Jump to content

Talk:YouTube/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

ADD THE YOUTUBE GAMING ZEXOZYZ (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"YouTube Gaming will debut in Britain and the United States in the coming months" [1] so there is an element of WP:FUTURE. Best to wait until the service is launched.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

max res

someone needs to look into max res as 8k is now available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSOcYTES_A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.41.106 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, here is a screenshot of the video in question. It is playing at 7680 x 4320 px and has "8K" in the bottom right hand corner. I could only get this to work in Google Chrome, not other browsers. This is a bit of a puzzle, as it needs some reliable sourcing. There isn't anything in the YouTube official blog about when this facility was launched, although it seems to have been fairly recently. The best that I could find was this on Reddit, which is not a reliable source. YouTube can be secretive about its launches sometimes, maybe this is a trial run.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
8K videos have been mentioned in the media today.[2] However, as pointed out above, there have been 8K videos on the site for a while now. You heard it here first, folks:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is 8k support on youtube. This needs to be mentioned in the article. CarpCharacin (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Look at this. http://www.talkandroid.com/251941-you-can-play-videos-in-8k-resolution-on-youtube-but-its-not-practical/ CarpCharacin (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

In the section Quality and formats is this sentence: "YouTube has since lowered the maximum resolution to 3840×2160 pixels, which is twice as many pixels in both directions as 1080p.[75]", but this isn't right, 3840x2160 is four times as many pixels as 1080p So please change "YouTube has since lowered the maximum resolution to 3840×2160 pixels, which is twice as many pixels in both directions as 1080p.[75]" to "YouTube has since lowered the maximum resolution to 3840×2160 pixels, which is four times as many pixels in both directions as 1080p.[75]" Joeykapi (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: - I changed the wording to "twice as many in each direction", which I think is clearest. Storkk (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sintel

No mention of "Sintel," a Creative Commons short film created with Blender that was axed by YouTube and Sony via Content ID, and even after it was found that "Sintel" was entirely not in violation of anything, YouTube basically removed the ability of the creators of ever making profit from it via YouTube??? Guilty until proven innocent, but we'll still treat you as if you were guilty? — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the video notable? Was its removal covered by reliable sources?Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sintel has its own article and the copyright incident is mentioned there. This was back in April 2014, and at the time of writing, the film is available on YouTube. The removal was only temporary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 02:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Update

Google has announced that users will no longer need to be linked with google+ to use the service. This should be added to the page as soon as possible, with the appropriate references. --81.131.82.115 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That Weird Part of Youtube

I know the meme - but is it enough for inclusion? I've found

How best to include this idea, if at all? Deku-shrub (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Poop - a new genre emerges?

Another neologism that's emerging

Few strong sources though Deku-shrub (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Poop has been mentioned in the talk page archive as far back as August 2007 (thread here). The problem is that it has never received enough mainstream media coverage to be notable. http://knowyourmeme.com/ has a lot of this sort of thing, but if the only sourcing is knowyourmeme or similar online sources, it isn't really notable or reliable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alphabet

Alphabet will be the new parent company or holding company for Google. This is a change in the financial structure of how the stock is held, rather than a major change to the companies themselves. YouTube will continue to be a subsidiary of Google.[3] The change in financial reporting is due to take place in Q4 2015 and has not happened yet.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

Robert Irizarry (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Stickee (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Youtube Gaming?

In title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasstar1 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Streamy Awards

Can anyone update this article? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This would have WP:TOPIC issues, as it is not directly related to YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

Please change the "available in" section in the infobox from 76 languages to 75 languages. Youtube no longer supports Malay language as of several days ago. 114.79.12.213 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the preferences I am still able to select Bahasa Malaysian and still count 76 languages. But, I don't see the purpose of including that figure in the infobox unless a secondary source comments on it, so I've removed the entire section. Cannolis (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Truth bombing

Did it first appear (in name at least) by way of users sometime in 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.210.155 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The only substantial sourcing that I could find about this is in the Urban Dictionary here. This does not mention YouTube and dates it back to at least 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ytimg redirect

