Talk:Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Weinstein support

Under the argument put forth earlier concerning support (or lack their of) for blu-ray by MGM and Fox, shouldn't there also be a notation that Weinstein does not fully support HD DVD sinc ethey haven't released a movie in six months? Since Fox and MGM were noted in four months for not supporting Blu-ray, aren't we two months overdue?166.214.250.16 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Weinstein has gone MIA over the last 6, however they have still released more titles then MGM in total (9 vs. 7). So I would say that depending on your perspective they are both not supporting their respective formats very well. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really weak argument and actully an incorrect argument. Weinstein has released 11 films on HD DVD with the final 2 in June 2007. MGM has released 13 films with the final 2 coming out this past October and November. So by no means are the 2 currently comparable though you could have drawn that comparison 2 months ago. In fact, I believe you were arguing exacly that MGM should not be considered a true backer of Blu-ray specifically because of that while not arguing the same for Weinstein. To me that makes your comment to be more of a nasty aside meant to denigrate blu-ray support rather than an honest comparison. As is, a slow release schedule is by no means a no release schedule. And that makes all the difference. 209.183.34.46 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I may be wrong but I was just going by highdefdigest.com's count, which lists 9 movies as being released by Weinstein and 7 by MGM. So please tell me what extra movies they are missing for each. I'm not trying to ague that Weinstein has not gone MIA (thats clear), all I was saying that they have still (provided my count is correct) have released more movies then MGM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray andrew (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Weinstein: Black Christmas, Clerks II, Derailed, Feast, Harsh Times, Lucky Number Slevin, The Matador, Pulse, Scary Movie 4, School for Scoundrels, and Wolf Creek vs MGM: Basic Instinct 2 - Risk Addiction, Bulletproof Monk, Flyboys, Hart's War, Hoosiers, The Last Waltz, Mr. Brooks, Rescue Dawn, Rocky, Species, The Terminator, The Usual Suspects, Windtalkers courtesy of the stat sites.65.13.151.42 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And that list actually didn't include Robocop and Home of the Brave which were both released in October 2007. Which would actually make it 15:11::MGM:Weinstein. As well as there's 1 dated Q1 title and several announced with no date given.65.13.151.42 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you have some of those titles confused: Basic Instinct 2 for instance was released by Sony Home Ent. on Blu-ray [1]. --Ray andrew (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up the distribution details on IMDB. It's produced by MGM but distribution is shared with SPE in the US. There's a few titles with situations like that. It's still an MGM title as evidenced by their logo being on the back of the case and SPE refenced as far as distribution.65.13.151.42 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy but I count titles by who actually releases them and in that case MGM has only released 7, if we were to count all the movies made by MGM then we would have to count some HD DVD's too that Warner now owns the rights to and has released. ;) --Ray andrew (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry you don't believe because MGM shares the distribution rights with another company it doesn't count as them releasing it. Look, if you want some credibility as nonbiased you got to stop playing this game. MGM has been releasing films as of late and have had more of their films released. There's been a lot of catalog sell-off in their history so a lot of their films are owned by other companies now and aren't theirs. Not to mention international releases. But they do own the rights to several films still and they've been releasing them on Blu-ray. Now you argued that Fox wasn't supporting Blu-ray fully because they weren't releasing films. Now when the shoe is on the other foot and Weinstein has abandoned HD DVD completely you want to play coy and make swipes at Blu-ray. Fine. But don't expect others to take seriously any NPOV arguments you raise if you're going to show clear bias in your determination. MGM owns movies and shares distribution with other companies. They count. 166.214.40.117 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All that matters is who actually released the title, as they are the ones with the home video distribution rights. Sorry but it does matter, and its not a NPOV thing. For the record, from the beginning I have said that Weinstein has gone MIA, I was just pointing out that they are not the only studio thats released a pathetic amount of titles. --Ray andrew (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes with license and share distribution rights. Studios collaborate. It happens. MGM is releasing titles. They just don't usually release their titles alone. If their release schedule is meager and pathetic then how about if they were HD DVD exclusive they'd be 4th in terms of release numbers right behind Paramount(39) and in front of Weinstein? That's clear POV to call it "meager" or "pathetic". When it comes to who is the distributor for a title, I trust Amazon and IMDB aren't going to be making errors about major details like this. Same with Lucasfilms and other studios who partner to release films. I guess you could say it's a failing of the Studio Support list in that there's multiple overlapping and sometimes confusing partnership and distribution deals. But we don't say Fox supports HD DVD or isn't releasing blu-ray titles because some of their partners and foreign arms don't ship blu-rays. As it stands, if you want a film that MGM owns the legal rights to (not distribution) there are well over a dozen titles and they're all on blu-ray. 209.183.34.49 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust amazon then: [http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Instinct-Blu-ray-Stan-Collymore/dp/B000FS9UKS/] --Ray andrew (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am actually just about to add about this issue, but haven't got time to add it. MGM simply delayed the titles, with title announced to be released (after delay announcement) around father's day 2008. While Weinstein does not have any single release since Summer 2007. While I don't think it should be removed from the list, it should be given a note that their last HD DVD release was Summer 2007. Their representatives refuse to comment. http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Weinstein_Co./HD_DVD_Backer_Weinstein_Goes_MIA_Speculation_Mounts/1105 .

MGM: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Street_Date_Changes/MGM/MGM_Bumps_Battle_of_Britain,_Bridge_Too_Far_Blu-ray_Releases/1141 --w_tanoto (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Studio support table discussion

100px|thumb|right| 100px|thumb|right

Blu-ray Disc	HD DVD
Buena Vista Walt Disney Pictures Pixar Miramax Time Warner Warner Brothers² New Line³ 20th Century Fox Sony Pictures Columbia TriStar MGM1 Lionsgate	NBC Universal Universal Studios Paramount Motion Pictures Group Paramount Dreamworks SKG4 Time Warner Warner Brothers² New Line DreamWorks Animation Weinstein Co.5

Seems to be some disputes over how the table should look. I think the above is fine (although not perfect). Lets say we discuss it. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing Paramount as a Paramount studio is redundant. It would be like listing Sony as a Sony film studios and should be removed. Also, MGM is not a Sony subsidiary. It is a separate company, of which Sony is a minor shareholder. It is the 5th oldest studio in existance, with a production history that spans over 80 years and a catalog of over 4,000 films, according to its website. Since it is a separate company, and at least as significant as Lionsgate and Weinstein, it should be listed as such. --User talk:70.119.37.244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.37.244 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ultimately the list is flawed in that it doesn't diferentiate between studio ownership of films and distribution. Ownership of a film and it's stock is different from distribution rights. If anything the list should be reworked to list distributors and then list the studios underneath them that have inked distribution deals. Realistically this list is US only as foreign distribution has all different types of qualifiers. What possibly should be done is list, for example, show Dreamworks SKG as being under the umbrella of Paramount Home Entertainment as that's who releases their films. Then the big studios (Warner Bros., Sony, et al) set in bold. MGM is a major studio but they don't often handle their distribution alone. Films like Robocop they own the rights to (originally from Orion) but they have an agreement to let Fox distribute the movie in the US while in another country they'll have another partner handle the distribution. It might be best to just illustrate it all in terms of a Euler Diagram. 65.13.151.42 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than a 2-column list showing who is in each camp, I suggest a list ordered by US box office market share (2007 YTD), as below. Or something like it. --Harumphy (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Distributor	2007 market share	Blu-ray	HD DVD	Notes
Paramount	16.5%	No	Yes	HD DVD exclusive from August 2007 for 18 months
Sony/Columbia	13.7%	Yes	No
Buena Vista	13.5%	Yes	No
Warner Bros.	13.4%	Yes	Yes
Universal	12.0%	No	Yes
20th Century Fox	9.5%	Yes	No

Nice, needs color coding and the minors, but thats a good idea. Its debatable which stat to rank them on though... --Ray andrew (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current table is okay, IMO. I agree with ray about the rank (debatable). Just want to note: HBO is missing from the current table--w_tanoto (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well not to try and buffalo the idea but a Euler diagram can be made to scale the relative share of market. I can throw together something later tonight possibly. 209.183.34.47 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A color-coded pie chart might be better than either. The segment size could reflect market share and the segment colour allegiance (red/blue/purple/white). --Harumphy (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles released as a percentage of share would be better, in my opinion. Since we're talking support the shares per title would ultimately show the size of their support.209.183.34.47 (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although thats an interesting idea it would be quite impractical to maintain (in a verifiable way), besides we already have the total release counts for each side to compare. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would need regular updates. It could just be tagged as "accurate as of x". And realistically it would help illustrate the true degree of support each side has and eliminate "they're not a big studio/distributor" arguments.65.13.151.42 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Incase anyone is wondering, a good source for the various market share numbers is the-numbers.com, specifically for 2007 they have :[2] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a useful source. I've incorporated its figures (down to the 1% share level) into a pie chart as outlined above and shown below. --Harumphy (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's over 24h and nobody's objected so it can't be that bad. :-) So I've stuck it in the article. --Harumphy (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the pie chart, i find it easier to read the way is was before. Having the market share data may be useful though so a table more like the one shown above but with colour coding might be better:

Distributor	2007 market share	Format	Notes
Paramount	16.5%	HD DVD	HD DVD exclusive from August 2007 for 18 months
Sony/Columbia	13.7%	Blu-ray
Buena Vista	13.5%	Blu-ray
Warner Bros.	13.4%	Both
Universal	12.0%	HD DVD
20th Century Fox	9.5%	Blu-ray

But then the minor studios are still ignored. Chris_huh^talk 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think on the graph there needs to be a note about Paramount as until August they were also distributing on Blu-ray, so not all of the market share is actually for HD DVD. ~CT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.138.89 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are words to that effect (more or less) in the adjacent body text. --Harumphy (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the pie if they put the same colors next to each other. That would help the visual concept.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to put the studios in order of market share. --Harumphy (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I got a source which tells that universal is going to add support for BLUE RAY DISC... [[3]]Newtrex (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Release stats

For weeks we've had release stats sourced from the DVD Release Report in Home Media Magazine, which is presumably a credible published source. Now 70.119.37.244 is replacing these with different figures from an personal web site. The latter includes the discontinued Paramount/Dreamworks titles that used to be available on Blu-ray. I see from www.dvdempire.com that only 10 of the 30 Paramount Blu-ray titles are still in stock - the other 20 are listed as "discontinued by studio".

Although it's true that these titles were once released, surely what matters is the number that are available for purchase now . (The wording of the article needs tweaking to reflect this better.) Does anyone know of a better source for this than the one cited by Home Media Magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harumphy (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

HMM is pretty much the authoritative source on this topic. I will back you up on that. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of duplicity going on with the reference to Home Media Magazine. It is being quoted as a source, but the article mentions nothing of any HDM release totals. The sites I referenced, Blu-raystats.com and HDDVDstats.com, where not some personal websites. Instead, they are sites that track all products that are released for either format, providing information such as video or audio codecs used, imdb.com rating for the title, and its box office gross. The totals were clearly sourced from this independent source. I added a note about the 33 Paramount / Dreamworks titles that had been discontinued, since it seemed to offend a certain individual that the existence of these titles receive any acknowledgment. These sites are updated weekly, so they will make it easy to keep the totals listed in this section up to date. While HMM might be considered a more credible source, they are not tracking the release totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.37.244 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at the bottom of page 4 of the current issue: [4]. --Ray andrew (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If he's missed that then I can understand why he thinks it seems odd. There's a problem with HMM refs - we should stop linking them together, because some change weekly, but not necessarily at the same time as each other, while others don't, and now that people have started using startpage in the URL it's no good conflating refs on different pages into a single ref. I suggest we keep each HMM ref separate, except when they're pointing to exactly the same article in the same issue, and not worry too much that HMM will appear several times in the refs list. To make it even clearer, I suggest we use the 'cite web' style with HMM as the work and the article as the title. --Harumphy (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly sales chart

I propose to modify the weekly sales pie chart to put Blu-ray on the left and HD DVD on the right, to make the order consistent with the rest of the article. --Harumphy (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. --Ray andrew (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove device list

Now that Thingg has been so nice to make separate pages for List of HD DVD devices and List of Blu-ray devices, I think we need to remove the lists from this article and just link to them. We could still have a summary of manufacturers and price ranges. What do you all think? --Ray andrew (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those articles need some work but that isn't a problem. Let's link to those lists and just have an overview here. --Harumphy (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

is the 15GB HD DVD already redundant?

Every time i see this Sentence, "while most HD DVD movies are in the 30 GB dual layer format" i think so this means the Single sided - Single layer HD DVD is already Redundant as soon as Films began being released on HD DVD? can someone tell me what the 15GB HD DVD is used for if anything? If this is true then HD will be heavily reliant upon the release of the 51GB triple layer disc to be equal in single disc capacity. Although until the 51GB is actually available to buy to the consumer Blu ray remains with the largest capacity on a single disc. So i don't see the point in misleading in the table that regarding the 51GB even though its been annnounced, their is still no titles confirmed or a release date, let alone not available at present. So it should be noted in the article both that there are no planed titles for 51GB nor a release date to be available to the consumer. No matter whether the "Version 2 of HD DVD " disc was announced or undergoing testing it remains unavailable and reference to it should be removed from the table until it's available to buy, unless if its noted under the 'a' link thats it's not yet available. Denzelio (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

15GB is no more redundant then single layer DVD's. Just like DVD, although almost all major films are released on dual layer discs, some smaller films are released on single layer as its a tad cheaper. As to the other topics try reading the already in place talks on this and the other relevant page (Talk:HD DVD) as it has been discussed to death. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about 51 GB. There's clearly little consensus for including it in any of these articles (HD DVD, Blu-ray Disc or here), but a select few continue to add it in and it gets tiring removing it. I figure if nothing is announced by CES '08 (and by "announced" I mean an actual title and a ship date, as well as details on backwards compatibility, if any) then we should remove it once and for all and leave it as a footnote until the HD DVD folks get their act together. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The table is primarily a comparison of the formats' official specifications, not what is on sale. 51GB is part of the HD DVD spec, so it should stay. 15GB is used for 7.5% of HD DVD releases [5] - presumably shorter films. The arrival of 51GB doesn't make 15GB redundant. It just gives producers another option. HD DVD will not be heavily reliant on 51GB, because 30GB is ample providing you use one of the modern codecs. Its main advantage is a marketing one, not a technical one, because it will stop the BDA touting their unnecessarily and expensively over-engineered extra capacity as an advantage. --Harumphy (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The 15GB disc is usally used by smaller companys, mainly indie studios who don't have the budget to go all out on their releases. --Elven6 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did the bitrate information come from?

I don't see any sources listed. (The specific item I'm interested in is "Audio+Video+Subtitles".) Also, the section for Blu-ray Video = 40 megabit/s. Is that just a pure video disc. Or are movies actually limited to only 40 megabit/s with the audio/subtitles occupying the remaining 8 megabit/s? Thanks. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, video is limited to 40 mbit/s see this white paper (page 17). --Ray andrew (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way for a Blu-ray encoder (or HD DVD encoder) to bend the rules and stream 42-43 Mbit/s of video? (31 Mbit/s for HD) ---- Theaveng (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be spec compliant so you probably couldn't call it a Bul-ray disc but I'm sure it could be done. Obviously there is no guarantee that it will play. --Ray andrew (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Date format

As per WP:MOSDATE, I suggest we use the YYYY-MM-DD (inside double square brackets) format for dates. These will then be auto-formatted according to the user preferences, i.e. 2007-01-02 in your case. I've used these myself for a while but sometimes people change them. --Harumphy (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there's always something new to learn. Thanks for the pointer to the style guide (I had no idea that there was an auto-format date format] and agree with your suggestion. Barte (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that format is stupid. When you use month-day-year, the month-day part is the first part you see (assuming people read from left to right, which they do). The month-day is a singular unit that is non-ambiguous. Use Mo-Da-Ye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.174.81 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you set the date format in your user preferences, auto-formatted dates will appear in your preferred format. (You need to log in.) IMHO having the 'least significant' element in the middle is stupid, but each to his own. Besides, you're missing the point - the date must be written as YYYY-MM-DD for the auto-formatting to work correctly.--Harumphy (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Studio support Picture will need to be changed - at some stage

Warner Bros becomes Blu ray exclusive as of June 1 2008 and so Warner Bros color then turns to blue on the picture. And can someone please link the colors together it is hard to read as they are neither grouped by name, formatt or market percentage. Denzelio (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've turned Warner blue on the pie chart, added a footnote to the caption about HD DVD until May, and changed the text colour to white when against a blue background. Is it OK now? --Harumphy (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No its not ok, Warner is still supporting HD DVD through May, so the pie chart should reflect that, the footnote should be that they will go exclusive in June, not that they still support HD DVD through May. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK you and I disagree. What does anyone else think? --Harumphy (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I say a caption within the Warner Bros piece stating, until June 1 2008. Or a small number or letter next to Warner Bros in the piece that refers to the news "no more support for both". It isn't to important it is already mentioned next to the picture in detail. I think it's more important to join the pieces together by color. Denzelio (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Use one of those little stars like * and say "in effect in june"--24.155.103.114 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is one of studio policy vs. current practice--and which of those the chart represents. Re-reading the Warner press release, I'd say that Warner's policy is now exclusive support for Blu-ray....period. But in practice, that means a six month transition during which time the studio continues to support both. The same problem arises in the now-reworked first paragraph of the section: are there now four studios exclusively supporting Blu-ray? Or, until June 1st, only three? Barte (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Harumphy, though I believe New Line is included in this (given their close connection to Warner) aren't they? I've updated the image to reflect that. At any rate, I do believe it makes sense for Warner to be shown as blue in the chart with a footnote below the image stating their support through May of this year. As I recall, people were quick to modify everything after Paramount's switch, I don't see why we should be treating this differently.. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a different situation. Read the press release again "Warner Bros. Entertainment will release its high-definition DVD titles exclusively in the Blu-ray disc format beginning later this year", ie, they are not exclusive yet. Totally different then the paramount deal. --Ray andrew (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the difference: they no longer support HD DVD. They will release titles, but they've made it very clear and unambiguous they are done with HD DVD. So to label them as neutral is not only inaccurate, but also misleading to readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Locke Cole above. Warner no longer supports HD DVD. It will not be appearing in HD DVD-related promotions (including those at the upcoming CES and is the subject of a "we're deeply disappointed" press statement from Toshiba. The next six months are a transition, not a reflection of policy. I also think that while having before-and-after pie charts may be a compromise, they are confusing. We should go with the consensus here. Barte (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Warner supports Blu-ray. Their statement is unambiguous. --64.142.82.28 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The The article and chart should reflect what is clearly a consensus--here and among notable publications:

• "The decision, announced on the eve of the influential Consumer Electronics Show, delivers a de facto knockout punch to the rival HD DVD format backed by Toshiba Corp. and others now supported by only two of Hollywood's six major movie studios." --LA Times
• "But by supporting Blu-ray, Warner Brothers, the largest player in the $42 billion global home entertainment market, makes it next to impossible for HD DVD to recover the early momentum it achieved."--New York Times.
• "HD DVD Promoter Cancels Event After Time Warner Drops Format" headline: Bloomberg
• "Warner Home Video on Friday announced it is casting its lot exclusively with the Blu-ray Disc format, leaving rival HD DVD with just two studios" Hollywood Reporter.

