User talk:Locution

Re:Blu-Ray.com

My mistake regarding Blu-Ray.com, then. I wasn't trying to push an agenda; the links to blogspot et al. just seemed a bit suspect to me. We probably should reference whatever is the official source, no? :) — TKD::Talk 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. — TKD::Talk 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your grievance with blu-ray.com is, I believe they're a more reliable source than the one you're trying to insert. You mentioned having the whitepapers, if you can find references that support the statements made in the article in those whitepapers, let me know and I'll remove the blu-ray.com refs in favor of the more official whitepapers. (Please let me know which page of the whitepaper so I can properly cite it).

If you feel like providing the refs yourself, use {{cite book}} (to specify the page or pages, use page=15 (for information on a single page) or pages=15-16 (for information spread across multiple pages)). You can see the full documentation for cite book by clicking the link and scrolling down. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your reasoning for claiming Blu-ray.com is a more reliable source? That they happen to reside on a poached URL? What makes them more reliable than the reference I inserted when the exact same information is cited in both places? I know the people that run Blu-ray.com and they are no more reliable than anyone else and cull their information from other sources and have to retract much of their news posts. Locution (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they're one of the longest running 3rd party Blu-ray websites. As I indicated in my original response though I'd be open to replacing their links with cites to the whitepapers if you would provide the pages and the names/authors of the whitepapers. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InterBluray has been online longer -- since 2002, they just don't have the cool URL. Locution (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of edit warring over this you could provide the page numbers in the whitepaper which would resolve this? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your claim that interbluray.co.uk has been around longer seems to be false. Archive.org has no archive of that site, and the domain registration occurred on "07-Nov-2007" according to godaddy.com. Archive.org indicates that blu-ray.com has been around since 2003. But please, if you have refs for the whitepaper, let's go that route instead of using websites. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]