Talk:DVD

Despite most DVD players are made in Japan, I heard that DVDs are not well accepted in Japan. The Japanese consumers prefered to stick with LD or even VHS tapes. Can someone confirm this? What is the reason behind the relunctance? My Japanese coworker in the US does not own a DVD player and he rents movies on VHS.

Qualities of DVD players made in China

I dunno. AFAICT most low-end DVD players (as well as most other low-end consumer electronics) are made in lower-wage parts of Asia these days. Besides, most of the Chinese DVD players are region-free :)--Robert Merkel

These Chinese DVD players may be low quality in terms of signal processing capability, but they were designed to accept a wide range of low quality media at high fault tolerance. DVD with scratches, pirated media, various types of CD-R, CD-RW media are all playable on most of these cheap players. They fit in a different market niche, where, media compatibility is more important than picture quality

Chinese DVD piracy

DVD piracy is out of control in China. One can buy Hollywood movies at below US$1 a piece, compared to $20 in the US. The cheap region free players and the lack of enforcement of copyright laws make such market momentum possible.

Region Codes

The region codes on DVD were put in to allow different pricing of the same software in different markets. For example, DVDs are much cheaper in China than in the US. The region code prevents DVDs from a cheaper market to be re-imported to and sold in the US. However, such region code also prevents legitimate Foreign language version DVDs to be sold in the US. For example, I wanted to buy Disney Cartoons dubbed in a different language for my kids, but these DVDs cannot be played on DVD players in the US, i.e. such added values (dubbing and subtitles) are blocked from US customers. Some DVDs targeted to the greater North America market would also add subtitles in French for the Canadians and Spanish for the hispanic population in the US, but most DVDs only has the English sound track. In other words, the barrier put in place to control pricing is also a barrier to support the language diversity of the US population. The US population is composed of immigrants from around the world, allowing only English on DVDs does not fulfill the market needs.

Does DeCSS allow DVD from anywhere to be played?

Question: is it possible to play DVDs from all regions with players that use DeCSS? I tried to find information on this, but found nothing that convinced me. And I don't any DVDs to try it. Guaka 13:31, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) My DVD drive is set to region one (I am able to change it up to five times yet) and plays region 2 DVDs OK with libcss under Debian. Beyond that I don't know. Mr. Jones 17:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What does DVD stand for?

Origin of the acronym

From what I understand, Digital Video Disc was the first meaning, and then it was changed to Versatile after it was realized that they would be used for more than just video. Ill check to see if I can find any more info on it. --mincus

DVD name expansion clarified. --Damian Yerrick

thank you --mincus

I have an opposite understanding. I thought the DVD was originally designed as Digital Versatile Disc. However, the general public only knows its most popular use as Digital Video Disc and the name sticks. Same reason why the Americans call their mobile phones as cell phones even though cellular technology is only one of the many technologies in use. In the US, many uses of the English language does not make too much sense.

Does it stand for anything?

I've just changed the intro paragraph to state that "DVD" does not in fact stand for anything (though it used to). Now I'm not so sure. According to this article (http://www.dvworkshop.co.uk/DVD/dvd.html), it was originally short for "Digital Versatile Disc", and later became more commonly known as "Digital Video Disc". This one (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213923,00.html) claims that it stands for nothing, as does the DVD Demystified FAQ (http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.1). The official DVD Forum FAQ (http://www.dvdforum.org/faq-dvdprimer.htm) says it's "Versatile". Do the DVD Forum have the final word? Anyone have a more definite answer? There's already some discussion above on this, but no authoritative answers. -- Wapcaplet 18:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's weird to state that DVD no longer stands for anything. It is, indeed, still an acronym, and still, as far as I know, still stands for Digital Video/Versatile Disc. I recommend removing the blurb that DVD is no longer considered an acronym.

Well, as noted immediately above your post, there may still be some confusion on this issue. If you could provide an authoritative source on what DVD stands for today, we could perhaps use that in the article. I suppose if nothing else, we can note this very fact - that there is disagreement over what it stands for, if indeed anything. -- Wapcaplet 02:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've emailed the author of the DVD Demystified FAQ (http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html) in the hopes that he can clarify the matter for us. Will notify when I receive a response. -- Wapcaplet 03:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I received a response from Jim Taylor, author of the DVD Demystified FAQ. He says:

DVD doesn't stand for anything. That IS the definitive answer.

