Talk:MKVToolNix

Notability
The stub was tagged with prod&mdash;I love this procedure&mdash;with an NN + unreliable sources rationale. I intend to contest this PROposed Deletion after adding some of the usual suspects (download sites also offering detailed reviews by authors with a name) as additional references. However, I'm not opposed to the "merge to Matroska" suggestion, dropping almost all download + github + not yet added reviews in the merge. So if this ends up in a merge with #REDIRECT Matroska please don't forget to adjust the associated mkvmerge, mkvtoolnix, and MKVToolnix redirects.

Reasons why it might be notable enough to stay out of Matroska: It's software, while Matroska is a file format. That could require different info boxes on the same page, and other messy oddities. The converting video link is a reliable 2nd party source relevant for MediaWiki sites not limited to Wikipedia. The link on Matroska.org is a notable 3rd party reference, it is the official site for this file format. A search for links to free-codecs.com lists nine articles (incl. this), digital digest lists 17 articles, and videohelp.com lists 19 articles. These sites are apparently considered as reliable enough in other articles. I intentionally picked these sites with a reputation for multimedia, and not the general Softpedia etc., but for some decent reviews I can't avoid these less specific sources.

Last but not least, I've removed MKVToolNix from the requested articles. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Two of three Softpedia reviews removed, as there are better references for Windows downloads. Older of two Apple patents removed, title + contributors + assignee identical, only number + date were different. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable
And as just mentioned above, one should not just merge Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice into OpenDocument article... Absolwent (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I encourage you and to participate at the deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/MKVToolNix, which is where the outcome of the deletion discussion will be determined. Messages posted here will not normally be considered.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Patents
The article states that "The tools are cited in patents for a "Universal container for audio data"". Why is this included? Are the patents actually related to the software, or filed by its developer, or are they simply citing its existence as prior art?

Could someone check and clarify, or remove the statement entirely? In a free software context, vague statements about patents can be concerning, they could lead a reader to be concerned that despite the free license, the software is encumbered by patents and using it can be grounds for a lawsuit. 75.134.65.25 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)