Talk:LaserDisc

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Laserdisc Modulation

[edit]

The French page contains a useful [image of LaserDisc modulation](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc#/media/Fichier:LaserdiscModulation.png) that I remembered from a brochure, and that really caught my imagination back then, but now that I thoroughly understand modulation techniques I had trouble finding it online. Maybe it is a useful addition to this page [but I don't read French, so I cannot translate the content]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:15C3:5FA6:A45C:30B6 (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phonograph record link?

[edit]

Including a link to laser phonographs might be just about justifiable, but I think replacing the "Videodisc" link with Phonograph record is pushing it. Anyone else agree/disagree?

Ubcule (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unsourced material

[edit]

Erpert proposes deleting swaths of this article because material is unsourced. There are {{or}} and {{refimprove}} tags on the article as a whole but the specific material has not previously been challenged and there is no stated objection to the material other than it being unsourced. We generally don't delete unsourced material unless the content is challenged. A similar deletion was proposed and is being discussed at Talk:Cassette_deck#Decline_in_popularity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patents and sale

[edit]

This statement "Optical video recording technology, using a transparent disc, was invented by David Paul Gregg and James Russell in 1963 (and patented in 1970 and 1990). The Gregg patents were purchased by MCA in 1968" is puzzling. How could MCA purchase 1970 and 1990 patents in 1968? Or have I misunderstood something? 86.161.218.84 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make technical articles understandable

[edit]

@24.102.189.198: You sent a message to my talk page, but this is the better venue. As I said in my edit summary this is the nature of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: you made a BOLD change, I reverted it, now we discuss it on the talk page. Also, yes, we need to make technical articles understandable. Might I recommend that you suggest a wording that is both accurate and understandable to the layperson. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(From – Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC), including IP user's original message here for clarity:)[reply]

I see you've tried to revert my edit to LaserDisc. In short, your original edit violates WP:V as the original source linked does not support your statements. The source directly contradicts your incorrect text; it describes a method of summing signals before mastering. I think you're trying to cite WP:MTAA but that's also incorrect. The section is about a highly technical topic. The solution isn't to keep false information. My edit is a necessary step to making the article truly accessible by first making it *accurate*. 24.102.189.198 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Your talk page is appropriate as you are violating Wikipedia policy. WP:V is the important principle here. 24.102.189.198 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall you can discuss simplifications of the prose here but a revert was never appropriate even according to WP:BRD: Try to revert only when necessary and always follow the editing policy. (note that WP:V falls squarely in the editing policy).
On the topic of simplification: it is not appropriate. The concept of extracting components from an analog waveform is already a technical subject. This is not the lead section and the paragraph literally starts with a treatment of PCM and frequency modulation. The analogy here is already "one level down" -- you don't need to be a laserdisc specialist to understand the signal processing terms here. It is important to _not_ oversimplify. 24.102.189.198 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@24.102.189.198 Thanks for taking the discussion here. Wikipedia articles must be accurate, but they also need to be understandable to a general audience (WP:TECHNICAL). Simply reproducing specialist language isn’t sufficient—we have to present concepts in plain language that a layperson can follow. If you believe the current text is inaccurate, please propose wording that both reflects the sources and remains accessible. Your last edit was too technical and doesn’t meet that standard. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but this is already a very technical section, and there is guidance in WP:TECHNICAL indicating that non-lead sections can go into more details. We can try to simplify the text further (it's already an analogy) but the important thing is that there are no factual inaccuracies. 24.102.189.198 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]