(Note that the DVD Forum Web site is run by Toshiba, proponent of the "Digital Versatile Disc" backformation, which was never approved by the DVD Forum as a whole.)

So there's our answer. I will tweak the intro paragraph a bit more on this. -- Wapcaplet 19:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A clarification on the term DVD: originally it did mean Digital Video Disc, but its creators very briefly introduced the term Digital Versatile Disc to stress the fact that it cant contain anything digitized, not just video. However, before the format was finalized or launched, many in the industry were called it Digital Vapor Disc and Doubtful, Very Doubtful, too. The DVD Alliance...

Hold on there! The DVD+RW Alliance is NOT the official DVD standards body! The DVD Forum is the last word on DVD standards, and their documentation clearly uses "digital versatile disc". The DVD+RW Alliance's word is meaningless for any discs other than DVD+RW and DVD+R -- they have no say in the DVD, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, or DVD-RAM standards. Tooki 20:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ultimately handed down the official decision that henceforth DVD does not "stand for" anything - the name is simply the letters DVD. Besides, to call something a DVD disc (Digital Video Disc disc) is redundant.

DVD Diva

No one says "CD disc" though, do they? Do people really say "DVD disc"? I've never heard it. "MIDI interface", certainly, but not that. Mr. Jones 17:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no one says "CD disc" or "DVD disc" because the "disc" is already there; likewise, no one says, "C-disc" or "DV-disc". TheCustomOfLife 17:28, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really has any bearing on whether the last "D" is "disc" or not, though. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with a little redundancy; though it may be redundant, people often say "PIN number" or "VIN number," just for the sake of clarity. I would see nothing wrong with saying "CD disc" if there is reason that "CD" alone might be interpreted ambiguously (certificate of deposit, change directory, etc.); if I said "I have a big pile of CDs here", you aren't sure whether I'm saying I have a large music collection, or a lot of money in the bank. DVD is an acronym for a bunch of other stuff (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=DVD) too; the disc format containing data is just the most popular usage of the term. -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Longevity

If you burn data to DVD for archival purposes, for how long can you expect it to be readable (assuming it is stored optimally)? Is DVD the best long-term home data archival solution? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nobody knows! DVD is such a new format that the only way to estimate how long a DVD will last is to artificially age it with air and UV exposure and whatnot. Manufacturers claim they have a shelf-life of something like 100 years. Do a google search for "DVD rot", however, and you'll get a lot of recent stories about new DVDs that are already unusable due to various factors unrelated to consumer abuse. It would be good to have an article on this subject, since it's of great concern to many people. From what I've gathered, it's fairly evident that DVD (or recordable CD, or anything else like it) is not well-suited to long-term archival unless you take care to check the integrity of your archives periodically, and make fresh copies every few years. And keep your discs out of sunlight and moisture, and preferably in a vacuum :-) -- Wapcaplet 22:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That reminds me. This article should include something about how they should have put DVDs in a case like mini-discs. They scratch so easy!! 80( (ricjl 23:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I have seen cases of CD-Rs no loger being readable after 2-3 years of heavy use, and I have myself had a case of discs written using packet-writing technology that are illegible after like 5 years. If you want to make sure your data is still readable, use MOD Discs (WORM), where the manufactureres guarantee a lifetime of 50 years ( --Eptalon 21:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is some info on DVD careand (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/) DVD lifespan (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/gipwg/StabilityStudy.pdf) on the NIST website (http://www.itl.nist.gov/) --Arachnotron 14:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

DVD-ROM and DVD-R

I think that DVD-ROM, and probably DVD-R too, should be fusioned with DVD. xDCDx 12:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possible bug

Just now when I looked at this page, I noticed some very obvious vandalism in the first paragraph (obscenities directed against someone named Ashleigh). I tried to revert it, but I wound up undoing somebody else's spelling corrections instead. Now it's not showing up in the history at all. Also, when I tried to undo my mistake, I kept getting messages like "no page found". Unless I was hallucinating, there's a bug somewhere in the system.

...Upon further inspection, it seems that somebody else was reverting at the same time. Never mind. :) 63.130.194.142 23:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History

I added a little bit on the history of the DVD format, especially the part about Wal-Mart. I was employed by them when the players hit the $299 mark and they began selling DVD players and discs in their stores. I believe that's one reason the format is so sucessful is because having it sold through places like Wal-Mart helped get it exposed to the American people. It seems like once they got going with DVDs the format exploded in popularity to the point that it eclipsed VHS.

