Talk:Wedding videography

Inappropriate link

Currently the first item under "Wedding videography / External Links" is "Wedding Videography Advice : Articles Advice articles on lighting issues, contracts, and more." which is a link to a page advertising the services of a videographer in LA. That page has advice articles in a sidebar.

Is this an example of an acceptable Wikipedia link? Personally, I am also in the wedding videography business and my webpage also has wedding video advice and FAQ sections. Is it considered acceptable for me to insert a link to my own website here?

You're quite right in that those links aren't really acceptable; I'll remove them. Thank you for asking. DS 15:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this necessary?

I'm considering listing this on the VfD -- most of this does not seem to be information appropriate to an encyclopedia. It just seems to have the potential to grow a linkfarm. Thoughts? --TangentIdea 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Cleanup, Feb 14 2005

I'm cleaning this page up per guidelines on Wikipedia:Spam. If the link is:

the page of a private videographer or videography company,
contributed by a username used only for adding links,
accompanied by a poor description or none at all,

...I'm deleting it. Considering that Wedding photography managed to survive with NO external links, I think we should follow their precedent here. Even though some like Top 10 Tips For Booking Your Wedding Video in Ireland do have useful information, it's redundant, and the site is mainly an advertising site for a videographer. Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent for other videographers that want to add their own links. --TangentIdea 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Cleanup, Feb 15 2006

TangentIdea, I've removed all the links, since I had put the other links to be fair since I had advice articles of my own. I wanted the advice articles to prevent people from getting ripped off by bad videographers (tons in the industry).

I chose to remove theknot and modernbride, since they are the 800 pound gorillas in the industry. They charge $500 a month to be listed with them.

I also removed the organization, since that would mean including my local organizations such as WEVA (which also has unfair subscription fees that I refuse to pay).

I want to promote the industry in a non-profit manner (I don't need any more leads, I'm booked for most of the year) to make sure that people don't get ripped off like two of my cousins and many other couples that I know. What do you recommend as the best course to do so? I'm afraid posting to much content on the matter will clutter the article.

--Gavin Holt

Ah, good call on theKnot and Modern Bride -- I wasn't aware their site were such big money-makers. I think the article would be fine without external links altogether, following the example of Wedding photography. If you think you've got good content, go for it, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, publisher of original thought, or a how-to guide. What are your thoughts? --TangentIdea 04:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added User:Gavinholt's wedding videography site because I found the sample videos and tips very good, I think that the article would be less valuable without this link (not affiliated with Gavinholt in any way)

Did a complete rewrite

To include more detail and description. BJ Peterson 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does look better. Not to rain on your parade, though, but do you think you could cite some sources for your historical information? Books, websites, etc., even magazine or newspaper articles. --TangentIdea 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The early historical info comes from the Mark Goldberg Video Faq and a few WEVA sources. Unfortunately the faq is offline presently. The more modern info, starting in the 90's comes from my own personal experiences and conversations with those who have been around longer than I have(Several of the people mentioned). This is actually a shorter and less "promotional" version of a history I wrote on my own website www.chicagoweddingfilm.com. Honestly I don't believe anyone until now, outside of Mark and brief mentions in his FAQ have actually tried to put the history of wedding videography down in an article. A lot of the info I've put in is known within the industry circles.--- BJ Peterson 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'd recommend you take some time to read through the Wikipedia:No_original_research article. I really do love your history story -- I just think it's interesting to learn about how some of these niche professions came to be. However, it would help the article a bit if you could link to other sites, even if it's your own. That'll lend the article a little stability. If you can back up some of your stories and facts externally, that'll help keep other editors from destroying it because they think differently. Sorry, I really don't have a lot of experience with this kind of thing, personally, so I'm just going off of the best information I have about WikiPolicy. :-) --TangentIdea 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted external links

Up above there is a discussion if this page should have any external links. I believe mentioning to national associations should be there for those who are looking for educations, but they can promote their own conventions and chat forums can easily be found in google searches. Let's keep this entry intact and not deleted because it's turned again into a link farm.

Undid Damaged caused by JP.

