Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found. You can either do it right away, or mark the dubious claim(s) in the article with appropriate templates such as ). So if this particular claim cannot be backed up by quoting a reliable source (who exactly considers it to be a substitute for Premiere, where's the link?), without using vague, weasel expressions, then it's time to remove it. Furthermore, phrases like ".is widely regarded as." (example from the article: "Avidemux has often been considered to be an open-source substitute for high-end commercial editors, such as Adobe Premiere Pro") are weasel words that should be avoided in Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is whether the statement can be backed up by citing a reliable source. It does not matter what you, I or any other Wikipedia editor think of Avidemux, open-source and the qualities of anything. DonPMitchell ( talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Reply What actually matters in Wikipedia is this: all statements in all articles must be verifiable via reliable sources. It's become a cliche to exagerate the qualities of anything open source, and in the long run, that doesn't help the reputation of the movement. However, it does open many more file formats without the fuss that Premiere sometimes makes about licensing.
#Avidemux alternative pro
Comparing it with Adobe Premiere Pro is misleading, it is a vastly simpler piece of software that doesn't begin to do the same kinds of audio/video editing. – Glenn Seto 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Reply Also, I do not believe phrases such as "Some people think." and ".boasts such features." are entirely NPOV.
And even then, it may not belong here, in Wikipedia. And only when they say it's planned, it can be considered a planned feature. Only Mean or other Avidemux developers know what they plan to do. That's pretty much what this section represents (random suggestions from various users without getting answers from the developers). Anyone can ask for any feature in Avidemux and then, without getting any answer, put it the "Future plans" section, cunfusing the readers who may think that these are planned features. Secondly, the "Proposed (but unconfirmed or undecided) features" section is just pure speculation that's not based on anything real. what it is and what it can do, not a development info. Firstly, users interested in Avidemux development can see all these details elesewhere (mailing list with patches, web forum, bug tracker), this is just general info page about the Avidemux application, i.e. I don't think that the "Future plans" section is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. That was all! In this way was no encyclopedian relevance visible. "Reason: The article just said that it is a software and what it can do. Dazu wurde auch in der Diskussion nichts beigetragen.
Das war alles! Damit ist keine wie auch immer geartete enzyklopädische Relevanz erkennbar. "Begründung: Im Artikel stand, das es sich um eine Software handelt und was sie kann. Though 12:0 votes for keeping it was deleted
Eine Verbreitung wie sie zum Beispiel bei VirtualDub vorhanden ist kann ich hier nicht erkennen. "Begründung:Werbetext für ein Softwareprodukt zweifelhafter Relevanz. The german Avidemux entry has been deleted
0 kommentar(er)
