in lock-step! -- Elphion (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I support changing the pronunciation of other words too, Jirlfriend, Jifted, jills, jib, jit, jig, to jive, jizmo, jilly suit, Jimmick, Jiggle, Jigabyte, Jirdle, Jibson and other words found at Joogle  datboi (Talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The warring is probably just due to the twitter explosion more than the BBC. It's a bit more than usual, but manageable and has thrown up a couple of useful sources so protection would seem to be damaging to the end goal of improving the article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the inventor's declared, official pronunciation, as used in all internal and external communications by CompuServe and CompuServe employees, "not official"? RvLeshrac (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What legal force does it have? What else do you mean by "official"? -- Elphion (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be referred to as the "offical pronunciation supported by Compuserve" if there is a reliable source (eg a compuserve announcement) stating that that is their position, but I haven't seen such an unequivocal statement. However, even if there were, that still doesn't require any changes to the lead of the article or any suggestion that the hard G pronunciation is less worthy or more wrong in the eyes of the general public (rather than various special interest groups). The article says the creator intended and still wants it to be pronounced one way, but it isn't by lots of people and even dictionaries have recognised the alternative description. There is nothing incorrect, misleading or wrong about any of that and there is therefore no reason to remove or play down the "non-official" pronunciation.  GDallimore (Talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: It would be nice if the article answered that. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It does.  -- Elphion (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  And has done for about 5 years already. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation + more than 256 colors possible? 

message: Should also include information about animated WebP as a possible replacement, although it's only supported by Chrome. 
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/chrome-32-beta-animated-webp-images-and.html
--192.136.210.191 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a viable replacement yet, but added to the list of alternatives and I've rewritten that entire section. GDallimore (Talk) 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WebP format 

message: Could an editor please expand the Image Coding section. It is intended to show how the 9-bit codes are mapped to 8-bit bytes, but it isn't clear that the codes/bytes are being packed right to left (a naive interpretation might assume left to right which makes it unclear what is actually happening). Maybe it could be explained a bit more clearly (e.g. using colour coding?) to match the quality of the rest of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.215.37.80 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an attempt.  Does it help? -- Elphion (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Coding 

message: How do you cite the fact that sprites in games are stored as GIF files?
12Me21 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First you find a reliable source that says that.  Then you put information about the source (author, publisher, URL, anything that is appropriate for locating the resource) in the text between  and  to turn the information into a footnote.  Don't worry too much about the format, that can be fixed up later.  What's important is information to identify the source. -- Elphion (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use for sprites in games 

message: Since animated gifs can be painful and/or seizure-inducing, the article should discuss tools to block them and should discuss why most browsers enable them. 71.191.163.95 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a discussion of tools to block the infernal things 

message: This article seems highly technical. I came here looking for an overview of the historical and cultural story of the animated GIF... from the animated road-worker "under construction" sign GIFs of the late 90s, to the clips-from-movies-as-a-form-of-emoji that we see today, as well as cinemagraphs.... I think something of that cultural story about the usage of GIFs should be added... Or at least linked to if it exists elsewhere?  It's pretty embarrassing that knowyourmeme does a better job of telling this story than Wikipedia does. Alexbowyer (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add content.  I'm not embarrassed that we haven't copied the entire Web into WP :-) -- Elphion (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more than just technical content 

message: I noticed that your example of a true colour image (SmallFullColourGIF.gif) had some extensions
that I have been unable to decipher.  These are labelled ZGATEXTI5 and ZGANPIMGI5 but I think
there are others out there.
Does anyone have more information on them?
LaserBilly (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The spec only allows 8 characters for the app extension identifier, so these are, strictly speaking, "ZGATEXTI" and "ZGANPIMG" extensions. My guess is that they are related to some "ZGA" program or format; they probably contain information the program used to create the subsequent image blocks, so that the program can reconstruct the generating data. Most viewers (e.g., the browsers) will simply ignore these extensions. The NETSCAPE extension is the only one I know of with any significant support, though nothing prevents your random program from adding its own (which again, will be ignored by most viewers). -- Elphion (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The image description page refers to Zoner GIF Animator 5, which you can Google.  I haven't found any description of the extension blocks though. -- Elphion (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZGATEXTI5, ZGANPIMGI5 extensions 

message: For example, JPEG: . Is it pronounced "  " or "  " ? (I don't know how the respell template works.) —User 000 name 04:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a respell 

