Talk:Over-the-top media service/Archive 1

Edits of this date
Responding to near to impenetrable IT self-talk. At present, even as one who knows what the term means, and has read the sources, the article is simply a case of specialists summarising material for one another (i.e., technical self-talk). It is not encyclopedic, and cannot adequately reach a general audience. (I know, I have been trying to use it to explain a further jargon-filled article that simply drops the OTT abbreviation, along with others unexplained.)

In particular, the article: This combination makes rapid understanding of the title term (and its component jargon), directly from here or through the sources, near to impossible. At the same time, the lede fails to summarise the article, even for active technology workers, but certainly not for a non-specialist audience.
 * fails to define the title concept in layman's terms, from clearly applicable sources at each step—which requires doing so without introducing other abbreviations or other specialist language that is impenetrable at its face (i.e., that does not require leaving the article to read another article or external source to understand a sentence); e.g., see opening sentence, "involvement of…";
 * fails utterly to explain the relationship between the FCC-defined OVD entities and the title OTT content;
 * mires the lede in jargon (IPTV, ISP, IP, MSO, OTT) some defined, some not, and in this way and otherwise, creates a lede that cannot stand on its own as a summary; and
 * presents end-of-paragraph clusters of sources at a distance from actual content purportedly derived, and summarises those sources only obliquely.

For these reasons, a Lead rewrite tag was added, calling for a jargon-free lede suitable for a non-specialist audience, with fact-by-fact, sentence-by-sentence sourcing via inline citation; an Expert needed tag was added to define OTT simply, in a manner clearly consistent with the presented sources, and to explain the relationship between the FCC-defined OVD entities and the title OTT content.

Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What rule says every article needs to be accessible to a general audience? For example, would you also flag the Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory page? Cutelyaware (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not every article needs to be fully understandable to a general audience, but articles should be understandable to the widest possible audience. See WP:TECHNICAL for guidelines. LiberatorG (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to tag the article. Can the person who restored the tag please explain why it is justified. In 20 months nobody has addressed this issue. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Online video distributor" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Online video distributor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Kaun Banega Crorepati
Hello, 103.197.223.66 (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

domain specific use of term / changing definition of term
It seems as though there are two competing meanings for the term. The first seems to be consolidated network and content providers using other delivery networks to deliver their walled garden content and extend its reach. The second seems to be an delivery via IP, including 3rd party providers (eg: Netflix). (I'm avoiding Hulu because it is an overly complex example as it is partially owned by the networks.)

Is my description accurate? If so, should the structure of this article be changed for clarity? http&#58;//johnrandall.com (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be cable-TV industry jargon. The definition needs to be rewritten to explain the point of view involved, the context in which the term is used, and how OTT content differs from other types of content or distribution – but in a way that can be understood by people who are not in the cable TV industry. In case there really are multiple competing definitions, they should be explained (though perhaps it is only that the term is not well enough understood to be able to show how these different interpretations actually come down to the same basic idea, or that one interpretation is an extension of sense of the other).

They use it in Variety without scare quotes or explanation, so the entertainment industry has evidently adopted the term as standard.

— Justinbb (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC) , you can provide your opinion about, what should be the proper name of this article below, in page move discussion.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Over-the-top media service → Over the top media service – Why there are dashes are in title, it should be Over the top media service  or Over The Top media service , let's discuss. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: The dashes represent one whole concept (compare to "direct-to-consumer"), and "over-the-top" is the variation used by most third-party sources (which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME). Steel1943  (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It seems easier to read this way and is justified as a compound modifier per MOS:HYPHEN. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per @BarrelProof and @Steel1943 –  City Urbanism  🗩   🖉  18:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They aren't dashes, they are hyphens, and are consistent with WP:HYPHEN. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)