Talk:H.263

message: I basically dumped the contents of the H.263v2 page into a section of H.263 as there really wasn't enough content to justify special pages for H.263v2 and H.263v3.  It would probably be good if the revisions looked a little like the French entry for H.263 or the Polish entry -- afterall, it is the addition of annexes that signifies the two revisions.
68.183.233.217 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  H.263v2 merge cleanup 

message: I noticed that the article doesn't give the patent status or the computational complexity of this codec. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics 

message: I don't see why this link cannot be in external links.  It does not even have any advertisements on the landing page.  These forums appear from time to time and are quite useful for those learning about a topic as they provide a resource to ask questions of those that have an understanding of topic.  Placing a links to these forums on a closely related wiki page improves Wikipedia by providing a more complete resource to its readers: as many readers can be expected to be consulting Wikipedia because they lack some understanding of the topic area.
This particular forum, although rather new, has no advertising at all on its landing page, and nowhere else on the site from what I can tell!  Something I find quite rare and commendable for a site linked from Wikipedia.
I am replacing the link.  If anyone can point to a Wikipedia policy that would preclude including this link, please provide a wikilink to it and discuss here before removing it again.
BTW, I have no association with this organization. Dgtsyb (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that the site does not have advertising, it also does not have any substantial amount of content or usage.  It seems to have been created just for the purpose of posting links to it on Wikipedia in the hope that someday this would help the site to become populated with useful content.  There is practically no content on that site, and most (perhaps all) of what is currently there was put there after a bunch of links to it were added on various Wikipedia pages.  All of those links were added to Wikipedia in a single rapid series of edits by the same anonymous IP address user.  Clearly, Wikipedia is being used to help that site, not vice versa.  I strongly believe that such a link should only be on Wikipedia if the site has something of encyclopedic value to offer.  That site (at least currently) has nothing.  —Mulligatawny (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that Mulligatawny has made a good work while spotting this attempt at advertising a brand new site. Let's wait for it to gain some momentum before judging it as a significant addition to Wikipedia. I think it should be removed in the meantime. --Pot (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the third opinion, and thank you both for taking the time to discuss the link.  After reading both your comments, I agree that waiting is a good course of action.  I will remove the link for now and we can discuss it here at a later date when the value of the link to the article can be better determined. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.mpegforum.org/ 

message: There's a table with 3 supposed levels definitions... Aren't levels supposed to restrict and group parameters like max bit rate, max macroblocks per sec etc.? I thought profiles would be the word of choice in this case being groups of supplied features! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Profiles
HerrPi (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels vs. Profiles definitions in table? 

message: Try as I might, NOBODY seems to have compared video-codecs in terms of quality (error-rate from original, uncompressed video) and of CPU power. NOWHERE gives a core-mark or Dhrystones value for this and all of the other codecs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU Bandwidth and Image quality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on H.263. 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/20090206142709/http://kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html to http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817080612/http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065410.html to http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065410.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122013232/http://ride.chiariglione.org/end_of_the_ride_qm.htm to http://ride.chiariglione.org/end_of_the_ride_qm.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018071929/http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/tutorials/papers/icj-mpeg4-si/02-overview_paper/2-overview_paper.htm to http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/tutorials/papers/icj-mpeg4-si/02-overview_paper/2-overview_paper.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122013103/http://ride.chiariglione.org/inside_MPEG-4_part_B/inside_MPEG-4_part_B.htm to http://ride.chiariglione.org/inside_MPEG-4_part_B/inside_MPEG-4_part_B.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011030094328/http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/avt-charter.html to http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/avt-charter.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) 01:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified