Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rublamb (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 31 October 2023 (OneClickArchived "Blu-ray photo in the infobox" to Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Java Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Blu-ray (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blu-ray, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Blu-rayWikipedia:WikiProject Blu-rayTemplate:WikiProject Blu-rayBlu-ray Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Professional sound production Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Invention Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The contents of the BD-Live page were merged into Blu-ray. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Mini Blu-ray Disc page were merged into Blu-ray. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

status of term Blu-ray

In the first line (in parantheses) of this version, it reads

" and official shortened name is Blu-ray"

I'd appreciate it if someone showed me an official source (something like a white paper by the BDA will do) for this, as don't think that's true. Blu-ray 3D is an official term, Blu-ray, as far as I'm aware, is NOT. If evidence can not be established, this should be changed back – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is the official shortnened name. http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_name

Kokken Tor 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs)

The site you mention is a great place for information about the different BD editions of a film out there and a nifty collection management tool, but you do realize it has nothing to do with the BDA, do you? Actually, most likely they chose the domain name Blu-ray.com because it isn't official and therefore was obtainable (by the way, the same site – as of 2011-04-11 – at the top of its homepage carries as its introduction the following: "Welcome to Blu-ray.com, your source for everything related to Blu-ray Disc (BD), sometimes incorrectly referred to as Blue ray, Bluray or Blu-ray DVD"). So, I'm still waiting for any validation of the above claim. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from the official site of BDA. http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/general_bluraydiscformat-15263.pdf

Under their trademark it says Blu-ray.19:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Kokken Tor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs)

You are right, it is a trademark now and a term used several times throughout the paper you refer to, although I'd be curious about the history behind that, as I don't recall having seen it (not that that means much, but still) in any tech specs when the format was introduced (for example, it doesn't show up once here), and the fact that an independent company was able to secure the Blu-ray.com domain name also appears rather curious to me; maybe they just relented to incorrect popular usage? But then, by the look of it, in that document, Blu-ray doesn't seem to be used interchangeably and in the same sense as Blu-ray Disc: they now seem to be making (or have been making from the start?) a distinction between the format itself (Blu-ray Disc / BD) and the blue laser beam technology it is based upon (Blu-ray) – "seem" because I'm not in a position to really judge this, maybe someone else can clarify. If true, however, then referring to the format as Blu-ray and the movies as Blu-rays would still be wrong. Further, this then obviously might have implications for the way the article is to be worded and structured – maybe a separate article altogether should be created. What do you think? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don`t know but, i believe it`s the right shortened name. I say it should stay there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. I'm on the opposite side of the argument, I think the wording should be reverted back to the way it was up until last month. Would anybody else like to chime in, maybe the people who started and made the first few edits to the article? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't say "official", it should say "correct" particularly if you're citing Blu-ray.com which doesn't say "official" at all. It's the corrent shortening vs. Blu-Ray or Blue-ray only in the sense that the other terms are incorrect.Dobyblue (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Video resolution chart

The chart found in http://en.wikipedia.org/Blu-ray_Disc#Video does not contain any 1920x1280 resolutions over 30fps, so it's easy to think that BD does not support 1080/50i or 60i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.95.241 (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is explained in the very first note to the table () which explains that the the rates are interlaced and denoted as frame rates rather than field rates. Msgohan (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"a All frame rates are properly listed in frames per second. Some manufacturers will list field rate for interlaced material, but this is incorrect industry practice. To avoid confusion, only FRAME rates should ever be listed." This is completely wrong, hence the confustion of the poster above. Interlaced frame-rates are always written as the number of fields per second. This article is the ONLY place where "30i" and "25i" are used. "60i" and "50i" are correct. 1080i/30 and 1080i/25 are also correct, though rarely used. Note the position of the i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcontra (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From where does this chart originate? --MarkFilipak (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been 2 months since my 1st comment. Over half of this chart seems to be bogus, so before I attack it, I'd like to know from where it originates --MarkFilipak (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you follow the citation (inline after the chart's title). It will take you to the official white paper. Skip to page 14 for relevant info. Uk55 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the discussion above, as the other participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. Rather than simply reverting their changes, however, I've changed the formatting of the chart to more closely match its source. This should clear up any confusion caused by 'fps' referring to two different things, whilst remaining consistent with the citation and the rest of the article.

I think this is a good compromise, but given the history, I'd like to politely ask anyone who disagrees to continue the discussion here rather than reverting straight away. Uk55 (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Capacity versus Layers

The article states each layer contains 25GB. Yet the triple layer disk contains 100GB and quadruple layer 128GB. The article should explain this anomaly. -58.108.188.6 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/people/bdxl/01.html

The capacity of 25GB per layer apparently applies to standard Blu-ray, which allows only two layers. BDXL apparently increases the capacity by a factor of (about) 1.3, as well as permitting 4 layers. 3 layers have a capacity of about 100 GB (so I presume the stated factor of 1.3 is rounded down). 4 layers have a capacity of only 128 GB. I have not yet found a reason for the reduced capacity of the 4th layer. Because of the figure 128, I suspect it may be an addressing limitation or a compatability issue. The sentence giving a capacity of 25GB probably needs revising to indicate that it does not apply to BDXL. --Boson (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the following information, which seems plausible (but I don't think my source would count as a reliable source by Misplaced Pages rules):

• Minimum mark width / pit length:
  • for 2 layers: 149 nm
  • for 3 layers: 112 nm
  • for 4 layers: 117 nm
• Capacity per layer
  • for 2 layers: 25 GB
  • for 3 layers: 33.4 GB
  • for 4 layers: 32 GB

This would mean that the section Blu-ray Disc#Laser and optics is outdated.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable has a more reliable source.

--Boson (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength and Storage space

The article says - While a DVD uses a 650-nanometer red laser, Blu-ray Disc uses a 405 nm blue laser . This shorter wavelength allows for over five times more data storage per layer than allowed by a DVD. It is not described why and how this shorter wavelength allows for more data stoarage. It will be helpful if this technical information is provided. Thanks.
Anish Viswa 08:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Storage capacity is proportional to the square of the laser's focussed spot size (itself proportional to the wavelength of the light). Remember that not only can you get more data along any track, you can also space the adjacent tracks closer together. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blu-Ray

Hi, i believe that the blue ray is not actually a blue laser but it;s a violet beam am i right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando112p (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly stated in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Blu-ray_Disc#Laser_and_optics Msgohan (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of available titles

The number of available titles in the lead section uses the Now Available page of blu-ray.com as its source. However, the number of titles does not seem to be available directly on that page, which is a big list. By checking the number of pages of the list, we can have an assessment on the number of titles listed: I find 6300+ in the US, and 3700+ in the UK, which is quite different from what is currently written in the article. Am I missing something, or is this information outdated ? Thanks for your help. Cochonfou (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Using a blank search with my site preferences set to US only and unchecked "show all Region Free titles", I get 7552 US titles. But this counts things like "Africa 3-pack Blu-ray" separately from its constituent releases, collector's editions separate from regular, etc. I don't know how you would filter those out. Msgohan (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "conceded" the right word.

I don't have an HDTV or a fancy disk player but my laptop can show HD video if I download it.

The word "conceded" makes it sound like Toshiba gave in to Sony but the press release does not support this. The release indicates the HD disks are being discontinued to foster the adoption of IT-hard disk solutions. It seems fairly clear that Toshiba is saying all video-disks including theirs are obsolescent. 68.149.247.130 (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a case of 'sour grapes'. If 'conceded' is not the right word, it's probably pretty close. The movie studios were rapidly moving toward Blu-ray before Toshiba threw in the towel. It was not helped by the fact that Toshiba (in order to address the smaller capacity of HD-DVD) announced a triple layer version with 55GB capacity and introduced the fear that early adopters of (dual layer) HD-DVD players would be unable to play the triple layer discs. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Pocket Blu

Not sure whether it should go here or as a standalone article in the "See also" section, but presumably Pocket Blu should be here somewhere? danno_uk 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

History section in serious need of work

I've just read through most of the history section for this article. It looks like it was pulled from a C grade article found two years ago on some other random site.

I'll come back to it and clean everything up that I can, but anyone who actually knows anything about the BD history might want to go ahead and start fixing it.

SilvestertheCat (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject java?

I understand that blu-ray has java support but I'm not sure it really falls under wikijava. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XphnX (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility confusion

Under the section Software Standards > Media Format > Codecs > Video, it states,

"For video, all players are required to support H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10: AVC, and SMPTE VC-1. MPEG-2 is the compression standard used on regular DVDs, which allows backwards compatibility."

This leads me to believe that all Blu-Ray players must support DVDs. However, under the Backward Compatibility section, it states,

"Though not compulsory, the Blu-ray Disc Association recommends that Blu-ray Disc drives be capable of reading standard DVDs and CDs, for backward compatibility."

This appears to contradict the earlier statement. Could someone with the appropriate knowledge clear this up?

Edrarsoric (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited the statement about MPEG-2 to make it more accurate. MPEG-2 is required for Blu-ray players but to play a DVD-Video disc requires a lot more than that. There are many requirements for DVD-Video and the Misplaced Pages article on DVD-Video only gives a basic overview of what is needed. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it's still suggestive, because the reason for its inclusion is unclear otherwise. It should either carry an explicit caveat explaining that MPEG-2's inclusion does not by itself mean backwards-compatibility (with an advisory to read the appropriate section in this article for more information), or be removed entirely along with the rest of the expository information on the mandatory CODECs. I'm inclined towards the latter, as it seems superfluous, especially given that the various CODECs are linked to their respective articles. I'm also not sure that they add anything relevant to the article itself: I mean, does it matter (within the context of this article) who developed AVC or VC-1, or that MPEG-2 is also used on DVDs? I'd suggest going from the mention of the three CODECs directly into the line beginning, "BD-ROM titles with video must…".Edrarsoric (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since those statements aren't directly related to the Blu-ray Disc format I have removed them. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, The link to the source in the "Blu-ray Disc for Video" reference is marked as dead (and it certainly is). Please update the link with the following URL: http://blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/Blu-rayDiscforVideo.aspx 195.80.129.44 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! LittleMountain5 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Image Request?

This article is listed as needing a photograph, but it appears to have plenty of them and there is no explanation in the template or here on the talk page. Does anyone know what was being requested specifically? Zell Faze (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, where is it listed as such? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Where it is usually listed - at the top of this talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ups, sorry, I didn't pay enough attention. That seems to be an old tag, so it's now deleted; there are already enough pictures. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Br as the informal a name of Blu-ray

The informal colloquial name of Blu-ray Disc is Br. You can have a look at torrents at The Pirate Bay or at home theater forums to see what name people use most for referring to Blu-ray. I try to find a good reference for this, but I didn't find a good enough one. Could you help by pointing to a reference if you know any? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Already tried searching, but found nothing usable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Table of resolutions and frame rates.

Am I being dim or or am missing something? The chart lists resolutions and frame rates (note 1 under the chart says so). However, the interlaced formats seem to be expressed in field rate which is double the frame rate. Surely, the 1920x1080 50i should be 1920x1080 25i (and similar for the others) if it is frame rate? 86.130.98.251 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. It would appear that some editor changed the table late last year, but did not leave an edit summary as to what they had done. It therefore did not get noticed until you spotted it. This demonstrates the importance of leaving an edit summary as to what has been done. It's all fixed now. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not quite :

• True interlaced is expressed in field rate, where 2 successive fields are each a different half of successive frames, the other half being lost.
• 1 frame to 2 fields pulldown is expressed "480i60 is 480i/30, 576i50 is 576i/25, and 1080i50 is 1080i/25."
• 3:2 or other pulldowns don't fit a clean "rate".

Since the article (and supposedly the format) do not specify how the fields are used, it seems best to stick to "true" interlaced, others being derivative.

Fortunately this has since been clarified in the article. --Musaran (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Cinavia

... should be added to the DRM section. (Don't have time myself now.) _Whaledad (Talk to me) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry if this already covered in the litany of complaints

"High-definition video may be stored on Blu-ray Discs with up to 1080p resolution (1920×1080 pixels), at up to 60 (59.94) fields or 24 frames per second. Older DVD discs had a maximum resolution of 480i, (NTSC, 720×480 pixels) or 576i, (PAL, 720×576 pixels)." Makes no sense, since any kind of file can be stored on any kind of disc that will hold it. Author was apparently speaking only of BD discs vs DVDs.

Lead must discuss trends,

Lead must discuss popularity of the format, trends, compared to DVD and threats from other formats. All this technical info in the lead could be trimmed. --Inayity (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the proposed name is both "correct" (it's a widely used and accepted short form), and more common in the sources. Cúchullain /c 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc → Blu-ray – Per WP:Commonname. I only ever hear it advertised as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray Disc. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – What you hear is not a form of evidence that's useful here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Although perhaps I can be convinced to change my mind. First look at what the Blu-ray Disc Association says:

Why the name Blu-ray?

The name Blu-ray is derived from the underlying technology, which utilizes a blue-violet laser to read and write data. The name is a combination of "Blue" (blue-violet laser) and "Ray" (optical ray). According to the Blu-ray Disc Association the spelling of "Blu-ray" is not a mistake, the character "e" was intentionally left out so the term could be registered as a trademark.

The correct full name is Blu-ray Disc, not Blu-ray Disk (incorrect spelling)
The correct shortened name is Blu-ray, not Blu-Ray (incorrect capitalization) or Blue-ray (incorrect spelling)
The correct abbreviation is BD, not BR or BRD (wrong abbreviation)

So, Blu-ray Disc and Blu-ray are trademarks; either might work for the article title. In either case, since it is never appropriate to pluralize trademarks, when we speak about the items instead of the format it should be Blu-ray discs, not Blu-ray Discs, right? Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE, which is evident, and less so per WP:COMMONNAME, which is only speculation. Red Slash 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I should be Blu-ray disc or ideally blue-ray disc. Vlādis Mānisqā (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Except that MOS:TM suggests we capitalize trademarks. Look at the box above, from the Blu-ray Disc Association. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: There seems consensus that the current name is wrong, can we agree on a new name? Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed name seems inaccurate, as it would seem to refer to the type of ray used to read the disc, rather than the disc and disc format itself. In the phrase "Blu-ray disc", "Blu-ray" functions as an adjective to identify the type of disc, and we generally prefer nouns as Misplaced Pages article titles. The current article name, especially when capitalized as noted by Dicklyon, also helps introduce the abbreviation "BD", which is used universally and consistently for things related to this disc format (e.g., search the article for "BD" and you'll find more than 100 matches). Retaining the "D" also helps provide symmetry with the terms and abbreviations for the earlier "CD" and "DVD" disc format names, which are universally used. No actual evidence has been provided that dropping "disc" is more common. I don't personally see how Andrew can perceive a consensus that the current name is wrong, given Dicklyon's extensive comments above (and very little said from anyone else). The stylized logo for the format (seen in the infobox, and on the cover art of the discs) includes the "D" in the abbreviation (in stylized form) and includes the full phrase with the word "Disc" (with the capitalization and spelling used in the current article title), and it seems to appear prominently on every disc, on the spine of every disc's box, near the top of the front cover of every disc's box, and in other places on every disc's box. Although "Blu-ray" by itself also appears to be a separately trademarked term and also appears on the cover art, I personally think the current title is more proper and probably more common. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh well, we did once have consensus that the current name is wrong. We move on! Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

    I don't think we did have such a consensus then. Dick had posted an extensive argument saying the move was a bad idea, Red Slash had pointed out that there was no evidence provided for the common name argument, and Vlādis Mānisqā's off-topic suggestion for lowercasing had been clearly shot down by Dick. That's not a consensus to do anything. Slash put forth a conciseness suggestion, but that didn't outweigh Dick's extensive commentary. Yes, time to move on, and sorry for dredging the "water under the bridge". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Blu-ray is the common name. Calidum T|C 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The issue for me here is whether we're talking about the technology (Blu-ray) or the storage media (Blu-ray Disc). Since the article seems to cover the storage media as an aspect of the technology as a whole, I'd say the article should be moved to Blu-ray. – PeeJay 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support as WP:COMMONNAME. The discs themselves are almost always referred to as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray disc: , , , , , etc. and Google Books results . Zarcadia (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Dicklyon's evidence shows that both forms are correct, and I don't think there is any confusion that the proposed title will be confused with the laser itself. kennethaw88 • talk 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Tempted to close but as my assessment of consensus above has been questioned, better to leave to others. The case has been well argued above. Let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dolby Digital Plus maximum bitrate

In accordance to other sources (]) the maximum bitrate for the audio "Dolby Digital Plus" should be 1.7Mbit/s instead of 4.736 Mbit/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.163.18 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Storage medium vs Storage format

This article talks about a storage format, but it also talks about an actual disc. One thing is the physical medium where the information is stored and another how the information is stored in said medium. This article is unclear about what is what.
It says thing like "The information density of the DVD format...", but information density is a property of a physical medium, not of a storage format.
It also says "It was designed to supersede the DVD format, in that it is capable of storing high-definition video resolution (1080p)", which implies that it's not possible to store HD video in a DVD. That is, of course, not true. You can store video of any definition either on a CD, DVD or BRD. Another thing, completely, is the standards for video players which use those disc in a certain way. Again, two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrgwea (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur, there is ambiguity between the disc and the AV standard. "Obviously" video claims refer to the AV standard, but users should not have to guess.

I think they should be split, as both are fairly long. --Musaran (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

UltraHD BluRay: 4:4:4 chroma sub-sampling

It appears there's an edit war between people who think it will support 4:4:4 sub-sampling and others who think it will remain 4:2:0. Does anyone have direct access to the specs? Because a leak earlier this year suggested it will be limited to 4:2:0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.37.97 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate article for Ultra HD Blu-ray?

Ultra HD Blu-ray is now covered as a section of the Blu-ray Disc article. Arguably, it is a separate standard with different disc structure (triple layer disc), different density, different video formats and encoding supported, etc., even though it shares some physical characteristics with Blu-ray Disc such as wavelength and numerical aperture (unlike DVD and CD). So the question it whether a separate section might be justified. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the format is out, I must concur. It is a new format, incompatible with the old (Just try playing an Ultra HD disc in a regular Blu-ray player.), and it seems odd for it to only be listed as a section in this article given all the separate articles for other formats and in this instance would be like making HD-DVD a section of DVD. The only similar precedent that comes to mind is the way MUSE LD is a section of the Laserdisc article, but that was understandable given MUSE's obscurity.

Thus far wikipedia in general is extremely scant on Ultra HD Blu-ray mentions, with it usually not included in article home media sections, and only a handful of links to the section/redirect from articles. (Even UMD appears to have more!) What will justify more mentions, links, and in time hopefully a separate article? Will there have to be a couple hundred discs on the market to before any of this can happen? At the rate the releases are happening and being announced, this will be the case within a year or so. I’m not going to put it up right now, but I think the section should be flagged for an article split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.104.141 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've performed the split. —ajf (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the resolution chart still has UHD resolutions. This should be moved to the UHD article, since it's confusing to have UHD material suddenly inserted into what seems to be a pure BD article. I believe it's incomplete for UHD BD too, since if that supports 4k at 60p it should support 2k at 60p. (I don't feel like looking it up to check, though.) 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the current Blu-Ray article seems to be a bit conflicted, sometimes saying that Blu-Ray itself supports 4K UHD, aka 2160p (it doesn't) and 10-bit color depth (it doesn't), and other times pointing out that UHD Blu-Ray is a separate standard that supports these things (it is, and it does). Conflating the two makes it pretty confusing, as it suggests regular Blu-Ray can do these things, which would render UHD Blu-Ray unnecessary. It should be clearer that they're two separate formats. ZoeB (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggest to merge sections 'Variants' and 'Variations'

Section Variants lists:

• Mini Blu-ray Disc
• Blu-ray Disc recordable
• BD9 and BD5
• BDXL
• IH-BD

while sections Variations lists:

• High Fidelity Pure Audio (BD-A)
• AVCHD
• AVCREC
• Blu-ray 3D
• Ultra HD Blu-ray

I could see a distinction where the former are variations of the physical format while the latter are variations on data level but then Ultra HD Blu-ray is at least in the wrong section, as it's physical characteristics differ. It may be better to simply merge these two sections. Thoughts? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Colour sub-sampling for 4K

Two sub-sampling rates have bee edited in (4:4:4 and 4:2:0), both using unacceptable blogs to support them as references. I have also seen 4:2:2 quoted as the sub-sampling but using an equally dubious blog. Unless a truly authoritative source can be found to nail the sub-sampling rate down, any speculative guesses have no place in the article and I have removed the given rate accordingly. 85.255.234.45 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting... 4:4:4 was reported, among others, by Trusted Reviews (the source I put back) and Techradar, which certainly are not blogs, and should be reliable sources. However, out of curiosity, I went and read the actual specification from BDA. It doesn't mention subsampling at all, so I figured it must be a feature of HEVC rather than Blu-ray itself. So off I went to the HEVC specs, and sure enough it supports 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4. But, I then went back to the UHD Blu-ray spec and found the following unassuming line:

chroma_format_idc shall be set to “1”.

What that means is, as it stands, UHD Blu-rays will only support 4:2:0 streams, exactly the same as regular Blu-rays. There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'. So to conclude, I think it's best the section stays as it is, not mentioning subsampling at all. Uk55 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that is remarkably interesting and better researched than my (admittedly) quick effort. I have seen manufacturer claims before that claim their product supports some standard when it only does so by conversion. In one case a Blu-Ray player supporting 1080/50p and 1080/60p when in fact it would not play such discs but it did upscale 25i and 30i discs to 50p and 60p respectively - a similar situation to the example you gave. 85.255.234.45 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'." That would indeed be a stretch. Until recently, HDMI didn't even support chroma sub-sampling, i.e. every DVD and BluRay player upsampled to 4:4:4. Personally, with all the information gathered (and the good source from the BluRay Disc Association) I think it is save to put "4:2:0" back into the article. Most people expected this anyways, because UHD BluRay is also limited to 10 bit and not 12 bit. HEVC v1 is limited to 10 bit and 4:2:0, so this is probably no coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.51.147 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. Why add something that hasn't changed to a list of improvements? Uk55 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is not titled "improvements". I would add it because the misconception about 4k BluRay having sub-sampling 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 seems to exist, in part because Misplaced Pages helped spreading wrong information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.161.191 (talk • contribs)

If you look at the original context, it's clearly outlining ways UHD Blu-ray differs from regular Blu-ray. I do take your point, but if we start listing details that are the same we're going to end up rewriting half the article. I think it's best just to leave it until UHD Blu-ray gets its own article. (Side note: please sign your comments) Uk55 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo in the supported video chart 23.97?

Should the frame rates be 29.97 instead of 23.97? 29.97 is 1/2 of 59.94.

I have never heard of 23.97 being used as a frame rate.

Mark

No, 23.976 is correct. It is basically the NTSC version of 24 Hz (24000 / 1001 ~= 23.976, 60000 / 1001 ~= 59,940). If you buy a BluRay in the US with a Hollywood type cinema/blockbuster movie it will have this frame rate 99% of the time. (59.94 Hz is the field rate of 29.97 Hz interlaced. BluRay was not designed for progressive 29.97 fps.)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226094151/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090409074432/http://www.twice.com:80/article/CA6323699.html to http://www.twice.com/article/CA6323699.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828181018/http://www.watch.impress.co.jp:80/av/docs/bdhdship/ to http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/bdhdship/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX48JmH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afterdawn.com%2Fglossary%2Fterms%2Fbd-mv.cfm to http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/bd-mv.cfm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5idsN03Hs?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blu-raydisc.com%2FAssets%2FDownloadablefile%2FBD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf to http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/BD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317015922/http://blu-raydisc.info:80/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php to http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Wii U mentions

According to Nintendo optical discs#Wii U Optical Disc, while it's unclear if Wii U discs are based on Blu-ray technology, they are not actually Blu-rays. I've removed the mentions of Blu-ray being used for Wii U games. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial topic

Why is Blu-Ray in the 'Controversial topics' category - I don't think the battle between Blu Ray and DVD can quite be compared to that between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, nor Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. Should this perhaps be removed. --92.25.88.162 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was because HD DVD fanboys kept inserting bullshit criticisms of Blu ray non stop back when the format war was going on, almost 15 years ago. I'll remove it. MightyArms (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822172353/http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html to http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102222432/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69559 to http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69559
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/bdhdship/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2008%2F02%2F23%2Fdlclaud123.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bluray20feb20%2C0%2C5286548.story?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009144100/http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm to http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711015752/http://the/ to http://the/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701055209/http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format-spec/re1-spec.php to http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format-spec/re1-spec.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106054231/http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers to http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Change interlaced entries in Supported Video Formats table to show frame rate instead of field rate and remove respective note

Any objections?

