Jump to content

Talk:YouTube

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irishstones (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 19 June 2016 (→‎Merge from Bob (YouTube): comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

  • An additional talk page archive is found here, for the former article, Criticism of 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What's wrong with removing the tables, TheLogician112? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So readers who are interested can easily expand them to read more. Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And why else keeping it, whether collapsed or expanded? George Ho (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. ~ RobTalk 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Wulf: Why is removing the tables not a suitable option? George Ho (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Moved lizzius's message to bottom as indication of newest message. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, I use it for youtube-dl 31.17.6.2 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire edit was deleted with the following comment: "per WP:DUE, this isn't really notable enough for its own subsection, and eMarketer is not a reliable source about YouTube's income, about which Google is famously secretive. Also 2013 is three years ago"

YouTubes Total annual income is VERY notable (especially if google is secretive). This is perhaps one of the most important subject, and definitely more notable than most other sections of the article that are about specific aspects of YouTube and have their own subsection (including 3-D, 360, Content Accessibility, Platforms, Youtube Red, April fools and almost anything else).

This 5.6 Billion estimate from eMarketer is cited by Many highly qualified sources including Forbes, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Wall Street Journal[1] and others. Wikipedia is not original research. If all these highly qualified mainstream sources cite this annual income estimate - then it definitely has a place on wikipedia. As long as we cite that this is an estimate and we cite the source per wikipedia policy.

"Three years ago" does not disqualify something to be added to the article (see WP:RECENT). In fact almost the whole article is based on citation from various specific years dating from 2005-2016. Even this section of "Revenue Sources" - Is already mostly based on 2013 estimates (even about the specific month of May 2013). This is especially important because 2013 was the main and perhaps the only year that YouTubes's income was researched and investigated by so many mainstream sources. Even if at a later time there will be new income estimates - that does not disqualify the 2013 income that was so widely covered. Caseeart (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since purchasing YouTube in 2006, Google has never published revenues or running costs for YouTube. This has caused various third party organizations to estimate YouTube's revenues and running costs, and it is hard to say how accurate any of these estimates are. The figure given by eMarketer has problems with WP:V, even if it has been quoted in the media. This is an attempt to give undue promnence to the $5.6 billion figure which may or may not be accurate. Mixing this in with the Nintendo material is unhelpful, as the two are not directly related. The section is dominated by estimates of YouTube's revenues which are basically guesstimates by people with no access to the true figures.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is based on SECONDARY sources not on google which is a primary source. Highly qualified mainstream sources all chose to cite this 5.6 billion estimate of YouTube's income. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Yahoo Finance, CNBC and much more. We are citing this as an estimate along with the sources that point to it. Why are we trying to hide it? Just because google does not disclose (or tries to hide) the YouTube income - this has nothing to do with Wikipedia which is based on SECONDARY SOURCES.
  • Your WP:V would only be of a concern if we would misrepresent the sources and write "wikipedia earned 5.6 billion". However citing 4 highly qualified sources that "Wikipedia is ESTIMATED to earn 5.6 billion" is completely verifiable.
  • I just noticed that earlier in this article it DID mention YouTubes's estimate income for 2008 with a much lower quality sources: "In June 2008, a Forbes magazine article projected the 2008 revenue at $200 million, noting progress in advertising sales.[35]"
Why was that not deleted? Is it just a tendency to delete every single new edit?
  • So much of the article is based on secondary sources outside of YouTube here are some example: "In January 2012, it was estimated that visitors to YouTube spent an average of 15 minutes a day on the site, in contrast to the four or five hours a day spent by a typical U.S. citizen watching television.[27]" -- "It is estimated that in 2007 YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000.[28] According to third-party web analytics providers, Alexa and SimilarWeb, YouTube is the third most visited website in the world, as of June 2015; SimilarWeb also lists YouTube as the top TV and video website globally, attracting more than 15 billion visitors per month.[3][29][30]" and much much more.
  • You are right that the widely covered copyright Nintendo case should be separated. (This is different from the other copyright cases later in the article because this case is mostly related to revenue from the ads.Caseeart (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube's revenue

This news article from June 2015 confirms that Google never publishes separate financial results for YouTube, which has led analysts to estimate them. Quote: "YouTube’s parent company Google never breaks out how much money its online video service is making – not a policy Kyncl is willing to break during this interview beyond claiming that YouTube is “generating tremendous amounts of revenue”. How tremendous? Some analysts have taken guesses: in February, the Wall Street Journal suggested that YouTube’s revenues rose from around $3bn in 2013 to $4bn in 2014 – lower than the predictions of $5.6bn a year that some analysts were predicting in 2013." This puts into perspective that these figures always contain an element of speculation. The material about Nintendo is a separate issue and should not be placed next to it in a way that implies a link.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


You are right. Given the highly qualified sources that Google never releases YouTube's earnings - that must be made very clear (that no one really knows the exact figure). It also must be made clear that various financial analysts made estimates on YouTube's income - while clearly indicating that these are ESTIMATES. I will check out more sources to see if there are any other estimates. Give me a bit of time and check out how this could be organized. Caseeart (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I separated as you said.
  • It does not make sense to have some of the advertisement material in the long "Company History" section and some in the "Revenue" section. Therefore I moved the two paragraphs that discuss YouTube's income and advertising programs to the revenue section to have it all together.
  • Added Titles. In my opinion it is much easier to read.
  • There is a misrepresented source that needs to be fixed: Article states: "Google does not provide detailed figures for YouTube's running costs, and YouTube's revenues"...[218] This citation [2] has no mention of that. I would like to add your Source from the Guardian but I first want to see that a consensus is reached before spending the time. Caseeart (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know about that? BTW, the name is the REAL Sherlock Holmes and the address is 221B Baker Street. MotorbikeIsAMostCommonWord (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

Could somebody change the 'February 15, 2005' to 'February 14, 2005'? From the sentence under 'Company history', "The domain name www.youtube.com was activated on February 15, 2005, and the website was developed over the subsequent months."

