youtube/Archive 12

I'm curious as I have a lot of information which I added to past events on terrorism related material but unfortunately they get deleted by extremists who have every right to edit but don't use wp:NPOV so any answers would be helpful, thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please wp:Assume good faith.
You might take a look at wp:Reliable Sources. The answer is that no, YouTube is not generally a reliable source. Anyone can upload... There is no editorial control... Videos may be changed or deleted.
It will probably prove very difficult, if not impossible, to gain wp:consensus to use YouTube to support any disputed point. - sinneed (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, see WP:YOUTUBE. There is no ban on using YouTube links in a Wikipedia article, but copyright is the major concern. Generally speaking, text based links from a reliable source are best.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ianmacm, I knew the other person was wrong and your right Morbid Fairy (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, if I need your advice, I'll go to your talkpage, please don't follow me around its very childish. Morbid Fairy (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On Youtube recently I was editing my profile when I had found an offer to test out Youtubes new "Beta Channel" it looked intersting enough so I tried it out and I was wondering if we should include information on it on Wikipedia somehow. I'm not sure if it's notable enough though. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, at the moment, there are a number of videos explaining how to get the YouTube Channel BETA 2.0, eg here. The standard interface when logged in now offers this. There is very little about this in the tech blogs at the moment, so there is a sourcing issue. My guess is that nearer the full launch there will be more coverage, and it will be easier to add it to the article at that point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then sounds good, thanks. I Feel Tired (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this page on the YouTube blog about the new channels; here. They are proving somewhat unpopular with thousands of users. Which may only be a small minority of registered users, but is still a fair amount of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.124.238 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the blog entry and video itself, almost every single person commenting and rating them is giving it an utterly pathetic appeal, it may not be all the users of YouTube, but for the % of people that are giving any input, I estimate 95% are clarifying that they hate this decision. Flygon (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to I Feel Tired 2601:147:4500:DC2:31F8:DCAF:1CB4:1A06 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not know who the heke that it 2601:147:4500:DC2:31F8:DCAF:1CB4:1A06 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but I've been noticing some heavy critisicm against YouTube by the users over the team's decision to replace the current channel design with the new Beta design starting July 15, 2009. Approximately 50%-75% of users have also threatened to close their accounts the night before the mandatory switch. If anyone else knows more about this and would like to add a sidenote to this paragraph, feel free to do so.--70.240.181.35 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Chris

• Nah, I don't think this is notable enough to be included. Just about everything YouTube does nowadays pisses people off. If anything, we should expand the Censorship section in the Criticism of YouTube article, because the big protest as of now is the suspension of many of their more popular users. I'm actually fairly active on YouTube (just watching videos; not making them) and there are users who are so fed up with YouTube censoring them that they're actually starting to move websites, and even make websites of their own. --Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 03:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The guideline here would be mainstream media coverage rather than blogs etc. The last time that YouTube was flooded with complaints was in November 2008, when it changed the default picture format to widescreen. This picked up some mainstream media coverage, but not a lot. Let's see how the official launch of the new look interface goes before adding this, if at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube has been censoring comments, is that noteworthy? Hiphopchamp (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I added a line under "Inappropriate Content". Trini bwoi (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube stalks people. They choose an user who searches the copyrighted material and then delete it. That way the users do half of their work. I'm not sure whether that's legal. --Moppaaja (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this original research? There are plenty of YouTube videos with swear words in the comments, but the current options for adding or disabling comments seem the same as before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The swear words are automatically replaced with *s. [1] --Moppaaja (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This video came up as "adding comments has been disabled". It is possible that YouTube is testing a system for blanking certain words, but until it is covered by reliable sources, it cannot be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're testing anything but since I can't found any official source supporting that YouTube has started a new policy of censoring comments that information may be removed. Until something appears... --Moppaaja (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The swear words appear censored as *s by default, but if you're age 18 or over, there is an Options link beside the "Text Comments" heading that brings you to two checkmark fields labeled "Hide objectionable words" and "Hide all comments". If you uncheck "Hide objectionable words" and hit the "Save Changes" button, then swear words will become uncensored. Since I am age 25, swear words appear to me automatically uncensored, unless I choose to hide them. Jedi787plus (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently uploaded a 1280×720p video to YouTube and then decided to watch it in several different formats, by appending "&fmt=##" to the video's URL. Every time the video finished loading in a given format, I checked my browser's cache directory for its dumped FLV or MP4 file, made a copy of it and then analyzed its bitrate and resolution stats.