It's a done deal as reported everywhere, except here. Barte (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that newline and HBO are not included in this announcement. [6] --Ray andrew (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did not see that, will check and revert back to the Warner is Blue version if the link is correct. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to Video Business, the announcement is effective for all Time Warner branches (Warner Bros., New Line, HBO, etc.) [[7]] 70.119.37.244 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's unsourced. Highdefdigest at least says it was in on a Warner conference call, so it's more likely to be right. Let's leave New Line as purple until the dust settles. --Harumphy (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Variety is also reporting that New Line will move exclusively to Blu-ray. But there's nothing in writing on the New Line press release page. And no mention of HBO Barte (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I imagine the studio support picture should be cleared up by the end of CES next week, one way or the other. There may be some interesting developments, since this announcement by Warner will likely impact the plans of other studios in some form. It apparently resulted in the cancellation of a planned HD DVD press conference on Sunday night.70.119.37.244 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated picture

I downloaded the present pie graph and updated it to reflect Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema's announcements. here it is:
Image:HighDefShare2.gif
I requested this pic be deleted because Image:HighDefShare 2008-06-01.svg fulfils its purpose better. Thingg (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I used a GIF file because attempted PNG and JPG versions exhibited severe distortion and artifacting and I don't own any photo editng software that allows SVG files to be created. Would someone who has some professional editing software please touch it up for me? Thanks. Thingg (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Newline was not included in the warner announcement, see above. Second Warner will continue to support HD DVD for about half a year, thus it is extremely misleading to label the graph otherwise. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New Line has announced separately (according to The Digital Bits) that they're going Blu-ray exclusive as well. Second, it's inaccurate to say they're neutral when they've clearly announced they are not. Their support is over and done with, pretending otherwise because of your own personal bias is just wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, why the two pictures? It's far more confusing to have two, if not downright misleading. --64.142.82.28 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted below, Variety is also reporting that New Line has switched to Blu-ray exclusivity. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thingg, I've updated Image:HighDefShare.svg, however a certain user (read: Ray andrew) is edit warring over it and continues to revert back to the old inaccurate image. Please feel free to join in there if you like. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA Thingg (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've altered an alteration Liruxoyo made of the original here to include the new-line adoption of just Blu-ray. SVG Files are written in an XML style language so it's actually easy to just edit in something like notepad (in windows) if you're just altering the colour or text tag. Hope this helps. Chappy^T_C 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't encountered .svg files anywhere before, and I wasn't sure what they were (I thought they were just another pic format) Thanks for updating the image. Thingg (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't like how these two images look in the article itself: it's cluttered and a mess. And really, it's unnecessary: we have a clear consensus for modifying the existing chart, but one user is insisting on reverting the image repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should be taken to mediation at some point? If things don't improve, that is. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for you!

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/04/the-real-reason-why-warner-went-blu/ Enjoy! Axem Titanium (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is that a source for, exactly? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a source for the claim that it is rumored Warner accepted 500 million dollars to go Blu Ray JayKeaton (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it's not a reliable enough source because 1) it doesn't name any sources for that claim and 2) it's a blog. Call me when a major news outlet carries the story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that confirm that it is a genuine rumor that Warner could have accepted between 250 million and 500 million. It is a well established rumor, to find another source you would merely have to reach into the thousands of results Google will return and pluck one up. JayKeaton (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait, Variety (a well respected trade publication) isn't a good enough source for New Line going Blu-ray exclusive (see section below), but any number of blog entries or forum posts (but no credible/reliable sources) is just fine for saying Warner Bros. was paid off? At any rate, that's not the way sources on Wikipedia work: you need a reliable source, not a thousand forum posts or blog entries (which would qualify as original research). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Variety may or may not be a good enough source, but Variety is the ONLY source with that information. But there are thousands of sources independantly speculating that Warner was "paid off". Forum posts and blog entries? [8] this story was posted on Engadgets front page by Ben Drawbaugh, EngadgetHD's chief writer in staff. And there are a lot of editorials and stuff that mentions the rumor. But again, like I said in the thread below, I'm not really bothered. If readers of this article read about the well established rumor or not doesn't bother me at all. That can be a little bit of history they can miss out on for all I care. JayKeaton (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, something better than EngadgetHD: that's a blog. Something more reliable than that would help a bunch. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New Line source

Here's the source for New Line switching to Blu-ray Disc exclusivity, should the issue crop up again: Variety. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we will need another source besides that one. Variety mentioned that New Line is covered by the Blu Ray agreement BEFORE the announcement at CES that New Line and HBO are not covered. Check the time stamp on the article. And curiously it seems all the other web sites that mention New Line are citing that Variety article, so there hasn't been any kind of announcement, just Variety making a small mention and possibly making a small mistake in assuming that New Line is in for the ride too, despite the later CES announcement that New Line and HBO are not affected. But then again it doesn't really bother me if this wikipedia article misrepresents New Line or not, it is such a small thing that will be officially cleared up after the weekend that it doesn't matter if this article says New Line are green eyed aliens for all I care, I'm just pointing out that Variety is the only source and looking at the time stamps it was old assumed information JayKeaton (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From the article in question: "Warner sister company New Line confirmed it will shift allegiance to Blu-ray only as well." It is true New Line has yet to issue an official press release. However, it is misleading to suggest that the writer of this article just assumed that New Line was covered by the statements released by Warner. It could turn out that they got faulty information from whoever their source is, but is quite obvious that they did more than just guess that New Line must be going Blu-ray exclusive since Warner is. At the moment, it is the most definitive answer that can be obtained from an established media source. (i.e. not some random, nameless blogger)70.119.37.244 (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me remove all the sources on this article that are by Engadget and other "blog sites"? There are a lot of them listed as sources, we are gonna have to remove a LOT of established sources to clean up this page. JayKeaton (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're being silly now. Usually Engadget (and EngadgetHD) will provide a source for their blog posting, if you want to do something useful, you could go to all of the Engadget sources and find the real source, then change the source in the article to that. But in the case of the $500,000,000 payoff claim, Engadget didn't have any source to back up that assumption (and the blog, by itself, is not a reliable source). Now if they'd quoted another source, like the LA Times or the NY Times or Variety or some other publication or media outlet, then we'd have something to go with, but they don't. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[9] New York Times, mentions Sony was courting Warner and money was an issue and warner was offered "substantial incentives". "Kevin Tsujihara, president of the Warner Brothers Home Entertainment Group, declined to comment on whether any payments were offered for support of Blu-ray." This was all written by Brooks Barnes, one of the NY Times top and most senior technology writers. JayKeaton (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the full quote:

Money was an issue. Toshiba offered to pay Warner Brothers substantial incentives to come down on its side — just as it gave Paramount and DreamWorks Animation a combined $150 million in financial incentives for their business, according to two executives with knowledge of the talks who asked not to be identified.

It only says Toshiba offered "substantial incentives", but it doesn't say anyone else did. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

date format

can we get rid of the backwards 2008-08-03 kind of date format? It's confusing as all hell, I don't know whether the middle or the end is the day and which is the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.174.81 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

go to your "my preferences" section and request another format. Barte (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT not a crystal ball

The second image on formats which states Format support as of June 1, 2008: Warner Bros. and sister company New Line will exclusively support Blu-ray we can't begin to assume what other changes may take place in the next few months, and this is a clear violation of this policy, I'll remove it as such.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that. It's the same on all articles, you aren't allowed to predict things. Someone who won an election isn't even considered a President until he is officially sworn in and all that, this article should not be an exception. JayKeaton (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus there is a serious problem with the pie chart. The colours that is at now (Warner being blue) is based on something that will happen in the middle of 2008. The segment size is based on numbers from early 2007. How can we have "Major US film distributors' format support [in 2008] v 2007 US box office share"? JayKeaton (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, the charts proportions for each studio is based on 2007 box office results. There's not really much in the way of a 2008 box office since we're only on the 6th day of the year... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apples to oranges. Warner has announced Blu-ray exclusivity (as has New Line, effectively via Variety). That they're still releasing titles through May doesn't change anything. I recall people were quick to remove Paramount/Dreamworks after they moved towards HD DVD (and I recall a protracted edit war over continuing to count Paramount titles in the Blu-ray Disc release tally). I don't see the difference here: what was good for HD DVD then is good for Blu-ray Disc now, right? Or is it somehow different when a studio drops their support for HD DVD?

If I wanted to push this further I could safely declare HD DVD dead, afterall, MANY sources have come out with articles saying JUST THAT (the LA Times, the New York Times, etc). As it is, I'm just trying to make sure we reflect what is actually true regarding studio support, and that means showing Warner and New Line as Blu-ray supporters with a caveat that they are going to continue to make HD DVD releases through May/June. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it was our job to declare one or the other dead, or to take sides in this supposed "war". And I also don't know anything about HD DVD Dreamworks or people being quick to do anything. I wasn't here at the time and it doesn't matter what they did. Rules are rules, and we are not crystal balls, we can't bend the truth just to "declare HD DVD dead" as you put it. The truth is as of now, as of tomorrow and as of up until 6 months from now Warner are in fact support both HD DVD and Blu Ray. Why can't change a section or a pie chart that is meant to reflect how things are now into showing what things might look like in a 20th of a decade from now. JayKeaton (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not apply here, there is no crystal ball reading going on here. Warner Bros. made their announcement. The LA Times and the New York Times, amongst other reliable sources, have reported on this. Ditto for New Line. In the (highly unlikely) event things change, we can modify the article to reflect that. But Wikipedia reports on what is publicly known, and what is publicly known right now is that Warner and New Line are supporting Blu-ray Disc. Titles released on HD DVD over the next 5-6 months will be released after the DVD and BD release (instead of day and date as has been the case up until now). But the clear message from Warner is that they are firmly in the Blu-ray camp. What is so hard to understand about this?

As to declaring one dead or who has won, no, it's not our job to do that, but it is our job to report what is widely accepted and what is verifiable (whether we personally agree with it or not). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand Locke. Warner will still be selling HD DVDs for the next six months. What is so hard to understand? And widely accepted as "dead" so we should call it "dead"? That's bullshit and you have to know that it is. You are talking like a Wikipedia newbie. JayKeaton (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They'll be delaying their future HD DVD releases until after they've been made available on DVD and Blu-ray Disc. And in six months they'll finally stop making releases altogether. The point is, things with Warner and HD DVD are not going to be the same as they were in the past year and a half. And most relevant to this discussion: they have said they are supporting Blu-ray Disc.. And no, it's not "bullshit". If it's reported in the news that someone is assassinated, we note that in the article about the person. If the news notes that a particular product is dead, we note that in the article. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge, and we use reliable sources (such as news and the media, as well as published reports, and so forth) to source that knowledge and make it easily verifiable. And no. I'm not talking like a "Wikipedia newbie". But you're not being very reasonable with this at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner have said they're producing HD DVDs until May in order to fulfil contractual obligations to deliver HD DVDs. That apart, they're totally dumping the format. --Harumphy (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to copy and paste a remark from above, but this discussion keeps switching sections. Wikipedia relies on notable secondary sources. The reporting from said sources treats this not as a coming event, but as a done deal. For example:

• "The decision, announced on the eve of the influential Consumer Electronics Show, delivers a de facto knockout punch to the rival HD DVD format backed by Toshiba Corp. and others now supported by only two of Hollywood's six major movie studios." --LA Times
• "But by supporting Blu-ray, Warner Brothers, the largest player in the $42 billion global home entertainment market, makes it next to impossible for HD DVD to recover the early momentum it achieved."--New York Times.
• "HD DVD Promoter Cancels Event After Time Warner Drops Format" headline: Bloomberg
• "Warner Home Video on Friday announced it is casting its lot exclusively with the Blu-ray Disc format, leaving rival HD DVD with just two studios" Hollywood Reporter.

This article should follow suit, while noting the six-month transition. (I'd also politely like to point out that not assuming good faith is the ultimate Wikipedia newbie-ism)Barte (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't add that someone has been killed until we get confirmation. We are very strict about articles involving living people, even a Wikpiedia newbie should know that. But whatever, there are other people here that will deal with you, I don't really have the time or energy to fix your bias and mistakes. JayKeaton (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... yes, confirmation from a reliable source, which is what I just said. Where else would we get confirmation from? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros: "We are phasing out HD DVD."

HD DVD Fanboy: "Warner Bros supports HD DVD!"

WB is, as of right now (NOW), Blu-Ray exclusive. They have withdrawn all support from HD DVD. It's not something they're thinking of maybe doing sometime in the future. It is something they have actually done, and it made the papers around the world. The remaining titles they will release on HD DVD are strictly a combination of momentum and contractual obligation and do not constitute support.Pisomojado (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Brothers is as of right now HD DVD and Blu-ray. Warner Brothers is projected to be Blu-ray exclusive as of June 1, 2008. The HD DVD discs Warner Brothers sells today, sells tomorrow, sells next month, sells the month after that, sells the month after that, and sells the month after that will be fully supported by Warner Brothers (unless you have reason to believe they won't be honoring a purchase). A contract is, in part, an agreement to do something. By your own admission, there are remaining titles Warner Brothers will release on HD DVD. So the term exclusivity does not apply. If WB were exclusive, as you simultaneously claim, there would not be any remaining HD DVD titles. Proctor spock (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you made a pretty much exact duplicate post down below. I would also add that the faux dialog at the top of both comments and a third comment down below is not really adding to the discussion. The term fanboy is pejorative in this context. Proctor spock (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to reach an agreement regarding the pie graph

Although Warner has announced that they will be Blu-ray exclusive as of June 1, 2008, we have no way of comforming what the market will look like at that time. Until June 1 rolls around, we should either leave the present image (Image:HighDefShare.svg) or have two images (previous one and Image:HighDefShare 2008-06-01.svg). My personal opinion is that we should just keep the former one by itself until June 1, and then switch it to the other at that time. My reasoning is that Warner's announcment is well documented in the article, and readers will mentally insert the info that is changed in Image:HighDefShare 2008-06-01 after reading the section. Also, as stated previously, we have no way of knowing what the BD - HD DVD studio support will look like in June, so we should not include a picture that purports what it will be like then. However, we should also keep the present written information as it is (more than) adequately referenced and accurate to what other very respectable sources (LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc. ) are saying. At this time, I think the section accurately presents what has taken place and is well written. However, the controversy over the pie charts is getting ridiculous and it needs to stop. I feel my proposal is a good way to at least partially satisfy all parties while staying in line with Wikipedia's standards and presenting an accurate account of what Warner has decided. Thingg (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've muttered elsewhere, I think the disagreement revolves over whether the pie chart and the lead paragraph represent policy or practice. Warner has stated its policy: exclusive support for Blu-ray, as of now. In practice, that means continued support for some HD DVD titles, presumably until May. I think the chart and graph should reflect the current policy, because that's how the notable secondary sources you listed above have interpreted it. But I can see the other side of the argument, and do agree that either way, one chart would be better than two.Barte (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The pie chart is simply inaccurate as it stands now. Warner does not support both formats, they support Blu-ray. They stated they will continue to release HD-DVDs until the end of May, but this is not the same as supporting the format. I think there may be confusion regarding 'technical' versus policy-based support. No doubt, Warner will continue to provide technical support for the products they sell. Nevertheless, as far as policy goes, Warner is clearly in the Blu-ray camp. To suggest otherwise is contrary to all of their statements on the matter. --64.142.82.28 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The pie chart should reflect the situation as of right now, not what it will be. regardless of whether they are going to be BD exclusive in the future, the fact remains that at the present time, they support both. As I said before, the actual text clearly and accurately makes this fact apparent. I personally have no problem with including a graph of the market share as of June 1, as long as we keep the graph that shows the present state of the industry. However, if we include a graph of the future in exclusion to the graph of the present, we may find that that graph is very inaccurate come June. Even though it is very unlikely, its not impossible that Paramount will tell HD DVD to stuff their money, give it back, and go BD exclusive. Likewise, its also possible that Universal, which has no contractual obligations to HD DVD, will go BD exclusive in the interval. However remote these possabilities are, the future is a volatile thing, and it is very hard to predict. (Anyone hear of the IBM exec in the '70's? "There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have a computer in their home.") Either way, the fact that Warner has agreed to be BD exclusive after Juine is well stated in the section and there can be no doubt after reading it that that is the case. And again, I personally have no problem including a graph of what we think (based on reliable sources and common sense) the market will look like in June as long as we also include a graph of the present state of things. Thingg (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon, while Warner may continue to release discs for HD DVD, the landscape has changed (as has the manner in which they will temporarily continue to support HD DVD). The most obvious change is in their release schedule: HD DVD releases will be timed to come out after the DVD and BD release. Then of course there's the media coverage which says this has already happened, not that it's "going to happen". Even Warner is pretty clear on this in their press release. My biggest issue is with having two images; maybe it looks okay in other peoples displays, but in a 1680x1050 display the two images push in to the sections below them (which just looks bad). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree partially with both arguments. However, I feel we need to end this edit war and I think this is the best way to do so. As with any compromise, few parties will be completely satisfied, but I think this way will keep the article accurate and "pretty" (gotta agree with Locke against having two pics. My moniter formats it correctly, but it still looks weird.) while adequately satifying everyone. Either way, I personally don't really care which way the argument goes, I just want to reach some sort of a consensus, and I feel this is the easiest way to accomplish this. Thingg (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a fair compromise, although the "future" chart should be subtitles with something like Expected studio support after June 1 or something like that, to make it clear that things can change. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tipping point? Covering the controversy

The coverage of the Warner announcement has included quotes from several analysts who think the tipping point has come in Blu-ray's favor, as well as a press statement from Toshiba vowing to press on. No doubt, we'll hear more at CES. In the spirit of "covering the controversy", I'm tempted (if I have time) to add some of this, with the appropriate attributions and footnotes--but don't want to enter into a revert war. I haven't seen any analyst quotes favoring HD DVD, but would also want to include if they exist. Any thoughts? Barte (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait until CES plays out next week before taking this step. There could be some developments there that tip the scales in either direction. For example, Universal could decide that Blu-ray adoption is now inevitable and begin releasing on that format ASAP, depending on their contractional status with the HD DVD PRG. Perhaps Spielburg makes a sudden about face and allows Paramount and Universal to release his catalog titles on HD DVD. Maybe a major retailer or two declares they will stop stocking HD DVD. These are just a few things that could pop up at CES. Any of these or other events would certainly impact the future of both formats.70.119.37.244 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. So we can take our time to digest the implications slowly. There's no rush. Let's wait for facts to emerge. That said, it's clearly a seismic shift in the format war and I don't see how HD DVD can survive in the North American market. The European market, which is potentially just as big but at an earlier stage of development, has different film distributors and may play out differently. --Harumphy (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Europe, in the studio support section, there is a lengthy write-up about European studios publishing for HD DVD. However, there is no mention of any exclusivity to that format or mention of Blu-ray's standing with any European studios in general. Additionally, I'm fairly certain this section hasn't been touched in some time. This would probably be a good time for someone, if they have the time, to go analyze the current situation for Blu-ray in regards to these studios and to see if there have been any significant changes since it was written. I know that a few on the HD DVD list (Studio Canal, for example) are releasing on Blu-ray.70.119.37.244 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've give it a go anyhow (as Wikipedia has now pretty much subsumed Wikinews). But I've done this conservatively, based on stories from the Financial Times and the AP. No winner declared here, just the indisputable point that several analysts have done so, several HD DVD events have been canceled, and Toshiba is still vowing support.Barte (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardware Support section

Does anyone object to me replacing the "Hardware Support" section with a reference to List of Blu-ray Disc devices and List of HD DVD devices? I feel that including the information in both plaves is kind of dumb, and it makes this article incredibly long. Any objections? Thingg (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections here, thats what I suggested a while back, but I did not receive many comments. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Harumphy (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. (btw, that trimmed an impressive 18 KB off this page...) Thingg (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 this discussion seems to be One chart, exclusive; a pretty overwhelming display of consensus. Feel free to continue discussing this as new issues arise, but I'd like to believe we can put this issue to rest (at least temporarily) and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pie chart poll

Well, we're back to one image, and regrettably it shows (in my opinion) incorrect information (specifically that Warner and New Line are somehow still neutral). Since reverting it would just lead to another revert war, I think a poll for the various options we've gone over so far ought to settle this. Below you'll find multiple choices (feel free to add another section with another choice, if you wish). Register your support for an option by typing * '''Support''' - optional comment ~~~~ in the section for the option. You may support as many options as you like (or none at all). If you choose to support more than one choice, please indicate any preference you may have amongst those choices (in the event of a tie, this may be useful). Whichever one gets the most support after 48 hours is probably what we should go with. There will be a discussion section below if you have any questions, comments or concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll concluded at 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One chart, neutral

One chart, with the image presenting both Warner Bros. and New Line as being neutral.