Since "Ytimg" is a redirect to the YouTube article, it should be mentioned at least once, in my opinion. It can be as simple as, "Ytimg is Google's image server." I do not know if that is true. It was in the edit summary when the redirect "Ytimg" was created. If you want to contact me for some reason, please use my user talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To be mentioned in the article, it would need coverage in reliable secondary sources. There isn't a great deal, and it appears that ytimg.com, and its subdomains s.ytimg.com and i1.ytimg.com, are used by YouTube to deliver various content related to the site.[5][6] During the course of average browsing, a person would not come across ytimg.com, but people occasionally ask what it is. It isn't possible to visit http://ytimg.com/ directly as it will produce an error message.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

New Youtube streaming formats

This hasn't been updated in a while but youtube has changed quite a bit in the last while. Here's an article describing some of those changes: http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p I'm not sure how legitimately we can consider it as a source of information but I think it's worth bringing this up since quality is always a big talk when it comes to media sharing and the information on the Youtube page concerning Quality and Codecs is out of date. I'm afraid I'm new to Wiki discussions and edits so sorry for any wrongdoings. 70.81.208.137 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

Please add more. Rugbyiscool (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.100.215 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2016‎

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on YouTube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

add Marcus Butler to founders 109.150.16.247 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Source?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

Wikimaniaccccc (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The logo looks a little bright compared to the on on the YouTube site. Are you sure it's the right shade of red? 2A02:8084:9360:3780:141:A29C:2CFA:4D6F (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The logo on YouTube uses #D81F28, compared with #FF0000 in use here. I'll sort it out -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't Youtube now be a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. now, since Alpha Inc owns google

should be changed from 2006-2015 for google

and 2015-present = alphabet inc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.80.5 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing, as YouTube is still part of Google. The August 2015 restructuring created eight subsidiaries of the holding company Alphabet [7] but YouTube remained under the Google umbrella.[8] So it could be said that YouTube is now a subsidiary of a subsidiary. Google is YouTube's parent company, while Alphabet is the parent of Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Youtube's Fair Use Protection Program tears LLC up

If youtube is liable for the content on youtube, they should no longer be an LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on YouTube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Influential"

Re this edit: Wikipedia articles are not written as essays in which people offer their personal analyses. This is original research. "YouTube is influential" conveys no factual information and is a vague, bland statement. By this logic, any Wikipedia article about a well-known website should say "Twitter is influential", "Facebook is influential" etc. We are writing encyclopedia articles here, not school essays.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ianmacm, thanks for talking about this. I didn't see this so I made a post on your talk page, which I will bring up. You see, not all sites have had such an impact on media culture has YouTube had, and the rest of the article speaks to that very well, and is cited as such. While not every site deserves the same treatment, anybody interested in the article will know that YouTube (and by extension Google) has affected our culture a lot.
Can I please ask what isn't encyclopedic about my entry? It may have been bland, but you could have changed its tone. The impact of YouTube is one of the biggest topics in the article, and deserves mention in comparison to sections like April Fools jokes. So is there anything you don't like about it that's not covered in the style guide e.g. WP:LEADCITE and WP:TONE? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It is an undeniable factual statement that YouTube is one of the most visited websites in the world, so it must be popular and successful. However, Wikipedia articles are not media studies essays and should avoid this tone of writing. The reverted edit would be fine in a media studies essay, but contains no sources to back up the statements being made.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I will fix that issue --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Back again, and I added sources to what I said. Please remember it's a very old article and it hasn't been cleaned up. Much of what I had said has already been said in the lead, and I would very much like some more faith in my writing. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: the whole paragraph is basically one long chunk of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It has started off from the assumption that YouTube is "influential", which is a vague, bland statement that could be made about any major website, and then cherry picked sources in an attempt to prove this. Words like "successful" "popular" and "influential" carry an element of WP:PEACOCK as they impart little in the way of factual information. The whole "influential" idea is not necessary in the WP:LEAD section because the term is hard to define or source accurately. Please find a source which says that YouTube is influential and add specific examples to the body of the article, rather than using individual cases to support a broad assertion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't you have done this yourself? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen! Take pause! Preliminarily, I first must compliment Kiyoshiendo for ferreting out such content-rich sources (I've scanned the CNN, Time, and Telegraph articles). However, I agree with IanMacM that, given the specificity in the sources, the proposed content is fairly Original-Research-ish and Synthetic editor commentary. These three sources, for example, have very juicy tidbits that might well benefit the body of this article, perhaps in the "Social impact" section that I overhauled in this Jan. 2014 edit, or, if of less import, in the separate Social impact of YouTube article that I overhauled in the same time frame. But don't feel bad, Kiyoshiendo, my impression is that much of the rest of this article's Lead is also too detailed to include in that coveted position. Kudos to you both for retaining civil decorum in this election year! —RCraig09 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is a very good idea and one which can improve the geriatric bones of this article. What other improvements can we make? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Let the (reliable) references be your guide! It's important for editors to observe WP:NPOV and to portray what the references themselves say, minimizing editor interpretation, synthesis or other "editorialization". Best wishes. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is WP:DUE. This devotes an entire paragraph of the WP:LEAD to telling the reader that YouTube is influential, which isn't in itself very informative. There is little doubt that YouTube is the largest and most visited video website, but it is best to stick to the facts in the lead section, and to give specific examples later on, or in Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016

