Talk:YouTube

Audio bitrate for itags 82 & 83

Under 'Comparison of YouTube media encoding options', 3D video formats, itags 82 & 83 are using 128 kbit/s, not 96. Someone with edit abilities should correct it. Tested with multiple videos (using: youtube-dl -f 82 url/id, or -f 83+), 82 and 83 did show AAC @128 kbit/s instead of 96, while others were correct.

RfC: Lists of countries using YouTube and of media encoding options

The following discussion 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.

---

The lists of countries that use YouTube and of media encoding options are now collapsed. MOS:COLLAPSE normally discourages collapsing the tables. The question is not to either keep the tables collapsed or expand them. Actually, someone said that these tables are too long for an average reader. Shall we retain those tables or remove them? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

These tables have been in the article for a long time. I'm not a great fan of them but some people are and removing them would require a consensus. Splitting them off into another article is my preferred option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian, splitting the tables off would violate WP:content forking and/or WP:subpages guidelines unless you can rebut me. George Ho (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I am more interested in what works than in rigid interpretations of content guidelines. Nobody had complained about the collapsed tables until now, and they have been there for years. I don't think that the collapsed tables do any harm. The interested reader can click on them, an uninterested reader has the option not to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from "so-called" length issue, why not de-collapse the table and let a reader "hide" it? That is, de-collapse it for initial reading by changing from "collapsed" to "collapsible"? George Ho (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that the format and localization tables are too unwieldy, and in the case of the localization table not really necessary anyway. A few lines about how there are various regional versions should be enough. It is bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT to list all of them. As for the format table, this has been compiled by people downloading YouTube videos and analysing them with tools like MediaInfo. While there is no reason to believe that any of this is wrong, it is a form of WP:OR as YouTube does not maintain a published list of its video formats.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keeping them collapsed seems to be the way to go. The article is titanic as it is, someone interested in this data would expand the table. Someone who was not would just be bothered by huge tables. So for the overall greater good, having them collapsed is preferable. We don't need to slavishly stick to style guides in cases where there are obvious good reasons to have an exception. We are not lawful neutral here! TheLogician112 (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with removing the tables, TheLogician112? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Summoned by bot. I see no convincing reason for removing the tables. How the article currently reads, with the tables collapsed, satisfies both readers who are and are not interested in reading about tthe countries and media encoding options. No harm in keeping them collapsed as those interested in reading more can simply click to expand. Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of keeping the tables if they shall remain collapsed at the start? George Ho (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So readers who are interested can easily expand them to read more. Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And why else keeping it, whether collapsed or expanded? George Ho (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused on what you are asking. By having the tables collapsed, those who aren't interested can easily scroll over them and those who are interested can expand them to read more. The fact that they are unsourced is a different issue. Meatsgains (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll rephrase, Meatsgains. Wanting the tables "collapsed" implied that you want to keep the tables, right? Why else keeping the tables, even when collapsed (or expanded)? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct, I want to keep the tables collapsed. I have no other reasons other than what I noted above. It does no harm in keeping them collapsed on the page. If a reader is interested in learning more, then they can easily expand the tables. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Either you haven't explained why you want to keep the tables, or I failed to ask why you want the tables to remain in the article rather than to remove. Seems that I've not received further answer. It's not about collapsing. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say this - I want to keep the tables on the page for those interested in learning more. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Remove format table because no reliable sources have provided this information. See WP:RS. We're getting most of this information from here and here, but those are obviously not reliable sources. As for the localization table, either remove or make it collapsible, in no particular order of preference. It's not so long that it needs to be collapsed by default. ~ Rob^Talk 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove format table per Bu Rob13. There are no reliable sources here. Remove timeline per WP:NOTCHANGELOG -- this section would be much better served by a few sentences of prose summarizing the major waves of additions. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and condense the collapsed table - there are five out of date sources at the bottom - none of these give the ID numbers. Google is a member of the Alliance for Open Media - that want a competitor to h.265 such as Google's VP10.

During the 2015 release of Shield Android TV, Heather Rivera, YouTube’s director of product partnerships said “We think people using NVIDIA’s SHIELD console will love watching YouTube in 4K, thanks to the work NVIDIA did to make its Tegra X1 processor support VP9 video decoding,” (https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/03/03/why-shield/) - Note that NVIDIA is a member of Alliance for Open Media.

Wikipedia is written for readers, who are often non-technical consumers. I'd argue that readers who are aware of the Alliance for Open Media or open/closed codec patenting issues would be interested in the codecs used (and resolutions) but not the internal ID numbers.

Youtube's engineers publish figures on ingesting content but not on what proportion of codecs they use to send (may be a commercial secret).

There may not be an RS for this (github discussion here) but it appears that Google has stopped using 256k AAC audio.