One chart, exclusive

One chart, with the image presenting both Warner Bros. and New Line as being exclusive to Blu-ray Disc.

• Support I keep seeing more coverage from notable pubs that reflect this viewpoint. Here's one from the AP: "Only two major U.S. studios now support HD DVD, while five support Sony's Blu-ray disc. Warner is the last studio to put out movies in both formats, but will stop publishing HD DVDs in May." Note the distinction made between de facto support and temporary measures. Barte (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support My reason: warner and new line already announced exclusivity to BD, regardless of when it actually happens. It WILL happens. Warner's title, for example, from now on would be released in BD day-and-date with DVD, while HD DVD is delayed.--w_tanoto (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support First choice; this reflects how the media and news outlets are reporting the situation. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I definately think that this option shows what the situation actually is. However, I do like the "striped" option suggested below, as it is a fair compromise until Warner ceases production of HD DVDs. J.delanoy (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support This reflects how the situation is being reported as well as the original press-release. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support If you ask Warner today "Yes or No, do you support HD DVD?", they would say No. --Zojj (t,c) 06:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with either this or the striped exclusive, but this would be the better of the 2. It makes clear what the new policy and intentions of Warner / New Line are to casual readers scanning this article. The current transition should get some mention in the text that this graph is accompanying. Should the striped one be selected, I would recommend the striped sections be designated something like "In Transition", as opposed to "Both". This would likely get readers that are giving the chart a cursory glance to read up on the facts of this transition.70.119.37.244 (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Warner's continuing 'support' for HD DVD is minimal - they're only doing it to fulfil contracts they can't get out of. The 'big picture' is that Warner is dumping the format ASAP, and this option fits that best. --Harumphy (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I could easily live with either of the three proposals that do not involve having two graphs, but this one is the most accurate. My (close) second choice would be the "striped" one proposed below. Comment: I'm not really familiar with .svg files, and I was wondering if it be difficult to construct the "striped" version using that technology. (I'm thinking about the rather complicated parameter settings that would probably be required to keep the stripes inside their respective "pieces" of the pie chart.) Just curious. Thingg (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Just put a little star on the Warner Bros. and at the bottom put: *Effective May
• Comment If this were to be instated how would the supporters of this solution propose modifying the introduction to the section to be consistent? --Ray andrew (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "In North America, four of the Big Six film studios exclusively support Blu-ray and two exclusively support HD DVD. Warner Bros. <footnote, footnote>. Warner, which supported both formats until Jan. 4, 2008, will release HD DVD titles on a delayed basis until June 1, 2008." The AP story I cited below did this more elegently. Barte (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at a rewrite of the (actual) first paragraph that attempts to take both sides of this debate into account. And I think that a modified caption might help reach consensus on the diagram: "Major US film distributors' declared format support (2007 US box office share). Note: Warner Bros. has announced withdrawing support for HD DVD as of Jun '08." With that more tentative wording, I'd argue that Warner could be shown in blue. I'm less confident about New Line, which has issued no formal statement. My thanks to the Harvard team below for their suggestions on this. Barte (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Per above reasons - And to those who say it's a future event and should not be documented, tell that to the many other articles about future TV Shows, events etc of which Warner dropping HDDVD is an 'event' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03swalker (talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One chart, striped exclusive

One chart, with the image presenting both Warner Bros. and New Line in a striped purple/blue format indicating their transitioning from neutrality to exclusivity.

• Support Second choice; works as a compromise, and is a lot better than having two charts. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Accurate, but yet compact. --Ray andrew (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support this as its more accurate as warner is still releasing HD DVD and not quitting cold turkey. However the comment about the date it is exclusive needs to stay as well as a mention that until that date.. all movies on HD DVD will be released LATER then the blu-ray movies. -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be more inclined to list this as a second choice if its advocates could point to some secondary sources that treat Warner's decision as pending. For example, are any reporters or analysts still listing the Big Six lineup as we have it here: BR:3 HD:2 Both:1? Are any of them using tentative language to describe Warner's stance? I've listed a few examples on this page of the reverse; are there any counter-examples?Barte (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What are the sources that say Warner is presently Blu-ray exclusive? Proctor spock (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Only two major U.S. studios now support HD DVD, while five support Sony's Blu-ray disc. Warner is the last studio to put out movies in both formats, but will stop publishing HD DVDs in May." --AP
• "The decision, announced on the eve of the influential Consumer Electronics Show, delivers a de facto knockout punch to the rival HD DVD format backed by Toshiba Corp. and others now supported by only two of Hollywood's six major movie studios." --LA Times
• "But by supporting Blu-ray, Warner Brothers, the largest player in the $42 billion global home entertainment market, makes it next to impossible for HD DVD to recover the early momentum it achieved."--New York Times.
• "HD DVD Promoter Cancels Event After Time Warner Drops Format" headline: Bloomberg
• "Warner Home Video on Friday announced it is casting its lot exclusively with the Blu-ray Disc format, leaving rival HD DVD with just two studios" Hollywood Reporter.

All of these are in the present tense, here and now. Sorry I didn't provide the links, but they are all confirmable via Google news. Barte (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Here are quotes from the same articles, with emphasis added:

• Art. 1: "Warner is the last studio to put out movies in both formats, but will stop publishing HD DVDs in May." --A.P.
• Art. 2: "Warner will begin releasing movies exclusively on Blu-ray in June." -- LA Times
• Art. 3: "Warner Brothers, part of Time Warner, will also continue to release its titles on both formats until the end of May."-- The New York Times
• Art. 4 "Warner, which had been supporting both formats, will drop HD DVD by the end of May in favor of Tokyo-based Sony Corp.'s Blu-ray." -- Bloomberg
• Art. 5 "WB said it will pull the plug on HD DVD gradually, issuing titles on HD DVD "after a short window following their standard DVD and Blu-ray releases," then discontinue HD DVD entirely come May." -- The Hollywood Reporter

In full context, none of these sources say Warner is presently Blu-ray exclusive. The change to exclusivity is a future event. It has not happened yet, as every reliable source I have seen reports. Proctor spock (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take just consider the lead on one of these--the Hollywood Reporter story: "Warner Home Video is casting its lot exclusively with the Blu-ray Disc format, delivering what could be an eventual death blow to HD DVD. The move, which had been widely expected and publicly denied, came Friday on the eve of the Consumer Electronics Show, where both next-generation disc formats have big presentations on the agenda." Yes, Warner is pulling the plug slowly, but the reporter has not written "Come next June, Warner Home Video will be casting its lot exclusively with...." To the contrary, "the move...came Friday." Nor have any of these stories reckoned the count as the Wikipedia article now has it: BR:3/HD:2/Both:1. The score, when any story declares it, is BR4-HD2. If there are exceptions, I'd like to see them and would then happily make this a second choice compromiseBarte (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The announcement of Friday is a move to be sure, but not the one we are interested in. The move we are interested in is the move to Blu-ray exclusivity. As already quoted, this will not happen until May (assuming the announcement is an accurate prediction). Speculating on the future by making a score-card of what may come to pass in May is not encyclopedic. Proctor spock (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The secondary sources we rely on for Wikipedia seem to have other ideas. Here's another: from the Wall Street Journal: "Sony on Friday scored a key win by luring Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. to its Blu-ray technology, putting itself in a position to triumph over Toshiba Corp.'s HD DVD after a years-long fight to become the standard for the next generation of DVDs." The story doesn't even bother to mention the May date, I assume, because it's a technicality. Barte (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal neglecting a key detail of the Warner Bros announcement does not allow us to do so. (Their report from Saturday is a little more forthcoming: "The studio's exclusive deal with Blu-ray will kick in later this year.") Proctor spock (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that your WSJ-linked story above is written in the future tense. So put me down for....

• Support as a 2nd choice after "one graph, exclusive". But no red stripes, please: just shades of blue and purple. Barte (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two charts

Two charts, one showing Warner Bros. and New Line as being neutral, and the other image showing them as being exclusive to Blu-ray Disc.

One chart on main page, multiple historical charts on a separate page

One chart showing Warner Bros. and New Line as supporting Blu-ray Disc; on a separate page multiple historical charts updated at key dates where studios changed / modified support. See discussion below from Harvard group for more explanation. Dietdrpeppercan (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No chart

No chart at all until June 2008

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikaE (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

One chart, current

One chart showing the current release format for each studio based on current information, with studios releasing in Blu-ray Disc in blue, HD DVD in red, and both in purple. A marking next to a studio announcing a future change would be paired with a footnote detailing the announcement.

• Support I am adding this option to the straw poll because the word neutral in the first option is prejudicial (a studio making an announcement to go with one format on a future date is no longer neutral) and prior discussion of the chart mentioned having a footnote but none of our options do. Proctor spock (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be the most accurate chart possible to reflect what is happening now, rather than gazing into a crystal ball. That chart is meant to show what is being released on which formats (or both formats as is the case) right now, not in the future. We would be lying to WP readers if we said anything else. JayKeaton (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Discussion

Please discuss the poll or options here

Heres another idea for a compromise, give warner/newline a striped purple/red background. That would visually indicate that they are not quite neutral but not quite exclusive either. Comments? --Ray andrew (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support this as being a compromise in the event showing them exclusive fails to get a majority of support. I will list it as an option above. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember though that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls will not necessarily be treated as binding. I really think we should treat this as a practical compromise that everyone can agree to live with. I urge editors to comment on this proposed compromise. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This really can only end in compromise (or we can wait until May to see what happens). We cannot have a diagram, standing on its own in an encyclopedia, documenting a future event. It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, other industry players make between now and when the recent announcement actually takes effect (assuming, arguendo, it does). Proctor spock (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray, I can already see that you're trying to wikilawyer your way around this poll. Let me give you a hint here: while polls and their results may not be binding, consensus is, at least temporarily. See, once this poll is over with, I expect all involved parties to abide by the results barring any major news or change suggesting the issue need be revisited. Otherwise we would be on this talk page holding a new poll (or discussing it, take your pick) every other day. And that's not going to happen. So let me humbly suggest that you continue to discuss the issue within the confines of this poll and attempt to persuade others to see your point of view. But that once this poll is over and done with, you drop the matter until such time that something changes warranting a new discussion of the topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to "wikilawer" anything. All I am saying is that from what I have read, a poll is usually only the start, not the end on wikipedia. Consensus is not about majority rules, it is about compromise, and coming up with something that everyone can live with. Think about that and remember that I am not the only one who has objections to your plan. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The poll came about because some people kept reverting the change to the image and the only way to demonstrate that there's consensus for the change was to conduct a poll. This poll is the end of this discussion. We've hashed out the potential options. We've each tried to convince others of our point of view. Despite this, and despite the overwhelming support (prior to the poll) for changing the image, some insisted it just wasn't so. So here we are, demonstrating that yes, there is consensus, and that those who are acting against it are doing so for their own personal agendas. As an aside, other than a potential sock puppet of yours, I don't see anyone who is vehemently opposed to the change to the image. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence of a consensus here at all. There's a plurality of votes for an inaccurate graph, and not much more. And the supporters of this "graph" have been actively vandalizing the HD DVD article placing this graph on the page over and over again using this "vote" as a justification. The correct way to have interpreted the vote would have been to hold off: remove the graph while it remains an issue of controversy. --Squiggleslash (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yet another person that thinks there is no consensus, time to remove the chart. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who died and mad you ruler of this talk page? You seek to avoid the issue by slandering me, that is no way to reach consensus. --Ray andrew (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not being avoided, but going around in circles with you when you clearly are unable (or unwilling) to understand the consensus view is not good for the encyclopedia. The simple fact is this: the consensus view is that the image should show Warner Bros. and New Line as Blu-ray exclusive. We've talked about it, we've debated it, and you've revert warred with at least three different editors to keep your POV in place over the view of all others. Let's try this another way: do you think you, alone, have the authority to overrule all other editors to insert your POV in to articles (and in this case, images)? Because if you do, you don't quite grasp what a wiki is all about. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We would be lying to the readers of Wikipedia to change the chart to reflect a future landscape (one possibility) that is not the same as the present. Being deceptive by, for instance, removing important information from an article is as bad as putting false information in. About the straw poll and what you think is taking place here, you really need to read this. And stop accusing editors who disagree with you of being sock puppets. That method of dealing with adversity is definitively not good for the encyclopedia. Proctor spock (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I believe we're lying to readers right now by showing those studios as being neutral. As far as polling goes, you must not be familiar with Wikipedia: look at WP:AFD, WP:TFD and WP:MFD, which are all processes used here daily which involve polling. And FWIW, this isn't just a poll: look above, many of the people stating their support for one choice over the others are also explaining why they made their choice, adding to the overall discussion. And I still believe you are a sock puppet of Ray andrew, and I've still not seen anything to change my mind on that. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good we finally know who my sock puppet is! Not a very good sock puppet though as he wont even vote the same as me, but he is much more elegant in his writing don't you think? /sarcasm... Back to the topic which you love to avoid, AFD, TFD, MFD are exceptions, clearly you did not read the wonderful link my alter ego provided above, I quote "The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. For that reason, article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus." PS: Stop the personal attacks. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Instead of labeling it "Both" label it something like "Moving to Blu-ray in June, '08" or "Both*" and then put a footnote under it. For the record, I honestly don't care what single chart goes up there, I just want this to end. Thingg (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is shutting anyone out of discussions. However, if you continue to revert despite a consensus being reached, you risk having an RFC raised about your actions (which can lead to arbitration, and eventually banning if you don't stop this poor behavior). In so far as personal attacks go, I can't stop something I'm not doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Personally attacking those with whom you disagree is not conducive to discussion. We both asked you to stop. You did not. Proctor spock (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge you are another editor. A checkuser request already resulted in a "likely" result that you (Proctor spock) are a sock puppet of Ray andrew. That's not a personal attack, that's stating the facts. As to the poll, it was a culmination of discussion above where options were suggested, and in order to bring a resolution to this particular dispute, a poll seemed the most reasonable and fair way of continuing. I'll note that issues with polling weren't brought up until after votes had been cast and a clear consensus began to form.. curious that. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The following editors have raised objections: Thingg, JayKeaton, Crossmr, Tracer9999, and myself. --Ray andrew (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've said for quite a while now that Ray Andrew was biased towards HD DVD, to the point he will distort an article just to make HD DVD look more attractive than Blu-ray, or to specifically twist data to make Bluray appear too expensive to purchase, even in the face of data showing there's no real difference in price (we've butt heads before over this issue in the past). Up to this point, it was a "feeling" but I think his recent actions (refusing to let the chart be entered into the article) provide plenty of factual evidence of his bias. And now many many people can see what he's doing, and they are not liking it. He won't allow the chart to stand, because he doesn't want his favorite format (HD DVD) to be denigrated. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity: "In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."

You need to refrain form making personal attacks. I may have a different perspective then you on what constitutes a NPOV but its not because I am biased. HD DVD is dead in my opinion, but that does not make it ok for me to insert my opinion in to the article, as encyclopedias are here to deliver facts. As to the chart, there is no real consensus as to what it should look like (a vote does not constitute that), thus the best solution while there is still debate is for it to be removed. And to be clear the reason I am debating the form of the chart is because I think it is a blatant misrepresentation to group Warner with all the other Blu-ray supporters. They will still be releasing every title they would have otherwise released in the next 6 months on HD DVD just with an unspecified delay. Do you know any other Blu-ray studios that are doing the same? In fact this would be similar to how Newline was planning to release new releases (because of the lack of region coding on HD DVD) did we list Newline as anything other then neutral in the chart? NO. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You sir fall into the "vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'" category. Consensus has been reached even if you prefer to act like a member of one of those Mafia groups, and refuse to conform to society views. QUOTING WIKIPEDA AGAIN Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome Stop trying to impede progress. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

all of you that mention you are basing your opinions on the press release saying that they are exclusive.. the real world fact is they will be releasing on both until a certain date.. until then in my opinion they are neutral leaning blu ray.. so that justifies the third option not the second.. then ofcourse we can transition over to the second option when they cease releasing HD DVD or HD DVD goes under.. we shouldn't publish spin but the facts. until they stop selling HD DVD .. they are not yet exclusive. but the fact they are releasing to blu ray first makes them leaning blue. -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. WB is neutral like Microsoft is neutral because they happen to own Apple stock. Right. Sure. Yep. Here's what will actually happen: WB, because of contractual obligations, will finish pressing whatever HD DVD releases are already in the engineering studio. And that's it. Any HD DVD projects that have not been started yet, will be canceled, and resources directed toward Blu-ray development. i.e. HD DVD releases from WB will turn into a mere trickle, while Blu-ray releases will be like a flood. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats not what they said in their press release, please reread it. Every title until the end of may will be released as they would have otherwise, but with an unspecified delay. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WB is, as of right now (NOW), Blu-Ray exclusive. They have withdrawn all support from HD DVD. It's not something they're thinking of maybe doing sometime in the future. It is something they have actually done, and it made the papers around the world. The remaining titles they will release on HD DVD are strictly a combination of momentum and contractual obligation and do not constitute support.Pisomojado (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Law School

Hi, I am one of a group of students at Harvard Law School who has been given an assignment to become involved in a dispute on wikipedia and help resolve it. We wanted to let you know this to allay any fears that we were alter egos of other parties already involved in this dispute since we have low levels of contributions to wikipedia. Other usernames involved in this are: drdietpeppercan, tpseive, gorby007, deejay100, nikae, anna v v. We have come up with some other options and will be adding them to the poll, and are willing discuss them in more detail here. Lk37 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the option Multiple charts on a separate page: This option would allow for series of graphs showing a historical sequencing of studio support for both formats, as well as historical information about market share controlled, market density for both types of hardware, etc. This option would allow an unlimited amount of information in graphic format to be displayed, accessible via a link to a different page so that the reader who is not interested in this level of detail will not find the article cluttered. This option could be exercised either with one pie chart still in the main article, providing one can be agreed upon, or none and just the link prominently displayed. Tpseive (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (from the Harvard group)

One advantage of the Multiple charts on a separate page option is that it will allow people in the future to see historical information regarding the format controversy. --DeeJay100 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (from the Harvard group)

Comment on the "One Chart: Neutral" option: perhaps the problem could be solved by changing the word "support"--the use of this word in the entry seems to be giving rise to a question as to whether the pie chart reflect the studios' current practice of releasing discs in a particular format or whether the chart reflects the studios' current policy, meaning whether or not they "support" blue-ray or HD. What if the graph remained neutral for Warner and New Line, but the text underneath the graph changed so as to clearly state that the graph reflects current studio practice of RELEASING discs on blu-ray, HD, or both. This may be less objectionable to those who believe that Warner's decision to switch exclusively to blu-ray in 2008 reflects a change in policy. Gorby007 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (from the Harvard group)

If any of the one chart options are selected, a footnote should be included explaining the transition from supporting both formats to supporting blu ray exclusively. --DeeJay100 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (from the Harvard group)

The Harvard Law School group has come up with a list of potential solutions to help inform this discussion as well as some analysis of their pros and cons.

