Talk:YouTube

Format comparison table

This fell by the wayside during the Good Article review process, and there were several reasons for this (see talk page archive here). It has not a single reference to a reliable source, and was too long per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. It was OK when there were only a few formats on YouTube, but it is not practical to publish large scale original research in a Good Article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support adding chart: The chart is accurate from what I can tell. The "fmt" values, audio, video are correct, I don't know about the mobile. I say, that if the chart can be verified by other users, then it should stay. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although the information can be verified with stream reading tools like MediaInfo [1] this is not a reliable source since original research is required to extract the information. Users were also arguing about whether the table was complete and up to date, which is almost impossible to verify. The table also took up too much space in the article and contained information that would not have interested an average reader.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Deletopedia again?--78.48.73.125 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletionpedia is for an entire article that is to be deleted, not a single table. PopMusicBuff ^talk 23:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The table is interesting, because it contains some useful material. However, by mid-2009 it was too large and completely unsourced, and it was considered to have unfixable WP:V issues. I would have to oppose putting the table back without these issues being fixed first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The table was the only reason I ever visited this page. It would be a shame for good information to just be deleted, but I guess that's what wikipedia likes to do. Deletists rule with an iron fist here. Rolen47 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for preserving the chart I think someone has taken reference to a very rigid level that started to damaged the usefulness of the article. The chart is very helpful, its data is not in dispute, and can be verified easily. The size and frame rates of the video are indisputable, as one can actually count the number pixel and number of frame. Reference is needed only when a piece of info is in dispute, and obviously the data in the table aren't in any. I don't think "reliable reference" here is applicable and I don't think it should be used as an excuse to remove useful and helpful data. Da Vynci (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on a side note, ianmacm seems to take an overly rigid approach to reference, as a result of this, even country's name was messed up in the article. Considering ianmacm's edit summery in the edit he made, apparently in order to follow the reference verbatim, he replaced the more precise term "People's Republic of China" (PRC) with the umbrella term "China". I know that in daily casual speech, China usually refers to PRC, but formally speaking, China could mean two countries: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. As we all know People's Republic of China blocked Youtube, but Republic of China didn't. Hence the precise term was used instead of the China. Ianmacm's rigid obedience to reference in expense of the article accuracy amazed me a bit there. Da Vynci (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was another user who originally removed the table, arguing that it was incompatible with Good Article status to add this amount of material without referencing in any way. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, the table is back for the time being because it has some support. It was rather naughty for Da Vynci to remove the tag, because the table was and remains unreferenced. As a general rule, tagging should not be removed without the issue being addressed first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! May I ask which piece of data in the table exactly are we disputing? We don't put reference request tag in just for the seek of it. Reference serves a purpose of support that fact when that fact is being challenged. E.g. Person A think the fmt code produces vid size of 480×360 but person B things it is 482X369. However, form what i saw, you don't seems to be questioning the data. And no one here seems to be challenging those data because everyone who is in doubt of the size can either measure by manually counting the pixel by themselves on the website. What you see is what it is. If your concept of reference apply consistently on the page, we may well start to remove the youtube logo too, coz apparently no document says that red images is the logo (the image is found on the website, but no reference can be found that explicitly say it is the logo) , but we all know it is the logo base on common sense. Using ur concept, we may well also start to remove the orange from the article Orange coz there is no reference says that certify that orange-colour fruit in that particular image is an orange, but the editor used his/her judgement base on his/her common sense. Some reasonable judgement and permission of the use of common sense is what we need here. Da Vynci (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am always in favour of using a common sense approach, and have never said that the information in the table is wildly wrong. The problem is that with over 100 million videos on YouTube, guaranteeing that the information in the table is correct and up to date is an almost impossible task. The last time that the table was in the article, users argued about some of the details, since YouTube could change the system tomorrow without telling anyone. This is what happened when they changed from H.263 video to H.264 some months back. I am opting for a quiet life by having the table in the article, but it does contain WP:OR and there is little point in pretending otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think u r having a confused idea about what exactly the No original research policy is. According to the No OR policy, OR refers to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Merely counting the pixels and frame rate is not analysis. The video sample are all published in the website, there is no argument in the table, there is no speculation, and the table is not portraying any idea, and it is not serving to advance anyone's position. The table is there only for the convenience and serves a informative purpose. Da Vynci (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Youtube has 100 million video" argument u made, you are not very good at website and video standard do you? All uploaded videos are re-encoded using a uniform standard, so the number of the videos uploaded is irrelevant . As for your "impossible to update" argument, many of youtube's video's standard has been fairly stable for years, for example, the "standard size" video standard has been unchanged for more than 2 years. It is becoz once videos are encoded, it stays the same. So the need of updating the table isn't really as much an issue as politicians articles having their position changed from time to time. Da Vynci (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

YouTube likes to experiment with new formats from time to time, so don't be surprised if someone turns up on the talk page and has found a format which is not currently in the table. The most important change to YouTube's video encoding since the site was launched in 2005 is the shift from H.263/MP3/FLV to H.264/AAC/FLV, which took place during Autumn 2008/Spring 2009. YouTube did this without announcing it publicly, although the Wikipedia regulars noticed it. The size of the diferent formats in pixels has led to some debate, and I have opted not to get involved in arguments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research is not the worst problem with the table. It just doesn't cover everything and YouTube changes the specs very frequently. For example, it seems they lowered the bitrate of HQ (?) and HD (1411 kbit/s now) videos a bit sometime this week. Also, you can't embed fmt=35 HQ videos anymore by adding &ap=%2526fmt%3D35 to the link in the code.