JesseG 05:07, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Confused about a sentence

"All above formats are also available as 8 cm (3 inch) sized DVD mini discs (not mini-DVD, which describes DVD data on a CD) with a disc capacity of 1.5 GB."

The line says "all above formats". Is DVD+R DL available in mini format? And if it is, wouldn't the capacity be greater than 1.5GB. And is DVD-RAM available in mini format? --65.161.65.104 19:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DVD-RAM discs are available in 8cm sizes; they are typically used only in DVD-RAM based camcorders.

DVD as acronym/initialism

We've got to do something about this issue of DVD standing for digital video/versatile disc. The matter is explained in detail a few paragraphs into the article, but some editors keep adding the original expansion to the intro paragraph ([1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DVD&diff=9194095&oldid=9194076), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DVD&diff=8239939&oldid=8232890), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DVD&diff=6758070&oldid=6757988)). I don't think the acronym expansion should be mentioned at all in the intro paragraph, because it's a relatively lengthy issue to explain fully, but apparently some editors disagree (or aren't bothering to read far enough to see that it's already mentioned). How should we handle this? -- Wapcaplet 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Urzad Ochrony Panstwa not related to DVD's

I'm just a passerby who's never edited anything here, but i thought i should point out that clicking on UOP brings up the Polish intelligence agency: Urzad Ochrony Panstwa so someone who does know what they're doing should edit.

Definition - is DVD a format or a disc?

First sentence of article defines DVD as a format. Second sentence talks of it as a physical object i.e. a disc. Nurg 04:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the DVD article?

I think the paragraph about copy protection/region codes should go into a separate article, like DVD (Region Codes). I am also not quite happy when there is talk about the DVD format. There is no such thing as a DVD Format. The disc format is that of the CD, and the logical format on the disc is UDF, an extension of ISO9660.

While we are at it, we might split off the longer discussion of the different dvd formats (video, audio,..) too... --Eptalon 20:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The disc format is that of the CD"? Care to explain that cryptic remark? Mirror Vax 15:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The disk format is not that of a CD. DVD's use blue-er lasers than CD's do... Yes, the file format is not unique to the DVD, but then again, it isn't claiming that... It's just saying that on DVD's, the UDF format is used. --220.233.48.110 06:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

DVD-Audio

Moved DVD-Audio to its own article. Many reasons for this:

Lots of links to DVD-Audio
Links to DVD usually relate to DVD-Video, rarely or never to DVD-Audio
A seperate article can be placed in the appropriate categories (a #redirect page can't be placed in categories). Mirror Vax 13:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll address each of your justifications individually:

"Lots of links to DVD-Audio"

As I stated earlier, the content can be mirrored (and optionally expanded) as a separate article, without necessitating its removal from the main DVD article. This is precisely what I did via my creation of the DVD region code article, thereby allowing links to any DVD region to redirect to a concise explanation of that subject.

"Links to DVD usually relate to DVD-Video, rarely or never to DVD-Audio"

That's an invalid argument. DVD-Video is covered, and there's no harm in covering DVD-Audio as well. The fact that the former is considerably more popular than the latter is irrelevant to the article's goal of providing thorough information on the general DVD format (including applications with separate articles, such as software distribution).

"A seperate article can be placed in the appropriate categories (a #redirect page can't be placed in categories)."

Again, there's no reason (in my assessment) why DVD-Audio can't have a separate article. In fact, I agree that it's a good idea. This doesn't, however, mean that the information contained therein cannot remain part of the main DVD article.

In any event, you've advocating a major revision that involves the removal of content from a prominent article. As the prudence of this change is contested, I respectfully request that you permit the status quo (prior to your edits) to remain until a general consensus has been reached on the talk page. (I've posted a request for comment.) Agreed?

— Lifeisunfair 18:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the RfC page. There's a standard procedure for splitting a section of an article out into its own article:

Copy the existing content to the new article, editing to make it able to stand on its own.
Under the section header that formerly contained the new article, put a link to the new article, and a brief summary of the removed content.
As people come by and add to the summary, move the added content to the new article.

I've done this for the DVD-Audio section. --Carnildo 19:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but you misunderstood the nature of the dispute. The question is not "How should the split take place?", but rather "Should the split take place?". I didn't word my request for comment quite so specifically, because I felt that it would lead to the inference that I object to the creation of a separate DVD-Audio article (which I don't).