1. Multiple graphs showing change over time.

• • Pros: It will reflect all the information that is currently known.
  • Cons: Very confusing and might be difficult to get everyone in agreement about the placement, formatting, and selection of the information to be graphed.

2. Two graphs, showing now and June 08.

• • Pros: Simple and straightforward.
  • Cons: Graph showing June 08 would arguably be inaccurate b/c it's in the future.

3. Multiple graphs separating between production and formal support of a format

• • Pros: Perhaps a good way to resolve the arguments going on about policy and practice on the talk page. Multiple graphs, particularly if they were accessed by those interested through a link - so as not to clutter the main page, would allow room for all the variants, changes over time, graphs of titles produced in each format, market shares, projections, everything. That would reduce the pressure to have this one pie chart tell it all. If the editors could be persuaded to do that, then either they'd need to agree on one initial chart on the main page (perhaps at a time that they can agree upon, like prior to the 4 Jan Warner announcement) plus a very prominent indication that more detail can be reached by clicking here ... or no graph at all, only the link to see all graphs.
  • Cons: Unnecessarily confusing?

4. Status quo, with a footnote for the future expected change.

• • Pros: Will be able to accurately reflect what the situation is now and will notify the reader that there are upcoming changes.
  • Cons: Footnote may be easy to overlook for people reading the article.

5. Status quo, with a new section dealing with future changes.

• • Pros: Will be able to accurately reflect what the situation is now and will notify the reader that there are upcoming changes.
  • Cons: It seems like it's not exactly clear what is going to happen in June, so this section will either be incomplete or based on some speculation.

6. Status quo, leave it exactly as it is.

• • Pros: Easy to verify and doesn't require any speculation about the future.
  • Cons: This is somewhat misleading.

Anna v v (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

7. No graph

• • Pros: Doesn't misrepresent anything
  • Cons: Less information is probably not good in an encyclopedia NikaE (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Striped graph

• • Pros: Makes what's going on less confusing: only need one graph instead of multiples
  • Cons: Less information given than an option that shows historical progression NikaE (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Harvard Group: My guess (that's all it is) is that your extended proposals won't get much traction....for two reasons. 1) The question isn't all that complex: my hunch is that most of us in the "One chart, exclusive" side would settle for a blended version. In other words, the group is already quite close. 2) I don't have the sense that you are citing, to use the analogy, case law. This may appear a debate about mechanics, but just beneath is a consideration for how the Warner press release (i.e. the primary source) and the several notable secondary sources (as seen in the footnotes) should be interpreted in the graph, as well as in the lead paragraph of the section. See WP:PSTS to get a sense of this. This is a more difficult, subtle, and content-specific question, of course, but also a more interesting one, and I for one would be interested in your collective take. Barte (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A collective response from one of the Harvard Group members: We agree that the issue about the chart is not that complex and that a reasonable solution to this problem can be found - in fact, that is why we chose this dispute to attempt to resolve for our assignment (which is due Tuesday, 1/8/07 and thus had to be something that could be solved with a minor amount of intervention). Before the poll was created we had actually outlined a series of options that could solve the dispute, most of which end up in the poll. The two additional suggestions are just that - suggestions. We have no stake in this other than trying to contribute to a solution to this dispute, which is our only task. Our pros and cons above for each topic perhaps are obvious, but we thought we would post them given we had already created them. Also, I think you might be disregarding the historical approach for the chart a bit - I think it really can solve some of big problems here and improve the historical documentation of this important format war (something readers of Wikipedia in the future would surely be interested in) while still keeping the "comparison" page up-to-date.
    • I just wanted to chime in that I think this is the idea we were trying to float (the multiple charts). It also depends on how you view the purpose of the page - whether you think it should just provide the current information or whether more information, with the potential added clutter, is better. Lk37 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think one possible solution to the "clutter" problem was to link to multiple charts with more information. Could a hybrid solution work where a representative chart (such as the striped option) appeared on the page, and then a link would allow you to see more charts indicating the historical progression? --NikaE (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the dispute in WP:PTST: when we discussed the conflcit over the chart as a group, we realized that the underlying problem here is that the phrase "X studio supports Blu-ray" is ambiguous. The issue is what does "support" in this context mean? I think the best definition would be something along the lines of "support means to currently release films / content in a particular format." In the case of Time Warner (and its subsidiaries - I am assuming that all Time Warner controlled content producers will follow the parent's lead as appears to be the case - in any event this is a factual question which has an answer, regardless if I can or cannot find it), whether or not they "support" Blu-ray or HD-DVD or both (hence "neutral") is contingent upon the time frame you are considering. Up until sometime in 2008 (June, if all goes as announced), under the definition of "support" above the phrase "Time Warner supports both Blu-ray and HD-DVD (and is therefore neutral)" is correct. When they switch to only releasing content in Blu-ray, under the above definition they no longer would supporting HD-DVD.
  • An alternative, perhaps more accurate, definition of "support" might be "support means whether a studio has decided to prefer and promote one of the formats over another." Under this defintion, upon the announcement of their future change in business practice (i.e. planning not to release content in HD-DVD as of June 2008), Time Warner would immediately be considered to "support" Blu-ray. I think this definition is less exact and requires too much speculation about future, uncertain events.Dietdrpeppercan (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I take your collective point: one's definition of the the term "support" will color (sorry) one's view of the chart. In the context of the article, I prefer your second definition over the first and would argue that, as the policy was clearly stated in the press release, it isn't particularly inexact. But a related question, per WP:PTST, is how notable secondary sources define it. See above for more on that. Barte (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is being created by the use of the word "support" in the title of the pie chart, wouldn't your objections perhaps be resolved by making the language more precise? If the chart was titled "Major US film distributors' current release format" then that would be in line with the first definition of support. If instead it was titled "Major US film distributors' preferred format" then that would be in line with the second proposed definition of support. But then maybe this is circular, because then I suppose the same argument will occur over what language to use.Lk37 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This again may mitigate in favor of two charts, one each for each of these definitions? --NikaE (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result was no move. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

... and need to add Missing Information

While creation of a broader article is presumably desirable, there are 1½ or 2 more formats mentioned but not compared. Reserve this title for the broader article.
--Jerzy•t 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, the article title is fine. If you think more formats should be discussed, then {{sofixit}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: When I moved the original article to this title, I did so in the desire that this article would eventually have more on the competing formats. Further, by not giving any particular preference to which format was listed first in the article title I believed this title was more neutral (making it more complaint with WP:NPOV and avoiding potential debates on whether the title should be Comparison of Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD or Comparison of HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc). But my point still stands: if you think more can be done to make this article better, go for it. Nobody is stopping you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no real opinion on whether the other two formats deserve discussion (let alone willingness to reach a point where i could make the possibly pointless additions). But apparently in a year and 3 days, no one has cared enough about them to add more the than one usable sentence naming them. Here we see the resolution of the dispute between two titles whose accuracy apparently no one disputed (until, perhaps, the fig-leaf sentence about the possibly irrelevant ones was added), by pretending the article is about something none of its authors appears to care about, and using a title apparently doomed to stay misleading and inaccurate. And apparently bcz no one could admit that only a PoV warrior would in this case see the order of the same words in this case as constituing PoV. This is a rewrite of the Judgment of Solomon parable, in which both the disputants say "Oh, wise Solomon, we do understand that half a baby is better than none. Chop away!" In this case, the unreconciled PoV warriors seem satisfied to have their respectedive cases embodied in an article that screams "Move along, no intellectual honesty happening here." I will never say "There are encyclopedic matters that WP's methods can't solve, but i've got no problem saying "this is an unsolved one that it's time for me to walk away from.
    --Jerzy•t 18:41 & 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    

• Strong oppose, It should stay as it is. -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lock Cole above Barte (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. It can be Comparison of "Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD" or "HD DVD and Blu-ray". Leave it as it is--w_tanoto (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Once more info about the other Hi-def formats becomes available, it will easy to include the info under this page. Also, the vast majority of the info about the Hi-Def formats is probably going to be about HD DVD and Blu-ray for some time because those two formats are the ones that the format war is/was mainly about. (VMD came a lot later, and I doubt the Chinese copy format, CH DVD, will ever become mainstream) That being said, any "overall" article comparing the formats will end up looking pretty much the same as this article does now; negating the point of having seperate articles comparing each format to the others. Also, other articles such as History of video game consoles (seventh generation) successfully compare more than two competing technologies on one page. Finally, as Locke Cole mentioned above, what will you name the proposed article? Thingg (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The generic title works fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Not long ago I tried to add technical parameters for VMD and CH-DVD to the table, but it got reverted with a vengeance. --Harumphy (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder why. I was reading the table and wondering why that information was missing. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I don't see the point in discussing formats that will rarely see the homes of North American or British homes. I don't think any of us really believes China Video Disc or Multi-layer Whatever Disc will see mass acceptance by most consumers. ----- And I'll go further than that. In 2009, I think this whole article should be deleted as it will no longer be needed (at that point, future readers can reference the separate HD and Bluray articles... just as they reference separate Betamax and VHS articles). ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warner boxed quote

I'm unclear on the concept of the Warner boxed quote on why the company made the switch. Seems redundant and slightly POV given that it's the only quote in the article, but thought I'd ask before striking.Barte (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Barte's objections. Also, on a purely presentational note, its inclusion and subsequent reformatting of the section makes it seem cluttered and very unprofessional. In addition, it makes the pie chart, which is the most important graphic in the section, smaller and almost impossible to read without clicking on it to make it larger. And as Barte already said, it is very POV and in addition (in my humble opinion) is completely unnecessary. (If someone wants to put it on Wikiquotes, be my guest, but it doesn't belong here.) Thingg (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, if for no other reason than to reduce clutter, this should go. And, I agree, it is very redundant, as the substance of Warner's given reasoning for the move to Blu-ray is covered in the article already in a way far more neutral. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sample size used for Studio Support chart

As we move towards consensus about how to display Warner and New Line on this graph during the spring transition phase, I though it might also be best to shift it from only covering 2007 Box Office sales to instead cover a larger period of time. For example, the basis for the data of this chart could be the following link from the same website currently used for the 2007 figures [[10]]. This link has a comparison of the box office grosses for all studios from 1995 to present. Changing it to this larger sample size would give a truer picture of the economic impact of each studio (less prone to spikes) and provide a simple solution to the problem that would arise when deciding what to do with 2008 box office grosses. I had previously posted this in the poll section, but, with the "visit" from the Harvard students, I thought it would be best to move this here, as that section is way too cluttered now as is. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone can find the data, that'd be a good idea. Thingg (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This link has the data [11] 70.119.37.244 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramount to back blu-ray again?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

--w_tanoto (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait until we got an official Paramount statement before adding this to the article, but definately something to watch. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing hard in that article, just idle speculation. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aQMGgh2LV_bU&refer=japan --w_tanoto (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Financial Times has some serious egg on its face. I wonder if they will update and correct their erroneous report. I wonder if other news sources that have parroted the false report will, too. Proctor spock (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

High def sales image

Wouldn't it be better to have the Image:HighDefSales.svg pie chart using the same colours as the studio market share pie chart. Its not a major thing, but would make the article look a bit nicer. Chris_huh^talk 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Next time I do the weekly sales chart I'll bring the colours into line with the studio share chart. --Harumphy (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I though the porn industry was supposed to make HD DVD win?

Same way they (supposedly) made VHS win. So what happened? Is the Adult industry not as powerful as some people claim? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is mentioned in the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc articles, but the general consensus, as put forth be ABC news, is that most of the adult industry content is distributed via the Internet rather than physical discs and thus will have little impact (if any) on this format war. Also, DVD is more than enough for most stuff. In addition, there is some debate on whether the adult industry had an impact on the Beta - VHS war either (Even today, the porn industry accounts for less than 0.5% of the video market). Regardless, as this article states, less than 20 adult films have been released on BOTH formats, compared to nearly 500 other films for both formats. And yes, the adult industry does not have nearly as much influence as a lot of people claim. Thingg (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

High profile porn companies already distribute their stuff on Blu-ray. Sony has clarified that they won't "control" anyone in what they do with their licenses. And even if they weren't distributing porn on Blu-ray, I'd agree with Thingg above. — Northgrove 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Newline exclusive effective immediately

Just saw this story [12], looks like there will be no "transition period" as with warner. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I too was about to mention this, As a result of this the New line color should be turned 'Blue' immidiately in the Studio support graph as the purple obviously no-longer applies. While of course another 6 months for Warner Bros to turn blue in color.

Image now changed. --Harumphy (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This should also be mentioned in the article. "As for 'Pan's Labryinth,' which hit stores late last year as the first (and only) New Line HD DVD release, the studio says that once current retail supplies are depleted, the title will be discontinued -- making it an instant collector's item." as it was the only title released by New Line for HD-DVD. Denzelio (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CES 2008

incase anyone cares. I spoke to a high level panasonic executive and the first 2.0 BD-live standalone player will be released in may 2008. Blu ray confirmed it will be a panasonic but referred me to panasonic on the date only saying sometime in 2008..also the ps3 will be firmware upgradeable.of course....... Several toshiba reps have advised me that toshiba has no intention of ever releasing a HD DVD recorder for a computer that does not come bundled in its highend laptop or a high end pc. They claim other manufacturers can make it if they desire but toshiba will not be makeing them. seeing as toshiba makes most of the HD DVD equipment.. that does not bode to well for adding a recorder to your system. Also blu ray straight out announced the format war was over..and that they were the winner.. in thier presentation. I thought it was kinda cocky but interesting none the less. the HD DVD booth was very empty when I went by..well the blu ray booth was packed.. wish I could source myself.. but I guess till I find a written source these stay out of the article.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read the news reports from last year they announced themselves the victor then too. Fox even put out a pretty humorous "projection" of Q1 2007 sales [13] --Ray andrew (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making derogatory comments to anyone who posts in this talk page. Anyone, including you, has a right to suggest content for inclusion in the article. If you feel it necessary to comment, please do not make personal attacksJ.delanoy (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How is what I said derogatory? I just stated the fact that the same proclamation of victory was made last year, and gave a humorous (in my opinion) aside about a ridiculous chart fox released at the same time.--Ray andrew (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I count as a reliable source? When I passed the booths on Tuesday, my observations were the same. I think you could count on one hand the number of attendees in the HD-DVD booth. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart removal

By my count, the survey results were:

• One chart, exclusive: 11 first choice, 0 second choice
• One chart, striped exclusive 2 first choice; 5 second choice
• One chart on main page, multiple historical charts on a separate page: 1 first choice
• No chart: 0 choice (well, 1 if you count a hanging chad)

Seems to me there's a pretty clear consensus around option 1, but nothing remotely in favor of removing it completely. Doing do, seems to me, approaches vandalism, and if it continues, I think it's time to bring in an administrator. Barte (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that some of these choices were not added until mid poll. Besides as we all know Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still fine with #2 as a compromise--blue/purple stripes. But removal is unacceptable.Barte (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also peer the discussion below it appears that some editors may have been mistaken about the facts of the case at the time of the poll. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now you're reaching into other editors minds to try and determine what they did and didn't understand? This is why a poll was a much better idea: it didn't leave anything open to "creative interpetation" as you're doing now... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

lets just do the damn blue purple stripe thing and call it a day.. not sure why its that horrible.. it gets the point across.. compromise solves..actually the stripes will prob catch your eye better and actually make someone READ the chart.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with you. that would be my second choice. Do that blue/purple on warner, blue on new line/HBO--w_tanoto (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the blue/red stripe as well. If Ray Andrew had uploaded that image, and inserted it into the article, he'd be living in a lot cooler place now. His changes would not have been reverted. ----- But he didn't do that; instead he took the stubborn route of erasing the chart completely. That's not compromise. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What's so horrible about this chart?

