Talk:Video jockey

message: "Although less known by mainstream America"... does this qoute seem to suggest a need for two distinct articles? Hiberniantears 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, thanks for joining in conversation. Please bear with me, because I guess I'm as little confused. I had thought that Vj as Video performance artist was more of an artist, compared to an MTV VJ which seems more like just a pretty face not requiring any kind of skill. The difference between, say, Terminator X and Casey Kasem. Now, I've been to some dance clubs and seen the video art -- I had assumed they were just using MilkDrop -- but now that I've read your article I think maybe it was a VJ. But are you saying that there's no difference between what they do and what e.g. Carson Daly does? Ewlyahoocom 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me make sure I understand you: it's not that you think MTV-style VJs and video performance artists should be on the same page; but rather that you think VJ should be moved to something like VJ (music video show), and that the article VJ (Video performance artist) article should be moved to VJ. Is this correct? Ewlyahoocom 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think VJ (Video performance artist) must be placed on VJ. And VJ (MTV-sytle-vj) in other page like MTV or MTV VJ. In my oppinion it's an easy, objective and non-interseted action. --Rezponze 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi from Canada.  We have a couple of music channels, Much Music and Much More Music, so a generic page should be made for VJ (music video show).  They would still be considere MTV-style, but it would be more encompassing if the article was general. MatthewWilder 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a definite lack of objectivity if you say "see also VJ (Music show type)".  I think there should be disambiguation, because when I hear VJ, I think of the MTV type.  I think 99% of people would agree.  To people within "visual jockey" circles, I can see why you would want it to be the way you are suggesting it.  However, that would not be consistent with Wikipedia's goal of objectivity.  MatthewWilder 16:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two distinct articles 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose I believe that the primary meaning of VJ is someone who introduces music videos on music video shows. Ewlyahoocom 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Well the copyright violation by  didn't turn out to be the copyright violation that it was tagged as being.  But it was still a violation, as it copied and pasted VJ (video performance artist) (the displayed text, not even the wikitext) over the top of this one, without a proper backlink in the edit summary.  I've cleaned up some of the mess.  Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright mess