Talk:YouTube/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

youtube beta channels 2.0

Should we add something about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.116.230 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Beta channel design has been around since April this year,[1] and at first some people hated it.[2] The YouTube Blog says that the channels are now out of Beta.[3]. Like most of the tweaking to the YouTube interface, it could be mentioned in the article if it picked up significant media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can youtube be used as references?

Can youtube be used as a reference if it itself contains a news television bulletin where the news article cannot be found elsewhere online ? thanks 90.192.59.178 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE. There are some official news channel videos on YouTube, but others cannot be used if they are copyright violations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Adobe as source of Adobe Flash Player usage?

"The Adobe Flash Player plug-in is installed on 98% of personal computer browsers and accounts for almost 75% of online video material.[56]" The BBC reffers to Adobe back, is this an accurate source? --213.168.120.127 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This could be seen as a WP:SPS issue. The BBC is referring to Adobe's market research, which is dealt with in more detail here. There is little doubt that virtually all computers today have the Flash plug-in installed, since most online videos would not work without it. Even my SLAX Linux CD has Flash on it. It is a pity to rely on market research by Adobe, but Flash is unquestionably the most common format for online videos, as the BBC article points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Shows

The Shows feature is not worth an entire section. Also, it contains too much detail of interest only to UK readers, and requires sourcing to explain the significance. Also, please assume good faith and do not misuse the vandalism template, as happened on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The new "Shows" feature [4] is worth mentioning in the article. It is notable because it contains full length shows from major broadcasters rather than short clips. There is also a need to provide sourcing for the Shows part of the article. Please discuss any concerns rather than edit warring and leaving silly messages on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seldom seen such childish and petulant behaviour on Wikipedia. Please do not remove the comments of other users. There has also been a serious violation of WP:CIVIL on my talk page.[5] Since I am not going to WP:3RR here, it is now time for a WP:RFC.

The "Shows" feature is currently available only in the UK.[6]. It is worth mentioning, but requires sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Shows" feature has been rewritten with sourcing. It is mentioned because it has received media coverage, and is part of YouTube's ongoing strategy to attract more advertising revenue. However, there is no need to list the shows offered as this is unencyclopedic, and the information could go out of date very quickly. It also needs to be pointed out that the service is currently available to UK viewers only.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1080p resolution

How about that; since when did they offer that? http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/1080p-hd-comes-to-youtube.html 192.156.234.170 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that 1080p support was added in November 2009. The best demo of 1080p is the Muppets' version of Bohemian Rhapsody [7] which is available in both 720p and 1080p versions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, the Muppets' version of Bohemian Rhapsody now says "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by EMI Pubslishing Scandinavia AB.". This is a puzzle, can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That video didn't say anything about 1080p and it had no copyright claim. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

More puzzles. The copyright claim was up yesterday, and it looked like this: [8]. Also, the HD button is currently bringing up the 1080p version with 122 MiB file size, but the option to choose between 720p and 1080p [9] has gone. The other big YouTube mystery at the moment is the fate of Avril Lavigne's Girlfriend, which has been removed from the site and the all-time charts where it was on around 130 million views. I would like to update the article to include this, but cannot find any reason or sourcing for why this has happened. Can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of court ruling

Why is there a section under "Criticism" called "Criticism of court ruling"? Shouldn't all criticisms be relative to YouTube? Since when does the judge ordering YouTube to give Viacom 12 terabytes of data qualify as a criticism of YouTube? It's not like YouTube wanted to hand over that information. I agree that it's falls under controversy because of privacy concerns, so should this court ruling be moved elsewhere in the article and renamed? Or is this one of those situations where we're better off to leave it alone in order to avoid more confusion? 24.10.181.254 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, so the section has been moved and renamed. Viacom was criticized at the time for requesting the information, but Google/YouTube was also criticized for keeping detailed records of who watched which videos and when, which it argued were necessary for market research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was consensus against move — æk ^Talk 07:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