message: I've moved here for discussion the following 2012-11-23 addition to the article by :
: In 2013 the .gif format had a widespread revival on the internet. The format actually became something of a standard in online media, often replacing the usual YouTube-videolinks in articles with GIF's of the same, but shortend, actionmoments. Cause for the revival seems to be the availability of GIF's through Tumblr and because of the widespread difference in browsers/platforms at the time (and videolinks redirected people on mobile devices away from the original articles).
The immediate problem is the speculation and lack of any source.  I also think 'revival' is not the right choice of words; GIF is still widely used on the Net. -- Elphion (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Elphion -- Non-animated GIFs have been on a gently declining curve over the last 15 years, but animated GIFs have been undergoing a kind of retro hipster ironic revival in the past few years -- they're all over various trendy entertainment news etc. websites... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know -- but there are still tons of static GIFs out there.  The main reason their use is declining is the advent of ready-made PNG files stuffed with large numbers of icons. -- Elphion (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the retro hipster ironic embrace of animated GIFs (not totally different from the retro hipster ironic embrace of old 8-bit video games) is a real significant phenomenon (which it is, as far as I can tell), then there should probably be some mention of it somewhere on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing "retro hipster ironic" going on here. There simply is no other accepted format for what GIF does. It isn't a revival so much as just a lot of people tuning into the Internet for the first time in their lives because of the widespread adoption of cell phones. Frankly it's a travesty that a new standard for GIF hasn't been proposed (like GIFo15?) to address the many shortcomings it has. It would at least be good if browsers would all promise to implement the GIF standard correctly for files that use a hypothetical new version in the header ready for the publishing of the standard. Not only is there no other standard there is nothing to indicate that there will be at any point in the future. GIF has a lot of gas, especially because of it's popular adoption (such as naming it word of the year) but it would die instantaneously if there was a replacement for it, it's practically "undead" as is, dead for 20yrs, never has a corpse had so much mileage. --184.63.132.236 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIF "revival" 

message: The following webpage shows a > 256 colour GIF - it seems that GIFs have a limit of 256 colours per block, but a single GIF image can have many blocks. The article does not seem to take this into account
http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.209.199 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does: Graphics Interchange Format#True color. --Zundark (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The dithering process used to overcome the format's 256-color limitation makes the image appear coarse-grained."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.237.176 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point; saying in that caption that there's a "256-color limitation" is somewhat inaccurate. We could say "256-color limitation for single-image/unanimated streams" or some such. —mjb (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html shows a 32697-color GIF without dithering. I am going to fix the lead paragraph. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree with GDallimore:  GIF was designed to permit different palettes in one image, not to provide full-color functionality.  GIF was developed to target the common graphic cards of the time, which were mostly restricted to 256 colors.  The point of multiple palettes was not full-color, but compression:  it allowed most of the canvas to be described in a restricted palette (< 8 bits), while small areas could be described with more color definition.  Almost no editors in common use now support more than one palette, and the only GIFs I have seen using >256 colors are proof-of-concept examples.  The article's discussion of "full-color" GIFs is the right way to handle this. -- Elphion (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with GDallimore's changes. The article is now better than it was before my edit, and it is better than it was after my edit. Good job. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIF with > 256 colours 