It's my contention that while a mirroring of content makes sense, an outright split does not. The DVD article is intended to serve as an all-encompassing description of the DVD format. DVD-Video (a comparable DVD variety) is described at great length, so I see no legitimate reason why DVD-Audio should not be. To remove this information is to treat this article as though it's meant to address DVD-Video exclusively (excepting a brief mention of a sister DVD type), and this is not the case.

As we have not yet gauged the prevailing opinion, please revert the article accordingly. (I would, but I don't intend to violate the three-revert rule.) Thanks again.

— Lifeisunfair 20:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is pretty big, so I think that DVD-Audio should keep its own article and be summarized here. Also there is a lot more to say about DVD-Audio, such as a description of its currently unbroken copy protection scheme. Rhobite 22:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"This article is pretty big,"

That's true, but the pre-split DVD-Audio section was only two paragraphs long.

"so I think that DVD-Audio should keep its own article and be summarized here."

In that case, the DVD-Video section (twenty-one paragraphs, including five subsections) also should be split into a separate article. The two topics are equally relevant to the main article.

I would prefer to leave the entire DVD article (including DVD-Video and DVD-Audio) intact, but the above would be acceptable. Inconsistency (treating DVD-Audio differently than DVD-Video) is what I object to. Mirror Vax cited the fact that most of the articles linking to this one do so in the context of DVD-Video, but a relative lack of popularity is not a valid reason to excise or split relevant content.

"Also there is a lot more to say about DVD-Audio, such as a description of its currently unbroken copy protection scheme."

By all means, please contribute such information to the DVD-Audio article. As I previously stated, it's reasonable to expand that page without removing the original information from the main article.

— Lifeisunfair 23:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't cite relative popularity as a reason (although that's a perfectly good reason). I am talking about what DVD *means*. One of the most common meanings of "DVD" is DVD-Video (just as CD-audio is a common meaning of CD). "DVD" does not mean DVD-Audio; when people refer to DVD-Audio, they call it DVD-Audio. That is proven by the links. There are actually more links to DVD-Audio than to DVD-Video, even though DVD-Audio is a much more obscure topic. Now, this does not mean that splitting off DVD-Video is a bad idea, only that the case for doing so is weaker than the case for splitting off DVD-Audio. Mirror Vax 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't cite relative popularity as a reason"

I was referring to the popularity of linking to the main DVD article in the context of DVD-Audio, not to the popularity of the format itself.

"(although that's a perfectly good reason)."

I disagree.

"I am talking about what DVD *means*."

"DVD" means "DVD." That's the topic of the article.

"One of the most common meanings of 'DVD' is DVD-Video (just as CD-audio is a common meaning of CD)."

That's true, but while DVD-Audio is not nearly as common a connotation, people frequently reference DVDs in the context of data storage. The terms "DVD" and "DVD-Video" are not synonymous, even if some people believe that they are. The purpose of this article is to educate, not to propagate a popular misconception.

"'DVD' does not mean DVD-Audio;"

Nor does it strictly mean "DVD-Video" (when correctly applied).

"when people refer to DVD-Audio, they call it DVD-Audio. That is proven by the links. There are actually more links to DVD-Audio than to DVD-Video, even though DVD-Audio is a much more obscure topic."

I don't contest this point. As I said, I agree with the idea of creating a separate DVD-Audio article, and even with the idea of adding new content that the main DVD article lacks. My complaint pertains to the removal of the information that this article already contained.

"Now, this does not mean that splitting off DVD-Video is a bad idea,"

I would accept such a compromise, but I'd like to wait for some additional feedback before doing anything drastic.

"only that the case for doing so is weaker than the case for splitting off DVD-Audio."

Again, I recognize the case for assigning a separate page to DVD-Audio (for the purpose of providing a concise description of the format to those who follow such a link). I don't, however, see a case for simultaneously removing this information from the main DVD article.

As I referenced earlier, I created the DVD region code article when I noticed that some articles linked to specific DVD regions (mostly Region 1), for which no articles existed. I excerpted the pertinent section from the main DVD article (and set up all of the DVD regions as redirects), but I didn't remove this information from its parent page.

It's my opinion that the same method should be employed here. DVD-Audio deserves its own article, but not at the expense of its thorough inclusion in this one.