YouTube → Youtube — Per WP:MOSTM. Trademarks that are rendered in uppercase as a matter of corporate policy rather than because of an underlying linguistic reason are to be converted to the same regular sentence case that any other proper noun would appear in. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as Nominator --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree here, as YouTube is the official spelling (it is a so-called CamelCase word). See also CinemaScope. Spelling YouTube incorrectly in order to show a detailed understanding of Wikipedia policy would be inadvisable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the policy. avoid: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". Example: avoid REALTOR®, TIME, KISS and use Realtor, Time, Kiss instead. So in fact CamelCase should be Camelcase and CinemaScope should be Cinemascope.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia policies are intended to be interpreted with common sense and the occasional exception. Regardless of what the rules say, I would be unhappy about spelling YouTube and CinemaScope incorrectly in order to display my knowledge of the rule book.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed words that use camelcase are a "judgment call" but the spirit seems pretty clear. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose For reasons of flexability and common sense, "YouTube" is by far the most common way of spelling the brand. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose: WP:MOSTM says that "CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable", so I see no pressing need to rename the article after all these years. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Youtube is not the correct spelling, and will most likely confuse readers as how the correct way to write YouTube is. 58.7.99.231 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for now. My experience is that YouTube is (like eBay) common usage; we do not respell against usage, whatever the company itself may do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The nominator seems to want every CamelCase spelling moved. First, CamelCase spelling it allowed per MOSTM. Second, it is NEVER spelled as Youtube (expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization). TJ Spyke 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment QuickTime is another example of a Wikipedia article that retains the official spelling. Whatever you think about CamelCase words, they are a fact of life in the world of trademarks and Wikipedia should not decide the "best" way to spell them. If this article were to be renamed Youtube, there would be daily comments on the talk page with people saying "You dorks, you've spelled it wrong."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Article titles should reflect what is most easily recognizable by readers and what is verifiable as in common use. If WP:MOSTM suggests something other than that, then that guideline is flawed and should be amended. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - From the cited policy: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable: OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice". My choice (and that of other editors above) is to use the CamelCase spelling YouTube. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Never seen it as "Youtube" in formal texts. 212.84.106.199 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Camel-case doesn't seem to really infringe on the English language. All caps, or lack thereof, is really the big issue. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Given the WP:SNOW that has occurred here, it might be worth clarifying the wording of WP:MOSTM. Where CamelCase is the standard spelling, Wikipedia should not attempt to challenge this. Spelling IN CAPITALS is another matter, but YouTube, eBay etc are here to stay and are the WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if a guideline or policy explicitly forbade camelCase (WP:MOSTM does not, and likely no other), and despite the fact that most of our guidelines and policies are contradictory, I would still oppose this, and would further move to have the guideline or policy rectified. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Close - Move for speedy close with No move --Jubilee♫clipman 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Advertising

Shouldn't advertising on YouTube be mentioned? Since it was bought by Google, YouTube has been heavily advertised on with in-vidio advertisements, in-video pop-up ads, and ads on the sides of the screens. I think this was a big change for YouTube and should definitely be mentioned in the article. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexa ranking

YouTube is back at number 3 in the daily rankings [10] but is still at number 4 in the 3 month average, which is used as the traffic rank. I'll keep an eye out to see if the article needs updating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Premium content

When YouTube will be able to show ( NON USA users the TV shows and some of the Famous USA TV channel for Free, i think they can do a good deal for their viewers with those big TV channels and i m sure they would love that to get more viewers but this time international viewers as we all know some countries block the USA TV channels for some crazy reasons , hope i can see that happening one day [[11]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.36 (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a standard feature of premium content. YouTube has channels for CBS etc, but attempting to access clips from the Late Show with David Letterman using an IP address outside the USA will produce a message that the clip is not available in your country for copyright reasons. Sites like Hulu also do this. The article does mention that not all content on YouTube is available worldwide.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

True inventor controversy

Why doesn't this article include the true inventor controversy? 98.111.199.195 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This refers to the claim made by Herbert Elwood Gilliland III back in November 2008.[12][13] He said that YouTube could be traced back to a tech project at Carnegie Mellon that he worked on in the late 1990s. Apart from Gilliland's claim in the blogs, there is very little media coverage or discussion. This is why it is not mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality and codecs

Why doesn't the "Quality and codecs" section mention more about the audio? Before HD was common on YouTube, this article mentioned audio bit rates (kbps) for each quality setting. Is there any particular reason that it's missing?