message: I'm working on a GIF encoder right now, and to me the middle of this article (from "6 Example GIF file" to "8 Interlacing") looks highly misleading. It looks like a hacker that didn't realize the specification is public tried to reverse engineer some GIFs and wrote the entire project up in a journal. Specifically the bulk of it looks like it's just trying to describe what LZW compression looks like when looked at in a hex editor; which needless to say has nothing to do with GIF and probably doesn't belong on the LZW article either. BMP_file_format has very nice tables. The GIF specification in the external links is very short, and is overlong in the document itself, it could be compressed down to a very small section, with a brief mention of the data chunks being LZW encoded, and that should be all. I won't raise a hand to wipe the article until I have a working encoder, so I can be absolutely certain of this position. In the meantime please comment, and please volunteer to make tables for GIF. They would be much smaller than the ones on the BMP article, but I'm not going to wrestle with tables in the article, or volunteer to translate the specification. I'm not a Wikipedian, but if GIF can be a word of the year, then this article can at least not be a train wreck, even if that means taking the ax to it--184.63.132.236 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to discuss proposed changes here before proceeding with them. Much of this material is here in answer to specific requests. It is also technically accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sprawling middle section needs to go, somehow. Still I'm running into trouble with this encoder. It's clear that the data is encoded in a way that isn't as simple as just saying it's "LZW", because that doesn't appear to be a standard compression scheme, so much as a compression philosophy. The code at http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#C in the external links looks like it was developed for GIF-LZW (although it only implements 8-bit "color"; not less) yet still it appears to be inadequate for GIF encoding; either because the code has been edited, or never tested in the first place. So I do not believe it's a reliable link, both because most of the code on that page, not simply generated from the C code, implements LZW in a way that bears little resemblance to GIF (which uses variable length packing, and special stopcodes) and so it belongs on the LZW article, but probably not on the GIF one. There really should be a separate page on that website for GIF-LZW; and I don't know if I make that code work, if it would even be worth correcting. That said, there should be mention of how GIF encoding is by no means simply a strict LZW filter of some kind, yet at the same time, it seems like the differences could fit in a single paragraph, or half of a paragraph, and the example here are not particularly helpful, and the style seems like it is from the perspective of an outsider, who is not versed well enough to simply read the spec and implement it, which seems completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia (the spec is far more clear than a hex editor. And a layman should have nothing to do with a hex editor.) --184.63.132.236 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, the encoding can only go to a 2bit minimum, but it's not like GIF can do 9bit color, so it can do 1 to 8bit color, the distinction is not important. The bulk of this article should not be about the technical specifications. A table for the fields, and a note for the data field should suffice. Personally I think it would be useful to provide an implementation of the LZW codec in an initially collapsed box, or probably better if there was a wikicommons for such a thing, but describing the algorithm in detail with words is just beyond what is acceptable in an encyclopedia. Something like a mention of the clear/stop codes, how the LZW codes begin as small as possible (2bits) and increase up to 12bits, stopping there (for what rationale I don't know), and stipulating that GIFs are Little Endian encoded should suffice. This can fit into a note in a table. There are loads of tables on BMP and I think they're probably all warranted. GIF should require really only one or two, plus the Netscape and Graphic Control tables in the animation part of the article. If there are more tables they should be collapsed as it's unlikely anyone cares. I do think a programmer should be able to implement GIF just by reading this article, but also it should be easy for them to do so, by making it straightforward. 
*I do not believe there are any void* or size_t types in the C implementation. Which is the only one that looks like GIF-LZW, other than the translations of it. Oh I see, you mean the memory management stuff. That's pretty standard for C. --184.63.132.236 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I put most of this in the Talk page there. It's certainly possible if PDF is similar to GIF that it came from elsewhere. Are the clear codes not supposed to use the current bit width? The specification seems a little unclear about the reset after the max is exceeded, it says to add a clear code, but not whether to use the max width or max+1 width. Anyway, it works for 9-12 widths. Not 11...
*I am a little bit angry about how web browsers have treated GIF. And angry that it's the only format that exists for looping images (that will not be initially blocked with a Play button.) The compression is not so bad. But if no one can agree on an alternative, there is plenty of room for extensions, unrelated to compression; why not establish some?! The ability to have more than one image on the logical canvas is completely disregarded by almost all viewers. It's clearly meant to allow sections of the canvas to be setup independently, like for a "powerpoint" presentation, but viewers/browsers treat any image as a time delayed animation. I wonder what the originators think about this. The graphic control block was clearly never intended for frame-by-frame animations.
*I've been using it to try to take screenshots of a unique 3D graphical technique. Here are some examples. It's normal for a the last one to flash when it loops. I will probably add graphic-control blocks to the intraframe sub-image blocks, which may make a difference. The graphic control adds transparency, so it isn't simply there to insert a delay. Still I read browsers do not honor a 0 delay. It's madness, it's like there was a conspiracy to break GIFs. I think unless new life is breathed into it with extensions it's probably dead, with nothing to take its place. On a regular display the images in the screenshots do not feature aliasing, so they do not required "anti-aliasing". It doesn't work well in the GIFs either because they are too slow, or the framerate is irregular. But even with an approximately 30FPS (vs. 50FPS) delay they are clunky, whereas the effect is generally serviceable with a normal 3D viewer at 30FPS. Although at 60FPS it's virtually indistinguishable from a still image. Fortunately 3D really looks better with an ordered dither, so in regular mode with effects turned on, depending on how uniform colored the scene is, screenshots generally fit into a single 256 color image, otherwise this would not be possible with tiling unless a viewer allows it.
--184.63.132.236 (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I may be inclined to GUT the MIDDLE of this article SOON 