For format 35 (&fmt=35), I got what I expected: a large FLV file. Upon checking it, I found that its video resolution was 864×480, which is higher than the 854×480 that was originally reported in the article. (I suspected 854×480 was an invalid resolution, as MPEG-4 Part 14 disallows resolution dimensions that are not divisible by 16); I made the pertaining correction in the article.

For format 34 (&fmt=34), I didn't get what I had expected from the article. While the article calls format 34 a "standard" format limited to resolutions up to 320×240 (4:3) or 400×226 (16:9), my FLV dump of format 34 was actually better quality than format 18 (&fmt=18) but worse than format 35: video was 640×368 clocked at 646 kbps, and audio was the same as formats 18 and 35 (128 kbps AAC). This is not a standard-quality format but a medium-to-high-quality format. I believe this correction should be made to the article, but then that leaves another dangling question: what format # is then the standard-quality format with H.264 video and AAC audio?

I manually tried other numeric formats, including numbers not mentioned in the article. Formats 18 and 22 (&fmt=22) gave me what I had exactly expected from the article (medium quality at 480×270 and high definition at 1280×720, respectively). Formats 13 and 17, although labeled as Mobile formats in the article, ended up being the same as format 34 when tried on my desktop computer (perhaps the situation would be different if tried on an actual mobile phone). All the other numbers between 0 and 50 gave me the "old" standard H.263+MP3 format in FLV but at 400×226 (16:9) resolution. So the "old" standard format still happens to be the current standard format, which gives me the suspicion that there is no newer H.264+AAC-based standard format yet that is capped at 320×240 or 400×226 resolutions. Format 6 seems to have been discontinued, as trying "&fmt=6" only gave me the same "old" standard format.

I could start updating the article with this new information I discovered (I had already updated format 35, since its impact was minimal), but because of the big changes that represent my update for format 34, I would first want feedback from other more-knowledgeable users. If anybody wants to corroborate/verify my findings, the video I uploaded and examined at several different formats is located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaH3N7-8ey4

