Talk:WebP

Non-partisan quality assessment

The current introduction made claims about quality that were not (explicitly) supported by the cited link.

Given that Fiona Glaser's "very early critique" explicitly assessed that the quality of the WebP-encoded result was the worst of three analysed image formats, stronger (explicit) evidence needs to be used to back up any counter-claims (i.e. either that WebP's quality is superior for a given file size, or that WebP's file size is smaller for a given quality).

I would also recommend that, where possible, citations should include non-partisan sources. In other words, assessments from people or organisations that don't have a stake in one of the competing image compression technologies. (Where that's not possible, the article should make the potential for bias or conflict of interest to occur apparent by mentioning the relationship.)

—DIV (49.186.238.246 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves (not associated Talk pages), or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking editing from mobile devices (not all devices) when viewed from designated IP ranges.

Invalid media type

The IANA's authoritative list of media types does not include image/webp. It nevertheless appears on Wikipedia and numerous other websites. Is this a case of citogenesis? SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, there is a draft RFC that defines it. I don't know why it isn't included in the IANA's list of draft media types, but that isn't a Wikipedia problem. SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Web browsers with WebP suppoort

Dillo supports Webp in veersion 3.2.0

https://9to5linux.com/dillo-3-2-open-source-web-browser-released-to-celebrate-25th-anniversary

https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo/releases Neonix (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Removed the pronunciation - I've only ever heard it pronounced "web pee", not "weppy", as the archived page said. A web page from 15 years ago (from when it was a novel file format) is not a useful source for current pronunciation. Penny Avocado (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I added that pronunciation. I've reverted your edit because the pronunciation was well-sourced to the official WebP website. Yes, it is old, but it is a reliable source written by the creators. As far as I can tell, no other official pronunciation has been provided since.

If you can find a reliable source that supports "web pee" being a common alternative pronunciation (and I do not doubt that it is – I have heard that, but what you and I have heard is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article), please do add that pronunciation alongside the one we currently have and cite the source you've found. I don't think anyone would object to that. Pink Bee (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to add an interactive WebP comparison tool

Hello - I am the founder of Parachute, which develops and operates the proposed open-source tool. Because I have a conflict of interest, I am requesting an independent assessment rather than adding the link directly.

Proposed addition to the “External links” section:

Interactive WebP conversion and file-size comparison tool – converts images to WebP and reports the original file size, generated file size, and resulting reduction.

The tool is freely accessible, requires no registration, and allows readers to test the practical effect of WebP conversion on their own images.

For transparency, the source code and methodology are publicly available:

Source code

Methodology, assumptions and limitations

I understand that external links should remain limited. I would appreciate an independent editor’s assessment of whether this interactive resource provides sufficient additional value to readers. Elodysanchis (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not for adding the link to the article. The tool compresses some lossless images (PNG) in a lossy way and doesn't let the user choose. No surprise the lossy compression results in much smaller files. Avayak (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I understand the concern, and I agree that comparing a lossless PNG with a lossy WebP conversion, without making that choice explicit, can overstate the apparent file-size reduction.

I use the tool regularly in practical web-development work, but I understand that personal usefulness alone is not a sufficient reason for inclusion on Wikipedia.

I will update the tool to make the compression mode explicit and allow users to choose between lossless and lossy WebP conversion. I will also clarify the selected quality level and revise the methodology and limitations accordingly.

Once those changes have been made, would you be open to reassessing whether the revised tool provides distinct educational value for readers? If not, I respect the editorial decision and will not pursue the addition further. Elodysanchis (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a link directory. External links are for including encyclopedic or educational content, not for tools that readers could use for various tasks. Even with your proposed changes this really is not the kind of link Wikipedia hosts. - MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for clarifying your interpretation of the external-links guideline.

My intention was not to use Wikipedia as a link directory or simply to promote a utility, but to propose an interactive educational resource that allows readers to observe and understand, through a practical example, how WebP compression modes, quality settings, and source formats affect file size.

I understand, however, that you consider the tool’s primary function to be task-oriented rather than encyclopedic, even where it includes explanatory methodology and limitations. I will not add the link or pursue its inclusion further in its current form.

I will still implement the lossless/lossy clarification, as the original technical concern was valid. If a separate, non-promotional educational page focused on methodology, reproducible comparisons, assumptions, and limitations would be more consistent with Wikipedia’s external-link criteria, I would appreciate that clarification for future reference. Elodysanchis (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:AITALK, and write only in your own words in the future. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. Please keep in mind that English is not my first language, so I sometimes use translation assistance when writing responses. Elodysanchis (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Even so, write in your own words, without translation assistance. We would rather communicate with a person with less than perfect English. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand your request about my own words.

That said, the repeated remarks about my English and my use of language assistance are not necessary. I would prefer to keep the discussion focused on the editorial and technical issues. Thanks. Elodysanchis (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)