This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
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...
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)
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  and  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. PowersT 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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)
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)
This is one of those cases where WP:IAR applies. PowersT 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. PowersT 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)
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. PowersT 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.