As far as I can tell it represents ACTUAL support since WB changed itself to Blu-ray exclusive. If another studio like Paramount or Disney switches sides, then it can be updated again. I don't understand why certain people would be so offended by a simple chart (unless, like Californian earthquakes, they are trying to live in denial). ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This chart is accurate and should be used in both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD articles. Anything less would be an attempt to hide the facts. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why then was it not included in the "other two" articles before warner made its change? --Ray andrew (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This chart was created for this (Comparison) article. If editors of the other articles want a different image, they should create their own. --Harumphy (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I think it is a blatant misrepresentation to group Warner with all the other Blu-ray supporters. They will still be releasing every title they would have otherwise released in the next 6 months on HD DVD just with an unspecified delay. Do you know any other Blu-ray studios that are doing the same? In fact this would be similar to how Newline was planning to release new releases (because of the lack of region coding on HD DVD). Did we list Newline as anything other then neutral in the chart back then? NO. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

False. They will NOT be releasing every title. There will be several titles between now and June that are Bluray only. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reference then or stop spreading false information. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

YOU FIRST. You were the FIRST to claim, "They will still be releasing every title they would have otherwise released in the next 6 months on HD DVD". Where is your citation for that? You are so happy for being precise, but I don't see anywhere that you are backing this up. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated before read the press release "Warner Home Video will continue to release its titles in standard DVD format and Blu-ray. After a short window following their standard DVD and Blu-ray releases, all new titles will continue to be released in HD DVD until the end of May 2008." (emphasis added). [14] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

if the poll and consensus is to be binding on all HD format related articles.. at least notification of the vote should have been placed on BOTH format talk pages to give users from both pages the chance to participate.. not just people who work the comparison article.. I agree that at this point in time the graph is inaccurate. and wikipedia is being used as a crystal ball. warner will be blu ray exclusive in JUNE.. today it is releasing BOTH formats... that fits nowhere in the definition of exclusive..I think.. the poll should be re-opened. with notification made to ALL article talk pages so ALL editors effected are aware of it.. keep current votes but allow new ones for the next 72 or since HD DVD is now protected anyway... make it even longer. until then do not revert the graph.. as at THIS point we have consensus until more people disagree or an agreement is worked out. thats my suggestion. notice was kinda sorta given on HD DVD (at least mentioned there was discussion going on).. over 30 hours into the 48 hour poll and not at all on blu ray. does seem a bit wrong that the poll is being used in both pages without editors being made aware the discussion was ongoing..and not everyone edits wikipedia daily. I do agree we needed an immediate decision.. at the time... but now we have the time to make sure the decision is correct and not just popular. -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the chart should not have been used on the HD or Bluray articles. (Especially since it is non relevant there; a comparison chart should be placed in the comparison article, not the Disc-specific article.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is to be a new poll it needs to start fresh, with the options and terms discussed before hand, not imposed by one person. But I don't really think thats necessary as the better way to consensus is discussion combined with some compromise. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise only works if a person compromises. You have not demonstrated that ability; it seems to be YOUR way or no way. (Which is why you keep reverting everything.) You seem unwilling to propose alternate ideas. ---- Theaveng (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of this discussion again if you don't think I can compromise, I came up with what many editors called a decent compromise or second choice. What have you done to work towards a compromise besides spread misinformation as above? --Ray andrew (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If others don't believe that your "compromise" is correct, that is their right, and if they vote against your suggestions, no matter how strongly you feel about it, you should accept the decision. (EDIT) Also, as I stated below, the chart is NOT incorrect. Warner does exclusively support Blu-ray. J.delanoy (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)(EDIT made... J.delanoy (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

I like the blue - purple stripe idea.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, Warner exclusively supports Blu-ray. Whether or not they are slowly phasing out HD DVDs is not relevant. The point is, the studio exclusively backs Blu-ray.
What Rayandrew is asking us to do is make a chart now, and then change it in 6 months, even though no corporate decisions will be made in the intreval, no policies will be changed, and everyone on the internet and the world in general EXCEPT wikipedia will have decided CONCLUSIVELY that Warner is no longer in support of HD DVD. Honestly, I think this is unreasonable to any logical person. (yes, that was intended to be harsh. If Rayandrew cannot accept that a consensus has been reached when the poll OVERWHELMINGLY supported the chart as it is now, he needs to learn that sometimes everything can't be the way he wants it.) J.delanoy (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

maybe Im missing something here.. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. If you are still releasing movies in HD DVD... you are not yet exclusive.. you are planning to be exclusive after a certain date. It sure is relevent... noone is arguing they support blu ray more then HD DVD.. but if they are still making HD DVD's they are not exclusive yet. people seem to be confusing exclusivity with support. The day they no longer sell HD DVD .. is the day they are exclusive. Im all for the transition graph.. but the exclusive graph is just plain incorrect. If I have exclusive rights to sell a widget but other people can sell widgets for a year.. well my rights are not that exclusive are they. There has to be a limit.. damn.. I mean.. Warner could just say in 2 years we will be exclusive.. and that means they are exclusive today because they announced it? that makes no sense. Just like when some editors wanted to add 51gb tri layer to HD DVD as soon as the preliminary specification was announced.. I opposed it. because until it happens .. it is vapor... and not current. There is nothing to say HD DVD does not offer 1 billion dollars for warner to switch back... unlikely of course.. but we are not a crystal ball. The fact is simple. they are still selling AND EVEN RELEASING new HD DVD movies.. that.. is NOT exclusive. It is intending on becoming exclusive.. that is the real world for you.. not a press release. -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You really think WB's going to change their minds between now and June 1? Do you really think WB might say, "Ya know. We were wrong. We've decided to continue releasing both Bluray and HD DVD, even though we previously said we are selecting Bluray exclusively." That will happen the day California stops having earthquakes.

One other point: The chart doesn't say what they have published. It says what POLICY each corporation is following. WB's stated policy is that they are Bluray exclusive from this point forward (thus leading everyone to say Bluray has won). WB will finished whatever HD DVD projects are already in progress, but after they are freed from their contract, they will no longer sell a single HD DVD. Their policy is clear: Bluray all the way. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I believe is irrelevent...as wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor do I have one. it goes by what is ACTUALLY happening today..an no. the policy is they are selling both until the june 1 then exclusive to blu ray.. regardless of the reason why they are doing it. You can't say Im exclusivly supporting the baby Jesus.. but Im going to have satanic rituals and sacrafice small animals until june 6th...because I told my other satanists I would  :) seriously though.. the policy (regardless of the reason) is to sell and continue to make money off HD DVD for the next 6 months. by doing so...they are supporting it (more movie selections etc..) regardless of how how its spun. when they are not selling anymore then they are exclusive -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough

Not again. Compromise was reached Ray: a large and very reasonable group of people concluded that the image should show Warner/New Line as Blu-ray exclusive. Perhaps it's time to let the issue go and move on to something else? And a quick counter point: while Wikipedia may not be a democracy, it is also not an anarchy (see WP:NOT if you're in disbelief). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No disbelief here, I am not trying to create anarchy, just trying to carry on a debate. While I may be the most vocal editor opposed to the current chart, I am not the only one who is raising objections. The following editors have also raised objections: JayKeaton, Crossmr, Tracer9999, Proctor spock, Squiggleslash. Thats six editors including myself, is your "majority" willing to ignore our objections? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that polls on Wikipedia are not binding and do not overrule Wikipedia policies such as WP:Crystal_Ball JayKeaton (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:Crystal_Ball have to do with anything? That policy has to do with unverifiable future events. Warner's dropping of support for HD-DVD is verifiable, and it's already happened. Almost every single new story that has covered the Warner switch has explicitly stated that Warner is dropping support for HD-DVD, and this image is under the section "Studio Support". Even when the stories discuss the fact that they will still be releasing HD-DVDs for a few more months, they make it clear that it's simply residual from earlier agreements. Cogswobbletalk 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a crystal ball. It's not prognostication. It's WB telling us exactly what they have decided. It's no different than George Bush saying, "I will not run again for president." Might he change his mind, ignore the constitution, declare martial law, and run anyway? Sure. Anything is possible. ---->Nevertheless the article about George Bush states that this IS his last term as president, because any REASONABLE person knows that Bush won't be running again. George Bush told us exactly what he is doing. Warner Brothers told us exactly what they are doing. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But on a chart showing presidential status, wouldn't the Bush color be different than, say, Bill Clinton's: "Transitioning to ex-president" vs. "Ex-president" Barte (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that polls on Wikipedia are normal, and pretty much guaranteed when a small number of editors attempt to ignore consensus to push their POV. Please also note that while WP:NOT may be policy, it is up to us, as editors, to interpret policy. Obviously if the editors who supported showing WB/NL as Blu-ray exclusive felt we were in fact violating WP:NOT they wouldn't have supported it. But they did.. so there you go. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it is currently phrased with stated preferences is entirely accurate and presents a NPOV of support. When Paramount and Dreamworks dropped Blu-ray there was no graph but the chart they were listed on moved them under HD DVD completely with an asterisk only showing past support. This was in spite of many of their films being available to own on blu-ray and in fact many are still available to purchase right now. If you want an "asterisk" to show Warner will honor their pre-CES release schedule then fine. But their support is for Blu-ray and there's no equal balance to their support remaining. 65.13.151.42 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray, you're engaging in what amounts to a filibuster, an attempt to continue debate without end and all the while maintain the original status quo. You'll forgive me if I won't willingly fall in to that trap. Every concern, every concern you've raised has already been raised. Raising them again doesn't change the fact that nobody seems to care! You, your sock puppet, and a handful of other editors do not get to magically ignore consensus. Ignoring consensus and revert warring just got the pages protected, meaning everything that could be updated with these articles is being held up because you're throwing a tantrum over the chart. And I refuse to participate in any further "debate" or "discussion" with you except to state again, emphatically that I think the chart showing Warner/NL being Blu-ray exclusive is the correct chart to show readers. Now I'd like to get on with editing other parts of the article and updating it with pertinent information unrelated to that chart. But your actions now keep me (and other editors) from doing that. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke you are engaging in what amounts to strawman argument. Polls are normal but they are also non binding, otherwise we could have all sorts of crazy polls that could potentially break official policy. And this talk page isn't the correct area to dispute policy. Locke you said on this talk page that "safely declare HD DVD dead", which would not at all be in accordance with wikipedia policy. "Officially declaring HD DVD dead" on an article would be an amateurish and a newbie move. The facts are that the chart is meant to reflect "Major US film distributors' format policy [for releases inside the US]" and what are Warner doing with HD DVD until June? They sure do have a weird way of exclusively not supporting a format by selling movies on it for six more months and advertising that same format on their website >_> JayKeaton (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of this chart, I've said all I have to say. Feel free to beat the drum some more, but my opinion remains unswayed and my points still stand. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD Because Ray Andrew insists on bringing me up every time he tries to defend his illogical standpoints, I need to make my view crystal clear for everyone. I do not care if the present chart or the striped chart goes in the article. HOWEVER, I do think that the present chart is the most accurate as Warner has abandoned HD DVD whether Ray Andrew or anyone else says otherwise. I do not have a problem with the striped chart if that was the chart that won the poll. BUT, the present chart has clearly won the poll and Ray Andrew is the only hold-out who refuses to accept the decision of the Wikipedia community. And for the record Ray, you ARE creating an anarchy here. (Webster's dictionary 3rd Edition: "Anarchy: n, pl. -chies (1) The complete absence of government. (2) Political disorder and violence; lawlessness. (3) Disorder in any sphere of activity.") Please note the first half of the second definition and the entire third definition. Whether you wish to deny it or not, those are perfect descriptions of what you are doing. I do not support, condone, or in any way abet your actions. (btw, I'm not a lawyer) My opinion as of now is that a decision has been made and I will abide by and support that decision and I will remove my name from your "list" if you use it again. (and that is not anarchy, it is preserving my good name) Thingg (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for including you In my list, I did note that you did have some objections at the beginning of the discussion. Your name has been removed. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone be so vehemently opposed to updating the chart, even with asterisks and disclaimers? I'd be willing to wager that those who have reverted it and are blocking its update are early adopters of HD DVD and are unwilling to allow the portrayal of anything that might illustrate the format's inviability in the market. Fear that such an illustration on Wikipedia might influence readers to instead adopt Blu-ray Disc must be very gripping when people have invested their hundreds of dollars on hardware and discs in addition to the emotional attachment in spending time and energy promoting HD DVD by word of mouth, on message boards, and even on Wikipedia. Editors who feel this way should stop and ask themselves if attempting to suppress the chart is consistent with WP:NPOV. Those in favor of including the chart have been more than willing to include asterisks and disclaimer text right next to it explaining that WB will continue releasing on HD DVD through the end of May. We're concerned with presenting facts here, not engaging in preserving one's personal interests in format wars. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.. well I for one am probably the last person who would be referred to as a HD DVD fanboy...If you look at my talk page half of my comments are Ray Andrew telling me Im wrong from reverting his opinions. He would prob tell you Im a blu-ray fan boy.. And I do probably lean towards blu ray as the best format tech wise.... that doesn't change the fact that the graph as displayed is wrong as warner cannot be "exclusive" if they are still releasing HD DVD movies. do not confuse support for exclusivity.. Warner is exclusive to blu ray.. at the end of MAY. as for those who don't want an incorrect graph to be up, they have every right to thier opinion.. wikipedia NOT says

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of Consensus?

Wikipedia clearly states that consensus does NOT mean total agreement. You can still have one or two stubborn holdouts who refuse to "play nice" ("some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate outside the law."), and yet still have overall consensus within the group. That's what we have here. 95% of the people like the chart as is... there are one or two bullies in the playground who are unreconciled/operating outside the law, and keep reverting everything. Nevertheless we still have consensus. ----- It only takes 75% of the States to add a permanent change to the United States' Supreme Law; you don't need 100%. Likewise, you don't need 100% on wikipedia to reach consensus on a change. Those who insist you do are pushing forward a logical fallacy that is contrary to Wiki's stated rules. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you will find that only 11 people voted for the result there, so if there are two "bullies" that are playground (or whatever you were mumbling about), that still only makes 84 percent of people who like the chart as is. Or maybe there are 5 people that don't like the chart as is, that means only 68 percent agree. And since that chart was put up the caption was recently changed from "format support" to "declared format support" to "format policy" and then finally "stated preference as of 1/2008" was added to it. How could anyone possibly know what they were really voting for when the caption of that chart keeps changing? Is the chart showing current format support? Is it showing current release policy? Is it showing how releases stand right now, how they stand in six months time or what has been "stated preference" in six months time? Is the cart showing actual release formats right now or is it reflecting actual release formats in a 20th of a decade from now? It's hard to tell because some people keep changing the caption in an attempt to try and fit the chart into their own bias. Those same people have admitted that they just want to see HD DVD "declared dead" and they aren't interested in making it factual like saying "as of June 2008". They just want that chart as blue as possible while damning the facts that get in the way of that blue. It is them that are the bullies, they want that chart a certain way and to hell with the facts and what is best for wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

False, false, and false. Several of "those people" have stated they would be happy to change the WB blue to a WB blue/red stripe (or an asterisk that says "effective 6/2008). To categorize them as unwilling to modify the graph is to lie. ----- I would be happy to modify the graph myself to a purple/blue stripe if I knew how to edit SVG images (which unfortunately does not work in Paint). Which is what OTHER people should have been doing (people like Ray Andrew) rather than erasing the chart from all existence. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry If I knew before that all I had to do to instate a compromise was learn how to edit the image, I would have done so by now. Unfortunately I am not that good at it, but I will give it a try.--Ray andrew (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue and purple, please. Not blue and red. Barte (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed.. blue-purple -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am editing the image right now, but I can't figure out how to overlay blue stripes on the purple background. It's quite puzzling. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't create stripes, so I came-up with a compromise image where "dark blue" represents WB's transition from Neutral to Blu-ray. It's already been uploaded and should appear in the article shortly. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking too. So if your ready for a good chuckle take a look at my best attempt on the right. Thats why be need some help from the original images maintainer. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're out of luck. I'm the image's original maintainer and I don't know how to do SVG stripes either. --Harumphy (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One can look at Warner's announcement and come to (at least) a couple of perfectly legitimate conclusions. 1) Warner has changed its policy. It will no longer support HD DVD. The pie chart is about studio support policies. Ergo, Warner's slice of the pie should be blue. 2) Warner is still supporting both formats through May. It even says so on the Warner Videos home page. The pie chart is about deeds, which are more tangible than words. Ergo, Warner's slice should be striped. I think it fair to say that the majority of participants here have settled on #1 (including me). But some editors prefer #2, and some additional number (including me) think that'd work too. What doesn't work is to gaze over your trench and conclude that the opposition is biased, narrow minded and/or stupid; that it is contaminated with rabid fanboys, apologists and propagandists. Do that, and you'll be spinning your wheels; it'll be jury duty without the stipend. Life is too short. Barte (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ergo ergo ergo, a striped chart with a notation would be much better than what is up there now. It would also be accurate, because it is not our job to come to "conclusions" no matter how "perfect" they seem to you. Calling a fellow editor "stupid" or "narrow minded". I just want the truth, as it is easily reported, to be shown on here. "Spinning wheels, apologists, propagandists, deeds (!?!), stipend"... no offense mate, but most of what you said was incomprehensible jargon and spin. On a thread like this is it so hard to accept that there will be a high level of bias? I don't have time for bias, it's just more work for the same outcome which is that facts and reliable sources need to be posted. And what was even the point of the chart if it is just going to be later renamed to reflect what certain editors want it to reflect? The renaming of the chart was going on even while that poll above was active too. It doesn't take good faith to accept that there is bias in here, it just takes common sense and at least one working eye to see it. JayKeaton (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The poll options were quite clear. Do you want all Blue WB slice. A striped WB slice. An all red WB slice. Et cetera, et cetera. There was no reason to feel the poll was confusing. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

well that and the fact it was never posted on the HD DVD or BLU RAY talk pages...so basically it was just for people who edit the comparisons page.. even though everyone wants it to be binding on the other article pages too. and only 48 hours at that.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

False. Not "everyone" wants it to be binding on the Disc specific articles. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue or purple in the pie section suggests no HD DVD involvement at all. The extra colour needs to be RED, not purple or a darker blue. A blue pie with small spaced out red pinstripes through it or something if you have to, but the extra colour in there definitely needs to be red for HD DVD involvement. JayKeaton (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Created a chart with Dark Blue to represent WB

Done. I couldn't create stripes, so I came-up with a compromise image where "dark blue" represents WB's transition from Neutral to Blu-ray (neutral/purple mixed with bluray/blue creates dark blue). It's already been uploaded and should appear in the article shortly. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is New Line also in transition? Barte (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they were going exclusive immediately. Other then that I think it looks good. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With that caveat, this works for me. Interesting, the color scheme is the same as in the "Major Studio support table discussion" above. Barte (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because the image under "Major Studio support table discussion" is automatically updated every time the image changes. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine except New Line should be regular blue due to the already-effective change. Can a chart amended as such be posted on both the Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD pages as well? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. New Line should now appear blue. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Ship it! --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On my display Newline still seems to be a different shade of blue, not the same as warner but not the same as the other. Anyone else seeing this? --Ray andrew (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's slightly darker than the others. It's a minor nitpick, to be sure. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks identical on mine. I'll upload a different version. (later). Okay I uploaded a version that directly samples the Newline color from the blue slices. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Better than stripes.--w_tanoto (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue and dark blue is a little confusing, as there is no purple anywhere else on the chart. It's just throwing in a whole new colour. I sort of imagined blue with red stripes, more like a pin stripe than uniform stripes, or another blobbed colour. Darker blue really is quite confusing, does Warner support Blue Ray more than Sony Pictures even though Warner is printing HD DVDs for the next 6 months? JayKeaton (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I already tried to add stripes and couldn't get it to work, so I came up with this compromise. WB was formerly Neutral purple. Now they are transitioning to bluray blue. Purple mixed with blue creates dark blue. And it clearly states what that color means (transition to Bluray). Don't like it? Then get off your butt, and create a new picture! (laughs). I'm just joking of course.  ;-) ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support this chart. Good work!Pisomojado (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did try and make a suggestion copy of the chart, but I'm really skilled enough in adobe to know how to import that kind of image (colours are all wrong when I tried to open it, some kind of school boy error on my behalf), let alone make a visually appealing image. I have to say that I am impressed with Thingg's image below. What do you think? JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

