Talk:Led Zeppelin DVD

Title

Isn't this called "DVD"? The cover doesn't have the logo on it, just the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.95.96 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I got this, but I have thought for years that this DVD collection was titled "How the West Was Won". I will look for a reference.71.22.115.39 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album) was not a DVD collection, it was a live compilation album (audio) that was released about the same time. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is called neither "Led Zeppelin DVD" nor "DVD". Appropriately the 2xVHS edition has the text "VHS" instead of "DVD" on the cover, so this release is either self-titled, or untitled. Unless it is called both "Led Zeppelin DVD" and "Led Zeppelin VHS". 83.13.239.255 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

links to song pages

this track listing should link each song to the appropriate page

ummm...

How could this DVD be certified gold in June and then, only 2 months later, be certified ten times platinum? 100,000 copies to 10,000,000 in just 2 months...?76.16.75.77 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong. Platinum for a DVD is 100,000, but since this is a *two-disc* DVD, the Platinum certification is dropped in half to 50,000. It has earned those 10 platinum awards, and is due for many more in the future... the next update from Atlantic should place this DVD at 20 times Platinum since it has shifted 1,000,000 copies nationwide.

baked in ovens

Were the master tapes baked in ovens. Is there a valid source to back this up or not. Rio de oro (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Baking is a common procedure when dealing with old tapes. It is really nothing unusual and arguably not noteworthy. Mister Tog (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Actually we may want to discuss this title

I am looking at the box cover now. There are only three words over the front coverart image:

LED ZEPPELIN

DVD

Nothing else, and not a DVD logo, but the word DVD. In other words, it seems as though the name of the video is "Led Zeppelin DVD". So shouldn't this article also be titled Led Zeppelin DVD, unlike before, with no parentheses? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and look at that, someone has already created a redirect for that exact string. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I for one think DVD was a better title. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The end binding has the Atlantic Records logo at top, then the words LED ZEPPELIN DVD, and lastly at the very bottom is the DVD Video trademark logo. Thanks FunkMonk, I see it was you who changed the name to Led Zeppelin (DVD) a while back. The redirect Led Zeppelin DVD was created back in 2006. [1]--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot. It's a film so it should appear in italics as: Led Zeppelin DVD. Edited my original post. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Move If you want to move it, that's fine, but this is not a non-controversial move. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am little confused by your latest actions. Your edit summary for the move back to Led Zeppelin (video) says "It is not named this", which I interpreted as you believe the name of the video is Led Zeppelin. Here you say "Move" and seem to only object to Anthony Applegate's edit summary mentioning a non-controversal move.

So move to what exactly? Led Zeppelin DVD or to Led Zeppelin (DVD), the stable name for several years? What do you believe the title of this video is and what should the article title be?

I agree this is not a non-controversal move, but I assume that in both cases it was an auto-generated edit summary used when responding to technical move requets. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Conventions It definitely shouldn't be "Led Zeppelin (DVD)" per WP:ALBUM. It would be "Led Zeppelin (video)". If we can establish that the name of it actually is "Led Zeppelin DVD" then we could move it. E.g. Amazon calls it "Led Zeppelin". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree - The title should be "Led Zeppelin DVD" and not "Led Zeppelin" (DVD) as pointed out above, "DVD" is part of the title not the description of the medium. IMO. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we can establish the proper title of the video. MoviesUnlimited.com lists it as Led Zeppelin DVD, as does Overstock.com and IMDB, but there are others that that list it as simply Led Zeppelin such as BestBuy.com, Allmusic.com and Amazon as pointed out. Are there better sources than these; or one that trumps all others? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This page should be moved to "Led Zeppelin DVD". In this case, DVD is part of the title, not an indicative of the format. IMDb Plant's Strider (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears we are close to a consensus. I will try to contact User:Koavf before taking further action. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The official page is called simply "DVD": http://discography.ledzeppelin.com/disc_dvd.html FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it? It just shows an image of the cover, right? But you do raise a good point we haven't considered. A case could be made for the title of DVD. The font is bigger for the word "DVD" than the words "Led Zeppelin". --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that what you meant in your earlier post? I had assumed you meant you prefered the title Led Zeppelin DVD. Did you mean that the title should be precisely the word "DVD"? If so I'm sorry because I'm afraid I have misrepresented your opinion in a recent post at User talk:Koavf. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring more the the name in the URL than anything on the page. Each Led Zeppelin album has a page, and a page is for example called "disc_lz3" and "disc_hoth". This one is called "disc_dvd", which must mean something. And I'm still in support of the title being "Led Zeppelin DVD". FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thanks for clarifying. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Move If it's established that there is consensus for Led Zeppelin DVD, then simply use {{Moverequest}} and an admin will see this discussion. Thanks to all who participated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much but doesn't that template initiate a formal requested move discussion, which is then closed after 7 days? Is that what we have to do? I want to make sure because I went through a nightmare on another article about a year ago. We were just trying to to get the article back to its former state and because one editor didn't agree, the default action in the event of no consensus was to keep at current name. It took three months of arguing, two votes, a mile long discussion page and a couple admins had to step in to finally get the article moved back to its original name. I would rather not go through something like that again. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a consensus has been reached an it's time to move the page to Led Zeppelin DVD. Plant's Strider (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Right now I just want to be sure the move is executed properlyRacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, back when I moved this to "Led Zeppelin (DVD)", it was just because "Led Zeppelin DVD" was locked for moving. But the former title was still more accurate than "(video)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Justin(Koavf) (and to all others who have participated here), hope you dont mine, I sought second opinion on this, please see this post, and I received this reply. User Mike Cline suggests we attempt to make an uncontoversial technical move request. I am aware that you objected to this method before, claiming quite understandably, that the move was not uncontroversial. I have my own concerns as well, but if you do not object, I wish to try it this way again as Mike suggests and if it doesn't work, then we would go through the RM process as Mike has also indicated. Note that I am not a fan of the RM process and I believe it to be seriously flawed based on my personal experiences, but that is another story. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RM I don't object. If there's a consensus, then it's no longer controversial, really. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made the request. Thanks Justin and everyone else here for the very productive discussion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:51, 10 October 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.