Jump to content

Talk:YouTube/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 24

A court in Hamburg, Germany has ruled that YouTube's standard copyright disclaimer ("Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself") is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.[1] This is not in the article for WP:NOTNEWS reasons, and YouTube has announced its intention to appeal against the ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question...why does YouTube have to even honor any requests by Germany as an American entity? Couldn't they just ignore it? How would Germany prosecute? Aetern142 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This case has echoes of the row over the Italian bullying video.[2] Since YouTube content is hosted under US law and is governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is not directly answerable to a court in Germany. Legal precedent is that sites hosting user generated content are not held responsible for the actions of uploaders as long as the offending material is removed as soon as it is pointed out. YouTube is appealing in the German case, but at the moment there is not enough about this to mention it in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

New languages and countries

Recently the interface became available in Hebrew. There are also some other new languages (Filipino, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian) bringing the total to 29.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some media reports say that YouTube has versions in 25 different countries, which is not strictly true. With the launch of the version for Argentina there are 24 countries and a worldwide version. The table in the article has 24 countries and flags, because "worldwide" is not a country.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube and debunking bad science

An editor removed the sentence and reference concerning NASA's use of YouTube in reaching out to people in debunking saying that this was "personal opinion". Perhaps but it's the opinion of the NASA Astrophysicist tasked with answering public questions on their Ask an Astrophysicist website, David Morrison. Morrison deals with thousands of emails on internet hoaxes and uses YouTube to pass along information to help debunk the hoaxes. While strictly opinion, it's expert opinion uniquely positioned to comment on the subject of outreach.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube is a tool for many things, including both promoting and debunking pseudoscience. It is always less than ideal to source something back to a personal opinion, as it appears to give undue weight to one person out of the millions who have used YouTube. It is unclear whether the source cited at [5] establishes long term notability, or makes this aspect of YouTube more notable than the others. At worst, it could be an attempt to promote the tv show concerned. It is not really an ideal citation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Is the concern that the citation is to a competitor site? If so, the video in question is available from YouTube as well. Would that help alleviate an of your concerns?--RadioFan (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It is very hard to sum up what YouTube is about in a few paragraphs, but debunking bad science is probably not at the top of the list. Whether you want to watch how to cook an omelette or George W Bush was responsible for 9/11, there are YouTube videos about it. In this respect, YouTube is radically different from other video sharing websites such as Vimeo, Dailymotion and Metacafe, which are much more specialized in their output. There are YouTube videos about every subject under the sun, and it seems unfair to highlight the views of David Morrison simply because he is an astrophysicist. It is not ideal to give online videos as citations, because they can be used to prove more or less anything by a process of cherry picking. If David Morrison had said this in a newspaper interview it would be more helpful, but there is still the issue of undue weight when there are millions of videos on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article covers the effect YouTube (as well as blogging and the internet in general) has had socially, giving a voice to a variety of talents and viewpoints. The information about Morrison provides the other side of that story. The voice which challenges the negative part of this phenomenon and uses that same vehicle to do . I think this section provides balance and does so from a reputable source.--RadioFan (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The key to YouTube's success is its exceptionally wide range of user generated content. This is mentioned in the article with the reference to the Peabody Award and the keyboard playing cat (which is here). YouTube is the Internet equivalent of a mirror where people can see their own reflection, and the search facility will find videos on both sides of any argument. The David Morrison quote could be used in Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
So far only you and are the only ones who seem to care about this. I would like to hear comments from other editors.--RadioFan (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube prefers...

DE-interlaced video. Someone with editing powers correct this please?

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55744 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.196.162 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article in the section YouTube#Uploading. See also User_talk:Ianmacm#YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Formats

It has proved difficult to list all of the formats used on YouTube, and the table has been slimmed down to prevent it from becoming too large and complicated. There is also a good deal of original research in the table, although it is broadly accurate. How a YouTube video gets encoded depends on the resolution of the original upload, and whether it was a 4:3 or 16:9 video. For example, this video is available at nine different quality levels, which can be seen here. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for reverting this edit is not that it is totally wrong, but that the table does not pretend to be an exhaustive list of all the formats on YouTube. The video mentioned at [6] is offered by default at 640x360p, which is fmt34. However, as Keepvid shows at [7], there are other versions, including fmt5, which is 400x226p. The fmt5 versions are a bit of a puzzle, because they are not normally offered via the standard player interface, although the Philips test pattern mentioned does have 240p in the options. Here is the MediaInfo for the fmt5 version:

Overall bit rate  : 326 Kbps httphostheader  : v7.lscache7.c.youtube.com

Video Format  : H.263 Duration  : 5mn 58s Bit rate  : 258 Kbps Width  : 400 pixels Height  : 226 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16:9 Frame rate  : 29.970 fps Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.095 Stream size  : 11.0 MiB (79%)

Audio Format  : MPEG Audio Format version  : Version 2 Format profile  : Layer 3 Mode  : Joint stereo Mode extension  : MS Stereo Duration  : 5mn 58s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 59.7 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Sampling rate  : 22.05 KHz Bit depth  : 16 bits Video delay  : -33ms Stream size  : 2.55 MiB (18%)