message: This article, and the article on Lossless compression, say that GIF compression is lossless. Wouldn't that only be the case if the image contains 256 colors or less? How would one reconstruct the original colors of an image containing up to 16 million colors if given a GIF image? It seems that saving a colorful image as a single GIF does NOT provide enough information in the compressed file to determine the original colors. It seems that at best, someone trying to reconstruct a colorful image using only a GIF of it could attempt to estimate gradients present in the image to figure out how close each pixel is to its color on the reduced color palette, or try to figure out the original image characteristics by trying to reverse the process by which the GIF compression chose the reduced palette for the image. MathEconMajor (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When reading the article it appears to me the compression method is lossless - but that by within sub-blocks an image is converted into a 256 colours palette before compressing. So the loss is more in the preprocessing (going to 256 colours) than the actual compression. Under true colours it is explained how a GIF file could deal with more than 256 colour -that is by specifying blocks consisting of 256 pixels and than define the palette for each pixel individually. I have never seen this used in practice (and doing so would probably result in inflation instead of compression of the original image). I hope I understood correctly as I am no expert on this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: GIF compression is lossless since it operates only on areas with a max of 256 colors.  If the image you're trying to store as a GIF has more than 256 colors, then you have to break it up into sub-images of max 256 colors before hitting it with GIF compression.  (16x16 squares work, but other possibilities exist.) But if you do that, the decompressed image will automatically have the same data as the original. Added: (If the image has more than 256 colors, GIF is not the obvious choice anyway:  other lossless formats can handle more than 256 colors more conveniently.)  -- Elphion (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lossless? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GIF. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207110047/http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/Gif/unisys.html to http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/Gif/unisys.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's no actual information in the article about how the format actually works.  I mean it says it's 8bit and that there can be frames but I would like to know what a GIF file actually has in it byte by byte.  The link oto the spec has the info but that's more detail than I need.  Wikivek (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: " ... what a GIF file actually has in it byte by byte."  Sounds like the spec to me.  If we were to rehash the spec here, how can we be expected to predict how much detail you need?  There's a link to the spec, and that's absolutely the right solution.  Elphion (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual format? 

message: i don't know where to add this (the disambig? lone sentence in the lead?) but in contemporary usage (2018) the term "gif" now refers to a short, looping video or animation, no matter what format this in. Twitter prominently displays a [GIF] box over these small looping videos, even though there are mostly mp4. to be clear, i don't care about the technical side (so perhaps this page, actually about the technical file, is wrong?) but the linguistic side. We use "GIF" nowadays to mean something that is NOT "Graphics Interchange Format", even though the usage derives from here. 2A02:8109:9A80:6F6C:3006:3246:A00A:BBD2 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and definitely not Urban Dictionary. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  the meaning of "GIF" has broadened 

message: I see no point in a section whose purpose is simply to restate that GIFs do not have sound, so I removed it. Do let me know if anyone objects. HamartiaProsciuttoPharos (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "GIFs with sound" section 

message: Video alternative to GIF does not currently merit a whole separate article. Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support/Merge I was actually searched GIF, but I was really looking for the stub article Video alternative to GIF. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Support I'm kinda split on this one. I agree that a stub doesn't really work for Video alternative to GIF, but not really sure how it would be included in the article. I originally was going to stay neutral, however, the more I think about it when writing this reply, the more I support this merger. GeekInParadise (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

text: User Since video is an alternative to all image-based animation formats like APNG, animated WebP and others, I actually think that it would be better to rename the article to Video alternative to animated images and link to it from GIF, APNG and wherever else needed. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

text: User For the reason that the article on Video alternative to GIF, in its current state, is short, I would suggest either merging the two articles and having the Video alternative to GIF page redirect to GIF; adding a very brief introduction on video alternatives to Graphics Interchange Format (under which, "see full article here" would link to the full page); or mentioning alternatives to the format in the See Also section. Among those three options, I would personally go with the introduction with the "see full article here" under the heading. ~Osvaldo Jørgensen Talk-Page 01:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Support the original proposal as stated; no need for a stand-along stub given that GIF can accommodate it. Having a brief summary remain at Video alternative to GIF is inefficient, as it duplicaties the first sentence or two on the target page section. An appropriate section would be to create a new section within GIF#Animated GIF, which could then also incorporate the brief GIF#GIFs with sound single sentence. Klbrain (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Comment Suggest deleting "GIF with Sound" section (which is misleading: there are no GIFs with sound), incorporating that material and Video alternative to GIF in a new subsection "Video alternatives" under "Alternatives to GIF". -- Elphion (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Video alternative to GIF]]