I don't want to engage in an edit war, and I hope that you realize that you're the one who's advocating a major deletion of accurate, relevant information. As such, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate significant support for the proposed split.

Are you willing to accept my truce proposal (by restoring the DVD-Audio section for the time being)? If the general consensus favors your stance, I'm more than willing to concede the dispute (by supporting the split, in the interest of democracy). Fair enough?

— Lifeisunfair 01:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to mirror DVD-Audio in this article. The DVD-Audio article will grow over time, and mirroring its entire contents will be impractical. The convention is to summarize sub-articles in main articles, and this isn't a particularly special case. I tend to agree with Mirror Vax, the case is weaker for splitting DVD-Video than for DVD-Audio. But maybe DVD-Video should be split off too. Rhobite 02:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added a copy prevention section to DVD-Audio. I think it's technically accurate, but feel free to review it and improve it. Rhobite 03:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

"I don't see a reason to mirror DVD-Audio in this article."

That isn't what I'm suggesting.

"The DVD-Audio article will grow over time, and mirroring its entire contents will be impractical."

I agree. Again, that isn't what I'm suggesting. I believe that the initial DVD-Audio article should mirror the contents of the main DVD article's DVD-Audio section (as it does now, except that the latter has been trimmed to a summary), but it should be expanded over time to include considerably more information. Meanwhile, the main article's DVD-Audio section should not be kept in lockstep, but it should remain relatively unchanged.

In other words, I'm not advocating the significant addition of information to the main DVD article's DVD-Audio section, but I am contesting the removal of information.

"The convention is to summarize sub-articles in main articles, and this isn't a particularly special case."

Probably not, but the decision to split the article is under dispute. Mirror Vax's intentions are good, but he/she arbitrarily undertook a split without first discussing this decision with fellow community members. Under the present circumstances, don't the standard conventions dictate that the content be restored for the time being (at least until a week or two of discussion has transpired)? The DVD-Audio article, of course, would be unaffected.

"I tend to agree with Mirror Vax, the case is weaker for splitting DVD-Video than for DVD-Audio. But maybe DVD-Video should be split off too."

I don't see how it's logical to split one, but not the other. Both are varieties of the same format. Some people incorrectly believe that "DVD" means "DVD-Video," but this is not sound justification for leaving those two topics together, while separating DVD-Audio. (When last I checked, a common misconception was not considered a valid criterion on which to base a Wikipedia article.)

In fact, the DVD-Video section consumes a vastly greater amount of space than the DVD-Audio section did. Perhaps a split wouldn't be such a bad idea. A main DVD article comprised entirely of general DVD format details (history, technical specifications, etc.) and brief summaries of the various applications (with links to corresponding articles) might be a sensible setup.

As I stated earlier, however, I don't believe that any major revision of that nature should be made without providing advance notice and allowing a reasonable feedback period to elapse.

— Lifeisunfair 06:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lifeisunfair, if you "mirrored" content in the past, you made a mistake. Articles should not duplicate content wholesale, although one article briefly summarizing another is okay. Either the DVD region code article should be replaced by a redirect to DVD#Region codes, or the region code part of the DVD article should be replaced by a link to DVD region code. Duplication of content is just plain bad. It's confusing and unmaintainable and there's no reason for it. Mirror Vax 04:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Lifeisunfair, if you 'mirrored' content in the past, you made a mistake."

Perhaps so. I'm relatively new to this community, and I have committed some errors from time to time.

By the same token, I believe that you committed an error in this instance (and unlike mine, it was one of a destructive nature). The split might be a good idea (and my opinion to the contrary is worth no more than anyone else's opinion), but you took it upon yourself to enact this major revision without consulting anyone. (No offense is intended.)

Am I correct in assuming that you're rejecting my truce proposal? (You didn't respond to that portion of my message.)

"Articles should not duplicate content wholesale, although one article briefly summarizing another is okay."

I would appreciate a link to the pertinent policy. (I mean that sincerely; I'm not being sarcastic.) I welcome every opportunity to learn how to become a better Wikipedian.

"Either the DVD region code article should be replaced by a redirect to DVD#Region codes,"

The first thing that I tried was to redirect the individual regions (beginning with Region 1) in this manner, but I couldn't get it to function properly. (If I recall correctly, the resulting page <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Region_1&oldid=1188141> displayed as a manual link, just as though the "redirect=no" option had been selected.)