I did some tests a few weeks ago and it seems that fmt=35 is not possible for videos with a resolution between 640x361 and 640x479. Only an fmt=34 version resized to ???x360 ("360" being the max height of fmt=34 and "???" being the resized width in proportion to the new height) will be created. See here. 640x360 is another special case, in which an fmt=34 640x360 encode is created. See here. This was not always the case, as a video I uploaded in March does have an fmt=35 640x360 encode, while its fmt=34 encode is 320x180.

Bottom line: Until YouTube releases some official format specs on their blog, I'd omit the table since it is not completely accurate. Prime Blue (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that someone agrees that the table is hard to source and keep up to date. You could be bold and remove it, but someone may put it back again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Preserved table here (with a change applied to the max resolution of fmt 34) Prime Blue (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the general consensus. Would be nice for the table to be updated here from time to time for reference, though. Twipley (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG, that's not really preserving the table, this section (including the table) will be wiped out and moved to achieve from time to time. Does anyone apart from me find the table very useful in the article? Da Vynci (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think there needs to be more of a compromise on this. Saying that the data is unverifiable or saying that it needs to be verified for 100 million videos is silly. I think the table should be put back but remove the bitrate and encoding rows from the audio and video sections since some offer up that those are more subject to whimsical changes. Most of the information in the table is already on the YouTube page in the video quality section so if YouTube drastically changes their video formats you will still have to make edits. It makes no sense to offer up the argument that we don't want it there because the contents will change. I think the table makes much more sense for the presentation of this information. InfoPotato (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of YouTube media types

		Standard	Medium	High	HD	Mobile	Old formats (pre 2009 Feb)
							Standard	High	Mobile
fmt value		34	18	35	22	17	none	6	13
Container		FLV	MP4	FLV	MP4	3GP	FLV		3GP
Video	Encoding	MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)				MPEG-4 Part 2	H.263		H.263/AMR
	Aspect ratio	4:3, 16:9	4:3	16:9		11:9	4:3		4:3
	Max Resolution	320×240 400×226 640x360	480×360	854×480	1280×720	176×144	320×240	480×360	176×144
	Bitrate (kbit/s)	200	512	900	2000	?	200	900	?
Audio	Encoding	AAC					MP3		AMR
	Channels	2					1
	Sampling rate (Hz)	44100					22050	44100	8000
	Bitrate (kbit/s)	?	128		232	?	64	96	?

Referencing YouTube

I've seen youtube videos linked and I believe I have seen them refenced in cases where they were very pertinant such as number of views of the Evolution of Dance video. So, what is the scoop on referencing youtube, or perhaps, some other, more strict video hosting sites, such as how to sites with pro submitted material; what is hte name of that one...192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, eHow.com was the pro submitted one I was thinking of. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that YouTube videos aren't counted as a reliable source because they can say anything. Don't know about videos such as EoD though. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be used as reference if the channel owner is an official partner who is established as a reliable source, such as video uploaded by CBS, National Geographic or The UK Government to their respective official Youtube channels. Youtube is a platform, it is not the plaform that counts, it is the sources that counts.Da Vynci (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hacking accounts

Did you know that there is a cheating system in YouTube called hacking? It's where one user steals another user's account for himself or herself. It's called sneaking your way around the YouTube rules. Somebody's got to inform the YouTube staff about this so that hacking does not occur anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.83.35 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hacking is a known problem with all accounts on the Internet. There are many ways of doing this, but it is beyond the scope of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello what does this have to do with wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.66 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New source

There are quite a few things in this news article that could be added to this article. Smartse (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been added as a citation because there is a lot that is worth reading about. Incidentally, the Content ID system is not infallible. A while back I received an e-mail from YouTube saying that one of my videos had been blocked worldwide because it infringed the copyright of Formula One. This was nonsense because it had nothing to do with Formula One. Fortunately, it is possible to issue a challenge when Content ID gets it wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube seems to have just undergone some significant revision

For example the @xyz thing when you reply to a comment; the lack of the ability to rate a comment; and less significantly the look of the upload progress bar to a prettier more flashy blue scheme. Anything else? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube seems to tweak the interface on a regular basis. For example, a while back they added drop down boxes with small black triangles, which puzzled people who wondered where some of the features had gone. Unless there is independent coverage, changes of this kind are unlikely to be notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of views

Hello, has nobody noticed this?? http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/10/y000000000utube.html Founders announce that 1 billion views per day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.66 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The one billion figure is mentioned in the Company history section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}I Please provide URL of YouTube site below image box of YouTube. (k1.saurabh 10:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

The address of YouTube (www.youtube.com) and the list of localized domain names are given in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Search suggestion

What does it take for your name to become a search suggestion when you start to type it in? Because ever since the other day when I brought up the loading bar thing and the @ comment thing; my naem has been a suggestion. Start typing in 1danielchristensen; when you get to the 1dan it's there and by 1dani it's the only one. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen

Section suggestion

I think it would be great to have a section (or at least a small bit of information) about the user-posted comments on the site. They're generally considered to be of the worst quality on the internet as a whole, and I'm sure there are reliable sources that say this. 75.127.214.162 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people would agree that the comments posted on YouTube videos are often rude, moronic or a combination of both. This problem is not unique to YouTube, and the site has various options including disabling comments altogether. This issue is mentioned in Criticism of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)