Not all videos have the 240p option, so this is something new. YouTube is prone to changing the formats without telling anyone, so this needs to be watched. For the moment, 360p is the default option in the player.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube appears to have changed their video formats last night and renamed a few of their other formats: 320p was renamed to 240p (default format &fmt=34), 480p was renamed to 320p (&fmt=18), and &fmt=35 has gone public in the form of 480p now, which I'm glad they did, as it's far more accurate. That said, it appears they've launched another 480p format as well that isn't &fmt=35--it's still the same resolution as &fmt=35 but appears to have a higher audio and visual quality--any ideas on what this new format number is? In any event, my best guess is the new 480p format is going to replace the old 480p (&fmt=35) format...I'd be willing to bet it's MP4. I'd also like to note that all formats now support both 4:3 and 16:9, though I have yet to run across a non-widescreen 720p or 1080p video; this is likely something that needs to be changed.
YouTube seems to have revamped the player options in the last day or so. Some now have 240p as well as the "standard" 360p and 480p (eg here). The reasons for this are unclear, and it is worth noting that the fmt5 version above uses H.263 video and MP3 audio. This is a real puzzle, since YouTube spent a lot of time re-encoding its library to H.264/AAC during early 2009. The widescreen videos are 16:9 by default, but the lower resolutions can vary depending on whether the source was 4:3 or 16:9. I am still trying to make sense of all of this without too much WP:OR creeping into the article, but it looks as though there have been some changes to the way in which the player presents the different options.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're confused by the 240p; YouTube hasn't really added any new formats; they've just renamed them. What they used to call 360p prior to yesterday's change is now called 240p, what was called 480p is now called 360p, and what is called 480p is merely the official introduction of format 35 (some videos though, seem to want to use a new unknown format, which I find odd). I think the confusion you have is because YouTube improperly labeled their video formats in the past; calling videos that were not 480p "480p"; again, the 240p is not new; it's YouTube default format, they're just properly labeling it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.68.197 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me just state that my Accepting of this IP's changes to the format on the page is not an endorsement of the correctness of the change. It is only an endorsement of the fact that the change appears to be in good faith, and not vandalism, as evidenced by their discussion here and edit notes. This Pending Changes stuff will take some getting used to. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To try and make some sense of all of this, I downloaded two videos with &fmt=34 added to the URL, to make sure that it was the fmt34 version. This video (which is 4:3) came out at 320x240px, although it is confusingly labelled as 360p by the YouTube player. This 16:9 video came out at 640x360px, which was expected. The 4:3 fmt34 videos do not seem to be 640x480px, so the change was correct. It is a pity that the current table does not give 640x360px for fmt34 widescreen, but it has been slimmed down in the past to prevent it from becoming too complicated. The table may need a reworking, but it is difficult to put in all of the fmt values for normal and widescreen videos without cluttering the table.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube also support uploading (and conversion) of files in the MTS container directly (AVCHD, used by many Sony, Canon and Panasonic cameras). 82.168.66.131 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or .M2TS extension, which is the same format.

Framerate

Just FYI: YouTube accepts PAL (i.e. 25 frames/sec) as well, and will play back in this framerate too if the uploaded original is encoded with the proper standards. In the table here only 30 fps/variable are being mentioned, that simply isn't complete at all. YouTube doesn't even seem to alter framerate from the source, as far as my testing has shown. As long as you stay at or below 30 fps, YouTube picks the rate of the original video. Even though I've done my tests about 2 years ago, I still see my videos are unchanged regarding frames/sec. and don't see why YT would have a reason to change that. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

YT also supports 24 fps, the well-known analog film-format. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YT has never changed frames/sec of my videos.. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is another example of the table wandering off into WP:OR. Broadly speaking, the frame rate of the video on YouTube will be the same as the original, usually 25 or 30 FPS. Some of the information about frame rate in the table should be cited reliably or removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to really stress though, that the new table is useless compared to the old one. I don't know who decided on this new table, but it misses a lot of details that were useful in the old one, like the AR and actual statement on the videos online (like 720p, 1080p etc.). The new table is incomplete and seems targeted at professionals. No beginner will understand what video is which format now. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

4k format

YouTube recently began supporting a new 4k format (fmt38) with 4096x3072 resolution (CNET news story) that can be added to the chart. I don't know all the specs, but I know the container is MP4 and most other specs should be like 1080p (except 4 times bigger). Jake3373 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Life in the Garden (4k resolution) is encoded as follows:

Complete name  : Life in the Garden (4k resolution).mp4 Format  : MPEG-4 Codec ID  : mp42 Overall bit rate  : 6 567 Kbps

Video ID  : 2 Format  : AVC Format/Info  : Advanced Video Codec Format profile  : High@L5.1 Format settings, CABAC  : No Format settings, ReFrames  : 1 frame Codec ID  : avc1 Codec ID/Info  : Advanced Video Coding Duration  : 1mn 53s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 6 445 Kbps Maximum bit rate  : 19.4 Mbps Width  : 4 096 pixels Height  : 2 304 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16/9 Frame rate mode  : Constant Frame rate  : 23.976 fps Resolution  : 24 bits Colorimetry  : 4:2:0 Scan type  : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.028 Stream size  : 87.4 MiB (98%) Title  : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42

Audio ID  : 1 Format  : AAC Format/Info  : Advanced Audio Codec Format version  : Version 4 Format profile  : LC Format settings, SBR  : No Codec ID  : 40 Duration  : 1mn 53s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 119 Kbps Maximum bit rate  : 178 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Channel positions  : L R Sampling rate  : 48.0 KHz Resolution  : 16 bits Stream size  : 1.62 MiB (2%) Title  : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42

The 6 567 Kbps bit rate is considerable, and I could not get smooth playback on my connection. This seems to be a trial run, and there are not many videos on YouTube with this format. The table tries to stick to the main formats, but this should be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the format should be labeled as "2304p". When you go to YouTube and use their flash video player, the option is named "Original", and it's supposed to serve you the video in its original format if playable by flash, so it could be 4K, lower or higher. --85.152.206.242 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"Original" means the full size version. For the 16:9 videos, this is 4096x2304 px. The table has been changed to 4K, because this is the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors please be aware that there are multiple "4K" resolutions in existence (just check the 4K article), but the one supported by YouTube is 4096x2304, NOT 4096x3072. I've had to undo one edit (in good faith, I'm sure) to this tune, and I'm afraid this confusion may repeat itself in the foreseeable future. In any case, if anyone claims to have seen a 4096x3072 H.264 video sample, I'd be pleasantly surprised, as such a resolution would be an invalid H.264 stream! C xong (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The fireworks video here is indeed 4096x3072px with H.264 video. This is an "unofficial" 4K video, because the official YouTube 4K videos are widescreen 4096x2304px.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected; this is really interesting. According to the H.264 spec, this video exceeds the highest level (5.1), but other than that it's a perfectly valid stream. I wonder if, for example, the PS3 plays it? C xong (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality and Codecs - Old Formats, etc.

