Talk:List of online video platforms/Archive 1

General cleanup and tone change

I edited this article from scratch today to make sure the tone was more in-line with Wikipedia's expectations. I also generally cleaned up the content and added a couple more sites. Would like to have others add their sites to the lists. If you disagree with the classifications or if you'd like to see additional categories, I'm open to the idea. We can mark this as a resubmission to wikipedia, as an attempt to remedy the tone and cleanup tags previously on the article CydeSwype 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed Homemovie.com

This is not a video hosting site, rather a video/picture conversion service which has some online picture hosting service but not video hosting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.187.216 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bait Sites?

Considered about the section making reference to a allegedly common bait site. The information was posted by a non-registered user, and there are no sources for the claim. Aidepikiwym 14:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per CITE / REDFLAG. --h2g2bob 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, split

I've done a spam cleanup and added a few sites that were missed. However, I'd suggest we split this into video sharing to discuss the topic and list of video sharing websites to list the sites. --h2g2bob 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold, I've just moved it to be a list. Video hosting service is a more complete entry on this topic, and this really is a list of video sharing websites. --h2g2bob 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about beasttube? It features videos of beastiality, but if we're making a complete list of video sharing sites, beasttube definately falls under that category. The only reason for not having it that I can think of is the subjective "ick factor."

History of video sharing and video sharing technologies

Anyone know where to find HISTORY of video sharing and video sharing technologies in Wikipedia? If not, where might you think such a page should be categorized with on WP? N2e 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Source

I'm going to suggest a source here: http ://chexed.com/a/Internet_Technology/?req=read&article_title=Huge_Video_Host_List

I can't edit this myself, because I've learned I'm not allowed.

Please do not just copy the list, some sites may not fall directly into this article, but most of them will.

Please give credit. Chexed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chexed (talk • contribs) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users censoring site listings for their own advantages?

Someone is censoring sites from being added to this category that clearly fit the description. Please be sure to check sites before removing them, as attacks have been made against Wikipedia servers as a result of an irresponsible vendetta and censoring. Censoring for your own purposes only dilute the quality of the free encyclopedia and if it continues to take place, proper actions will be taken to ban/remove users that continue censoring for their own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devknob (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no censoring. The sites added have to have their own Wiki articles for them and follow notability guidelines. Red links get removed because there is no context and no way to ascertain notability. Direct external links are considered spam and are removed as well. Remember that Wikipedia is not for advertising.--Boffob (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a fairly new topic like video share websites it is hard to do this without first creating the page for the video sharing site and then add it to this listing. This sort of creates a spam situation. I wanted to add several niche video sharing communities, some online since 1998 but they do not have wiki pages. Like [1] for an old one and [2] for a new. But I wanted to expand the section with a niche video section with examples of strong rising niche sites. There are also 3 other software packages, free to 10 dollars, that are better than most listed here. I am not bold enough to just do this I guess and ask for some guidance? RandyPenn (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any site you add to this list must have Wiki articles. You can create these articles provided they follow the notability guidelines (each site must have some independent coverage by reliable sources), and to prevent these new articles from getting speedily deleted, make them neutral (not promotional, Wiki's not here to promote websites, just describe them) and make sure you cite reliable third party sources to establish their notability.--Boffob (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm at work, looking for other video sites to post our orgs videos and bam, Redtube is for adult related content. I am reluctant now to look up some of the other sites mentioned here so I tagged Redtube with Adult. I think there should be safe and NSFW categories so other folks won't get calls from their IT depts the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csuspect (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link now redirects to amateur pornography so I removed it altogether, but as Wiki isn't censored and video sharing has many niches, so to speak, including adult videos, you can never be too careful when checking the latest links added.--Boffob (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why has LiveVideo been left out? It doesn't even have its own article!67.87.66.127 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's one site that you fogot about.

Why hasn't LiveVideo been mentioned?67.87.66.127 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment sites that include user-generated videos

Should this page include sites that include user-generated videos as well as other forms of media? Notable examples of such sites currently missing from the article include College Humour and Double Viking. I'm just stopping by so I'm unlikely to see any responses, but I'm leaving this here as a suggestion/recommendation for other editors. 79.68.200.145 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic-oriented sites?

~~We might want to add pornographic-oriented sites (e.g., YouPorn, PornoTube, PornTube, xTube, et al.). Would it be better to have their own section or placed in the current structure?~~ --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added them in the current layout. If need be, it can be moved later.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary mission" criterion?

Since 20:23, 5 March 2011 the first paragraph contains (my emphasis):

"Other sites that might offer video are file hosting services image hosting services and social network services and such now support video sharing as an enhancement to their primary mission, but in general, they are not listed here."

I think notability should be enough, not if a site have other services too. E.g. I would say google's primary service is search, and maybe email, still their video hosting service, youtube, is notable, and should be listed here. Suggestion, reformulate. David A se (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redtube & other porn sites

Huh? Redtube is listed as not available. Why so? At least here it functions perfectly. And how about YouPorn and Xvideos, which seem to be quite popular in their genre? There is no explanation why adult sites would be excluded from the list.
If the criteria is to have an article in wikipedia, [[Category:Video hosting]] has about 130 pages of hosting sites, of which only half are here on the list. 82.141.67.203 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 April 2013 for www.EZWebPlayer.com Video Hosting Service

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, can you please add EZWebPlayer to the list of video hosting services? We also offer White Label and Enterprise video hosting. Can you please add us to that list? Thanks, Clint Pollock President Clint@ezwebplayer.com 630-289-7544 Clintpollock1 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I'm not seeing evidence that the site has met the threshold of WP:WEBCRIT, nor of WP:CORP. The established threshold for inclusion on this list has been that the site has met those levels of notability, which requires third-part reliable sources for documentation. Conveniently, once those sources are available, the site would also meet the threshold for having its own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! video hosting service

It has been said that Yahoo! will soon launch a currently un-named video hosting website to directly compete with Google's YouTube. I'm not sure if that should be mentioned anywhere, or if it should then where at? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-set-build-youtubes-competitor-191840951.html;_ylt=A0LEVwl3wUNTzE8A0eBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEza2FkbDBxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM4NV8x

http://video.anyfiles.com/

What do you think about include http://video.anyfiles.com/ to this list? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rburriel: They are both video hosting websites with thousands of users.

Pewtube and VidLii are still video hosting websites, PewTube specially has more than 500,000 monthly users, check the websites yourself. Both of these websites are more popular than websites on this list like wistia or mefeedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martimafonso (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is notability; this is distinctly different from claims of being "popular". The long-established inclusion criteria for being on this list is that they have their own Wikipedia article. To have a Wikipedia article, they must meet Wikipedia's guideline for defining notability of web content; the guideline can be read at WP:WEBSITE, specifically, the subsection for "Criteria". This page is not intended to list all sites, only the ones that meet the established inclusion criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you don't prove popularity (or notability) by visiting the websites and reading unverifiable things they say about themselves (like the number of users). Any obscure website can claim anything and a very common trick used by people who keep adding non-notable services, companies, websites or products to Wikipedia is copying those self-made claims. There has to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources.

P.S. You probably did not mean to reply to Rburriel.—J. M. (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of 'Available'

It is unclear what the column 'Available' means, does this mean available to upload to or available to view? One of the defunct sites is listed as available? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]