I assumed that what I was attempting was impossible, so I created the excerpt (after making some substantial additions and corrections to the section). Do you know what I might have been doing incorrectly?

"or the region code part of the DVD article should be replaced by a link to DVD region code."

Which do you feel would be preferable?

"Another thing: moving content is not a 'major deletion of accurate, relevant information'. I deleted nothing, nor am I advocating deleting anything."

You deleted nothing from the Wikipedia site, but you deleted content from this particular article.

You can debate semantics, but a split is not something to be taken lightly. Not every subtopic is worthy of its own article, and no one person should arbitrarily opt to enact such a drastic measure (unless the material being split clearly and undeniably is predominantly unrelated or tenuously connected to the parent article).

"On the contrary, now that DVD-Audio has its own article, it is more likely to expand."

I agree, but the two-paragraph section that existed before could serve as a summary of the newly expanded DVD-Audio article.

That is, of course, unless we proceed with the idea of splitting DVD-Video into a separate article (which I'm beginning to favor more and more). That might be the best compromise, provided that it doesn't raise an inordinate number of objections.

"I'm puzzled by your comments."

I'm puzzled as to why DVD-Audio should be treated differently than DVD-Video. (Because some people incorrectly believe that DVD and DVD-Video are one and the same?)

" Is the problem that you want the DVD article to be something you can print on paper?"

No. The problem is the aforementioned lack of uniformity.

— Lifeisunfair 06:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to individual section ought to work. I could swear I've actually seen it work, but perhaps I was hallucinating. Hmm. In any case, I still maintain that duplication of content should be avoided. It's just common sense. If somebody makes a fix or improvement to one version, the other version will be out of sync. Plus it's confusing. As for making the change without prior consultation, I didn't, and still don't, consider it a major change. There was already a DVD-Audio article (a redirect), and lots of article linked to it. It's a minor change in my opinion. Moving DVD-Video is a more drastic change, and that's why I refrained from doing it, although I think it's a good idea. Mirror Vax 06:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Redirect to individual section ought to work."

I certainly would've thought so.

"I could swear I've actually seen it work, but perhaps I was hallucinating. Hmm. In any case, I still maintain that duplication of content should be avoided. It's just common sense. If somebody makes a fix or improvement to one version, the other version will be out of sync."

This occurred to me, but I couldn't come up with a better alternative.

I did include an explicit notation of the fact that the article was excepted from DVD.

Again, I would appreciate a link to the policy regarding the excerpt of complete sections. (I'm wondering if there might be a way for me to adjust the DVD region code article to meet the site's guidelines.) Otherwise, do you feel that a split would be prudent?

"As for making the change without prior consultation, I didn't, and still don't, consider it a major change."

The split of a section from a prominent (or even obscure, in many cases) article is, by definition, a major change.

Deciding that something deserves its own article (even if this subsequently proves to be the general consensus) is insufficient. What if it turns out that a majority of community members disagree with the split, perhaps believing that the subtopic is too minor to justify a separate article)? (I don't feel that this applies to DVD-Audio, but others might.) What if (as in this instance) it creates an inconsistency in the manner in which the article handles various subtopics?

No matter how sensible an idea seems to one person (be it you, me or someone else), it might seem like the worst idea imaginable to other people. Wikipedia revisions can be reverted or modified, but a split is more definitive than most. (Any removal of accurate, relevant content from an article — even if the information is reproduced elsewhere — is an unusually significant change.)

"There was already a DVD-Audio article (a redirect),"

A redirect is not an "article" (at least, not the connotation that we're discussing), and the existence of a redirect does not constitute justification for a separate article. It merely means that the term in question (which refers to an existing topic or subtopic) is likely to be searched for and/or linked to.

" and lots of article linked to it."

How many of those links do you suppose were created in anticipation of a future DVD-Audio article?

It's common to link to redirects (instead of articles' actual titles) largely because it's convenient to do so (and to a lesser extent, because it allows for the possibility that a separate article might one day be written).

Also, many writers like to link to various key terms, without first bothering to check and see if corresponding articles exist (and to a lesser extent, to allow for the possibility that such articles might one day exist).

"It's a minor change in my opinion."