I understand that the Quality and Codecs table continues to get more difficult to keep accurate and easy to read. I don't think that the Old Formats (before Feb 2009) needs to be included in the main table, but perhaps it can be put in a separate table underneath it? I think it is beneficial since the old videos remain on YouTube, so it doesn't hurt to know what those are too. But I can definitely understand if people are of the sentiment that it is just too much information. I guess while I'm at it--Maybe I should mention that perhaps the Quality and Codecs section is getting so overwhelmed with info, that maybe we need to move it to its own article. The section could remain in the main YouTube article too, but not as a complicated table. Instead, the most important information should remain in the section on the main article, with of course the link to the new article (if we end up moving it). The new article (if it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain) could have the new info as well as the old. I'm just suggesting this in light of the (relatively) often revising of the table. What are your thoughts, people? Regards, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh.....well, I'm having second thoughts. The current look of the table is pretty polished. The info looks fine in this article. I guess we can leave the consideration of having an article for the Quality and Codecs open for acceptance or rebuttal based on people's preferences. I like the thought of having an article with information about the old formats available. I've given my two cents. What about you guys? 24.10.181.254 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
During the period of the good article nomination, the format table was dropped altogether, because it was too complicated and had original research issues. The table is starting to become too complicated again, and much of it seems to be original research gleaned from tools like MediaInfo. The table has its fans and there would be howls of protest if it was removed. However, it is right to point out that the table in its current form is becoming too large and might benefit from some pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A medium of artistic exchange/collaboration

Another very important aspect about Youtube is that it allows the users to use the tool as a medium of exchange in artistic pursuit where the term "art" is open. Often, in the case of online communities dedicated to art, Youtube is used as a way to exchange visual demonstrations of art and hobbies. An example of this could be how accounts like Expert Village post up how-to tutorials. Youtube can also be used as a medium for artists to present brand new discoveries. As a juggler, I have experienced this aspect of Youtube with fellow jugglers when they present new tricks and videos.

Hungarian version

The Hungarian version of YouTube is released: April 28, 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/?gl=HU&hl=hu)

Video technology section > Quality and codecs > Comparison of YouTube media types

This is a backup of the columns describing the older media formats.

Old formats (pre Feb 2009)

Flash and HTML5

At the time of writing, watching all of YouTube's videos and using all of the site interface features requires the use of the Flash version. The article points out that the HTML5 version is an experimental opt-in trial, and avoids giving the impression that the HTML5 service is fully up and running, which it is not. YouTube has not given a date for a formal launch of the HTML5 service.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I never knew that experimenting meant that it is fully up.... Totalaero (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In an average web browser, YouTube is a Flash based website. The WP:LEAD summarizes the main details, and the HTML5 trial is mentioned later on in the article. This article looks at some of the things that the Flash version can do that the HTML5 version cannot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the April Fool's section...

The dates are all given: April 1, 2008; April 1, 2009; etc. This is redundant. I'm changing this, unless there are objections.

☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad math

"14 billion videos viewed in May 2010" "In May 2010, it was reported that YouTube was serving more than two billion videos a day", those statements contradict themselves, somebody divided instead of multiplying or vise-versa 216.144.124.59 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The 14 billion figure comes from market research firm comScore and relates only to viewing figures in the United States.[8] The two billion a day (around 60 billion a month) figure comes from YouTube itself, and is a worldwide figure.[9] There is no contradiction between the two figures, although the YouTube figure may be more accurate as YouTube would have direct access to how many videos were watched.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Features of YouTube

A new article called Features of YouTube has been created, and replaced with a blank section linking to the article in YouTube. This is not good writing style, as "main article" sections should always have a brief summary of the material involved. There needs to be a look at how to summarize this material so that YouTube has some information on the features of the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Images of founders

There are images of Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim in their biographies, and it clogs up the text to have three images in this section, which is primarily about the company history. If there was an image of all three of them together, it would be better.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are images of the founders in their biographies is irrelevant. That by no means makes it less than appropriate to have their images in this article. Really -- are you just making this up as you go along? I would suggest that you spend more time working on other articles before making statements of this sort as though there is some element of truth about them. It's just your POV, and if you put in a few dozen thousand edits you will know that the statement is not borne out by the better articles -- from that of Facebook, to the Ford Motor Company, to Dell Computer. Seriously, don't just take it from me -- try deleting the founders' photos from those articles, and I expect a number of other seasoned editors will ask you where in the world you arrived at your view, and whether you express strong disagreement with it. The fact that there are three founders here does not change matters -- this article is light on photos, and the photos of the founders convey information that the text cannot by itself do as well. Plus -- your view of it being "crowded" is at odds with my experience with images on wikipedia. We view use as crowded if it is on either side of the text. Your personal view is frankly not in line with wikipedia usage. As to your final point -- yes, if there were a photo of all three of them together, that might well be of interest. But in lieu of that, we certainly have room for their photos, and this article needs more relevant photos not fewer IMHO to be better than it now is. Plus, your edits moved one photo -- which related to the text it was adjacent to -- away from the text it was related to, which is not in accord with MOS. Furthermore, for an unexplained reasons you de-linked a name in a photo caption -- as in iboxes, those are generally linked.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please assume some good faith here. This is not worth a major argument, so let's get this in perspective. We are both pushing our own POVs here, and in my view it would be best to avoid images of the founders unless they were together, as with the image of Eric E. Schmidt with Sergey Brin and Larry Page in Google. Apologies for delinking Chad Hurley's name, this was not intentional.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Apologies for any curt tone. As to the substance, I've read over it and stand by it. We don't have three owners together in one photo, so that option at the moment does not present itself. As of now, the article appears light on photos to me (for our better articles, many of which I've worked on, and a number of which I've brought to FA or GA status). I think to improve the article we should be pulling for more, rather than fewer, images compared to what we have now. There are to my mind so far few prospects, however. Perhaps the Bus Uncle image can be used for YouTube as well -- but I have to explore that issue a bit more on the non-free-use side. Still, that leaves us with few. You will note btw that one of the founder photos serves double duty. It relates as well to the first YouTube video ever. And is next to the text discussing that. No worries as to the delinking of Chad's name -- I only said it was unexplained (which is consistent w/your mention that it was not intentional), not that it was bad faith. Would appreciate your thoughts as to what other image is any might augment the article. I don't think we can use any of the images from the Hillsborough disaster deaths of the 90 plus fans, as those are not free use.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no image of Hurley, Chen and Karim together on Commons, and this is the only good fair use one that I could find . At the moment, there is no photo of Steve Chen in the article, which is a bit unfair, as he was the key figure in developing the site's technology, which is often overlooked. There is a long standing problem that Commons cannot produce images of living persons to order, and getting YouTube to GA status meant avoiding non-free images as far as possible. The image of Jawed Karim at the zoo meets WP:NFCC#1, and I moved it to the Social impact section as it seemed to fit in there as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with adding an image of Chen. The zoo image relates to the text about the zoo quite specifically, so is best there per MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