By the way JP you're supposed to post your reasoning to this page, not just make changes.--BJ Peterson 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out the style section

--BJ Peterson 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8.3.06 Reverted the damage caused by Joel Peregrine. fixed spelling.--BJ Peterson 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution - content dispute

I'm using the Wedding Photography article as a guide, and its obvious that there are no organizations nor individuals mentioned in that article. The 'damage' I supposedly caused was simply to bring it back to within the guidelines set by this precedence. The influence of any one individual whose sole audience was within an industry organization cannot be seen as grounds for inclusion in a scholarly article on any subject. The effect of any one organization or individual on an industry is debatable, not verifiable. --Joel Peregrine 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution is very verifyable when the parties involved in it admit who or what had an impact. Sony has admitted many times that cameras like the PD100 series were introduced specifically due to the actions of the WEVA camera comittee. The impact of Roy Chapman can be traced across the industry, if you weren't so insulated and closed off from the industry you might know that Joel. Also you are deleting verifyable links that reinforce the facts in the article with your damage. This is also not the photography article. So I really don't care Joel, I will continue to undo the damage you do to an article you didn't even care about when it was a link farm. Wedding photography is also a 100 year plus industry thata lot of the early innovators have been forgotten. Wedding Videography has existed only since 1979 and the trailblazers are still active! --BJ Peterson 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an unbiased moderator is necessary in this situation. Its clear that if the standardized rules are followed in the interest of clarity and the presentation of information void of personal opinion none of the direct links or listings of individuals or organizations should be allowed. Allusion to certain specific ideas, groups or organizations may be acceptable as long as it is not construed as an endorsement of the subject.

As far as the fact that you feel it necessary to get personal I'll let my community involvement, contributions and reputation speak for themselves. But this isn't about me or you. Its about an unbiased account of the state of wedding videography today. I regret my previous ingnorance of this article, but am fully vested in its future. --Joel Peregrine 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am fully invested in this artic--BJ Peterson 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)le especially since I've written it over the last several months and kept it from once again becoming a link farm. You are strictly here because I'm here.[reply]

Given that there are many more videographers who are not members of a business organization, it stands to reason the influence of any one organization in shaping modern wedding videography is highly debatable. If BJP singles out WEVA, it stands to reason he should also single out all the other organizations and associations who may influence wedding videography. By only including WEVA, it is biased.

Keep it up Joel, this article was on the verge of deletion when I rewrote the whole thing, maybe you'll be able to tip it over the edge. And don't pretend this isn't personal this is another in a long line of you trying to cause me grief. You have no vested interest here outside of you saw my name and decided to cause trouble. You haven't spent any time on research, you haven't contributed a thing, all you can do is delete.

As for a bias towards WEVA, you show me any other organization that has had any type of major impact on this industry then I have no problem with inclusion. However no matter how hard I've looked none have. PVA and NVA existed but died quickly, both national orgainzations that propogated after WEVA appeared on the scene.

Finally your insistence that an organization has no impact since the majority don't belong, don't make me laugh. Do I need to go dig up your fawning post to the Van Lonkens crowing to the fact that they spoon fed you all the information they got from WEVA to make you better? So don't make me laugh at your stupid statment, you wouldn't be where you are today if it wasn't for WEVA and the Van Lonkens as you said yourself. So those outside of the orgainzation ARE affected, helped and influenced by the smaller majority. --BJ Peterson 04:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time out.

The easiest way to resolve this is to find references. Websites, books, interviews, etc., that are not connected with WEVA.

Joel Peregrine, remember that Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. If you have an issue with BJ Peterson, take it to Arbitration. If you want to delete something, cite a source rather than state your own opinion, especially if it's disputed.

BJ Peterson, remember that anything you put on Wikipedia can and will be edited mercilessly. This is not YOUR article. If you have a problem with Joel, take it to Arb or his talk page rather than arguing here; it's not the place, and it's not helping anyone. --TangentIdea 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in Ryan. BJP will allow me to contact him personally, as I have tried to do to iron this out. This is not personal, as BJP seems to make every issue out to be. I would be attempting to make these changes regardless of who was on the other end. There must be a compromise we can agree to. I contend that the influence of WEVA and the few individuals mentioned is neglibigle and not deserving of this centerstage treatment and direct links. Likewise the styles developed by members of WEVA that only effect the members of the group that are exposed to them are not worth mentioning as their impact on the industry as a whole is insigificant. The industry evolved without a single dominating influence until the internet began to be a conduit for the exchange of ideas and styles. Ryan - you've been a good influence on this site from the start of your involvement - I respectfully leave the decision to keep the references to WEVA and the scope of it's member's influence up to you.--Joel Peregrine 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, sorrry the personal war has spilledout into Wikipedia. When I showed up here months ago I did not expect this person to show up and start causing trouble. He is not alllowed to contact me personally because I have an email archive full of his nasty notes.