An [Economist] article datelined today has its own version of the chart. Color-coded by "format allegiance", it shows Warner/New Line as a single slice with 19.7% U.S. market share, striped black (HD DVD) & blue (Blu-ray). The lead paragraph reads in part: "On January 4th Warner Bros, a big Hollywood studio that had backed both HD DVD and the rival standard, Blu-ray, said it would drop its support for HD DVD from June 1st. This tips the balance decisively in favour of the Blu-ray camp (see chart)." Barte (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"short window" not in all cases apparently

Well it looks like for some titles there wont even be a "short window" (the phrase used in warner's press release) between the Blu-ray and HD DVD release. Details for the upcoming release of Twister on May 6 were just released, including the fact that both formats will have the same release date. [15] --Ray andrew (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is no surprise. Most of these movies are already in the studio, being compressed & cleaned for HD DVD format. WB is not going to just drop the project and lose all those labor hours. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Twister is probably an exception to the rule, as it is running up against the date that Warner will cease HD DVD distribution. Having said that, Warner hasn't given any hard dates for the delays they will place on HD DVD releases just yet. It could be they won't actually delay them, or it is could end up that these titles never actually ship. It would appear that the language of their contract with the HD DVD PRG prevents them from canceling announced titles while the contract is still in force. However, there could be a loophole to this clause in that they could just delay, delay, delay, until after June 1. Judging from the negative reaction many consumers felt towards the nonchalant way Paramount canceled all their Blu-ray titles overnight last year, I would be surprised if they did this. However, until some of the new Warner HD DVD titles start showing up, we won't know for sure. 132.170.161.3 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Warner is starting to clarify the delays, based on some release date changes on Amazon.com. New releases, starting with 'The Invasion', appear to be getting delayed 3 weeks from the day and date releases on DVD and Blu-ray. It is still unclear if catalog releases, such as 'Twister' and 'Bonnie and Clyde', will be delayed at all. 70.119.37.244 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner has now stated that all newly released movies will have a 3 week delay compared to there Blu-Ray and DVD equivalents. Warner HD DVD catalog titles release dates are unaffected. http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Release_Date_Changes/Warner/Warner_Outlines_HD_DVD_Separation_Plan_Delays_Invasion,_Jesse_James_HD_DVDs/1364 JBC1468 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner now is delaying all titles, including catalog titles. [16] This includes 'Twister', which will now be released on HD DVD on May 27, 4 days before WArner stops all HD DVD distribution. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they? WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A blue and purple image

File:HighDefShare3.svg

File:HighDefShare3.svg

Just a suggestion here. I made this image by using the radialGradiant SVG command to add purple to the graph as some people suggested. If you want some modifications made, please let me know and I will try them out (or, just make the modifications yourself, I still have the original version on my computer so I'm not worried about losing it). Also, I'm not trying to start another argument here, its just an idea. Thingg (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This one is certainly more visually pleasing and gives it more of an artistic/professional look. JayKeaton (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the shading for blue and red used in the chart immediately above, but object to the use of a color that implies Warner Bros.'s announced intention to go Blu-ray Disc exclusive in June is presently in effect. So an even purple shade halfway between the red and blue used is my preference. (This can, of course, become blue on June 1st, provided the announced event takes place.) Purple is good, but it should be even. The transition from releasing Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD to being Blu-ray Disc exclusive takes place between May 31st and June 1st, per the official announcement. Like the beginning of a new year, the event has not taken place until the ball has finished its descent. Unlike the beginning of a new year, the prognostications of a movie studio five months out are uncertain. Although it seems likely this will come to pass, it has not yet. Proctor spock (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the color, the "key" should still say "Transitioning to Blu-ray." Barte (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this one is missing the key for the third colour scheme saying June 1st thing, the little box at the bottom thing. JayKeaton (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to make that. I'll get on it Thingg (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Thingg (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great ^_^ JayKeaton (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it on the actual page--so as to see whether the text would be large enough to be readable. Barte (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I Like it. I personally don't mind the colors in this chart, but if others have objections I might suggest we just use some totally different color (ie, green, orange) for warner. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If text size is an issue two of key boxes could be put on top of each other which would leave a little more room for slightly bigger text. There is a little more white space that could be used before the image becomes cluttered. JayKeaton (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I included a version of the image that is the same size as it will be on the page. After seeing the preview, I noticed that it was quite difficult to read the text so I increased the size of the text slightly and uploaded the present version. I think this version is more than adequate for the page and very adequately demonstrates what is going on in a pleasing and professional way. If anyone has any further issues with the pic, please let me know. I appreciate your help and advice. Thingg (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can read it on my 1680 x 1050, but it'd be nice to have a slightly larger font. Could we get away with fewer words? "Both formats: Blu-ray after June 1, 2008." Barte (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. btw, just so you know why there are 11 (12, I had to fix it again) different versions of this listed on the pic's page and why it takes me a while to get new version up: Wikipedia's software makes the image look slightly different than the software I use to view SVGs. Namely, Wikipedia leaves me less space on each end of the pic, so I have to guess where Wikipedia's limit is as best I can and then upload a different version to make sure. Quite a few times, Wikipedia has formatted my pic incorrectly so I have to go back and try more stuff to get it to look right. Anyway, I hope this pic satisfies your concerns, Barte. (I used font size-"14" for the text on Warner) Thingg (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for doing it. Barte (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a way to do the legend that evens up the spacing / minimizes clutter in the key box area by putting the future exclusivity info on the next line.

[__] Blu-ray  [__] HD DVD  [__] Both
* Blu-ray exclusive on June 1, 2008

An asterisks would need to be added next to the Warner Bros slice. Proctor spock (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a few modifications. Is this version better as far as clutter/cramming goes? (I'm not adamately opposed to doing the asterisk solution, but I'd rather not do it unless we end up with no choice.) Thingg (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks a little better. I still would like to see Warner Bros evenly purple with the corresponding key box saying (just) Both. Then maybe the details could be saved for the caption, so no asterisks would be necessary. Proctor spock (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the key as we have it. The chart should reflect Warner's Jan 4th announcement, which said, Blu-ray exclusive as of June 1st. By contrast, imagine Paramount announcing that it was adding Blu-ray support. That....would be "both." Barte (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also a chart I can get behind.Pisomojado (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to the text. If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they? WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we there yet?

What's the procedure for getting protected articles back to their natural state? Barte (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You can request unprotection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --Ray andrew (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let me just ask: aside from fine-tuning comments on the graph's color for Warner and exact wording of the key, are we beyond the edit war? Or do some editors still adamantly feel that we should be going with the other option--the same color for Warner as others in the Blu-ray camp? I personally believe per WP:NOR that we should be guided by notable secondary sources, and this version of the graph from The Economist, which came out after the poll, persuades me we're on the right track. Barte (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are on the right track. And editors can (and have been) changing the chart picture while the page is protected, anyways. However, I still object to any version of the chart that does not neutrally reflect that Warner Bros. is currently releasing (supporting the release, having a policy of releasing, et cetera) its high definition content in both the Blu-Ray Disc and HD DVD formats. The Economist chart uses equal banding between the two colors it chose to represent HD DVD and Blu-ray. We should similarly be neutral in designating that piece of the chart. Proctor spock (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait until we have buy-off on the chart here before requesting unprotection. (If anyone else is thinks otherwise, feel free.) I have no preference on the color of the slice: the big thing for me is the key. Which reads fine. Barte (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with the chart being presented. Warner is clearly very much Blu-ray exclusive: surgar coating it introduces POV into the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros. will not be Blu-ray exclusive until June 2008 according to their own announcement. Proctor spock (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Says you. Many many sources out there say they're exclusive right now and mention the June 2008 cut off point in passing. It is not for you to decide what is and isn't true, we report what is widely believe and widely known. And what is believed/known by reliable sources is that WB announced they were Blu-ray exclusive the day before CES. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary for this comment say: "nothing has changed, Ray's sock puppet". Please stop personally attacking me, Locke Cole. I am sure Ray andrew does not appreciate it either. I am going to add a warning to your talk page. Proctor spock (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling you what you are (Ray's sock puppet) is not a personal attack. Again: a checkuser request resulted in "likely" that you and Ray are in fact the same person. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being disruptive to the discussion. You have the right to believe he is my sock puppet, but bringing it up in this forum is the wrong way to go about it. I feel that you are doing this simply to discredit me and Proctor Spock, and I don't think that is an appropriate thing to do on Wikipedia. If you disagree with us please stick to the argument and not personal attacks. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If by disruptive you mean I'm injecting reason and sanity into this discussion then yes, I guess I am being disruptive. We had a poll. A choice in that poll garnered wide support, and you (as well as a sock puppet) ignored that support and got the articles protected. Since people would like to be able to edit these articles they are effectively forced to deal with your issue (despite it already being resolved). Do you not see how this is bad? What a bad precedent this sets? Anytime someone wants a change made to the article they can just revert war, get it protected, then effectively force other editors to "compromise" in order to get the ability to edit these articles back? These are bad tactics and should not be encouraged. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

BS Ray. Everyone on this page deserves to know exactly what is happening behind the scenes w/r/t this article. If you HAVE been editing the article using two user ids (in order to get around a block), then everyone needs to be aware of that fact so they can more closely monitor the changes you have made to this Article. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For Locke Cole and others who want to go with Warner in blue: what do you make of the Economist graph? Also: what do you make of the Warner hi-def page that still displays both the HD DVD and Blu-ray logos? Barte (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And one other question for Locke Cole--as as a point of clarification: in the poll, you had listed "One chart, striped exclusive" as a "Second choice; works as a compromise, and is a lot better than having two charts." Have you changed your opinion? Barte (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is absolutely true that Warner isn't blue until June 1st, so it should be represented as both formats with a notation of June 1st. But isn't that what the latest revision is, pie showing both formats? Warner isn't blue, it is both, and the chart sort of shows that it is supporting both (with a notation of June 1st of things may be different) JayKeaton (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed, but I see above in the poll that the consensus view was for a chart with Warner and New Line shown as Blu-ray exclusive. What I see further below it is a small group of editors who edit warred over this article (and others) and got them all protected (thus forcing everyone back in to this discussion despite a consensus having been reached). Call me crazy, but I have absolutely zero respect for people who try to push their POV on others. Wikipedia has a page on just such people: WP:OWN. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The economist graph is one source though: a number of sources have been cited that state Warner is Blu-ray exclusive. I just find it distasteful that the folks who didn't share the majority opinion resorted to edit warring and effectively holding the article hostage to get their way. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke, Warner ISNT yet Blu Ray exclusive. I'm not sure if you understand that or not. Your personal distaste or not, most of us here understand that Warner isn't Blu Ray exclusive until June 1st. JayKeaton (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, what you don't seem to grasp is that this isn't something that's up for interpretation. We use sources who have intepreted the information, and those sources say Warner is Blu-ray exclusive. I know that they will continue to make HD DVD releases through the end of May, but the sources we're using say their exclusivity effectively started with their pre-CES announcement. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are very clear -- Warner Bros is not Blu-ray Disc exclusive until June 2008. This is not something that can be disputed. We can not mislead the reader by including a chart that shows otherwise. Such a chart does not belong on Wikipedia. Proctor spock (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke, at this point you seem to be the only one who is opposed to this compromise. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray, let's see why that might be: could it be because you ignored consensus, revert warred with a sock puppet on the page and got it protected and then basically forced your "compromise" on people? Color me surprised, but what did you expect? People want to edit these articles and you've effectively gotten them held hostage until things settle down (which presumably won't happen until you have your way). And on a side note, I just noticed a few editors who supported the Blu-ray exclusive option in the poll haven't even involved themselves in this discussion: might that be because they're not interested in your compromise? Wouldn't the lack of a comment stating acceptance of your proposal be indicative of a lack of support from those people? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disputed that a consensus had been reached, true I did remove the image ONCE form the page after you proclaimed that consensus had been reached, but that was just my way of noting in the history that there was a dispute. If editors that voted in your poll fail to comment on this compromise, I would take that to mean that they don't really care about this page, nothing further. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's go with "they don't really care about this page". But they did when that poll was ongoing. Now what's happened since then that might lead people to not "really care" about the page? Right, you ignored the consensus view, revert warred, got the pages protected and began to try to push your "compromise" through. Even I almost lost interest in this article after seeing that. Why does your opinion somehow count for more than those editors? When were you awarded the right to ignore other peoples points of view? Do you not understand how fundamentally flawed this discussion is in the wake of a revert war and page protection? Especially when we'd JUST discussed the topic not 24 hours earlier? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke you still don't understand. I don't care if you can find a source that says Blu Ray discs are made from donkey balls, the fact is that Warner is not and will not be exclusive until 6 months from now. It is a smack in the face fact, there is no other way around it! JayKeaton (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing some heavy filtering here, but Locke Cole has affirmed above ("my opinion hasn't changed") that "One chart, striped exclusive" remains for him an acceptable second choice. Is there anyone else who adamantly believes otherwise--that Warner's color should match those in the Blu-ray camp. In the interest of getting the article unprotected, I'd like to nail down this larger point, even as we work out the rest of the details. Barte (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lockes assertion that Warner is NOW Blu Ray exclusive is incorrect. We all know it is incorrect, Warner are not and will not be exclusive until June, why are we still even talking about this? JayKeaton (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros: "We are phasing out HD DVD."

HD DVD Fanboy: "Warner Bros supports HD DVD!"

WB is, as of right now (NOW), Blu-Ray exclusive. They have withdrawn all support from HD DVD. It's not something they're thinking of maybe doing sometime in the future. It is something they have actually done, and it made the papers around the world. The remaining titles they will release on HD DVD are strictly a combination of momentum and contractual obligation and do not constitute support.Pisomojado (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They are releasing on both formats, supporting HD DVD either out of choice or because of their contract which says they must support it. If they are contracted to support it until June then they are supporting it. Simple! And by your logic non of them should be on that list because in 20 years form now no one will be supporting Blu Ray (they will be support protein holographic downloads or summat). They are supporting HD DVD until June, they are contracted supporters until June. JayKeaton (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And a quote from Locke 'Many many sources out there say they're exclusive right now", mate your sources lied to you. Warner are not exclusive until June. And there are a million sources out there saying they are doing both formats until June, I haven't see one that says only Blu Ray. JayKeaton (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite any reservations expressed here, Pisomojado has endorsed the latest modifications to the chart (see above). So unless someone posts here threatening an edit war, maybe we can move ahead on requesting that the article be unprotected. To paraphrase: "If anyone present objects to this pie chart color scheme, speak now or forever hold your peace." Barte (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I endorse this chart per se, but I'll vote yes to just about any chart to get this lame argument over with. Chart, chart, chart, chart, chart. I'm sick of it.Pisomojado (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My objection is below. Proctor spock (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, it's not for you to decide whether a source is correct or incorrect, that's original research, and not welcome here. The fact remains that reliable sources have said WB is Blu-ray exclusive. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Objections to pie chart Image:HighDefShare3.svg?

File:HighDefShare3.svg

Since we don't seem to really be accomplishing anything in the above sections, lets try this. Does anyone have any objections to the chart at the right being included in the article? If you do, please speak up and voice your concerns. If no one voices objections within a reasonable amount of time (say 18-24 hours), someone could request that this page be unblocked. I feel this pic is an accurate representation of what is going on at the present time. Namely, that while Warner is Blu-ray exclusive, they will still be releasing in both formats until June. This fact is clearly shown in the chart and the key, and I can guarentee you that readers will read the key to find out why Warner's "piece is different. I feel this is probably the best compromise we will come up with, and though some parties will not be completely satisfied, I hope we can come to a consensus about this article because this argument is getting really old and pointless. So again, if anyone has objections to the chart, please post now. Also, for the record, I personally don't care what the chart looks like, I just think this chart is the best way to end this war. Thingg (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to a pie chart color scheme where the colors do not show Warner Bros's presently releasing its high definition content on both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc. That is the present state of things. Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot introduce the future into a graph that must be about the present. I do not object to a footnote that details the announcement about Warner Bros's future intention. I think it might be better to leave the footnote out of the chart and put it in the caption instead. While the psychedelic purple with blue color is attractive, I think it is misleading (though less misleading than using dark blue as the color to represent Warner Bros). The color should be purple, an even shade half way between the blue and red used, because Warner Bros is doing both today. Proctor spock (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to the text. If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they? WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. I prefer the wording I used: "Neutral; transitioning to Blu-ray" which is exactly what is happening. WB is pushing Blu-ray, and pushing Blu-ray hard, while leaving HD DVD three weeks delayed. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, some reliable, third-party published sources for the claim you are making need to be produced. Also, as I explain below, such a delay is a minor show of favoritism. Proctor spock (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikis work by collaboration. So in that spirit, could you, Proctor spock, try your hand at the graph? I know that means you need to understand the tools, but it shouldn't fall on Thingg's shoulders to do all the versioning.

