Jump to content

Talk:YouTube: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 75: Line 75:


:Thanks for pointing this out. There is a screenshot of the new wording [http://i.imgur.com/0wkN6og.png here]. The old wording is in the source at [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/rhodri-marsden-why-did-my-youtube-account-get-closed-down-1770618.html].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing this out. There is a screenshot of the new wording [http://i.imgur.com/0wkN6og.png here]. The old wording is in the source at [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/rhodri-marsden-why-did-my-youtube-account-get-closed-down-1770618.html].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

== The new comment system ==

Hi there,

It seems I'm not able to edit. Could someone else add that in the new comment system people actually ARE able to post URLs? (They're misusing it greatly too, but that's probably considered my own research and non-encyclopedic..). It says now something about Youtube not allowing URLS and then continues about the new system, it should at least be mentioned it's now possible, otherwise people are very likely to interpret this fact as a still operating spamreducingmethode.

Thanks!

[[Special:Contributions/83.83.88.133|83.83.88.133]] ([[User talk:83.83.88.133|talk]]) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:33, 11 November 2013

Good articleYouTube has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 17, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 9, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

  • An additional talk page archive is found here, for the former article, Criticism of YouTube.

Website

Please would someone create an Infobox website for this article please

quality and codecs

thanks for the quality and codecs section. it's really useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by User9733 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added new video- and audio-only streams (itags 133-160). The entries still need the encoding details. I assume they are, respectively, H.264 and AAC, but that needs to be verified. Kerberos (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Copy debug info" on a YouTube Live video in the Flash player on Chrome reveals some "fmt=" codes that are probably extra itags. 240p is fmt=92, 360p is fmt=93. 480p is fmt=94, 720p is fmt=95. All original research though, so I'm not adding it. (I echo User9733's thanks for this section, it's really useful.) Nelson (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube app

Re this edit: one of the problems is that the source given is a market research company. The figure is plucked from the air with no methodology, eg how big was the sample, in what countries was the sample taken etc. Without this, it is hard to know how accurate it is. Market research, opinion polls etc are not generally a reliable source unless there is some methodology given. I have left it in the article with a qualification about the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 October 2013

Many users have been experiencing problems with HTML5 trial. Please edit the page to add a controversy that HTML5 cannot work for some users. Miguelcervantes333 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please provide a reliable source to back up these claims and explain the controversy. My GFG didn't come up with much more than the usual tech forums with people having normal problems, as usual. DarkToonLink 07:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed

Currently on the page under the section "copyrighted material", it has this text:

At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a screen with the message "Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself".

This should be updated to mention that, as of November 2013, the text has been changed to read this:

By uploading, you acknowledge that your use of YouTube is subject to the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.
Please be sure not to violate others' copyright or privacy rights. Learn more

Many thanks. --86.141.36.84 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. There is a screenshot of the new wording here. The old wording is in the source at [1].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new comment system

Hi there,

It seems I'm not able to edit. Could someone else add that in the new comment system people actually ARE able to post URLs? (They're misusing it greatly too, but that's probably considered my own research and non-encyclopedic..). It says now something about Youtube not allowing URLS and then continues about the new system, it should at least be mentioned it's now possible, otherwise people are very likely to interpret this fact as a still operating spamreducingmethode.

Thanks!

83.83.88.133 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]