Oh, also, I'd add it myself, except I can't find any information on the audio bit rate for 720p or 1080p. If I was going off of memory (which obviously isn't a good source), 720p had an 44.1 khz audio bit rate of 232 kbps (and stereo), 480p (which used to be called "HQ" on YouTube) was like 44.1 khz, stereo, 128 kbps I think, and 360p was either 22,050 hz @ 96 or 64 kbps (depending on possibly being before or after February 2008), as well as either mono or stereo. I never recall running across anything about 1080p. I think this would be worth looking into if someone knows where to look, because I'm thinking at least one aspect of what I just stated is incorrect. Any input would be appreciated. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read Discussion Archive 14. Isn't the 720p audio bit rate constant, though, as opposed to variable? (I could be wrong). If it was constant, and we could just put "232 kbps" under the 720p column and "variable bit rate" under the 1080p column, wouldn't that work out okay? Thoughts? 24.10.181.254 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an area that has traditionally run into a lot of original research issues. In 2009, YouTube re-encoded its entire library to H.264 video and AAC audio, and phased out the old H.263/MP3 videos. This led to a noticeable improvement in video and audio quality. The statement in the article that "All audio uses AAC encoding with 2 channels at 44.1 kHz" is OK, but the video and audio bit rates have been harder to pin down and may vary according to the video in question. An interesting exercise is to look at the stream info of individual videos with tools like MediaInfo, but the article needs reliably sourced information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, Ian. I'll check out MediaInfo. Could there be any mention of MediaInfo in the article (because I'm sure others come to the YouTube page for the specific purpose of trying to understand the audio and video specs), or would it perhaps be difficult or irrelevant to incorporate? I understand if this is not possible. Regards, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MediaInfo is a popular freeware tool for reading the stream information of video and audio files.[14] I'm not sure that mentioning is within the scope of the article as it is a WP:NOTHOWTO. It should also be pointed out that in order to use MediaInfo, it is necessary to download the video first. Strictly speaking, this is against YouTube's terms of service (6.1C to be exact). However, it is interesting to use MediaInfo to see how the videos have been encoded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Local web addresses

Although the article still gives the local web addresses, eg http://www.uk.youtube.com for the UK, it seems that these no longer work. Can anyone confirm this, because the article may need updating here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Looks like you can't have multiple accounts anymore since they manditorily connected your google account to youtube. so you'd have to make several emails to do it. i used to have like 20 useless accounts on my same email. Daniel Christensen (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

no it's still possible to un-check the Google connection when opening a new Youtube account. I just did it the other day. 79.193.36.104 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube settings have since been updated.

Old settings limited to two or three choices only:

There was only one button.
- Choice 1 would be medium screen on left, normal quality at 360p.
- Choice 2a would be large screen on top, the higher of 480p or 720p.
- Choice 2b would be large screen on top, 1080p.

New settings have a different level of flexibility:

Button 1 will give the viewer a choice between 360p, 480p, 720p, and 1080p (whichever modes are available).
Button 2 will give the viewer a choice between medium screen on left, and large screen on top.

I notice that it is already acknowledged in the new "Charlie bit my finger" image, although the Barack Obama picture still appears to use the old screenshots. 142.26.18.188 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Charlie bit my finger" screenshot was added on 21 January 2010, which is the time that the new look player was introduced. It takes keen eyes to see that the Barack Obama screenshot uses the old interface. This is not mentioned in the article as it is more of WP:NOTHOWTO than encyclopedic content. The YouTube interface is becoming increasingly complicated, which is why there is a simplified version called "Feather", which is on Beta trial at [15].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube media type

{{editsemiprotected}} Change current youtube media table with this new youtube media table with all fmt (also the old). Please add to the main page.

Comparison of YouTube media types
		Standard	Medium	High	720p	1080p	Mobile	Old formats (pre Feb 2009)
		Standard	Medium	High	720p	1080p	Mobile	Standard	High	Mobile
fmt value		34	18	35	22	37	17	0, 5	6	13
Container		FLV	MP4	FLV	MP4		3GP	FLV		3GP
Video	Encoding	MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)					MPEG-4 Visual	H.263
	Aspect ratio	4:3, 16:9			16:9		11:9	4:3		11:9
	Max Resolution	320×240 400×226 640×360	480×270 480×360	640×480 854×480	1280×720	1920×1080	176×144	320×240	480×360	176×144
Audio	Encoding	AAC						MP3		AMR
	Channels	2 (stereo)						1 (mono)
	Sampling rate (Hz)	44100						22050	44100	8000

Sources: http://www.net.chanun.com/tips/download-high-quality-videos-from-youtube, http://userscripts.org/topics/38520, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:YouTube/Archive_12, current youtube media type table, my experience and some google search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.173.11 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload a video with 4 channels, and it works. And I listened to it and it still had 4 channels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4QAwK7eds Liggliluff (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have download your video and it has only 2 channels, see the image from Mediainfo http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/610/32343.png. I repeat, someone can add this to the main page (i'm not a registered user but i have checked this table).

Done Welcome and thanks for improving that table. It would be better to find authoritative sources for this information, but most of the content was already provided in the previous table, so I made the change as an improvement of the presentation. Hopefully, anyone challenging parts of your table will further improve it and not simply revert. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Video Example

Wouldn't it be helpful to have an example video on the wikipedia page? or a link to one

Like they do here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdock129 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, but this will not work. The MediaWiki software used to create Wikipedia does not support adding YouTube videos, which are based on Adobe Flash, which is non-free software. It is possible to add Theora videos to Wikipedia articles, see the biplane video in Theora.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)