From left to right: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim

YouTube was founded by three people. Just as there are four people in The Beatles, the article should show photos of all of them in order to avoid being lopsided. This is a composite image of Hurley, Chen and Karim from Commons, since it is unlikely that a free image can be found of them together.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether a composite is used or individual images, but would suggest that an image of the first video ever on YouTube be reflected, as we have that and it is notable and reflected in the article. As with the Beatles article, there is of course no rule that there need be only one photo of each Beatle (or any combination of them, for that matter). We are still low on images -- the only one we http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Rock_(music)have other than founders is a building, which is rather bland as images go, so thoughts as to further images would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=charlie+bit+my+finger&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

OK, how about the composite image in the Company history section, and the zoo screenshot in the Social impact section? See also Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos from the New York Times in 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Coolcaesar took the photo of the current YouTube headquarters in March 2009, which replaced his old image of 1000 Cherry Avenue, which was YouTube's first major base after the pizza restaurant days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some observations. 1) Great work on the composite photo. Enhances the article significantly from the one-photo-only appearance, IMHO. Great start. 2) Are you familiar with the MOS as to photos being placed next to the text that they relate to ("Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text")? That's clearer to me w/the founder text and the zoo text, than it is in a section that mentions neither. Am not sure that this quite meets the letter or spirit of MOS. 3) Perhaps there is a work-around ... you might consider moving the zoo text to where you have the zoo picture. That would address the MOS issue. 4) Great NYT article. Thanks for sharing. Some good points (others less good). 5) There are a number of pictures of the building available; not that any of the others are necessarily more interesting. 6) Would be interested in your thoughts on additional images for the article, as discussed above -- they need not be drawn from a YouTube video, but should relate to something directly discussed in the article. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In the past, the Social impact section has used Canon Rock (music) and Charlie Bit My Finger as illustrations, both of which are non-free screenshots. Coolcaesar took the photo of 901 Cherry Avenue after it became clear that the photo of 1000 Cherry Avenue was out of date. The original 2005-6 headquarters of YouTube above a pizzeria and Japanese restaurant in San Mateo are here, maybe this could be used instead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy for whatever improvements can be brought to bear (and recognize that there can be subjective differences). Especially for a subject that is largely (though not exclusively) a visual one (cf. The Beatles, which are primarily, though not exclusively, auditory), I think having some richness in images is especially salutory. Which of those images that you mention do you like most, for these purposes? There may well be room for two or three of them, but if you ask me "Charlie" seems both most interesting as an image, and is in fact one of my favorite YT videos. What do you (or others) think? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The main problem with screenshots of actual YouTube videos is other users removing them, saying that they fail WP:NFCC#1 or are promotional for a particular video, which has happened before. Bus Uncle, Charlie Bit My Finger and Canon Rock could all be used to illustrate the Social impact section. In order to use Charlie, it would have to be mentioned in the text of the article, or it would probably be removed again (Charlie got removed in this August 2010 edit).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

iOS device content limitation

Just added comment about videos not being allowed to be viewed on certain iOS devices. Wasn't sure if this is just iPhone or extends to the other two iOS devices, as all I have is the iPhone 4 on 4.2.1. Can someone please supplement my comment with more accuracy if they know about the iPod Touch and iPad similarly displaying such notifications in the YouTube app.

Additionally, I thought this may have become apparent under the new 4.2 software update. Again though, as I couldn't be sure, please update if you have more info on this. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This was reverted because it has WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. The article mentions that not all of the videos are available on the mobile platform, but without sourcing it is hard to go into details.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GEMA

Re this edit, which is in German and asks about the situation with GEMA. There is a pending court case on this issue [10], but it appears that the videos of major pop artists are still unavailable on YouTube Germany, which the article points out. The article should keep an eye out for any developments in the GEMA court case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding Arabic Localization

As of 30/9/2010, Youtube has added an Arabic interface localization: http://www.youtube.com/index?hl=ar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.211.246 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Arabic is a language option but not a content location. Arabic was added in late September 2010.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Help quality comparison

The Quality and codecs section sites several resolutions depending on the video codec but fails to put in perspective the resolution contribution to the overall perceived quality. This is an often-observed flaw when discussing the quality of digital media. I think that a short mention of bit rates and their impact on perceived quality would be very helpful.

Wikipedia is a good place to clear up misconceptions based on "high-resolution = high-quality [devices/services]" as often purported by manufacturers, content producers and distributors.

I propose a paragraph along the lines of:

"Note that the quality of content found on YouTube, as for all compressed digital media, highly depends on the bit rate ("speed") at which the content is received. The resolution although often touted as the main quality cursor is just one parameter and does not by itself conveys any indication of the rendered quality. For example, at 1080p resolution, the quality currently offered in mainstream Blu-ray discs is achieved by bit rates in the range of 18 to 36 Mb/s a typical value being 25 Mb/s (2D video streams leveraging the MPEG4 family of codecs)."

I am aware that this is not strictly on-topic but I think it is very informative and helpful. Ameuret (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This would run into the usual problem of needing a reliable source. The format table has plenty of original research as it is, although it is uncontroversial that YouTube videos are available in a range of resolutions and bit rates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Time limit increased again?