I don't agree. I'm formally disputing the split, and you're ignored (not explicitly rejected, mind you, but simply ignored) my truce proposal three times. I've been outside of the twenty-four hour period referenced in the three-revert rule since last night, so I could've reverted the article at that point. Instead, I've attempted to offer a fair compromise (a discussion of which course to take — the final outcome determined via consensus, with the DVD-Audio section tentatively restored in the interim), but your attitude seems to be, "I'm right. You're wrong. That's that."

"Moving DVD-Video is a more drastic change,"

Why? Because it's a longer section?

"and that's why I refrained from doing it, although I think it's a good idea."

I've come to agree, but I wouldn't go ahead with such a revision without first allowing significantly more discussion to occur.

If relatively few individuals express objection (relative to those who express support), I would feel comfortable proceeding with a DVD-Video split in a week or two, depending upon the quantity/nature of the feedback generated. (I've raised the issue under an appropriate heading.) Are these terms acceptable to you?

— Lifeisunfair 11:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Splitting DVD-Video is a more drastic change because, as I have already explained, most of the links to DVD relate to DVD-Video. There are hundreds (at least) of links to DVD, so anything that affects them is significant. As I said, I support splitting DVD-Video, but it's a much bigger deal than splitting DVD-Audio. Of course I think I'm right - and you presumably think you're right. If you want to add more information to the DVD-Audio section, I won't revert it. But please add judiciously, don't just copy the whole DVD-Audio article. Mirror Vax 13:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Splitting DVD-Video is a more drastic change because, as I have already explained, most of the links to DVD relate to DVD-Video. There are hundreds (at least) of links to DVD, so anything that affects them is significant."

Ah, that's a legitimate concern. If DVD-Video is split, many of those links will require updating (best done in advance, with the usual redirect in the interim).

"As I said, I support splitting DVD-Video, but it's a much bigger deal than splitting DVD-Audio."

Indeed, but I believe that the principle is the same.

"Of course I think I'm right - and you presumably think you're right."

Obviously, but I'm willing to disregard my opinion if the general consensus states otherwise. Are you?

"If you want to add more information to the DVD-Audio section, I won't revert it. But please add judiciously, don't just copy the whole DVD-Audio article."

Fair enough. Later today (when I have time), I'll select some key excerpts with which to update the summary. I'll aim for roughly the same size as the pre-split section, but I'll be very selective in what information I add. (I won't simply restore the old section verbatim, let alone the new article in its entirety.)

I sincerely thank you for agreeing to such a compromise.

— Lifeisunfair 14:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I compiled the new DVD-Audio summary, and it ended up being smaller than the pre-split section. I applied some slight rewording to the DVD-Audio article, and then reworded some of the excerpts to adapt them to the summary.

— Lifeisunfair 23:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lifeisunfair, re: your suggestion that splitting DVD-Audio should have been discussed with the community first. You said that splitting an article "is not something to be taken lightly", but I have to disagree. We're all editors here and we will get nothing done if every small change needs to be ratified first. Wikipedia:Be bold. I have no problem with Mirror Vax's split, he isn't required to seek out community approval first. People make large changes all the time: Page splits, page merges, complete rewrites, etc. Rhobite 14:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Lifeisunfair, re: your suggestion that splitting DVD-Audio should have been discussed with the community first. You said that splitting an article 'is not something to be taken lightly',"

That's my opinion, excepting a circumstance in which the material unequivocally doesn't belong in the article from which it's being split.

"but I have to disagree."

I respect your viewpoint.

"We're all editors here and we will get nothing done if every small change needs to be ratified first."

That's a given, but I wouldn't deem such a split "small."

Wikipedia:Be bold.

"...but don't be reckless!" "Also, show respect for the status quo."

"If you are new to Wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you are advised to either:

1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)

2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)

Then, wait a bit for responses."

Mirror Vax was not "unsure how others [would] view [his/her] contributions," but it's my opinion that he/she should have been.

"I have no problem with Mirror Vax's split, he isn't required to seek out community approval first."

Of course not, but I feel that it would have been a good idea. It certainly would have prevented this dispute.

All of this, however, is water under the bridge. Mirror Vax and I have reached a mutually acceptable compromise, so my objection is hereby withdrawn. Unless someone else complains, this issue has been settled.

— Lifeisunfair 17:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DVD-Video: Split?

DVD-Audio has been split into a separate article. Should DVD-Video also be split? Please share your opinions on this issue. To comment upon the DVD-Audio split, please use the above section. — Lifeisunfair 11:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:DVD"