Talk:YouTube/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Under the YouTube Shorts section, it says that they are 15 seconds long and only testing in India. 1. Replace the 15 seconds with 1 minute (I have personally made very "long" shorts) 2. I'm not sure about the Shorts Camera (still in selective beta), but I do know that anyone, anywhere can upload, with the regular method (has to be vertical), and everyone on mobile has access to the shorts, so maybe add that too Sorry, I've never suggested edits before, so I don't quite know how. 66.99.209.50 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We need to have reliable sources for the time limits, we can't use personal experience. The sourcing now specifies the 15 second time frame. As for suggesting edits we prefer that you provide the exact text you'd like to add, remove or change, along with the sourcing. It makes it easier for us volunteers who go around trying to answer all of these requests. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find Reliable Sourcing to suggest that they may be up to a minute long and have added that content to the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I found google's official support page on the topic. It says, "To make your Short longer than 15 seconds, tap 15s above the record button to record up to 60 seconds (60s). Note: Recording with music from our library is limited to 15 seconds." 66.99.209.50 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that source disagrees with WP:NOTHOWTO found another one: "The feature allows creators to record, edit and share short-form video content that’s 60 seconds or less in length." 66.99.209.50 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

66.99.209.50: the 60 second time limit is currently in the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bangla shayari video

37.111.198.92 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

ayus.com/oversimplified Idssss (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Add a page

Ok I dont know where else to suggest this but there is a highly educative and critically loved channel named Kids Learning Tube that posts really good content and recently got to 1M subscribers, please make a page for them. 106.201.87.193 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. New articles can be requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles. But we can only write an article if independent reliable sources have written about the subject, as described at Wikipedia:Notability. That doesn't seem to be the case for this channel yet. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Two quick observations

Channels -- I put this first because it's what caused me to create this comment. Up until now (for years), I've only looked at YouTube to find videos on specific topics or items. I've heard the term YouTube Channel a lot, without really knowing what the term, or just Channel in a YouTube context, means. I looked at this article for info on that and, at this moment, I still don't really know, and I'm not having an easy time finding out. This article seems to assume previous knowledge in the reader about that. With that established, I'll point out that the first use of the term "channel" in this article is currently in the second para of the lead section, where it says, "[...] have created and expanded their corporate YouTube channels", which is pretty mysterious to a reader who doesn't know what a YouTube Channel is.

WP:LEAD -- I mentioned this above without linking it. This article seems out of tune with that WP guideline. Quoting from there: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." -- this article's lead section seems not to fit that. All after the opening paragraph seems more suited as an intro to the History section.

Just a quick comment in passing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:YouTube/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 05:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to quick fail this nomination because it doesn't look like the nominator is a major contributor to the article nor did they consult on the talk page before opening the nomination, contrary to GAN instructions. Other issues with the article include WP:PROSELINE, sourcing (cites blogs, unreliable sources such as Metro), and length (likely needs more aggressive use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to meet GA criterion 3b and reduce the length from an excessive 13212 words). (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A new topic

A topic called 'YouTube alogritm' should be added with proper information about the alogritm. Lalala27 (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources talking about it, you can add it in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

My text search shows 20 instances of the word "algorithm" in the existing article. Many instances are in the "Moderation and offensive content" section. Given this existing content, I don't think that a separate section is warranted; but if it is, there is additional explanation in Social impact of YouTube which, similarly, is distributed throughout the article. Upon further reflection, I think a standalone article, collecting this content in one place, may be warranted: YouTube recommendation alogrithm. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

How much do creators get paid?

Theres no mention at all about how much and what scale creators are paid. This is the most basic of information. 2600:1700:7890:5A40:E56A:373:C31F:4CF2 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

YouTube is also a video archive

The first sentence might better read like this:

YouTube is an American online video sharing, video archive, and social media platform owned by Google.72.174.131.123 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Handling of COVID-19 pandemic and other misinformation

I think this subtopic is WP:UNDUE at the moment in the history section. YouTube is a huge topic. It can be found in the news in reliable sources nearly every day so some editorial judgement about what we're going to cover is required - simply pointing to coverage in an RS is not sufficient to justify inclusion on that basis alone. Does a sentence, or two, about how YouTube has handled COVID belong in the article? Yes though I would suggest one of those sentences should be about how it handled its employees rather than just video content. Should information about how it handles misinformation be covered? Again I would say yes but under Videos (which has several other parts that are covered in too much detail at this point) rather than History. Thoughts from others? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that when I first added something about the COVID-19 handling, I had it under content moderation, and not history. I don't know when it was moved to history, but I do think its out of place in the history section, its still about content moderation. But I don't think its UNDUE, these changes (COVID, then all vaccine info, and now climate change) have received significant attention in media. --Masem (t) 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"U2BE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect U2BE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#U2BE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A small edit suggestion

Ms. Southern uses the acronym "SJW" without defining it. Not familiar with the term oh, I had to look it up.

So, making it a hyperlink would be handy.

Thanks, Austin, TX user 107.216.47.60 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't find an instance of "SJW" in this article. Did you perhaps mean a different article? Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Amulli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmarg3. Peer reviewers: Mmarg3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RodellPearson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Change : "YouTube now offers paid content such as movies and exclusive content produced by YouTube." TO "YouTube now offers paid content such as movies and exclusive content produced by YouTube. It also offers a paid subscription option for watching content without ads." Vigilante stark (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 13:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

It says that Google is the most visited website Google is a search engine not a website also YouTube is Google how can you say that YouTube is the second most visited website no it isn’t it’s so cringe worthy how much stuff is still wrong on Wikipedia and you put blocks on certain pages so people cannot edit I don’t understand why it’s so frustrating when I change some thing and it gets changed back to the wrong thing again Google is NOT a website… 2607:FEA8:4567:8B00:4DCB:DA8E:200D:31BE (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is referring to google.com (a website), where Google (the search engine) is hosted. —GMX^{(on the go!)} 21:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the definition of website, or what the different types are. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is based on the Alexa rankings. Google.com is a website, the article wording is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

In the censorship section, it says the Pakistani ban is still in operation as of 2013. I am requesting for that to be removed.