{| class="wikitable" |+ Supported video formats |- ! Format !! style="width: 200px;" | Resolution and
frame rate !! style="width: 100px;" | Display aspect ratio |- | rowspan="6" | 4K UHD | 3840×2160 60p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 50p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 25p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 24p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 23.976p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="4" | HD | 1920×1080 60p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 50p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 25p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="12" | HD | 1920×1080 29.97i || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 25i || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 24p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 23.976p || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 29.97i || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 25i || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 24p || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 23.976p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 50p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 24p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 23.976p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="2" | SD | 720×480 29.97i || 4:3 or 16:9 |- | 720×576 25i || 4:3 or 16:9 |}

a Only supported on UltraHD Blu-ray with HEVC video compression standard.
b MPEG-2 at 1440×1080 was previously not included in a draft version of the specification from March 2005.
c These resolutions are stored anamorphically, i.e. they are stretched to the display aspect ratio by the player or display. Paianni (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Read-Only Format: 2.B Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM Version 2.5" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. July 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 28, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2015.
2. "White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Read-Only Format (Ultra HD Blu-ray): Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM Version 3.0" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. July 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 5, 2016. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
3. "White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Format: 2.B Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. May 2005. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2008.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 4K Blu Ray early Best Buy release.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted change to "See also"

I've reverted this edit set by PhonoGraphLazer (talk · contribs) as I don't see why two other VHS formats (W-VHS and D-VHS) were removed and two other non-HD formats- UMD and VideoNow were added.

VideoNow in particular is a short-lived (and borderline novelty) format used for a kids' media player of the early-to-mid 2000s, and I've no idea why that belongs when (e.g.) D-VHS doesn't.

Ubcule (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are going on about “HD” this should go under High-definition video, I placed UMD and VideoNow because they’re discs of the same timeline, what’s VHS going to do with the subject? PhonoGraphLazer (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

clarification of the common misuse of "PAL".

clarification of the term "PAL"

The number of lines and fields/frames, AND the colour encoding system for analogue signals, were set down by the national television standards committee - NTSC for short. (The "nation" involved is I believe the USA, but the term is more widely applied.) It is thus appropriate to refer to BOTH the resolution and the colour system as "NTSC".

PAL, however, stands for "phase - alternate line", and refers only to a colour encoding system; "phase, alternate line" does not mean anything when applied to a resolution. The resolution 576i is often incorrectly referred to as "PAL", but we should not promulgate such in an encyclopaedia.

you can have 480i PAL (as indeed Brazil did): NTSC resolution with PAL colour encoding; you can have 576i with NTSC colour encoding, though no-one did beyond the experimental stage (France and some other countries had 576i with SECAM colour, as opposed to PAL which was commoner).

To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/PAL, "CCIR 625/50 and EIA 525/60 are the proper names for these (line count and field rate) standards; PAL and NTSC on the other hand are methods of encoding colour information in the signal." However, these terms are rarely used. It is valid to refer to 525/60 - or 480i - as "NTSC" since that body defined it; however, it is not valid to refer to 625/50 (576i) as "PAL". G6JPG (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically, that is correct. However, correctness is relative and not only created by technical definition but also by common use. Even the article PAL begins with it was broadcast at 625 lines, 50 fields (25 frames) per second , qualifies that at the end of the lede, and only mentions the exception for Brazil way down the text. I'd suggest using less surprising wording like 576i (commonly used with PAL). Technical nitpicking is out of place here in this article. --Zac67 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

2.1 profile

https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1860150#post1860150 109.252.169.138 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"List of released blu-ray discs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of released blu-ray discs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of released blu-ray discs until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of Blu-ray devices" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Blu-ray devices has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of Blu-ray devices until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of 8K Blu-ray?