Apparently I got a tab stating I can upload videos longer than 15 minutes on my YouTube account. Anyone else get that? I do know it's going to require sources, but this is a start. mechamind90 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a puzzle. The standard limit is 15 minutes, and longer videos require a partner account or one of the old and now rare director accounts. This would need a source. Incidentally, the longest video on YouTube is believed to be the aptly named LONGEST VIDEO ON YOUTUBE (13 hours) Yes, it really is 13 hours long.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I registered in September 2008 and I am not a YouTube partner. I think the deadline for old director accounts was October 2006. mechamind90 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the source. [12] --Hinata talk 02:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just updated the article for that. --Hinata talk 02:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
[13] is an example I uploaded. It is past 15 minutes, and I am not a partner. --Hinata talk 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If an account is able to do this (mine is) it will say "Congratulations! Your account is now enabled for uploads longer than 15 minutes." What is unclear is whether brand new account holders are allowed to have this feature, or how long it takes to be approved for it. Some further details could be filled in if the sourcing was available. Some more info is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my account as well. --Hinata talk 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I also found a video timed at 3:38:04 uploaded by a non-partner who registered in 2007, so if there's any limit it's going to be really high. I won't say unlimited just yet, though. mechamind90 07:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely Ignored Other Founder Lawsuit

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2009cv01621/95106/26/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.121.3 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the document. The claim by Herbert Gilliland that he invented YouTube has been mentioned before in the talk page archive at Talk:YouTube/Archive_15#True_inventor_controversy. The problem is that nothing much has changed, and there is virtually no coverage of this outside the blogs. This would lead to a WP:UNDUE issue with mentioning it in the article. According to this link, the lawsuit did not get very far and was over by June 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtu.be Shortener

Can someone write this up? 93.172.176.221 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the official YouTube URL shortener launched in December 2009.[14] This has never taken off or received much coverage, perhaps because there are many similar services (bit.ly, tinyurl etc) that are better known. There is also a WP:NOTHOWTO issue, and overall the feature is not really notable enough for a mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just an alternative url for twitter etc., not important. —Half Price 18:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Censoring search results based on country

Kind of a sad story. What I mean is the "This video contains content from [insert greedy corporation here] and is not available in your country." message that seems to pop up whenever the video contains anything with music in it. Additionally, the search results are censored down as well, so the videos where you would get the "not available in your country" message don't even show up in the regular search results, but do occasionally get through this filter and are then visible in the video suggestions. This YouTube-censoring is really getting insane in my country (Germany). A video I've uploaded a while ago contained about 40 Seconds of a song (which apparently belongs to Sony BMG) in the background of a conversation, resulting in the video being blocked because of copyright in.. wait for it... Germany. Only in Germany. Nowhere else. WTF? This makes the whole video pointless as 99% of it is in German.
The fact that the search results get "filtered" like this is maybe the reason why this isn't a well-discussed topic yet. The only way to watch those blocked videos (including my own one from above) is through Proxyservers and VPN connections to the USA. Without a Proxy or VPN, my video won't show up in the search results (because it's blocked in Germany), but with a Proxy or VPN connection from any other (read: non-blocked) country, it shows up and can be played.
Why isn't there anything related to this "problem", explaining the situation and what Google/YouTube does to hide it from their users?! I mean.. essentially this is censoring, especially for Videos like the one i mentioned above, as the Music contained in it has nothing to do with the actual content of the Video, nor did i have any influence on the content of that Interview-Video (i got the Video like this (with the background Music) from a TV Station, with the permit to use it). Plus, the music is *very* faint. It's just barely loud enough to make out what song it actually is, but it still got blocked as if i uploaded a whole Music Video or something.
Sorry for this rant, but i've been searching for Videos for a research project today, and ran into the "Not-available-in-your-Country-brick-wall" again.
PS: Sorry for this huge blob of text, but I'm not really familiar with text formatting on Wikipedia :( 84.63.130.145 (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Localization" section of the article mentions that not all YouTube videos are available in all countries. This is usually the result of copyright or other legal restrictions being placed on YouTube over which it has little or no control.[15] This has also been a persistent source of complaints about Vevo, but it is up to the record companies to decide how to license their material. Under the terms of the DMCA, a website hosted in the USA is legally obliged to remove or block material after a valid complaint from the copyright holder. YouTube's "Content ID" system often does this automatically, partly to prevent lawsuits like the one from Viacom. There is more about this in Criticism of YouTube. See also Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Login name

The login name issue is definitely not a WP:LEAD issue, because this part of the article is intended to give a summary and overview of the subject. It is also questionable whether this is worth an entire section per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, particularly when sources like brandchannel are not heavyweights like CNN and BBC. If you do not like the new login system then I sympathize, but a Wikipedia article is not a tech blog or a way to call for boycotts.[16] This link clearly fails WP:EL. This needs better sourcing to establish its notability. There have also been concerns about the e-mail login system used by Facebook [17]. The login name issue is more suitable for Criticism of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Link?

Is YouTube link a reliable source?NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

See WP:YOUTUBE. There is no outright ban in this area, although many such links would fail on copyright grounds. The source also needs to be reliable, sourcing a fringe theory from a YouTube video would be unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Change in google CEO:

The google CEO has changed! How do I/Can I make the necessary changes? Anirudh Ranganath 19:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Google's outgoing CEO is Eric Schmidt. Contrary to some media reports this week, he is still in place until April 4 this year.[18] The only time that he is mentioned in YouTube is in the Localization section for the launch in 2007. The wording in the article looks OK at the moment, but could be changed to "former CEO" in April.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The following Portal Links are in the article twice (once in the "See Also" section, and once above that location):

San Francisco Bay Area portal, Companies portal, and Internet portal. I don't think I know how to correct this, but I'm sure one of you smart people can handle it. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lossless uploading

There used to be (might have been a while ago) information in the article about video formats which will not be re-encoded upon uploading. Considering the often poor video quality of YouTube videos, information on how to losslessly upload files could be valuable. This is all I could find on the YouTube site: Optimizing your video uploads --109.193.211.159 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are WP:NOTHOWTO issues here. Unfortunately, users have no control over what YouTube does to the videos after they are uploaded. The material in the link above is best left to a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not thinking of a Howto section. I realize that users have no control over their files once they are uploaded. However, it's unlikely that Youtube will re-encode (transcode) files that precisely conform to the desired format (additional lower-res versions will of course be created). To state a simple fact like "Video files enocoded as H.264 streams at 720p resolution will not be transcoded by Youtube" is far from a tutorial. (However, at this time I don't know if it's true.) --109.193.211.159 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Length

I have seen plenty of videos lately from average non-partner users that are 20 minutes+. I think they've increased the video length again. Does anyone know by how much?