Someone who creates youtube videos is called a "youtuber". A good example of a youtuber would be small channels called Samiscool49mc or happylikepie. These youtubers create videos for their fans or subscribers almost on a daily basis. Mesablip (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done; it might be worth mentioning the term in YouTube#Social impact, but those examples (one with 11 views, one with no videos) are of no use. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit request has some WP:OR issues and isn't all that notable. One of the things that the article should attempt to do is to explain the origin of the name YouTube. It is pretty clear that this is a portmanteau word made up of "You", and "Tube", informal/slang for television in U.S. English.[9] The YouTube logo imitates the shape of a cathode ray tube on a television on the word "Tube". I've tried to find a reliable source saying this, but couldn't. Help requested.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Video/audio bitrates

According to:

http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p

the video/audio bitrate information on this page is outdated - by several years !

Considering that this page is used as a reference, it should be updated. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Organic video ads on Youtube

On YouTube, there may be some search results that has a title suggesting that the video is an ad or a commercial, but Google and YouTube do NOT mark the video with the yellow tag 'Ad'. Why? Such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQIHwLB2Yw0 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkyZUVAz6WE. The title indicates the video is an ad about Sprite. But, nonetheless, they are NOT marked with the yellow 'Ad' tag while searching for those videos. Why? 111.94.163.80 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM applies here, but since you've asked, the reason appears to be that these commercials were uploaded unofficially by someone who has nothing to do with the companies involved. It is possible to watch virtually any television commercial on YouTube, and many of them are unofficial uploads.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

 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)
 Done ~ RobTalk 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "YouTube.com WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools". WHOIS. 2016. Retrieved 2016-01-23.

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[10] 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)

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)
  • 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)

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)


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)
  • 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 [11] 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)
  • 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)

"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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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 S  22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://babadosdosyoutubers.com/youtube-mobile-line-on-taiwan-website-wait

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)

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)

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)

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.[12] RIP Bob, this isn't really needed in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

RfC: "April Fools" section?

There is a clear consensus to keep the "April Fools" section. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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 "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)

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)

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)
Done that, Lemongirl. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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)
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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on YouTube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

(non-admin closure)Reviewing the comments below, it appears that the general consensus is to leave the table in place, but have it in a collapsed format. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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. ~ RobTalk 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.

