Talk:EBU R 128

Requested move

I can't move this page to "EBU R 128".

I also wanted to add this article in German to Languages: [1], but it couldn't find this article in German wikipedia. I'm a bit confused...

Merge proposals

This article was originally a redirect to LKFS. Damian101 turned it into a stub. Someone else suggested it be merged into European Broadcasting Union. Grk1011 has boldly redirected it to LKFS again. I have reverted because I beleive R 128 is independently notable, and the fate of this article deserves some discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I would second the notability, although it is debatable whether the article as it stands is better than a redirect. Audio normalization may be a better read on this subject, being in a helpful rounded context. Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My goal was to be able to remove the merger template from European Broadcasting Union that had been there for nine months with no action (see the merger proposal). Whatever the outcome, I think if the article stands it must be expanded at the same time. Like I said in my merger comment, I assumed there were hundreds if not thousands of guidelines, so perhaps a page on those guidelines as a whole is warranted instead of an article on each one? I honestly don't know much about this subject to offer anything more. I would support a better redirect target if there is one as I think stubs like this don't add much value to Wikipedia when they can be incorporated more cohesively into the main topic's article. Grk1011 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard regulating loudness of production and broadcasts throughout Europe. I agree it should be expanded but we are WP:VOLUNTEERs and there are WP:NODEADLINES. I do not support merging this to European Broadcasting Union. There was not enough support voiced at Talk:European Broadcasting Union § Merger proposal to do the merge so I would assume someone uninvolved could simply close the proposal and remove the banners. If you don't feel qualified to do that, we can ask for help at WP:WPMERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

On a procedural note, any user can close a merge proposal, following discussion which reaches a consensus or stalls. There is now effectively a new proposal, merge (or simply redirect in practice) back to LKFS. Just for the record again, I think the subject is notable, but the current stub fairly pointless. I would be comfortable with a redirect and a {{R with possibilities}} tag until someone wants to write a fuller article. Lithopsian (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Why do you consider the stub pointless? ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, one sentence is "pointless" and two sentences "fairly pointless". The title is discussed in at least three other articles. There is more information (not necessarily all the same information) about it elsewhere in WP than there is in the article, so that's another definition of fairly pointless. It is almost impossible to properly establish context in two sentences. WP articles link to other articles but it should be possible to read them as a standalone piece without prior knowledge beyond that possessed by anyone in the street. I use the "my mother" test. If my mother has no clue at all what is going on after reading just the article (or just the lead of a longer article) then it is fairly pointless. What is "loudness normalisation" (and why isn't it linked?). What is an "audio signal"? "Permitted" by who or what? Those two sentences make complete sense if you already know what R128 is, but no sense if you are the average person in the street. Lastly, see WP:DICTDEF, just defining what a term is is a dictionary definition - a WP article should describe the concept that the term refers to. Lithopsian (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The point to the two sentences is they are a starting point for writing an article. It would be good to have this covered in detail in one place (here) to tie together the fragments found elsewhere. I think this is the best place to develop that. For now, things will remain WP:IMPERFECT. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much to add, if the article here needs to be bigger to stand on its own, & I wouldn't oppose a merger with the related article on LKFS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LKFS) which has a link to this article.

if anything, this article belongs as a paragraph in the LKFS article, by way of providing the essential background to the discussions that took place among broadcasters who would have to implement the findings of the various meetings that took place around 2009-12. I was at some of them, so I know whereof I speak, if that helps sway anyone. I think, anyway, that the ITU is a larger technical authority than the EBU, though I'd retain a link to both bodies in both articles.

duncanrmi (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Duncanrmi: since the time of the above discussion, the article has been expanded from two sentences to six sections. The motivations stated above for a merge or redirect to LKFS are no longer valid. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks- I hadn't seen the whole edit history. that'll teach me to drive-by!

duncanrmi (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)