96.254.47.174 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says "In December 2010, YouTube announced that holders of standard accounts would be allowed to upload videos of unlimited length, provided that they have a good history of following the site's Community Guidelines and policy on copyright." (read the article, folks..)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion - Life in a Day

See here. Seems to be a notable project. ~AH1(TCU) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

fmt parameter footnote is in correct

i don't think the fmt parameter was actually removed, but an old url api was instead.
reference youtube-dl changes related to https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/issues/34
75.106.212.227 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the format parameter is used has been changed from 'fmt' to 'itag'. It works just same, but of course, this is given you can form/parse a correct download URL from the page source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.46.189.146 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, whoever you are, but for more edits please make a Wikipedia account so we can tag things to you. Aimsplode (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

arab nations

I did see more that 5 new countries in the selection of youtube today, signature if you agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.132.92 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen have been added to the list of content locations. There is no mention of it in the YouTube blog at the moment, although it may come. An interesting development, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Social impact" section is disjoint from its "main" article

When we talk about the "social impact" of YouTube? Did we mean to as "YouTube as part of Web 2.0?" or perhaps social networking? That would be a little clearer. Read the material in that section and then the unrelated stuff at Social impact of YouTube. Yes, it is "facts" but the are disjoint for them material in the corresponding main article. IMHO, less is better: just refer them to the other article with one sentence and let it go at that. That section reads like somebody's cherry-picking their favorite facts that are not even in that section's "main" article. That deliberately introduces bias into both articles and turns to so-called "main" article into a "fact ghetto" of castaway facts that the cherry-pickers do not find sensational enough for their selfish, stage-grabbing selves. That is not what I would call well-organized information. That is not even NPOV. Other sections have that same problem, but let's start with this one first.--Recoboa (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2008 book by Sarah Lacy The Stories of Facebook, YouTube and MySpace: The People, the Hype and the Deals Behind the Giants of Web 2.0 identified YouTube as one of the three main sites of Web 2.0 which emerged in the mid-2000s. The article Social impact of YouTube has become a bit of a jumble, but this article needs to look at how YouTube helped to alter the rules of the web when it was launched.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT waste my time with such tripe. Answer the question: WHY is our section disjoint from the material in Social impact of YouTube?!? Why is it such a poor introduction into that other full-fledged article. WHY?--Recoboa (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The answer to your question is that over a period of time articles change, and the article Social impact of YouTube has drifted off and become in need of a cleanup. I was also going to add that the article should focus more tightly on the Web 2.0 aspect identified by Sarah Lacy. This is what the section is primarily about.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What the...?!? Who have I attacked buster? Name names please. I have not so what is your point?--Recoboa (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, then WP:CIVIL. One of the aims of this article is to give an overview of YouTube on a single page within readable length and without too much content forking. There are other articles, including Criticism of YouTube and Social impact of YouTube, but IMHO they are being undersupervised and need a cleanup. The "Social impact" section here is largely a summary of the Web 2.0 position, rather than a summary of the current version of Social impact of YouTube which really should be tagged for cleanup.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's get back to something constructive. This article is about YouTube. What it is in an NPOV manner. You get to describe what it is that we can all easily agree on. These other "main" articles (well, that is what the template is called) have a job for themselves: to gather all of the information on their subject to themselves and to find a coherent and proper theme to organize their information around. This article should then distill the conceptual essence of those articles into a brief and sedate abstract which we present here and that is about it. Otherwise, we should just merge those articles back into this one. If you do not do it the way I describe, the process will be systematically biased and inherently not NPOV.--Recoboa (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree, WP:CFORK is the policy guideline here. Judging by the current mediocre state of Criticism of YouTube and Social impact of YouTube, it would be no great disaster if these articles were deleted and the worthwhile material merged here. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
And the reason why those article suck is because the cherry-picker and stage-grabbers have only one real motivation and that is to stick to into YouTube's face right here. They are hogging their sensational facts here and don't even bother to improve the other, appropriate because do do not really care about the encyclopedia, they just care about sticking into YouTube's face maybe from having read WP:YOUTUBE a few too many times. They are biased and they are trying to hide that. A little bit of discipline on our parts and proper organization of the information will systematically wring them out of the process and stifle the deleterious effects of their misguided impulses.--Recoboa (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of YouTube is not too bad, and goes into some details that are beyond the scope of this article. Social impact of YouTube is a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment, so it has been tagged for cleanup.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. That other article sux. If we move the body of our over-sized section here to over there, then that would get the juices flowing that that other article might find its voice, develop a decent lead, find some proper documentation and improve considerably in quality.--Recoboa (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This article needs to mention some of the major controversies in which YouTube has been involved, such as the Viacom lawsuit. There is always a risk that Criticism sections will become a WP:COATRACK, but this has to be balanced against the risk of content forking by shunting all of the "Criticism of" material into another article. Since we have been going at this solo, it would be interesting to have some input from other users on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong again. This article should describe YouTube. Because of things like WP:YOUTUBE, we should treat this article as if it were a BLP. After all, a corporation is a fictitious person. It has a real reputation and real people are employed by it. This articles should provide a one-paragraph, no-citations summary of those other articles. You can word it however you want to see if you can motivate the reader to read the other article, but this article is about what we can all easily agree as to what YouTube is, and that other stuff has been factored out. This article does not have a mandate to stick it into the face of that fictitious person anymore than it has a mandate to destroy real humans being with feelings in a BLP. Think of it has having a fictitious BLP tag at the top of this talk page.--Recoboa (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated Audio

I have made a new audio version of the article. Feed back is appreciated. Phearson (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Business model

The business model section was removed, because the claims it makes lacked reliable sourcing. The claim that YouTube made a profit in 2010 [19] is speculative and blog sourced. Nobody knows exactly what YouTube's revenues and running costs are, because Google refuses to publish them. As this Montreal Gazette article from March 2011 points out, YouTube is believed to be closer to breaking even than it was a few years ago, but the exact figures are still unavailable.

