Talk:WebP

Public criticism

I noticed this page had a section which was outdated, specifically the newest citation was from 2013. I am willing to add more examples of criticism leveled against WebP, but most of the criticism does come from internet forums rather than from any reliable source. Here are some examples: .

I am not gonna use these as citations, but the added text will have no citation as a result. I wanted to have a second opinion before performing the change because I am afraid it is going to be reverted immediately. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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)