I'd recommend condensing the "profile" column into "codec" for h.264 listings, removing discontinued lines (no RS supports these ever existing) and removing the ID numbers. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep (and leave collapsed) – I especially appreciate the encoding table, and don’t think it’s inconveniencing anybody as it is. — Wulf (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It may not be an inconvenience, but it is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:OR. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wulf: Why is removing the tables not a suitable option? George Ho (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep (and leave collapsed) This is potentially valuable stuff, but also potentially clutter/bloat. On re-reading the WP:MOS for collapsed tables and also the discussion of WP:content forking above, I think keeping as-is is the best option. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep (and leave collapsed) - Summoned by bot. I agree with SemanticMantis here keeping them collapsed is probably the best things to do too keep it available, but also hide it so that the page isn't as "cluttered". Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and leave collapsed. The information is presumably useful, but it won't be what most readers want to see. Two comments. This is presented as a list of countries, but it isn't, it's a list of customised interfaces. And most of the rows give dates referenced to sources which don't mention those dates. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no strong feelings, but as far as I can tell (without confidence,so don't bite me!) the issues are:
  *1 Collapsed tables are frustrating to tablet users etc
  *2 The tables are cumbersome as they stand in an already large article
  *3 Some people want them, but others think they are listcruft/clutter/bloat
  *4 It would be forking to put them into another article
  FWIW I say (as some have said) retain only suitable pointers and comments in the main article, and put the bulk of the table plus associated material into a linked-and-back-linking article with no more than the necessary perspective-retaining headings and links etc, so that users in either article can switch back and forth to the proper place with a single click as often as they please. That would take care of probems *1, *2, & *3. As for *4, the MOS on forking is quite explicit:
  "...On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." (my emphasis). That seems clear enough to me, functional and simple. It also is easy enough to change back if desired, and it presents nothing to irritate those who don't want the tables, but is usable enough not to let readers down, who quite reasonably might want the data for their own interest or requirements. JonRichfield (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (and leave collapsed) I can see how this information would be useful. If collapsing is truly an issue, I would suggest we create a new article. I don't necessarily agree that it would be a content fork, as I can imagine a purpose for the list of countries with customized YouTube interfaces separate from the history of YouTube and believe there may be a significant group of users interested in one or the other (but not necessarily both). Lizzius (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved lizzius's message to bottom as indication of newest message. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• WP:SPLIT list of customized interfaces by country; this is exactly what SPLIT is for. On the technical stuff - the actual sources there are 6+ years old, are bloggy garbage sources, and they are just window dressing for the OR that has been going on to update the table. This content is just an abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost for people's OR. Delete it. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am sure the RS to update the table entries are out there, actually; it's a matter of someone with the right keywords meticulously going through the tables and updating/ adding references. I can imagine a use for this information, although to date I have never actually looked at the page at all -- I got a bot messsage -- so I don't know how long the "too long" is in this case. But anyone looking up YouTube on Wikipedia is going to be looking for data, whether it's milestone dates or user statistics or whatever. I am against throwing away big chunks of useful information. Also, the reliable sources that are out there for codec specifications are probably not going to be large-circulation mass media publications; more likely camera/film publications, GTK+ and Unix developers and open hardware and visual processing software enthusiasts and the publications geared to those audiences, maybe support pages, manuals or blogs, depending on their author. So
• keep in some form, update and cite is my answer. I would suggest collapsing and placing the table(s) low on the page because readability. If the article really is that long, then it makes sense to me to move the data to an appropriately titled and linked subpage. If you do that, then the table should be open is what I think. And ok, if some of the entries are truly ancient maybe delete them but the more obscure the data the more valuable it eventually becomes and with a whole page to play with why not just leave them and make the table sortable? (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, I use it for youtube-dl 31.17.6.2 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2016 (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.

YouTube links on Wikipedia

(Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but where would be a better place for this discussion?)

Wikipedia already links articles about songs to their legally uploaded YouTube videos. Would it be appropriate to link articles about singers to their verified YouTube channels? (For example, Blank Space links to the music video on YouTube, but Taylor Swift does not link to https://www.youtube.com/user/taylorswift or https://www.youtube.com/user/TaylorSwiftVEVO )

Similarly, what about linking articles about movies, TV shows, actors, etc to their legally uploaded YouTube videos and YouTube channels?

71.121.143.160 (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is outside the scope of the article. YouTube external links are often removed per WP:YOUTUBE because they are copyright violations (unofficial uploads of pop videos, clips from TV shows etc). However, there is no outright ban. WP:EL is also involved, as it isn't necessary to link to something unless it enhances the article. This could be raised at the Village pump.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube. --Moxy (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Could somebody add a reference to the Start date template to support YouTube's launch date of February 14, 2005? Since my source claims that YouTube's domain was activated on Monday, February 14, 2005 at 9:13 PM.

Example:

YouTube, LLC

Founded	February 14, 2005 (2005-02-14)

96.255.209.103 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

 Not done Unnecessary. The reference for the start date is in the first line of the lead. Infoboxes aren't typically referenced unless required. See WP:INFOBOXREF. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, February 14, 2005 is the date that the domain name youtube.com was registered at WHOIS. It's unclear if any sort of website was up and running at this point, and the earliest appearance of YouTube on the Wayback Machine is on April 28, 2005.[1] Me at the zoo was uploaded on April 23, 2005. My guess is that the YouTube website did not go live until April 2005, but February 14, 2015 was used as the date of the tenth anniversary.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

IgneAurum (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC) I would like to UPDATE the youtube wikipedia page.

             Regards,
             IgneAurum

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

#RIPYouTube (or #YouTubeIsOverParty)

Do we need any info about the recent YouTube changes with censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman3095 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The hashtag #RIPYouTube is making the rounds on Twitter at the moment, and it is quoting the Advertiser-friendly content guidelines. However, I couldn't find anything about this in secondary sources, so it isn't suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:

• http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/09/01/youtube-advertiser-friendly-demonetization/
• http://www.cnet.com/news/pause-the-youtubeisoverparty-youtube-isnt-pulling-more-ads-from-stars-videos/
• https://kotaku.com/why-youtubers-are-freaking-out-about-money-and-censorsh-1786032317
• http://mashable.com/2016/09/01/youtube-advertiser-friendly-guidelines-phil-de-franco-youtube-is-over-party-backlash/#W_GN7o4feSqy

Please include Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)