(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
FoundedFebruary 14, 2005 (2005-02-14)[1]

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

References

  1. ^ [whois.domaintools.com/youtube.com "YouTube.com WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools"]. WHOIS. Retrieved 2016-07-11. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
 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.[13] 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.[14]--♦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:
Please include Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This has been added to the article, as it has picked up media coverage, eg here. YouTube says that its policies have not changed and that the process is more transparent.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

New Homepage

--The following user is a Guest--

I was using the browser Torch and decided to open up an incognito window to go to YouTube and I happen to see that the homepage is different, however the new homepage didn't come up on the regular (not incognito) window, not even on Internet Explorer. And when I came back, the homepage returned to the current (not the new) one.

In short words, I saw a new homepage but it disappeared before I could get a picture of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.52.11 (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2016

Add this: (Redacted)? – God's Godzilla 23:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We can only add images that have been uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I'm afraid that based on the description you gave, there is no possibility of locating the image you speak of. Altamel (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Although the page is very informative over various aspects of YouTube, I believe it could use a little more information on how it has impacted popular culture now. The YouTubers who have taken over just keeping it as a site for watching short funny clips, has become more popular with all the online celebrities. It was mentioned how much one could make on average by using ads in their videos but not much more information about creators was given. Also, I know that recently YouTube has announced that it will start censoring videos. A lot of content creators have expressed mixed feelings about it which I think is somewhat significant to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Tommyguy345 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
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) 12:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Image additions

Re this edit: Numerous images were added to the article which were not really necessary per MOS:IMAGE RELEVANCE. It isn't necessary to go for the coffee table book approach of adding illustrations simply because they look nice. There are various media on Commons but there isn't the space or the need to use them all here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on YouTube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

In the [File:YouTube screenshot 2005.png|thumb|250px|The YouTube homepage as it appeared from April to June 2005] underneath YouTube#Company history, could somebody change it to say, "April to May 2005" instead?

Since by June there was already a different website design.

Source(s):
First archive of design - http://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube.com/
Last archive of said design - http://web.archive.org/web/20050516075352/http://www.youtube.com/
Different layout by June - http://web.archive.org/web/20050614234128/http://www.youtube.com/ 

173.73.227.128 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Dane talk 04:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Deinterlacing

Re this edit: this has been reverted because it is pure original research in the image, and the text source here is forum which fails WP:V standards. On a more general point, it also fails WP:DUE if this is the best sourcing that can be found. Web video is usually progressive, so if someone uploads a video that is interlaced, it will be deinterlaced. This article is not a discussion forum about the pros and cons of deinterlacing, so unless it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources it is not worth mentioning. If a person is all that worried about deinterlacing, they can do it themselves before uploading the video. It is becoming increasingly rare for anything other than broadcast television to be interlaced, as modern video devices such as smartphones typically shoot progressive video anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The source is not reliable (falls under WP:USERGENERATED). If I see a better source I might consider. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I really can't understand the fascination with adding this. It also fails WP:TOPIC as it is adequately covered at Interlaced video, which has an image showing how artifacts can be produced when video is deinterlaced. This is much less of a problem nowadays, because virtually all new cameras shoot progressive video. It is only broadcast television that is still using interlaced video to save bandwidth. The use of interlaced video has gone into a steep decline over the last ten years because it is unsuitable for LCD monitors which are the most common type of monitors in use today. If the best source that can be found discussing this is a user forum, it is not notable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Handheld camcorders did not go anywhere. They still use AVCHD developed a decade ago, and a default shooting mode is 1080i. Not everyone shoots with a smartphone. Interlaced video cannot be directly displayed on a progressive-scan monitor, which is why flat-panel TVs have built-in deinterlacers. Computer monintors are not designed to work with interlaced signal, thus YouTube deinterlaces interlaced video, but does not do a good job at this. This is important information for those who see "squiggles" and cannot figure out why they are there. As for the source, there are many things that are not discussed in fancy books or magazines. Do you really expect a book talking about deinterlacing features of YouTube? The forum I linked to has reliable info, no one disagreed with the initial message. And the image confirms the message. Mikus (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It has to be reliably sourced or it's not included. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't expect reliable sources to discuss everything, but WP:OR still apples. Interlaced video is much less common than it was ten years ago and a typical person shooting home videos today would not be worrying about it as the videos would most likely be MP4 progressive by default. There are also WP:NOTHOWTO issues here. If you render an interlaced video on modern editing software it is likely to do the deinterlacing before upload anyway. YouTube has its own Recommended upload encoding settings which specify "Progressive scan (no interlacing)" This shouldn't be a problem with modern video cameras, but older material should be deinterlaced before uploading according to YouTube's own guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You are mistaken, it is still a problem. Watch this one, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k - combing is all over the place. It is a professional video uploaded in 2015. Hence, I still posit that fuller deinterlacing info must be mentioned in the YouTube article. I am amazed that you struck down my edit twice, a simple phrase about incorrectly deinterlaced video causing combing or ghosting. I did not even suggest specific ways of deinterlacing, I just pointed to the reason for those squiggles and double images.Mikus (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It still has problems with WP:DUE and WP:NOTHOWTO. The article is not an advice column. What YouTube says about this is that interlaced videos should be deinterlaced before uploading. The lynda.com source does not mention YouTube specifically, so it is again attempting to add WP:OR. Nor does windowsmoviemakers.net. evilc mentions it only briefly, and the Google product forum is not a RS. This is an attempt to inflate the notability of the issue way beyond what the sourcing supports. Instead of moaning about how YouTube deinterlaced the video, a person should do what YouTube says and deinterlace it themselves before uploading it. Problem solved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017