On a more general note, as YouTube is a Good Article, any large changes should be discussed on the talk page first. The Criticism section is not unduly long and takes a reliably sourced look at some of the issues that have led to controversy at the site. For the sake of WP:NPOV, it should not be removed entirely.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

April fools

This section has always been something of a digression, as the only notable information that it contains is the part about Rickrolling. Personally I think this section should be axed as it is not worth a whole section on its own, and the Rickrolling information could go somewhere else.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to also note the fact that a 1911 button was also added to videos, presenting it in sepia tone with piano music 92.19.32.147 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only was the 1911 button added to videos, but if the user changed the 'vintage=1911' at the end of the URL to 'vintage=2005' the user is redirected to 'Me at the zoo' - the first video uploaded to youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthatsam (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.208.175.160, 3 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

77.208.175.160 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Porque tenemos que esperar a que se contamine los acuíferos no es mejor prevenir que curar, pensadlo bien de dónde sacan las nubes el agua del mar como todo el mundo sabe ,que pasara si el mar aunque solo sea una pequeña parte del sea contaminada quien evitara que las nubes cojan agua del mar contaminado, hay calles de prohibido el paso para las nubes quien os ha dicho que España esta tan alejada que no hay peligro, nuestro gobierno se encargara de que las nubes cargadas con radioactividad no contaminen nuestro país aremos acopio de agua y alimentos sino no pasa nada todo irá bien pero si pasa que no nos coja desprevenidos se trata de salvar a millones de personas porque cuando los acuíferos san contaminados todo el que beba de él morirá con la más terribles de las muertes

This is in Spanish, and appears to refer to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. It is beyond the scope of this article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Most viewed Video on YouTube?

Does anyone know which this is? Rihanna's Rude Boy must take some beating with over 147 millions. SmokeyTheCat 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

YouTube gives the charts much less prominence than it once did. There is also an element of mixing apples and oranges, as most of the top rated videos in the YouTube all time charts are now Vevo pop videos. The most viewed YouTube/Vevo video is Justin Bieber - Baby ft. Ludacris with 517 million views. Charlie bit my finger - again ! is the most viewed user generated video with 305 million views, which is mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Youtube.

Youtube can also be used as a social networking site, and to link up and suscribe to other people who have accounts. You can also like and comment on the video's you watch as to rate them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBDRc-8bfxU

Simonedeanx (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fix the specs of the 4k codec

I can't edit the YouTube article, so if someone can, please edit the specs to match the ones on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_YouTube (4096x2304) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.66.179 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives to YouTube?

I'm getting reports of trouble due to youtube incompatibilities. A top-5 list with alternatives to youtube within the article would be beneficial if anyone has such? Electron9 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two existing articles that you might find useful: List of video hosting services and Comparison of video hosting services. –BMRR (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Youtube doesn't promote the little guy and uses the big guy to generate profit. Simpler Youtube Class system

Youtube under googles leadership is steering in the direction to make money off their most popular videos. They no longer feature little guys on their front page. Instead they feature the same people because of the ablity to make them more money. On the scarce side that I may go to far off track/yet still relivant I am wanting you to try and look at a video explaining the problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apr0wEAKk3s And how before he was able to get a chance to be someone. However youtube now tends to bury the folks under the consistent upper class who are kept big thanks to youtubes promotion of them. I am sure that I am not the only one who feels that Youtube has lost dirrection under googles in exchange for a reliable source of money. This topic can actually apply to youtubes history or critisism. Wikipedia has an overwhealmly positive light and that some truth needs to be revealed. Youtube upper class has the viewer community while the lower class has little. Another note is that they're are tips for becoming big which some folks have done. They include a partners ablity to change images. Which is strangely featured as a rule for things you shouldn't do Aka Missleading thumbnails. A similar one would be missleading text. These are very similar to what some advertisers do in your tv veiwing. Other tricks would be saying rate, comment favorite and subscribe best used after a quote and having open ended comments in order to bump your video up. This is very similar to your typical Hey thumbs up my comment because i relate to the video which is marked as spam. However if done in video its not spam???? These tips mostly work if your video is already popular and if your video is already popular your going to get more views. However if it isn't popular and your trying this you won't see any results. --24.14.37.180 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I am sure most of this is relevant I doubt however it would be brought onto the main page as I doubt Google/Youtube will change. However big changes that could be made would be simplifing youtubes homepage to that of what google looks like or better change it to support the little guys be featuring the videos randomly and only that.


This either belongs as a part of the critism or history its hard to tell cause its mixed together. Does youtube/google support new creative content and actually give them/little guys a chance to grow. Its a quick thought because I feel they no longer do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.180 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of this has WP:NOTAFORUM issues, but there are some worthwhile points. YouTube has changed significantly since 2008, and it is now striving to attract more premium content, along the same lines as Hulu. The article points this out, and it is remarkable that YouTube admitted recently that 30% of the videos account for 99% of the views (by a simple piece of mathematics, 70% of the videos account for only 1% of the views). This means that many user generated videos are not worthwhile for advertisers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

HERBERT ELWOOD GILLILAND 71.199.121.3 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (search the talk page archive) and is not notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox URL

Shouldn't the URL link in the infobox be at the bottom instead of in the middle of the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimatedZebra (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the template for infobox dotcom company is doing this, and it cannot be altered. Does everyone agree?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see, well can we possibly change it from "youtube.com" to "YouTube.com" to make it look a little better? I did also notice that Google's article page has their URL down the bottom, what shall we do?... lol AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
YouTube.com is not strictly the URL, as typing in this address causes youtube.com to appear in the browser. Google also uses google.com. Google uses the infobox company template, which has a different layout. Changes to the templates themselves would alter all of the articles using them, so would need a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. I forgot that Google was a company. As for the consensus, I might go make a request or something and go from there. Thankyou ianmacm! AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Videos and Channels Availability

This article does not mention that some videos and now (May 2011) some channels (and this is very strange) are not available on some countries. Isn't this a form of blocking? Yes, it is. There is something about the dispute between YouTube and the British royalty collection agency, and a similar dispute with Germany, but they date back in 2009 and are a small part of the whole. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article does say "The YouTube interface suggests which local version should be chosen on the basis of the IP address of the user. In some cases, the message "This video is not available in your country" may appear because of copyright restrictions or inappropriate content." This is usually caused by restrictions imposed by the copyright holder which are beyond the control of YouTube (eg I am in the UK and cannot watch the CBS television shows). Keeping the list of country blocks up to date has proved difficult. There is a List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China, but it is hard to comment on the situation as of June 2011. China is believed to be blocking access to YouTube at the moment, but it is such a large country that accurate sourcing is hard to find. A news article from March 2011 here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot edit-summary

Just fixed the spacing/dashes in the Comparison table, plus a few other trivial fixes. Tony (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

2k?