Edit:
If you scroll down and see under "Whois Record" in my source, it states that the domain name was activated on "2005-02-14T21:13:12-0800," which means that the domain name was actually created on Monday, February 14, 2005 at 9:13PM.[1] 173.73.242.76 (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide a reliable source showing that it was activated on February 14th. The source currently in the article suggests it wasn't created until the 15th. ~ RobTalk 00:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ RobTalk 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Obscene content"

User:Ianmacm Regardless of the TOS's wording, there are videos on YT of unsimulated, graphic sex acts. That fits many people's definition of "obscene content", and those videos are universally behind the YT age gate filter. It's an accurate description. There might be a "line" YT won't let users cross, but obscenity per se isn't it. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a question of perspective. YouTube's Community Guidelines say "Nudity or sexual content: YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation." Some material on YouTube has sexual content, but has not been removed because it is considered to have some educational value. "Obscene" is a problematic word because it carries connotations of running into problems with the law. A porn magazine or video may not be to everyone's tastes, but is legal in many jurisdictions. YouTube is not a porn site and if a video contains sexual content it has to fall within the range of the Community Guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some recent media coverage of this issue here and here in a UK tabloid newspaper. The first video no longer exists and the second one was also removed with the message "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on nudity or sexual content". I love the way that the newspaper gets itself all worked up and then gives readers a link to the actual video. YouTube gives a more detailed explanation of its policy here: "A video that contains nudity or other sexual content may be allowed if the primary purpose is educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic, and it isn’t gratuitously graphic. For example, a documentary on breast cancer would be appropriate, but posting clips out of context from the same documentary might not be. Remember that providing context in the title and description will help us and your viewers determine the primary purpose of the video." It's a bit like the old days when people would make black and white "educational" films about nudist camps showing people playing tennis or volleyball. It is an old ruse to get around the rules on porn by saying that the material is educational. YouTube seems to be aware of this and the two videos mentioned by the UK tabloid are no longer available.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Bob (YouTube)

Bob (YouTube) doesn't seem to have much stand-alone notability, but the protests described there seem like a valid sentence - or two, maybe even three - for this article's history and/or controversies section. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob (YouTube) probably doesn't meet WP:GNG in the first place. Nor do I think that it has received enough coverage for a mention here. How many people have heard of this and why is it notable? The article already mentions the 2013 controversy over the need to have a Google+ account to comment, an idea which has since been dropped.[3] RIP Bob, this isn't really needed in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think It should be added..... but if it is added it should be added as BOB in one of the folders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.1.9 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information should be mentioned in a sentence in the section "User comments" Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob never picked up enough coverage to be an Internet star, and most people have never heard of him. He falls below the threshold for being worth a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of recognition (has anyone really heard of this?) the escalation of the character into a militarized automatic weapon carrying thug is an ugly thing to attach to Google/Youtube and I am not even their fan. This kind of vanity meme without a unified backing or cultural significance seem exactly the kind of thing which should be deleted without comment. The controversy it protested should be noted without including Bob. Thumbs up for deletion. It was disturbing to even see it at the top of YouTube's WP page and have to research it. Waste of time and positive energy. Irishstones (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: "April Fools" section?

The "April Fools" section still exists. Shall the section be kept? If not, what is the solution? --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, eg here. I'm not a great fan of the April Fools section but some people like it, as it has become something of an annual event to find the joke.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

  • Keep section, but source to reliable secondary sources. I generally do not like trivia sections but this is one case for which I usually look up the Wikipedia article. If the April fools jokes have reliable secondary citations, I guess it is useful to keep it in the article. How about moving the section down to the end though? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, Lemongirl. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Keep

Discussion/Comments

I added sections for the two main !voting options. Please keep longer discussion down here, and only simple !votes and statements above (and to anyone who starts RfCs in the future - please lay them out properly at the start, otherwise they can get very messy and hard to understand :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

References

Broken Link: 120. "YouTube台灣網站上線 手機版再等等". ZDNet. October 18, 2007. Archived from the original on July 6, 2010. Retrieved January 2, 2012. Link Sugestion: 120. "YouTube Mobile line on Taiwan Website wait". Mundo dos Youtubers [1]. October 18, 2007. Archived from the original on July 6, 2010. Retrieved June 07, 2016. Joannadarc10 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video bitrates

It seems that the video bitrates for VP9 are wrong. It's actually more like: 144p 0.06-0.13 / 240p 0.15-0.25 / 360p 0.25-0.5 / 480p 0.5-0.9 / 720p 1.0-2.0 / 1080p 2.0-3.0 / 720p HFR 2.0-3.2 / 1080p HFR 3.5-5.5 190.36.177.87 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image of founders

Re this edit: I've seen this image many times before, and it is unclear how or when Jawed Karim said that it was public domain, as claimed in the license. It looks like a press publicity photograph. See User talk:Arjuna316 for the dubious upload history of this user. In any case, there is no need to have two images of the founders in the article as one is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]