Now as for his observations. The styles listed are everywhere within the industry member and non-member alike. You can find numerous mentions on multiple websites of everyone of them, styles are not limited to members. Unfortunately to start linking to mentions of these styles on outside websites would be to start a link farm again, something Imanaged to get rid of when I came here. I have put reference toone ofthe styles directly in the article leading to the rules that are recognized by members and non members alike and this is something theat peregrine keep deleting. I am still looking for an online remanant of the Timeshift introduction. I have a hard copy of the announcement, but that doesn't work online. It was the WEVA expo guild 2003. WEVA is the 500 ton gorilla in the industry, I can point out any number of things that were introduced at WEVA orginally and have long since soaked into the industry at large. 3d photo montages were introduced by Pixelpops for a battle of the montages at expo and then run with by David Robbin and has sinchttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_videography&action=edit&section=8# --BJ Peterson 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)e poped up everywhere. Just one more example. You can't go to very many videographers' websites without being hit over the head with Cinematic style, traditional, etc. But we're trying to prevent link farms correct? --BJ Peterson 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, please remove personal references to me. I also have a archive of our discourse and my writings would never be described as you have you have seen fit. They are cordial, to the point, and polite. Would you like me to post them and include your responses? I think not, for your sake.

Joel, take a hike. You don't impress me, scare me or anything else. Go ahead and post my responses, I don't really care, but remember I have yours too and they are none too flattering. However you are always worth laughing at as I send them around to people in the industry. --BJ Peterson 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something relating more to the point: Its my observation that organizations are a reflection of the industry rather than a trend-setter. An organization doesn't create the styles or new ideas, they simply hold up a mirror to the direction the industry is already taking by capitilizing on the talents of a few creative individuals. It can easily be argued that the internet has made organizations obsolete. And speaking as one of the thousands of industry professionals who was blissfully unaware of any of the goings-on of organizations it can also be said that they have a negative effect on the industry as a whole by propagating ideas that end up homogenizing the content, something that the internet has been infinitely more successful at in a shorter amount of time. But thats a different discussion. I'm willing to compromise, just as long as the adjectives ("powerful", for example) used to describe the involvement of people and organizations are toned down and the links are removed. Again, I defer to the wedding photography article as a guide in terms of links - its either all or none. --Joel Peregrine 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that WEVA does have a significant influence over a good portion of the wedding videography industry, but I think that it would be more appropriate to move the WEVA information to its own article -- I think that would be the best solution to the issue at hand.

As for your personal disputes, take it somewhere else. Let's discuss the article and not resort to ad hominem attacks. If you two have issues, get a mediator, take it to Arbitration, or at least set your issue aside long enough to help the article. --TangentIdea 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentideaq, I have no problem with a seperate WEVA entry. I've thought a number of times that it would make the tightrope of keeping this entry from tilting over into what it once was easier. --BJ Peterson 02:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger wedding videography with event videography?

Tangentideaq, I would recommend that the event videography entry be merged into this one. Really when you are talking event videography you are also talking wedding videography they are nearly inseperable and the history and future are inseperable. I have no idea how to go about doing this.--BJ Peterson 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these are two distinct industries. I am involved with both, and can see the similarities, but am reluctant to agree the they are the same. For me, corporate events such as conferences, symposiums, concerts, product launches and keynote speeches are filmed and edited in a very different way to my wedding work. The clients are from different worlds and expect different things. Wedding Video Sydney Shane White (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) User:Wedding_Video_Sydney_Shane_White[reply]

Deleted spam link

This is not an avenue to advertise your personal services Perfect Wedding!BJ Peterson 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refined the introduction and added new section

Wedding videography's final product the wedding video has picked up a lot of different names in recent years. Wedding film(s) on many websites and WEVA has recently chosen to call it a Wedding Movie so I added that to the definition. Also added a type of production section that is offered under the umbrella of wedding videography. BJ Peterson

Wedding videography option descriptions...

Regarding the back and forth undo/redo of the wedding videography option description, particularly the trash the dress section: Please refrain from making the option descriptions sound like a sales pitch. The purpose of this site is explain the activities within the industry, not convince a potential client to purchase a particular service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelperegrine (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]