On this page: http://www.sintel.org/download , it states that there is the 2k version available on YouTube. However, it does not state the fmt values of the 2k video in the quality and codecs table. Somebody care to explain? Hum richard (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The "original" version of Sintel on YouTube [20] is 2048 x 872 pixels. The full media info is here.[21] It may be fmt38, other comments welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think so too. When I downloaded from windowsforus.com it said fmt38. There should be some clarification on the article regarding the resolution higher than 1080p since it is not always 4k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum richard (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User Comments

There sould be mention made of the fact that youtube used to allow comments to be hidden from view, but now does not allow them to be hidden, which has caused criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.176.72 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted Music Replacements

I'm not an avid Youtube user (never uploaded a video), but can this article more thoroughly outline the removal process with copyrighted materials/account consequences? For example, when Youtube mutes a video for having copyrighted music what replacement music are they allowed to add? What happens with their account when they violate copyright too many times? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.133.210 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Many YouTube videos have copyrighted music in the background. This was the cause of Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., (which Lenz won because the video was only 29 seconds long and considered to be fair use). When the whole song is used, the most common option seems to be to add adverts to the page. Muting the audio has been a common tactic by Warner.[22] YouTube has a "three strikes" policy for deleting an account if DMCA complaints are made.[23] There is more detail on the copyright issue in Criticism of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots from YouTube should be tagged as {{Non-free web screenshot}}. The use of an image to describe the removal of a video fails WP:NFCC#8, as it is not strictly necessary for a reader to understand the subject.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

I am writing this as of June 2011. I Haven't used youtube in some years. The last time i used it i could watch a video without any commercials / advertisements.

Watching a video on youtube today mostly begins with an advertisement at the beginning which can't be avoided and has to be watched for at least a few seconds. Most longer and popular videos cannot be watched without commercial breaks. Again these 'in video' commercials can't be avoided.

For me that is an annoying factor, especially when i am trying to enjoy a good and longer video. I am sure many other users feel the same way.

I am pro business and understand the business side of a company. However i can't find any section in the article describing those developments.

I think such a section should be added to the article or the 'criticism of youtube' article.

Regards, rw 109.193.159.23 (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The advertising setup on YouTube is quite complicated, and the TrueView system introduced in December 2010 should allow users to skip past a pre-roll commercial after five seconds.[24] Premium content is more likely to have advertising than home videos with a low view count. Since 2008, YouTube has been trying to attract more premium content and advertisers, as it is believed to have lost money heavily during the first three years of its existence. There does not seem to be much sourcing on this issue, but this BBC article loooks at how YouTube's revenue model has changed in recent years.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


If you use Firefox, get the Plugin named Adblock Plus and subscribe to at least 1 Filterlist. Result: No ads on Youtube whatsoever. Personally, I don't want to throw money down the drain of a multi-billion dollar megacompany that also acts as the music- and movie mafia's bitch. --84.62.175.232 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I have ABP and still get the ads. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoken version

The section YouTube#Privacy (in the spoken version of the article) has a more lower volume. Why? Also see first comment to this post [25]. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on Talk:Vector Marketing regarding this. It was a technical and "my lack of quality assurance" problem. I am not affiliated with either YouTube or Vector. I will redo these recs soon. Phearson (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of date

The section of this article "Social impact" is seriously out of date. It lists "Charlie Bit My Finger - Again!" as the #1 most watched video of all time at "Over 300,000 views". As at 28 August 2011 the current leaders are Justin Bieber's "Baby" at over 613,000,000 views and Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" at over 409,000,000.

Nvek (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly says that Charlie is the most viewed user generated video. There is now an apples and oranges situation with the YouTube charts, because Vevo pop music videos are being counted alongside the user generated videos. Charlie is at #5, while Judson Laipply's Evolution of Dance is at #24 with 179 million views. It remains puzzling that some of the pop videos on Vevo have managed more views in a year than most user generated videos have managed in five years, but that is the way it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism of YouTube" merge

Looking through the Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, I see a lot of duplicated content between the two. While I don't think that a criticism section is really good either, I think that, for NPOV reasons, it is better that it is contained in a section than an article, as the article has been, over time, a dumping ground for people's complaints, including, at several points, complaints about blatant copyright infringement being deleted, and every single design change ever. The ghetto-isation of such content into a little-read page makes it more likely for this content to stagnate, against Wikipedia policy. One recurrent theme throughout the Criticism article is that the criticism of YouTube for simply allowing bad videos to exist is included, but YouTube's reaction (read: removing them) is invariably left out (which is a violation of NPOV). What non-duplicated, non-cherry picking content can be easily integrated into this article. Sceptre (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of YouTube is another spin-off article in a poor state of repair. Like Features of YouTube, it might be best to nominate it for deletion. I would be wary of importing the soapboxing of Criticism of YouTube into this article, as this is a good article and the Criticism section could become bloated if a merger occurred. Criticism of YouTube survived a deletion debate in February and August 2010, but is still not in good condition.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't pass an article at GAN if it had a criticism section, because I see it as failing either the "well-written" or "neutral" criteria, but I won't put this through reassessment either. I'm going to draft a restructuring of the article at User:Sceptre/workspace/Youtube, with the criticism section dispersed. Never mind; I've renamed the criticism section (initially by accident). I don't think that much content could, or should, be merged, but AfD would be hostile to the article's deletion as systemic NPOV problems are, annoyingly, not a reason for deletion. Sceptre (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Features of YouTube into YouTube. Most of the information on Features of YouTube are already mentioned on the YouTube page. The unmentioned information may make the YouTube page larger, but I think that can be summarized into making it smaller. 8 (possibly 9) of 16 sections (excluding References) are already mentioned on the YouTube article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC Rules! (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to propose deletion of Features of YouTube, because it is largely a copy and paste of material from this article. Only the opening paragraphs are original, and these have WP:NOTHOWTO issues, are completely uncited and are not very useful anyway. Features of YouTube was created in October 2010, and was never really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed deletion of Features of YouTube. JC Rules! (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Support merging or deleting, and those options are not very different in this case. SilverCityChristmasIsland 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Support The article seems mostly to be content already existent in the article YouTube, I suggest either a deletion or a merge. Bryce Wilson | talk 04:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Support deletion as proposed. Phearson (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Support I honestly think it would be a good idea. I mean, features of Youtube, and the actual Youtube page shouldn't be separate. 75.179.39.238 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like "Features of YouTube" was PROD deleted a month ago... --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YouTube/Archive_18&oldid=1250979358"