I believe the 8K Blu-ray format as settled by the Blu-ray Disc Association should be mentioned in the article, even though this specification is currently released for Japan only. Source: Blu-ray Disc Association Settles on 8K Format --Wengier (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is "digital" included in CD/DVD and Blu-ray? It's not necessary and misleading

Everything is "digital" talking about discs, why would it have to be included? Please, lets debate this. @Zac67.

Let's start with a question: How would you describe the Blu-ray/DVD/CD format to anyone? Well.... it is... a DISC, an OPTICAL disc. But you don't start or state at any point that it's digital, because it's obvious that it contains digital media.

And this isn't important; the real importance is in the confusion it takes when you start with "digital optical disc... etc." it's just missleading. I couldn't memorize all that at once if I wanted, but if you remove the "digital", I can, because it's implicit.

I propose adding the "digital" later on in the article, just after mentioning it's an OPTICAL disc data storage format.

@Zac67, what's your argument on having it necessarily included as the first world describing it? It's not the first word you think of or need for explaining it.

A healthy entry would be: Blu-ray (Blu-ray Disc or BD) is a high-capacity optical disc format used for storing and playing back digital audio and video content.

(uppercase for emphasis) Abc910 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Abc910, an article on Misplaced Pages should summarize the highest quality sources. Additionally there are analog optical disc formats. Regards, Rjj(talk) 04:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii YOu are right, and I don't deny that. I insist in the mistake of using it as the very very first word to describe what it is.

@Abc910: You seem to argument that it's obvious and redundant (so it shouldn't be misleading). I don't think it is. CD, DVD, BD are digital formats in contrast to former analog media like LaserDisc or various non-optical devices (phonograph, tape, CED, ...). --Zac67 (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2023‎

@Zac67, you didn't put your firm so I can't quote you, so I do it here.

LaserDisc quotes AT THE LAST of the first paragraph: Unlike most optical-disc standards, LaserDisc is not fully digital, and instead requires the use of analog video signals.

Why isn't it implicit in the VERY FIRST word that it's not fully digital? It should be: The LaserDisc (LD) is a not fully digital home video format ...

You say I said it's "obvious" and "redundant", and I admit that "obvious" was a bad use of the word, but it was to make a point. I didn't say "redundant" tho. It would be redundant if it said it is digital at the first word, and it said it later. But guess what, it doesn't mention the "digital" word in any other part of the article. Is this misleading?

MiniDisc is also digital, and go to the entry, it doesn't say "digital". Well, it actually doesn't even say in the entire entry it is! But MY DEAR Blu-ray has to have "digital" as the very very very first word that describes it, huh?

CD-Video neither even includes the word "digital", and those are the only ones I've checked of digital media. Abc910 (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zac67 I propose this change for the entry, along with the other entries like CD and DVD and others:

Blu-ray (Blu-ray Disc or BD) is an optical disc format developed for digital storage and high-quality audiovisual content designed to supersede the DVD format. Abc910 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Abc910: I prefer the current wording and oppose your proposal. --Zac67 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose your opposal since my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages. The change will be approved when anyone with your similar status approves it. Thank you for your point of view. Abc910 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages OK everyone, Abc910 is here to fix everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages, we can all quit now. I also oppose your proposed change. "Digital" helps readers who may be unfamiliar with the various differences in optical disc formats to understand that it is not analog as some preceding formats were. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You make a point on why the word is there in the first place. I'm not talking about removing it, tho. I'll still be waiting until someone approves my change, and that will be it for you digital wikipedia entry editors. Abc910 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Abc910's proposals are fine, so is the existing text. Let's go find something more impactful to work on. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Java articles
• Low-importance Java articles
• WikiProject Java articles
• C-Class Professional sound production articles
• Mid-importance Professional sound production articles
• WikiProject Professional sound production articles
• C-Class electronic articles
• Low-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles
• C-Class Invention articles
• Low-importance Invention articles
• WikiProject Invention articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English