Talk:Webvideo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under Construction[edit]

Webvideo is going to be expanded soon. I have previously written the dutch article, so if you are capable of speaking Dutch you might help in translating it.

This page has a lot of potential (and potentially a lot of work). Let me know if I can help. I don't speak much Dutch, though. I put an UnderConstruction tag to let editors know you're working on it. Realkyhick 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Title / Merging[edit]

The article was proposed for deletion, because webvideo is a neologism. That might be true, a simple search via Google will show that it is in widespread use though. There are even deli.ici.ous and Technorati categories named after webvideo, so I propose to keep the article and expand it with an explanation about the use of the word webvideo. In the further process of expansion also differences between the current use of the word webvideo, which refers mostly to video clips on YouTube that are in the FLV-format and use as a category for video. Titusn 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google and blog sites aren't considered reliable sources. Why shouldn't this article simply be merged into internet video? Is there something (referenced) to say about the word "Webvideo" that is different from internet video? —dgiestc 07:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webvideo symbolises the revolution of video on the web and is therefore essentially different from subcategories like the ones mentioned in the article. Also the article will contain unique information about a whole category of articles, therefore I propose to even include a new category called webvideo. I did so in the Dutch Wikipedia and it worked out fine. I guess it will work here, too. However merging the article into a special article on internet video might be acceptable too, as the word seems in much broader use in the dutch language that in English. Sources that do mention Webvideo in the English language usually do so as a reference to a certain software called WebVideo. The problem I have with the article you refer to is t hat it's title does not accurately reflect the use of the clips. It just says video clip and might refer to any sort of video. So I also suggest changing that title.Titusn 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way on what sources do you base using the term internet video? My impression from the Google search (which admittedly is not very reliable, but still useful for getting an indication) is that both terms are in common use especially in Holland, which can be explained if you know that this country has one of the highest broadband penetrations in the world. The latter would mean that Holland would be one of the countries using Webvideo the most and thus using that word more often. So from the indication given by that Google search I would like to research what word currently describes best and is commonly used for video on the web in the English language, before coming to a conclusion about what title to give the article. Titusn 08:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This might all just be a grammatical misunderstanding, because in several European languages (including Dutch) words are more often concatenated than in English. It seems there already existed an article named Web video on wikipedia and it was merged with video clip as well. Titusn 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word webvideo might be in wide use. But as a concept, how is it different from internet video? Unless there is something really different, shouldn't the articles just be merged? We don't have separate articles for Website and Internet site. —dgiestc 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I believe that we even agree in principle. Because we do indeed not have different articles for website and internet site, we only have the article with the title Website. The name internet site would even be wrong, though it might be used very often in this incorrect sense. I can explain this: the web, like FTP or mail is an application based on the infrastructure provided by the internet. So a website would be a site in a virtual space, written in HTML and viewable by a web browser. An internet site would then be a virtual site like the low-level interface of a router. As internet and web are terms used in data communication for different layers of the ISO reference model (Halsall 1997), we should try and use the more specific term also in the case of video, which would then be webvideo in analogy to website. Titusn 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going from memory here but I think the WP:MOS says articles should be named according to the term in most common English usage. So if you wanted the name to be "webvideo" in stead of "internet video", you would need to procide some evidence your term is more commonly used. From my personal experience, "internet video" is way more popular.
Here is my suggestion: merge any content you have now into Internet video, then post on Talk:Internet video proposing the page be renamed to Webvideo and explaining your reasoning. If people agree with you, you can then take it to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. Does that sound OK? —dgiestc 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I already placed a link to this discussion on the Internet video and Video Clip talk pages. In the meantime I am trying to find out what would be the most commonly used term. I am not a language scientist, so maybe someone could help us out here, but I believe that using several search engines as a corpus and counting the results that are exclusively in English should give a fair enough indication, judging that we are talking about a theme that is internet centered here:

Instances of the phrases:

Search phrase Google Search Yahoo Search Live Search
"webvideo" 225,000 165,000 37,865
"web video" 4,860,000 4,710,000 846,633
"internet video" 1,330,000 2,600,000 664,764

date: march 3 2007, phrase search used, English language selected where possible, Filters turned off

This shows that the phrase "web video" consistently occurs more frequently than "internet video" in all three databases, while webvideo is less common. The latter term is of course more specific, so a more thorough investigation shoud correct that statistically, but judging by the orders of magnitude difference between the occurrence of "web video" and "webvideo" it is safe to say that the first is most used in the English language. Now, While I would not recommend this as a method of determining who is going to be your next president (although some might argue that would be a more democratic way of doing it than the current system) it does lead me to believe that "Web video" would be the correct title for the article. Reactions please. Titusn 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note that in the Dutch language a similar test would lead to reversed results and an even starker contrast, so that would probably be the source of the confusion. Titusn 10:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Halsall, Fred (1997). Data Communications Computer Networks and Open Systems 4th ed. Essex: Addison-Wesley. pp. 17–21. ISBN 0-201-42293-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)


This article should be merged with video clip, the much older and better titled article, and not the opther way around, SqueakBox 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SqueakBox, while I sincerely respect your opinion and your conclusion, I would like to know the reasons and arguments for it. I think that the article being older does not neccessarily qualify it as having more authority on this subject. One might argue that Webvideos are a subcategory of video clips in general, but then even a separate article would be justified, as long as it is long enough. Judging by the content of the video clip page I would say it would be healthy to consider renaming it to something that reflects the use or nature of the clips as clips on the web as opposed to just video files or music videos or short videos.
One possible argument for keeping the title video clip would be that one expects the use as videos on the web to be predominant in the future. I would contest that in two ways:
  • first of all webvideo is fast outgrowing the stage where the term clip would be jsutified. One can hardly call 90 minute films like Loose Change a clip, though they have been distributed mainly via the web. In other words not every webvideo qualifies as a clip.
  • second even in a completely digital age there remain many other uses of clips besides online viewing, for example clips on mobile phones, commercials on DVD or in cinemas, Bonus tracks on CD's, DVD's and other disks, and so on. Which means that not every video clip is a webvideo.
Therefore I must conclude that webvideo and video clips are really two different things alltogether and none is a complete subset of the other. Because the content of the current page on video clips maily focuses on their online use I would say that this information could best be incorporated into the webvideo page, which maybe could better be spelled web video, as discussed above. Video clip could then remain as a page about other uses of short videos. Titusn 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A web video and a video clip may not always be the same thing, but they are frequently enough and have enough in common that it makes no sense to keep two separate articles on them. Additionally, "Webvideo" is in my experience not a common term in English, so is a poor choice for the article title. Google hits are much weaker evidence than citations from reliable sources. Can you find English-language reliable sources using the term webvideo in preference to internet video or video clip? —dgiestc 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit trivial, because assuming that some google links at least are citable sources, would imply that many more links = at least some more sources. However I did do the exercise, because I am indeed the one challenging an established article:

Now the above mentioned articles are all specifically about web video and none so much as mention the word internet. Only two mention the term video clip and then only as a subset of web videos. I think those are quite reliable sources. Now if the next reaction could please be a bit more objective and a bit less brief I would be very glad, as I put quite some effort into this argument and I expected some good quality discussion here. You keep referring to your own subjective experience while demanding objective evidence from me. I would rather think you could provide some reliable sources yourself. No offence intended of course, just trying to poke you all a bit. Titusn 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Webvideo&oldid=1140529482"