Talk:Home video

Article

I was going to try rewriting this desperately-in-need-of-rewriting item, but could think of nothing to say beyond the definition. This this isn't a dictionary ... I'd say kill this baby. - DavidWBrooks 01:24, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...

just a comment:

The concept of home video could be approached from an ontological perspective as well: "It is unrelenting footage that rolls on and on. It has an aimless determination, a persistence that lives outside the subject matter. You are looking into the mind of home video, It is innocent, it is aimless, it is determined, it is real." [Don Delillo, Underworld, p. 156]

the 'home video business' focus seems to represent only the commercial aspects...

[Sune Blicher, 21/10/05]

Other uses of the term

What about "home video" meaning a video made by a person videotaping an event, like the ones on AFV? -EdGl 22:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, that's considered home movie. There should probably be something on this page linking to it. --Max 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Home Video (the band) www.homevideooffice.com 216.232.53.130 14:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List

I've moved the long list to list of notable home video companies Pirate^Argh!!1! 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Perhaps you all should hash out an appropriate title, then request a move. Close until a title is agreed upon, otherwise this will continue to sit in an otherwise already swamped backlog Jojhutton (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Home video → ? —

• This is not the definition of "home video" as a large portion of Wikipedia's audience understands the term, such as evidenced by the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 28#Category:Videos and DVDs , and the popular TV series America's Funniest Home Videos. This is not the definition at the very least, used in North America, where "home video" is a synonym of "home movie"; except on video instead of film. So it should be renamed to something else. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. I suggest changing it to Video distribution. This article is not really about the items, it's about economic and societal aspects of making videos available to the public.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion made today on CfD was "Commercial video."--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (formal). This will probably become a support for some specific title if we come up with a better one, but I don't think video distribution is quite right, as the phrase is still ambiguous and covers far more than this retail industry. My Google search got [1] and [2] on the first page of hits, for example (your results may differ depending on your location etc). Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the best title for this article; a hatnote to home movies is sufficient for disambiguation. Powers ^T 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Question: Do we have an article on the other sense of home video? It doesn't seem to appear in Category:Home video if so. If not then there doesn't seem any pressing need to move this article. Perhaps instead it could be expanded to cover the whole topic.

The other question is, where to move it? Video distribution doesn't seem right to me, that term would cover a lot more than home videos.

All told, I don't think a case has yet been made for a move. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We have the article home movies (curious that, it's plural), which is the other sense of "home video" (also the sense used by the popular TV show mentioned in the rationale). The category may require renaming after this article's naming is determined. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for. Perhaps home video should become a two-way DAB pointing to this article (wherever it ends up) and to home movies#Home video-making (perhaps also with some renaming of the article and/or section). Andrewa (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've added home movies to the home video category. Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also the Home movie disambiguation page, and this rationale for pluralization that bears on the "home video" discussion. In my opinion, home movies should definitely move to Home movie; the rationale doesn't hold water for me. I agree with the two-way DAB idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser... so there are already two DABs, one at home movie and one at home movies (disambiguation), which links to articles on four works which should remain pluralized. However IMO the two DABS should still be merged, and the pluralization removed from articles about home movies in general as opposed to works entitled Home Movies with the s as part of the work title. The example fireworks given in justification for the pluralization is actually evidence against in my opinion, the two cases are significantly different. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; the plural is fine on home movies. Powers ^T 12:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But we can't forget Wikipedia policy: Per WP:SINGULAR, Home movies should be moved to Home movie. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where WP:IAR applies. Powers ^T 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We can't just use WP:IAR as an excuse to back up our own opinions, which in your case goes against a well established convention on article naming. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, we needn't slavishly follow a guideline that cannot possibly anticipate every exception. The term is more widely used and more recognizable in the plural, and the fact that a guideline recommends singular is no reason to ignore that. Powers ^T 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Study WP:PLURAL. I don't see where "home movies" falls into the Exceptions category. And don't forget the introduction of the Home movies article: "A home movie is a motion picture made by amateurs..." Oh boy. Nothing like a battle of personal opinions. If policy (WP:PLURAL) says that "home movies" is not an exception, then it is not an exception. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLURAL is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are, by nature, flexible. They cannot and should not try to enumerate every possible exception, because the very nature of a guideline is to have exceptions. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In my opinion, the encyclopedia is improved by using the plural in this case. Powers ^T 11:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And just where did you hear that the plural is better? Show me some good sources and I might possibly be convinced. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to even begin to find sources for such a thing. Powers ^T 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I may chip in from the land of The Queen's English, I do not use to term "movie(s)" (the word is "film(s)"), so I would never say "home movie(s)". Here, they are "home video(s)", and, I suppose, the broad term for commercial VHS, DVD, BD etc. is "video(s)". Hope my insight helps DBD 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided that home movies is the primary topic for "home video", I think this article could be dabbed to "home video (commercial)". This would be pretty clarifying, although I know that dabs shouldn't be used where they aren't needed, as per WP:PRECISION. I don't agree that the plural is better as a title the article about home movies. I think consistency should be favored, and on wikipedia article titles are usually singular.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First sentence

IP 175.33.97.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently trying to change the first sentence to include "home media" and "home entertainment" as synonyms, with bolding, as if they were redirects. Those terms are not synonyms for "home video"; they are larger concepts that happen to include "home video" as a subset. And they are no longer redirects to this page, they are DAB pages. So the IP's edits are contrary to WP:LEDE, specifically MOS:FIRST.

I have explained in my edit comments, I have explained on the IP's talk page. In each case the IP again reverted to their preferred version for the first sentence, with no edit summaries, no replies, no explanations or justification.

I attempted a compromise, adding a sentence "It is a type of home media." (Home entertainment is already mentioned at the end of the lede sentence, just without bolding.) Again, the IP reverted the lede sentence to their version, even though it is now redundant, with no edit summary or other interaction.

The IP has made no other contributions.

Comments? Jeh (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Home media and home entertainment are wider concepts than are covered in the article. They shouldn't be in bold as if they are the subject of the article when they are not. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 4K Blu Ray early Best Buy release.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blu-Ray and LaserDisc

It's wild to me that this article doesn't mention Blu-Ray or LaserDisc. I won't get to it immediately (clearly citations are a much more direly-needed improvement) but I'm putting this out there now in case anyone wants to get on that before I can. JupiterBruzer 08:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lol nevermind on the Blu-Ray bit. I must've skipped that section somehow! Still though, I'd like to put in a bit about LaserDisc. It didn't catch on very well historically, but it's significant enough to warrant more than just a See Also link. JupiterBruzer 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Contesting WP:UNDUE issue re LaserDisc in the lead

I'm contesting this edit by User:Szagory on 30 May 2024 as a violation of WP:UNDUE (part of policy WP:NPOV) and possibly also WP:COATRACK (which I am aware is an nonbinding essay, but which illustrates the point I am trying to make). The previous brief mention of LaserDisc in passing in the lead was sufficient and appropriate. Of the three lead paragraphs, the entire second one is currently devoted to the LD format, which was always a niche market in North America due to its high cost and its relatively heavy, awkward, and fragile discs. (To be clear, I grew up watching films on LD, but I was well aware that most families did not do that.) The lead paragraphs should be focused on the leading home video formats that were actually forms of mass media on a global basis: VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray. Any objections before I pare down the lead? Coolcaesar (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)