And a question: assuming the same level of agreement, can we work together on this without entering into an edit war? Ordinarily, these issues would be discussed without having to lock up the entire article. Barte (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also a side note Proctor, Locke Cole did a poll on this subject and the idea of having Warner labeled as "Both" did not receive a single vote, but a proposal to have Warner as "halfway" between both and Blu-ray brought no objection, though more people said they would rather have Warner labeled as BD exclusive. However, when the poll concluded and the image was changed to Warner being BD exclusive, an edit war erupted and here we are now. This pic was my attempt to show that while Warner is officially Blu-ray exclusive, they will be releasing HD DVDs until June. Also, as Barte said, you are free to modify the image as much as you want. If you want to get at the source code for it, just right-click the pic and select "Save picture as..." Then, open the file in a text-editing program such as Notepad. If you do not know how to use SVGs, try looking at http://w3schools.com/svg/default.asp . This is not a complete tutorial, and some knowledge of HTML/CSS and XML would definately help, but it does give a pretty good idea of how SVGs work. Thingg (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment of the vote. Still, voting is no substitute for discussion. My objections to the chart are well-founded and based on Wikipedia principles of neutral point of view and not predicting the future. Wish I had seen your comment earlier. I have tried downloading Inkscape twice (56k connection) and it stalled both times 45 minutes in. Text edit, here we come. Proctor spock (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Oh, and I forgot to mention that you have to make sure you save the file as ".svg" instead of the default ".txt". (in Notepad, select "All files" in the drop-down box and type "your pics name.svg" in the textbox. Then save it.) If you don't have another program that can view it, the website I mentioned above has a link to a plug-in for Internet Explorer that allows you to view .svg files that are on your computer. If you use that plugin though, you should be aware that Wikipedia allows less space on the right-hand side than the program will show that you have. Thingg (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended up using Firefox's view source command on the image and copied the text to my editor. The key boxes could stand to have better spacing, but overall this version shows the present state of things as neutrally as I know how. The information about the June 2008 transition announcement would go in the article caption for this image. Proctor spock (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way but a chart like that already existed [17], in the future try looking through the history of an image by clicking it and looking at the previous versions by clicking on the revision date/time. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have thought of that. At least now I know more about .svg and uploading files to Wikipedia than before, so it wasn't a total loss. Proctor spock (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The announcement of WB's intentions was clear, right? To me, their stated intent is more important than the fact that they happen to be in a state of transition at this particular moment. Friday (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed clear enough to me, and at any rate, how secondary sources handled the news was also pretty clear: most in the media said Warner Bros had gone Blu-ray exclusive. The transition was mentioned only in passing. How much discussion does this really need? Look above for discussion and a lengthy poll to try and settle things. Unfortunately a small group of editors is absolutely dead set against moving on from this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The announcement about Blu-ray exclusivity is about the future, while the announcement (same announcement) about HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc continuing to be the release format now is about the present. The reliable media sources, as I have previously dissected on this talk page, include the full details of the announcement. That is, the exclusivity is a future event (an announced intention) and releasing on both is a present event (it is happening now). The chart needs to neutrally show what is happening now, not in some unknown future that has not yet come to pass. Proctor spock (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this picture is the closest we can get to a compromise. However, I still don't agree that Warner is not blu-ray exclusive. Paramount is only HD DVD exclusive until January, 2009, and no one has a problem with the picture showing them as red. The issue here is that certain people are unwilling to accept that Warner is dumping HD DVD. I do not think that there is any objective way to get Proctor Spock and Co. to see this fact, so the chart by Thingg is probably the best we can come up with. J.delanoy (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't actually need to compromise just to please editors who are taking an unreasonable position. Friday (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but how can we force them to be reasonable?J.delanoy (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:DIS: "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians". Ignoring consensus and continually reverting something that's been agreed upon on the talk page is grounds for blocking. It's an extreme solution, but it's the only one that will probably work short of simply giving in.. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

~sigh~ Well, I tried to fashion a compromise... Again, I personally don't care what the chart looks like, I just thought we could all be at least partially satisfied with this one, but apparently that's not the case. Anyway, thanks for the support/suggestions Barte. Thingg (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that I will accept the compromise, but I won't like it because it does not display the truth about the situation. J.delanoy (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Thingg. At this point, I don't care what the chart looks like--because I think there are reasonable arguments for both cases. And at this point (reversing myself), I'm also fine with no chart at all. I got interested in editing this article because I think it is one of the best one-stop-shop HD format comparisons on the Web. But as time passes and the information here grows obsolete, that will cease to be the case.Barte (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How many legs does a horse have?

And this is exactly what I feared: never ending debate, or debate that eventually gives in due to a desire to get back to editing the article. This is not the way to reach consensus or write an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if a skilled surgeon announces he is going to add a fifth leg to the horse next month, we do not say the horse has five legs today. Proctor spock (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but in this case, the surgeon has already performed the operation and announced it to the public. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros. is not releasing exclusively on Blu-ray today. The announcement to the public is that they intend to do this beginning June 1, 2008. Right now, Warner Bros. is releasing on both HD DVD and Blu-ray. These are basic and simple facts that the chart should not contradict, because to do so would be to lie. Proctor spock (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "I insist upon stripes!" "It's too purple!" "I won't sign off without asterisks!" "Needs more fine print!" FFS, people. As long as the WB slice is unique and notes the 6/1 change to Blu-ray only, it's good enough. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem though, the minority view has overcomplicated this by insisting on additional notes, etc. The simple fact is, in the poll, a majority of editors who work on this article chose the option with WB shown as Blu-ray exclusive in the graph. And that's all we needed to decide. Instead two editors chose to ignore consensus, disrupt the article, and push their POV on the other editors while the article was protected. I don't think tactics like this should be rewarded. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Making Warner Bros. blue or dark blue in the chart is not accurate and it is not neutral. Proctor spock (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is what Wikipedia operates on. That poll showed clearly that there was consensus. And also from WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an anarchy as you would seemingly like it to be. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming I want anarchy is another personal attack. As before, I ask you again, to please stop it. Proctor spock (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind your history there was more then two editors that objected, and for the record I agree with Cheseminster, as long as WB is different its good enough for me. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we done here, then? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am entirely satisfied with the image that Thingg has made above. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

~applauds~ Yeah Cheesemeister and Ray andrew!!! Finally some people who have their heads on straight. And now, back to our regularly scheduled program of insanity........ C'mon guys, can't both sides give a little for the good of the community? This isn't about beating the other person in an argument or picking apart Warner's announcment for all its hidden values. There are hundreds of blogs and forums out there where you can do that. this is about building the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world. As with any compromise, pretty much no one will be completely satisfied, but based on your thoughts, it appears that everyone will be at least partially satisfied with my proposed chart. I just can't understand why both sides can't give a little and accept a compromise. </rant> here's hoping that three's (tries) the charm... Thingg (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm close. Can someone look at this :Image:HighDefShare5.svg [see image to right] and see if they know how to fix the 0x0 thumbnailing WP has done. (If you click HighDefShare5.svg‎ on that page, it will show what I uploaded.) Proctor spock (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its fixed. (I added the extra ":" because I'm pretty sure you didn't mean for a 460 px pic to be in the middle of your comment.) Thingg (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fixed. Thanks! Proctor spock (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the rant. Barte (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I third it. (if that's possible...) I agree that Thingg's image is a good characterization of the present state of Warner's support. J.delanoy (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this one, with Warner Bros green, a neutral color in this conflict, work? Proctor spock (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because it doesn't accurately reflect what our sources tell us: Warner Bros. is Blu-ray exclusive. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll mind my history as soon as you mind yours: the only two editors who removed the image from the page after consensus was reached in the poll are you (Ray andrew) and your sock puppet Proctor spock. Nobody else removed the image. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about personal attacks. Please stop them. Warner Bros is not Blu-ray exclusive. That future event has not occurred, although it has been scheduled. Proctor spock (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And you have been told, it's not a personal attack. All the invalid warnings in the world won't stop me from pointing out that you're a sock puppet of Ray andrew. Heck, the guy who pointed that out to you even pointed out how flimsy your position was about using the WB web page as a source: here. Primary sources are not used on Wikipedia. Reliable secondary sources almost all say WB is exclusively Blu-ray. These are the indisputable facts. Do you understand? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As already discussed above during your poll, the reliable, third-party published sources presented say Warner Bros is not Blu-ray exclusive until June 1, 2008. Proctor spock (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean after you declared consensus like a dictator? Face it you did the wrong thing by doing a poll without proper discussion and planning. Lets get past it and talk about how to move forward. Why are you so opposed to Thingg's chart? And if your just going to come back with insults, perhaps you should just vanish (like you claimed you would long ago) because it is very disruptive to this discussion. --Ray andrew (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Like a dictator? A poll to see where people stood was conducted. A very easy to see consensus had formed. The poll was closed after a reasonable time. I started the poll after consensus had been reached in the discussion and it was ignored. I started the poll because an editor (read: you) did not believe there was consensus. And even after being shown there was consensus, you and your sock puppet edit warred on the article page, resulting in it being protected. Your conduct here and in this discussion are ridiculous. Now, I'm warning you: do not make personal attacks on me again as you did with the "vanish" comment. I've chosen to return to Wikipedia to edit, and that's my business, not yours. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole, you have initiated a suspected sock puppet case here. The case is not yet completed. So Wikipedia has not yet said Ray andrew and I are sock puppets of each other. I am sorry about what another editor said, but you are not free to attack us that way. You can quote the outcome of the checkuser case you requested when you were removing information about triple-layer HD DVD's from the HD DVD article and I was trying to restore the information. But it is not particularly relevant, both because Ray andrew and I are not the same person, and it does not aid discussion. Proctor spock (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It aids the discussion because outing a known sock puppet that is being used to manipulate the debate might have kept people from trying to compromise with one person. Instead, regrettably, people bought that you two were distinct editors and now we've got something that the original consensus view did not support. Ray, please stop using a sockpuppet to manipulate discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'Round and 'round we go! Make it stop! --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Round and round we go because one editor and his sock puppet couldn't be bothered to respect consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Round and round we go because one person who said they would vanish did not. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My choice, over a year and a half ago to quit Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your use of sock puppets on the other hand does. Stop wiki stalking me immediately. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

None of this even matters. Warner aren't Blu Ray exclusive until June 1st. Even my grandmother knows that. Here is a source to say they are not exlusive until "effective June 1, 2008". [18]. Forbes said it, I don't know if Forbes is a trusted source (you never know what is gonna be good enough for Locke), but I can find similar sources for every single media outlet on Earth, if you like. Warner are not exlusive until effective June 2008. Haven't we given this Locke guy enough of our time already, haven't we humored him enough already? He seems adamant that (and I quote) "many sources out there say they're exclusive right now and mention the June 2008 cut off point in passing", but that is categorically not true, as I have shown you. They are not exclusive until June. Locke, mate, you cannot choose how to "interpret" news, or choose to ignore facts "in passing" just because they are an inconvenient truth for you. They are not exclusive and will not be until June, that is all there is to it. JayKeaton (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, because numerous sources were quoted during the poll saying Warner was exclusive the day before CES. So which is it? Were those sources wrong? As for all this being held up because of me: get it right. Ray andrew and his sock puppet Proctor spock are the only reason we had to go over this again. It was settled and dealt with long ago, but one editor who simply cannot deal with having things different from how he wants them chose to hold this article hostage. Don't misrepresent the situation again, please. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plumber: "I've cut off your water supply."

HD DVD Fanboy: "Hey, everyone! There's still water in the pipe! Look how wet it is!!"

A phase-out does not constitute support, no matter what you'd prefer to believe. Warner Bros. withdrawal from HD DVD is unequivocal.Pisomojado (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to the text. If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they? WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult Studio Support - Digital Playground drops HD DVD for Blu-Ray

A change to the Adult Studio support section - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pocketli/20080108/ttc-another-studio-drops-hd-dvd-over-blu-57dbc65.html JBC1468 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe this was added to the article but was removed by Petertorr employee of Microsoft who claimed it was false. The problem is him is that this was reported via Yahoo, Tgdaily and other sources. I say where there is smoke there is fire. The source for HD DVD seems to be biased as well. I think we should correct this article to the current state of the reporting. --Kibbled bits (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Toshiba's woe's hit another low point with the announcement that another movie studio..." Where's the announcement? That's the cite. Barte (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany's Constantin Film AG drops HD DVD, goes Blu-ray only

A change to the European independents section -

"BERLIN — Constantin Film, Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib, is following suit in the wake of Warner Bros. decision to go with the Blu-ray format.

Up until now, Constantin had supported both HD DVD and the Blu-ray technology, but as of March 1, new releases will be appearing solely in Blu-ray."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978808.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/101667

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/11/germanys-constantin-film-ag-drops-hd-dvd-goes-blu-ray-only/

Denzelio (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Region codes not exactly mandatory

The disc comparison table implies that the 3 Region codes are mandatory (that's how I read it at least), but even at the Blu-Ray wiki, "Blu-ray discs may be encoded with a region code,..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Region_codes), and the last sentence states "As of early 2008, about two-thirds of all released discs were region-free." and provides a link to http://www.blu-raystats.com/. So maybe the "Table Comparing the High-definition Optical Media Formats" needs to be updated to reflect this, maybe with a footnote stating 2/3s of all released discs were region free? Open to suggestions. JBC1468 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how its misleading, just like DVD, Blu-ray has the "feature" of region coding, and just like DVD its use is optional. --Ray andrew (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the region code even supported in the 1.3 standard? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is I believe (assuming the "1.3" you refer to is the Bonus View or Final Standard Profile). But I wonder if NPOV is satisfied by only noting that Blu-ray supports it, even if 2/3 of all released titles don't actually use it (as opposed to DVD, where the vast majority of titles were region locked). Kind of like saying "Guns kill people" in an article on firearms, but not noting that many firearms never see use. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure an analogy to firearms is particularly relevant to a discussion of high definition optical disc formats. I agree with Ray andrew that the table accurately describes the region codes for each format. Proctor spock (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an analogy, but the logic holds. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. Proctor spock (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the analogy but am not sure if that's the best analogy. However, I get the point. I'm just trying to point out that this "feature" may be seen as a good thing by (some) studios and a bad thing by end-customers so I'm not sure how it'd hurt to footnote with an "e" stating that in practice, the region codes are more often not used than used or something to that effect. This comes up because, like Locke Cole pointed out, DVD nearly always uses there DVD region codes, unlike Blu-Ray's practices. JBC1468 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Objections to pie chart Image:HighDefShare5.svg?

Behold Image:HighDefShare5.svg.

• Is there anyone besides Locke Cole who objects to it?'
• If yes, are you ready to engage in an edit war over it - thereby assuring the article's continued protected status? Barte (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very silly to worry about modifying a chart like this for a temporary transitional period. WB has chosen Blu-ray, why drag this out? Friday (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer #2, as well. Thanks. Barte (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so now my opinion doesn't count? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I gather from your remarks above that you object to the chart. (If I'm incorrect about that, I further apologize.) So I'm wondering whether anyone else does, as well. And, not to be remiss, I should also ask you: if you do object to the chart, are you prepared to carry out an edit war.....per question #2. Thank you. Barte (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't say yes or no to the edit war, but look at the original poll. Look at how many editors voiced their support for the original consensus view, and look at how few have returned to comment on this forced revival of the discussion by Ray and his puppet. Personally, I'd be hesitant to just ignore their opinion. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors who supported the original consensus view, I appreciate your response here. Thanks. Barte (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had voted in the original poll (opting for a blu-ray exclusive Warner as scheduled events do not violate Crystal), but Showing WB in a more neutral colour has my support as the alternative option. I had not returned as I saw the poll was closed with consensus and believed the matter to be resolved - how wrong I was. Please bear in mind, that although several have not returned it does not detract from the weight of their reasons for supporting their preferred option. I hear by endorse this chart as my second preferred option. If it is placed I will not revert it (although I would still prefer a WB blue chart). 03swalker (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner bros are not Blu Ray exlusive until June 1st[19]. This chart is fine, it's better than fine, it's factual so it is perfect. Just print it already! JayKeaton (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this chart is not factual. WB is NON-neutral; they are delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks. They can hardly be called "supporting both", can they? WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. WB is introducing a "don't buy HD DVD" Bias with their three week delay.

Thus I prefer the current wording, "Transitioning from neutral to Blu-ray" because that's exactly what WB is doing. They WERE neutral. Now they are not. They are printing both formats, but trying to discourage HD DVD purchase by deliberately delaying its release, and push Blu-ray as the preferred early-release format. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the third-party, reliable source for the three week delay claim? Even so, three weeks delay by Warner Brothers is not the same as a midway point between HD DVD/Blu-ray and Blu-ray only. It just means Warner Brothers is showing minor favoritism, assuming the three weeks claim can be sourced, to Blu-ray at the moment. Proctor spock (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plumber: "I've cut off your water supply."

HD DVD Fanboy: "Hey, everyone! There's still water in the pipe! Look how wet it is!!"

A phase-out does not constitute support, no matter what you'd prefer to believe. Warner Bros. withdrawal from HD DVD is unequivocal.Pisomojado (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That metaphor is stupid. However to dumb down my explanation for you I'll go with it. Warner wont cut off anything until June 2008. Warner will still be MAKING NEW hd dvds between now and then, they will keep putting water in in the pipe for six months from now. They are supporting hd dvd by continuing to put water in its pipes, they will not stop putting water in the pipes. Besides I have countless sources which say the exclusivity isn't for six months from now.

"The studio's HD DVD releases will continue till May." [20] their source was reuters, you may have heard of them (being the biggest supplier of news in the world). JayKeaton (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't like that, do you? How about this one?

Doctor: "Your major organs are shutting down. You have six months."

HD DVD Fanboy: "Hey everyone! The doctor says that right now, my organs still kinda work! I feel great!"

Everyone: "HD DVD Fanboy, please be reasonable, that's not what the doctor said."

HD DVD Fanboy: "You don't have a crystal ball! You don't have a neutral pov! I'm not an HD DVD Fanboy! I hate all your charts! Change them twenty times! I'm telling Wiki-Mommy! WAH! WAH! WAH! WAH! WAH! WAAAAAAAAAH!"

Pisomojado (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mocking the other side in a dispute rarely helps resolve anything. If people are saying unreasonable things, show why their actual arguments are unreasonable. There's no need to invent fictitious unreasonable arguments- it's a distraction. Friday (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, Friday, I want to agree with you. I'm just so incredibly sick of this lame argument, I want to puke blue lasers. With billions of dollars at stake and passions high, partisan politics and certain individuals with rabid agendas are bowling over good sense. Aren't you sick of thinking about charts?Pisomojado (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All in favor of ending the arguments and using this chart? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye Barte (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Aye. Proctor spock (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nay, there was nothing wrong with the chart we agreed upon originally. Block the edit warriors and the article owners and we can carry on with what we all agreed upon without being forced to endlessly debate what should and shouldn't go in this chart. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about no chart?

If we can't all agree on this one, maybe we should just hang it up until June 1st. Barte (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart is fairly useful. Personally I think there was no need for a new one- the WB situation could have been explained in the caption. But, this one with the green seems fine too. We don't need to all agree. Friday (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PS If I was going to nitpick, I don't like the wording. Instead of saying "supports both" first and then adding "Blu-ray exclusive after June", it should be the opposite. It should say "Blu-ray (HD-DVD still available through May)", putting the emphasis on the most important aspect of this. But, this is a fairly minor complaint. Friday (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel confident about that, I invite you to apply to have the article be unprotected. Meaning you can assure the administrators that another edit war won't ensue. Otherwise, I assume that "fairly useful" is different than--"indispensable". Barte (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT. A chart provides a kind of instant clarity I find indispensable. Any accurate chart is better than no chart. I, for one, think that Friday's solution is an acceptable compromise. Please, let's put an end to this silliness.Pisomojado (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, as long as the chart is accurate, I don't really care what it looks like. However, I don't think simply removing the chart is a good solution. Thingg (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as of my previous comment, we have collectively written 2771 lines of code comprising 30099 words and 164736 charecters since Jan 4 on this talk page. Imagine how much better Wikipedia would be if we could just stop arguing over this and had spent the time writing 30000 words in actual articles... Thingg (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We did agree on one. How about we block the editors who ignored the consensus view and let it end that way? It's far simpler, and gets us past this filibuster they've got going thanks to the article being protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke, there obviously isn't consensus, and the fact is to say that Warner is NOW Blu Ray exlusive or that Warner is now exlusively supporting Blu Ray is a bare faced lie. Just because you keep saying that WB is something, doesn't make it true. You will have to wait 6 months. JayKeaton (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the poll above where consensus was reached. I know you like to ignore that, for whatever reason, but that's what people agreed to prior to Ray andrew and his sock deciding to unilaterally take over the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think that--given we are talking essentially about the shade of a single pie sector--that this would be doable. But when I look at the level level of some of the discourse, I'm not so sure. Anyway, I hereby abandon this idea and vote for any reasonable variation--green, purple, mauve, polka dot, of the chart. But I have changed my original thinking that the sector can be "Blu-Ray blue". The first sentence of the Warner announcement says: "Warner Bros. Entertainment will release its high-definition DVD titles exclusively in the Blu-ray disc format beginning later this year..." That's the core statement, and, reading it, I think it's hard to argue that Warner is already Blu-ray exclusive. (Not that I'd wage an edit war over it.) Barte (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

HighDefShare6.svg

Current and announced release formats v. 2007 US box office share

I've at long last worked out how to do SVG stripes, resulting in this image. I've avoided words like "support" and "exclusivity" which seem to be part of the problem, and just specified the formats and dates. --Harumphy (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck out and 'be bold' and just stick this in the article. --Harumphy (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again I say this is not factual. WB is NON-neutral; they are delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks. WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD. WB is introducing a "don't buy HD DVD" Bias with their three week delay.

