Talk:Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats

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: [2] --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 :[3] --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)

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)

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)

Disc Depth

"The plastic disc, with a thickness of 1.2 mm, would protect the information. Lenses could be used to focus on the pits without the dust particles becoming visible. The same happens with dust on the lens of a photographic camera or scratches on a window; if there are not too many of them, they fade just enough so as not to appear on the photograph." [6]

In this article, disc depth seems only to be discussed in terms of durability (resistance to the inevitable dust/scratches/fingerprints and protection of the data layer), not focal length (said inevitable damage being out of focus).

(Let me qualify the word "inevitable" by stating that I handle discs very carefully. I try to avoid touching the bottom surface of the disc, I keep my discs in their case or sleeve or other environ with minimal dust, and clean as needed. I am amazed at how infrequently I have to clean discs considering their tight spec and how much they can take before they become unreadable.) (Anonymous 01:30, 2 January 2008 (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. [7] --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.) [[8]] 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? [9] 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)

[10] 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)

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)

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

... 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)
• 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)

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 [[11]]. 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 [12] 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)

Newline exclusive effective immediately

Just saw this story [13], 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 [14] --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)

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; 2 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)

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)

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). [15] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:22, 9 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)

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)