Underneath YouTube#Company_history, in the third paragraph, on the seventh sentence stating, "The first video to reach one million views was a Nike advertisement featuring Ronaldinho in September 2005." from a January 6, 2016‎ edit.

I want 2 changes to be done:
1) Could somebody change September to November, since the original video entitled "Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold" was uploaded on October 21, 2005, but didn't get one million views until November 2005. Since there's no evidence to prove so it was uploaded/or got one million views by September 2005 what-so-ever.

2) And could somebody also add two references to the said sentence.[1][2] 173.73.227.128 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold - YouTube". Wayback Machine. 2005-11-25. Retrieved 2017-01-01.
  2. ^ "Most Viewed - YouTube". Wayback Machine. 2005-11-02. Retrieved 2017-01-01.

Sept and Nov 2016 info

Hi! My edit was reverted, and I would just like a little talk about it. Doesn't not including the information further lead into Wikipedia's general systemic bias? The info is from two months ago and current month (so not extremely old), is fully verifiable with several sources, and without including it, Wikipedia maintains a stance on deliberately incomplete information on the subject matter? If the info was very detailed, I could understand it, but that info is significant. LocalNet (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Just bringing Ianmacm into the discussion. LocalNet (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that it's been re-added. But why in shorter form and with a different source? I deliberately wrote my original edit in a short format. Why not just revert back to my edit, what was "wrong" with it? Because this time, you're only including some parts of the announcements, not all of it. LocalNet (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I re-added this in a shorter form, because the previous version went into too much detail which was best left to the citation. This comments review system is a trial scheme at present. It isn't practical to mention everything about YouTube that has appeared in the news. The YouTube Heroes program hasn't picked up much media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, we shouldn't choose information based on how many sources write about it; that's exactly how biases are formed. I disagree with you strongly on this matter, but I know better than to edit war. I just can't help but think that this situation is exactly why Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source; editors sometimes do not add new information, or include info that they deem appropriate. That's all I needed to say. LocalNet (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ianmacm! I was on the YouTube Wikipedia page today, and randomly entered the Talk page and saw this discussion. Just wanted to say I regret writing this. This is embarrasing. You were right in this discussion. At the time, I really believed *everything* about a topic should be on Wikipedia, but just like you said, not everything is notable, especially on major topics like this. At least I know better now. But still, sorry about this. LocalNet (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YouTube/Archive_21&oldid=1164849973"