Jedi787plus (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many original research issues here. The format table has had OR problems for some time. Life was much simpler until April 2008, when YouTube started offering its videos in a range of formats. Until then, they were all 320x240px H.263. Since then, it has been hard to say anything about the formats without running into OR problems. I gave up trying to second guess the formats on YouTube some time ago, because even if the information is accurate, it is difficult to say whether it is true for all videos, or to keep the table up to date. The average reader may not find the finer points of the formats all that interesting, and there are also issues like WP:NOT#STATS to consider. The most important thing is that all of the new videos are H.264, and H.263 has been dropped. There is a danger of losing sight of this if too many obscure details about the resolutions are given. I have seriously considered axing the table altogether, but do not want to set off an edit war. The table is becoming too sprawling to interpret easily, and lacks reliable sourcing for many of the claims that it makes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like H.263 wasn't completely dropped at all. When I try a format # that is not in the table and check the dump in the cache, I find an FLV file that, when demuxed with FLV Extract, gives me an H.263 video and MP3 audio. I tried this research in many of my other uploaded videos (some originally standard definition, others originally high definition) and the result is the same. I believe YouTube is still keeping the original standard H.263 format for fallback purposes (perhaps for users still stuck with an old internet browser), although the only way to verify this is to contact YouTube or some reliable source very close to YouTube. Format 6 was dropped, I agree with that - I no longer get any FLV dump fitting the format-6 parameters (480×360 H.263, 96-kbps MP3), as it was effectively replaced by format 18. But I'll wait for more OR before I consider touching that format-34 column in the table, even though I still believe it is flawed based on what I found out from my own uploads. Jedi787plus (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube may still have the H.263 videos, but seems to have been transcoding its library to H.264/AAC FLV since last Autumn. Ideally, a person reading the article should get a general overview of the area, without an excess of detail that may be inaccurate or out of date by next week. As far as the average user is concerned, there are three formats, standard, HQ and HD. These may have variable resolution depending on the size, aspect ratio and quality of the original upload. This is why I am wary of making firm statements about the resolutions, which have become rather too complicated to list in full.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, there is no notability policy or guideline that dictates the specific information that can be included in an article. What's important to one may not be important to another - it's subjective - so citing a policy as the definitive answer isn't appropriate. Information does not have to be notable, a topic does. WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply unless you are writing about how to use this feature on YouTube. As such, in this case one could easily argue that the inclusion of 3-D technology on a website (which is not a common thing) is of historical significance. The same with WP:NOTNEWS. The biggest problem is that both of those are policies, BUT, they are both about articles and not the information within an article. They dictate what we can create an article for, not necessarily what we can put in an article. That being said, Explicit was correct in reverting RyanGFilm's addition, because YouTube is not a reliable source (not even for itself), and if this feature truly is permanent and significant, then there needs to be a secondary sources that states how significant it is. A part from better sourcing (especially for all that info that comes after the video), I do not see a reason why this could not be included somewhere within the article. These types of articles often do contain information on what the website provides to the public, it's part of understanding what the website is, so long as the article does more than simply say "You can do this on YouTube".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does try not to get bogged down in current news stories about YouTube, or technical walkthroughs. The 3D experiment has received some news coverage, but with over 100 million videos and only one known trial video in 3D, it would be WP:UNDUE to give it an entire section. The YouTube interface has so many features (annotations etc) that it is impractical to list them all, and there are new blog stories about YouTube every day. While the 3D trial is interesting, it has probably not established enough significance for the article at the moment. This CNET news article shows that the service is very much an unofficial trial, not even a beta test.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ianmacm, you obviously haven't actually searched for 3D videos on YouTube videos because there are a lot more than the ONE (as you previously stated). I have re-added the section with secondary sources (unrelated to Google and YouTube), therefore fulfilling the requirements of adding the 3D section to the article. RyanGFilm (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IanMacM, you have once again reverted my edit even though it has been added with secondary sources per wikipedia policy. You stated the reason for taking down the entire section was because the third link stated information that was similar to information stated in the second link. All three links list similar information because they are talking about THE SAME THING. If there is a policy against this, then you need to list it (and make sure it's relevant this time). RyanGFilm (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has a longstanding policy of not giving detailed technical walkthroughs, see WP:NOTHOWTO. How-to descriptions are non-encyclopedic content. What matters here is the notability, and I am open to debate on this. The 3D story received some coverage in the tech blogs last week, but did not set the mainstream media alight. If this is mentioned, it should be done briefly with a link that gives more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Never said anything about an entire section. My words were "I do not see a reason why this could not be included somewhere". Where you guys find a home for it is irrelevant to me, I'm merely saying it is important enough to note somewhere. It's a part of this website's history. They are trying something new. If it fails, great then we have something else to talk about. If it doesn't, then great, they'll one of the few websites to actually have 3-D technology for its viewers (given that the technology for viewing said stuff on the computer is only a few years old).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the debate about this has become unnecessarily heated, let me point out that I am not against mentioning the 3D feature in the article. However, if somebody comes along and alters the wording, it should not set off a revert war. The whole 3D thing is little more than a blip on YouTube at the moment, and is not worth huge arguments. Let's have some WP:CONSENSUS here, not silly threats and warnings like the ones posted on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, might I lay a suggestion? I agree that this appears to be getting heated (especially from what I can see on Ianmacm's talk page). My suggestion is that current parties take a breather (i.e. go edit some other, uncontroversial articles) and let's put a Request for Comment up requesting opinions on how to include this 3-D information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No objection to a Request for Comment. The issue here is not who is right or wrong, but how to avoid more bad tempered silliness of the type that occurred yesterday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When you view a video, you can see how many times it's been viewed. News reports sometimes say "X is the most viewed video this week" or the like. If they know X has been view 8,205,194 times, but they don't know whether there's some other one that's been viewed 8,300,000 times, then they don't know it's the most viewed video. How can one get the ranks? (I.e. a certian video is #1 for a week, a certain other one is #2, etc.) Rankings could be by days, weeks, months, or other units of time. That matters because you can have situations like this:

• A is #2 on Sunday and B is #1;
• A is #2 on Monday and C is #1;
• A is #2 on Tuesday and D is #1;

etc. So A could be #2 for each day separately even while A is #1 for the whole week.

If there's a way to find these ranks on youtube, I'd like to see this article say how to do it. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to keep up with the YouTube interface is a constant challenge, and it looks like this has been changed recently. To find the charts, go to youtube.com, then "videos (most viewed)". At the right hand side of the page it says "when", and the drop down box gives "Today, this week, this month, all time". This may or may not be notable enough for the article due to the WP:NOTHOWTO issue. The real problem here is that the YouTube interface now uses drop down boxes, so some of the controls are not obvious at first sight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. At least the article could mention that such a thing exists. That would not be a "how to". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

.....OK, now I've added an external link to the "charts" for the current month. Apparently the software doesn't update the rankings in real time according to the number of views displayed. The one ranked first is reported to have 10,515,664 views; the second has 8,338,457 views, and the third has 8,694,460 views. So the third has more the than second. How often do they update the ranks? I'd have thought computers could do that very fast. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a section needs to be added about July 8th, 2009, when all swearords in comments were temporarily censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.76.59 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube has changed its interface recently. Underneath the videos there is now a drop-down box which allows swear words in comments to be replaced with asterisks. What seems to have have happened is that earlier this month there was a temporary glitch in the system, which set censorship as the default option. Normally, the censorship will not occur unless it is enabled by the user. Some of this could go in Criticism of YouTube, but there has been a lack of sourcing to establish notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

should there be a section on Youtube Poop? Because that stuff is the funniest!!!! (Hmstrrnnr (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

This has been mentioned before, and the main issue is sourcing to establish notability. There is some coverage at [2][3], but they are not reliable sources. This has not really gained enough notability for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

{Hmstrrnnr (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)} oh, okay, but i still think there should be a separate article for this part of you tube.

It could be mentioned in Social impact of YouTube, but there is a need to show that it has picked up some mainstream media coverage, which it has not done at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes there is!!! [4]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmstrrnnr (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)  

I really like this table, but it's completely unreferenced and doesn't fit with the rest of the article, so I'm moving it here. I'd like to get the article back to GA, and this is one step in doing so. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the sourcing issue, which has been mentioned before. The information in the table is not wildly wrong, but has been based on personal observations over a period of time. The problem is that YouTube does not publish its streaming protocols, and is liable to change them at will. What really matters is that all of the videos are now H.264, and getting some sourcing on this is more important than having a sprawling table.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears that 38 still has MP3 audio. 69.209.97.108 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a puzzle here. The citation at [5] has YouTube in 4th place, while the entry for YouTube has it in 3rd place.[6] Comments please, eg have I read this correctly?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there are several versions of the Alexa ranking. The ones at [7] are updated daily, while there are others, such as the one week, one month and three month average.[8] In some of these, YouTube is in 4th place behind Facebook. The two sites must be fairly closely matched. Since the three month average is taken over the longest period, it is probably the best indicator, and YouTube is in 3rd in the three month average. It would also be undesirable to be updating the figure on a daily or weekly basis. If YouTube's position changed in the three month average, the article should change as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)