Talk:Content format
 | This page was proposed for deletion by GhostInTheMachine (talk · contribs) on 29 August 2025. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article should be removed.
[edit]I strongly believe the article should be removed because "content format" as defined is inaccurate and does not reflect reality.
First, the word "content format" is only defined in the context of content management.
I have both copies of the main cited sources in the article, "Content Management Bible" (Boiko 2004) and "Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy" (Rockley 2002). As you can tell from their titles alone, they are about content management systems. They are business book. They are not technical book that describes general concept of "content format".
The description akin to the article's definition of "an encoded format for converting a specific type of data to displayable information" does appear in Boiko 2004. However, it is given to the author's conception of what "content" is, not "content format". The author never defines what "content format" is. As a proof, the word "content format" only appears 4 times in all of Boiko 2004. As for Rockley 2002, the word "content format" is never used.
Second, the article's definition of "content format" does not reflect reality.
If you search on the Internet, in almost all cases, "content format" is used and defined as any digital content that you want to sell or share on social media. They are used synonymously with contemporary sense of the term "content", a product you want to sell on Internet. In this sense, it matches somewhat with the definition of the content management system as I described above, but it is still a distinct idea.
I am also having a hard time finding a real-life usage of the "content formant" as used throughout the article, e.g. "Chinese calligraphy written in a language content format by Song dynasty (A.D. 1051-1108) poet Mi Fu". As far as I know, no linguist or historian has ever used "language content format" to describe this process of encoding.
I personally find above description about Chinese calligraphy confusing. Chinese calligraphy is the writing system of the Middle Chinese. That is what it is. This whole description of "language content format" is redundant and unnecessary. I have similar sentiment towards "audio content formant" (line graph example) and "numeric content format" (UPC example), but I will spare the details here.