Thus I prefer the current wording, "Transitioning from neutral to Blu-ray" because that's exactly what WB is doing. They WERE neutral. Now they are not. They are printing both formats, but trying to discourage HD DVD purchase by deliberately delaying its release, and push Blu-ray as the preferred early-release format. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that just your interpretation of WB's motive for the 3-week delay, or have you got a source? The HighDef-Digest article you cited in the article doesn't say anything of the sort.

Besides, this chart carefully avoids making any claims about Warner's neutrality, support or exclusivity. It just shows the current and announced release formats. That is entirely factual and accurate. Where exactly is the inaccuracy in it? (The caption is important too, not just the image.) --Harumphy (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You need a notable source to interpret Warner's motivation. Barte (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed doubly, and yes, this chart is fine. It tells no lies, it makes no assumptions and it doesn't try to reinterpret facts or sources. It is factual and concise, so unless anyone feels that facts in sources should be "ignored in passing", we should use this one and get on with our lives. JayKeaton (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. There's 2 in favor and 1 against. That's not anywhere near a consensus. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a new section below in a minute and we can do a poll.--Harumphy (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. It worked so well before. (laughs) ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a better idea?--Harumphy (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, just like all the other charts. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This version is a reasonable compromise. How about we leave it in until it looks like there's actually some objection for good reason? I doubt there will be. Friday (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to using stripes of blue for Warner Bros since they should not be colored blue until the day they become Blu-ray exclusive, on June 1st, 2008. Proctor spock (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're objecting because of the color that was used? I don't see this as a very reasonable objection. Friday (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros. should be purple, or a color unrelated to red or blue, for reasons that were discussed ad infinitum on this page. The objection is reasonable. The present chart is tolerable as a compromise for the moment, though reasonable objections still exist. Proctor spock (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see we are still going back and forth between various color schemes. Maybe we should print them all--like a fashion supplement. Barte (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Like all of the other charts, this looks fine. Just stick with this one for stability sake. Roguegeek (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, did you mean to revert away from it? Friday (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT This chart looks fantastic, wonderful, and in all ways splendiferous. End debate and publish!Pisomojado (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This chart looks great thanks for taking the time to make it. --Ray andrew (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone still dispute the neutrality of the picture in the article?

Or can I remove the "neutrality" tag? J.delanoy (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

remove it. the label clearly shows warner current and future stance.--w_tanoto (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Remove it. --Harumphy (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. The matter has been considered ad nauseum. Barte (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider it neutral. But at the moment I am not going to fight it, though I may talk about it. What a difference a day at the mill makes. Proctor spock (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. Neutrality has been established.Pisomojado (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 nielsen number graph

Anyone can upgrade it? I can't change it. 65% to BLU (Week/YTD), and 62% (SI).--w_tanoto (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Harumphy (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This needs updating again. 85% to BLU (Week), 74% (YTD), and 63% (SI) 70.119.37.244 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Semantics

Much of the recent argument boils down to argument about the meaning of individual words, like "support" and " exclusive". Whether or not Warner still "supports HD DVD" or whether or not it is already "Blu-ray exclusive" depends entirely on how you define the words "support" and "exclusive". Therefore it would avoid a great deal of trouble if we avoided such ambiguous words.--Harumphy (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WB is making HD DVD users wait three extra weeks to get their discs. Trying to avoid "those" words, I'd say it's clear: WB is not showing any love for HD DVD. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions, but there's no place for them in WP. You still haven't found a source that supports your claim about WB's reason for the three-week delay. The High-Def Digest article [21] doesn't say anything of the sort--Harumphy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see arguments for the supports/exclusive argument both ways. As for the 3-week delay of Warner new releases, the article does state it pretty clearly in the 5th and 6th paragraph:

"The studio has told us to expect a three-week delay for all of its remaining HD DVD/DVD combo titles through the May 2008 cut-off, but that they will officially announce the new dates over the next several weeks.

At presstime, all Warner HD DVD catalog titles remain unaffected by the transition, and are still set to street as originally announced (including such highly-anticipated titles as 'Bonnie & Clyde' and 'Twister')." JBC1468 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the 3-week delay, sure, but that's not the point. It does not mention any reason for the delay.--Harumphy (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The obvious reasoning for the delay is to suppress HD DVD sales and to encourage Warner customers to purchase Blu-ray systems. However, you are correct that there is no direct statement from Warner stating as master-of-fact. Nor am I surprised, as such a statement would likely be fodder for an anti-trust lawsuit against themselves and the BDA. Even were such a source available, I don't think it would be necessary to spell out Warner's intention of the delay window. The motive behind this action is one that I feel is easily interpreted by most readers. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly to what this page had when Warner was neutral but favored HD DVD (such as releasing Batman Begins and The Matrix on HD DVD and not Blu-Ray), I think a fair compromise would be to do something similar, stating Warner is favoring Blu-Ray releases over HD DVD until they will no longer release HD DVD on June 1, 2008. JBC1468 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Warner Bros. be shown as format neutral or Blu-ray exclusive

Warner Bros. has announced that as of June 1, 2008, they only release HD movies on Blu-ray Discs. Before that time, they will continue to release HD movies on both HD DVD and Blu-ray Discs. Until June comes, should a pie chart on this page show Warner as format neutral, Blu-ray exclusive, or some combination of the two?

Neither. See "Semantics" above, because it's already answered the question, and Image6 has been designed to avoid these disputed terms and just stick to the facts. --Harumphy (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As have Image:HighDefShare3.svg and Image:HighDefShare5.svg. I believe the point was to get more people speaking up so we can find out what is really the consensus. Also, regardless of your well intentions, the edit war has, regrettably, not stopped. Thingg (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Both images (3 & 5) contain captions using the words "supports" and/or "exclusive", whereas Image 6 avoids these terms and talks of "release formats" in the caption instead. --Harumphy (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually this version (with neutral purple & bluray blue) is a lot better than previous versions. It shows that WB was neutral, and now they are going blu. It's accurate. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to hear what those with a math and science background have to say about charts that foretell future events. Proctor spock (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you please drop the ridiculous crystal ball concerns? WB has made their intentions clear. Friday (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure what to say. Belittling my concerns as ridiculous is not nice. Warner Brothers has made their future intentions clear. How to capture that in a chart while staying true to core principles of this encyclopedia is not stonewalling. What people who practice math and science have to say about this could prove interesting. Proctor spock (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No original research, please. Please stick to well sourced (and reliably sourced) comments, not your own personal interpretation of how things are. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WB have made their intentions clear. They "intend" to one day go Blu Ray exlucsive, but as of right now and as of fact they are still supporting both formats. JayKeaton (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More original research, can we please stick to well sourced facts instead of personal opinion? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll even save you the trouble of clicking the link, here's the nutshell:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published facts, arguments, or ideas that serve to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

While your opinion on the matter may be fascinating on a forum, it's irrelevant here. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke, are you posting that for yourself? If you read any of the sources you would see that Warner are still releasing on both formats until June 2008. You are posting warnings about original research and thought, I assume you are posting that to yourself for all the original research you have been doing on the "Warner already exlusive" front, which quite frankly is getting old. Warner even admitted themselves that they are supporting both formats now and will not be exclusive until June 2008. You say you saved me the trouble of clicking the link, but really that link was for you to read. JayKeaton (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: They are releasing Blu-ray first. Then HD DVD three weeks later (after the initial spike in demand has fallen to a trickle). That's not supporting both equally. --- Theaveng (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is supporting both still. And HD DVD used to get preference over Blu Ray from Warner, yet the chart didn't change for that because it didn't need to. The chart is meant to show what movies are being released for what format by which studio. It's not meant to be a glimps into the future and it's not meant to ignore the fact that both formats are being supported until June 2008 (even if some editors feel that this fact is only a fact "in passing", which is a horrible weasel word) JayKeaton (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By dropping the word "exclusively" in the first paragraph, it now sounds like there are seven Bix Six Studios--three supporting BR, three supporting HD DVD, a seventh, Warner, supporting both. Doesn't work. Barte (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are people so worried about some temporary thing? We're writing an encyclopedia, not a "What's going on this week" type newsletter. Read the sources, people- they're using headlines like "WB goes Blu-ray exclusive", "Warner Brothers backs blu-ray", "Warner Brothers joins blu-ray camp". Sure, if people want to mention that you may still find WB-branded HD titles for a few more months, that's fine, but it should not be the most emphasized aspect of this. We've already compromised by making WB look like a special case, rather than just lumping them in with the rest of the Blu-ray crowd. I don't really agree that it was necessary, but sometimes we compromise. Now people are still complaining? About what, exactly? Some of the objections are sufficiently unreasonable as to look more like stonewalling than an honest attempt to collaborate with others. Friday (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's just not accurate to say they are now exclusive. How can we put something into an encyclopedia when we know it is not true or accurate and when there are many sources (including Warners original press release) which say they aren't exclusive until June 2008? JayKeaton (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of time arguing about whether WB "supports X", or whether WB is "Y exclusive", because the terms "support" and "exclusive" are too vague to be helpful if this context. There are plenty of other words in the vocabulary, and it's not necessary to use "support", "exclusive" or "neutral" when more objective alternatives are available. --Harumphy (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing that was a major industry event was that WB is going Blu-ray exclusive. That's big. The stuff about there still being HD titles on the shelves temporarily is a minor little detail. But, I suppose as long as there's no continued edit warring over this point, it's all academic. I think the way we explain this right now is fine. Friday (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"HD titles on the shelves[, being printed and new titles being made] temporarily is a minor little detail".. is that a minor little detail or an inconvenient truth? JayKeaton (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not for debating the topic in general. It's for discussing how to improve the article. Do you have a suggestion about the article? I think it's acceptable the way we currently treat this issue. Friday (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When this dust up started, I looked at the Warner news as Friday describes above. The news seemed to be that Warner has gone Blu-ray exclusive. That indeed is how many news sources reported it, at least in their headline in lead. But what I've learned is that when all else fails, check out the primary source--because that's the trunk of the tree. The primary source, in this case, is the Warner press release, which clearly states in the headline and lead paragraph that the studio will be BR exclusive "beginning later this year". That's the official corporate statement, and it is clearer, for example, than New Line's reported exclusivity, which has not been officially announced. Looking back, "beginning later this year" seems the core fact, even though, I agree, the ramifications of that fact are immediate. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should certainly quote industry analysts for their interpretation of the announcement. But when it comes down to the core facts on the ground, I've come to see the value of taking a more literal minded, what-exactly-did-Warner-announce? approach than a newspaper; and a way more conservative approach than a reporter's blog. That, by the way, is how The Economist handled this story, and the UK pub is famously meticulous when it comes to fact-checking. Barte (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote from that same press release, "Jeff Bewkes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner Inc., the parent company of Warner Bros. Entertainment. 'Today’s decision by Warner Bros. to distribute in a single format comes at the right time and is the best decision both for consumers and Time Warner.'" I read in that, "Today we decided to distribute in Blu-Ray exclusively." Is there any other way to read that, in the context which is given?

Yes, for the next few months, Warner will pump out a few remaining HD DVDs which are still in the pipeline. No one with any familiarity with distribution would expect any different. Warner is a gigantic company undertaking giant projects. It can't turn on a dime. Warner has contractual obligations to satisfy and work which has already gotten underway. For all intents and purposes, it would be impossible for them to say, "We aren't distributing any more HD DVDs, STARTING THIS MINUTE!" That's simply not the way things work. HD DVD fans may be able to get their hands on Warner HD DVDs a long, long time from now. Nonetheless, Warner's support is already gone.Pisomojado (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly- and that's why the sources reported what was important- WB has thrown their support behind Blu-ray. That there are still some Warner Brothers HD DVDs floating around is a minor little implementation detail. Friday (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bewkes quote is accurate: the decision was made "today". But the official corporate announcement is the lead paragraph. Not all elements in a press release have equal weight. The official announcement emphasizes "beginning later this year" because those are the facts. Whereas the the quote, like all press release quotes, is allowed more artistic, interpretive, propagandistic license. Call it spin. I think the Wikipedia article in its present form follows suit--it gives the basic facts, followed by the interpretation of those facts by both the companies involved and industry analysts. Barte (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Barte, your argument jarred me. First you say to give more weight to Warner's press release than any other press coverage, then you say to discount all but the first sentence, then you interpret that sentence? I feel that you're splitting the hairs mighty fine to do that. I feel that Meyer and Bewkes are better qualified to interpret Warner Bros' intentions than any Wikipedia editor (and do so in the press release). There is no more basic fact than this: Warner supports Blu-Ray. That is what Meyer said, what Bewkes said, that is at the heart of the press release, that is what was widely reported, and that is what Wikipedia should reflect.Pisomojado (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this crap. WB is releasing on both formats until May, and Blu-ray only after that. That is the story. All this "support" and "exclusive" waffle is redundant and extremely boring. We write English here, not weasel-PR-speak. Kindly take this obsessive fanboy squabbling somewhere else.--Harumphy (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction. WB is releasing Bluray/DVD first. And then HD DVD three weeks later. They are NOT supporting all format equally. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess we should have never listed Newline as nuteral then as they were planning on delaying all their HD DVD releases until after DVD/BD.... \scarcasm. Support does not mean equal support. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Has Newline announced they will turn-off their HD DVD presses on May 31? No. But WB has, therefore it's encumbent upon wikipedia to *accurately* report that rather than pretend that they never made the statement. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to accurately report the facts, that is why I think it is a misrepresentation to say that warner is already exclusive. In reference to newline, I was referring to their (previous) policy of delaying HD DVD releases because of the lack of region coding, drawing a similarity to the current release plans of warner. Further they have stated they wont "turn off the press" for alredy released titles as long as there is demand, unlike the paramount situation. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think it is a misrepresentation to say that warner is already exclusive." <--- Strawman Argument. I did not say in my last two posts that we should represent them as exclusive. Please don't put words into my mouth that I did not say. ----- What I actually stated is that WB has (1) announced unequal support of the formats (releasing HD DVD late) (2) announced they will be exclusive on June 1. Read what I write, not what you imagined I wrote. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a correction; it's an additional detail of relatively minor importance. If we allow details to get in the way of the key facts, we will make the article unreadable. That is why, for example, we didn't allow the fact that WB used to put out more discs on HD than BD to get in the way of the key fact, which was that WB released on both at the time.--Harumphy (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. HOWEVER: Warner Bros has announced they will turn-off their HD DVD presses on May 31. Therefore it's encumbent upon wikipedia to *accurately* report that rather than pretend that they never made the statement. To pretend they never made the statement is to lie to the reading public. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Variety reports Universal to end exclusivity--no source given

There's an indirect reference to this under the Major Studio section. For the time being until there's something more official, I think this falls under the category of press speculation, and should be removed. But thought I'd ask. Barte (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable. Also FYI- there are denials of this too: [22]. Friday (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This story that Variety broke basically stated that Universal's exclusivity arrangement with HD DVD has reached the end of their agreement, and that they are now free to release on any format of their choosing. Universal has yet to announce any plans to release on Blu-ray just yet. In response, Universal has issued generic statements of continued support for HD DVD that are similar to statements Warner put out in December about HD DVD. They have stated that they have not changed their current policy of support for HD DVD, which is your standard meaningless denial that cannot be construed as lying if they do a sudden about face. I would probably keep any references to rumors of potential support switches out of the article until Universal (or any other studio) make an official statement. 132.170.34.45 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We're in agreement here. I just removed. Official statements are probably key.Barte (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Gizmodo story

According to [23] and [24], both Fox and WB were on the brink of dumping Blu-ray and going with HD DVD only, until Sony came up with payments of $120m and $400-500m respectively to go Blu. The Pittsburg P-G author is open about his bias and Gizmodo's credibility wasn't enhanced by its childish TV-B-Gone stunt. That apart, what does anyone else here make of these reports? --Harumphy (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the writer of this article, Don Lindich, removed the portions of this article containing the rumored payoff when he posted the article on his personal blog. Apparently, he did so when Steve Feldstein, Fox's senior VP of corporate and marketing communications, contacted him to let him know that he was being misled by someone. For more info on this subject, check this link. [25] 70.119.37.244 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms of being included in the article, this is one of those stories, seems to me, on the cusp, but not quite ready. Clearly, there is an inside story. But reports here still are pretty sketchy. Lindich is inferring a lot, but reporting very little. Gizmondo refers to its "reporting" but is also quite vague. (And I agree, Gizmodo's credibility isn't riding high, here.) So I think we should wait, but with an an eye out for more. As a business case study, the HD format war is worthy of a book; perhaps when the dust settles, some enterprising reporter will write it. Barte (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany's Senator Entertainment AG follows Constantin Film AG dropping HD DVD for Blu-ray

A change to the European independents section -

"Germany's own Senator Home Entertainment is reportedly following in the footsteps of Constantin Film AG and will stop supporting HD DVD. Notably, any films that were already scheduled to arrive on HD DVD will supposedly still ship, but after March 1, 2008, the studio will be supporting Blu-ray exclusively."

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/16/germanys-senator-entertainment-follows-constantin-goes-blu-ray/

Denzelio (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

HD DVD attach rate claims.

Is this: "Although Blu-ray has sold more discs, the HD DVD group claims that the attach rate (the number of movies bought per player) is higher for HD DVD than for Blu-ray." still true? The cite is from May 2007. Barte (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have exact numbers, but if you look at the "Since Inception" numbers (above) Blu-ray has only sold about 2x the number of discs. If you look at hardware (including the PS3) they have probably sold around 5x to 10x the number of players. That means a lower attach rate. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference because the May '07 citation was dated. I don't have the background to reword or make the case per your analysis. But feel free to give it a try. Barte (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Since that Blu-ray has gained in number of players sold (standalone), and I think the 2007 YTD number is 49:49 BD/HD DVD with 2% goes to dual format.... Or, should we count PS3 as well (but my objection is that toshiba never wanted PS3 to be counted as player, but surprisingly, they counted it for the attach rate - which trigger a response from BDA). Best to delete it because the two sides has different method of counting.--w_tanoto (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)