Occasional Video "Upgrades"

I noticed that "Still D.R.E.", despite being added to YouTube in 2011, has crisp (sharp) visuals. Under the video, it says "REMASTERED IN HD!! CELEBRATING ONE BILLION VIEWS!!". Indeed, quality can be set all the way to 1080p. I then decided to search for articles on YouTube allowing publishers to improve already-available videos. And, yes, apparently, they occasionally do allow this now. Reliable sources are available. Articles at The New York Times ([1]), NME ([2]), and TechCrunch ([3]), among others. If someone who reads this thinks this information could be added to the article, go for it. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Demonetization?

This article apparently used to have a section on demonetization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Restricted_monetization_policies , which was linked to from the Demonetization DAB page). I'm not sure when it went away, but it seems like relevant information that ought to have its own section? Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 01:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Change the YouTube homepage image 張民耀 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Do you have either a reason to do so, or a different image to be used? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If I had to guess, YouTube's filter bubble probably has 張民耀 see a lot more Roblox content than is in the currently used screenshot. Therefore they may think: time to update it, to reflect what's currently popular. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Content section

Added a section to address content of YouTube, as its own topic. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this takes up a lot of space explaining what the site is about, leading to problems with WP:NOTMANUAL. There are videos about virtually any subject on YouTube and listing them is not very encyclopedic and reads like a press release.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. With respect, your comment above does not take note of the basic purpose of that section. I was not cataloging the types of videos at YouTube. And I did not mention the topics of the videos at all. I noted the types of videos, based on the types of organizations who produce them; I was noting and documenting the societal role and impact of Youtube, as a major venue and resource for highly significant publications, networks, news outlets, organizations, corporations and artists within our society. that is far from merely cataloging the contents of Youtube itself.

I will wait a bit before restoring the material, in order to permit the discussion to develop. i hope that my comments are of some help in helping to address this issue. thanks for your comment. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The topics covered in the article should be ones that have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Simply listing types of video that are available on the site is never going to lead to an exhaustive list. I was also concerned about the opening paragraph in this edit as it reads like part of a school essay rather than encyclopedic content.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I can remove the opening sentences, if that will improve the text of that section. Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Youtune" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Youtune and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#Youtune until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Slender (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

$100 or $20 reward?

So in the early days of YouTube, the YT founders struggled to get videos to the site. So, according to this article, they offered attractive women $100 to upload vidoes of themselves to YT. Problem is, I found this article on VICE saying the amount was $20. So which one is it? If the VICE article is the right one i'll change it right away. Klrfl Talk! 11:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why both can't be true at the same time, it's possible VICE only found traces of ads that advertised $20 while the video linked as a source in the article found ones advertising $100. Might be worth it to put it as a range? "Offered from $20 to $100 to upload videos," for example. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article seems slightly informal, quoting- "Owned by Google, it is the second most visited website, right after Google itself." Would the grammatically correct paraphrase not use the word 'preceding' instead of right after... ? Cltjames (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've tried to make the wording less informal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Adventures with Purpose" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Adventures with Purpose and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 6#Adventures with Purpose until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Moved from Talk:Google

Please change YouTube is an American online video sharing and social media platform headquartered in San Bruno, California. It was launched on February 14, 2005, by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim. It is owned by Google, and is the second most visited website, after Google Search. to YouTube is an American online video sharing and social media platform that was launched on February 14, 2005, by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim. YouTube is owned by Google, and is the second most visited website, right after Google Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelj123 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is broadly the same as the current wording which is ok as it is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

YouTube Gaming

When I go to the YouTube Gaming article, it redirects directly to the YouTube page. Surely we can expand information about "YouTube Gaming" under the Services section of the article, and put it as a Header 3? I am also unsure if there would be enough sources to add in YouTube Gaming information. Also, Twitch page does make mention about being the most popular game streaming app, especially in comparison to YouTube Gaming, which was a former service before that app shut down. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cory Kenshin Allegations

I am thinking about adding another chapter in the consolidation and controversy section following the bombshell allegations made by Corey Kenshin. Kenshin accuses YouTube of racism and favoritism. There have been several followup videos made by other creators such as Jacksepticeye after the release of the video and have gained the #1 spot on trending. While I will gather more sources as this unfolds I think anyone can attest to the favoritism allegation. I conducted an experiment, I opened up YouTube in a brand new browser page, and saw which creators were suggested to me without any input from me. For the vast majority of the times I did the experiment videos by SSSniperwolf were prominently displayed on the YouTube homepage. I am curious if any other editors have similar findings or have other creators who are selected by default. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a need to abide by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE. I had a look at this and it hasn't produced a large amount of mainstream news coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"present" vs. "current"

In the "History" section, the last three subsections all cover ongoing topics; two of them use "-present" at the end of their date, but one uses "-current". Is this an intentional discrepency depending on the topic of the subsection? If not, it would probably make more sense to choose just one of those two for consistency. MurdoMaclachlan (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

should be consistent, with "-present" preferred. --Masem (t) 11:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In the process of fixing this. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 17:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A wikipedia article shouldn't really use either. Something was true at that date - just state that. As soon as 'present' or 'current' is used, it's already out of date. Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

UTube vs YouTube

The article skips over this part of YouTubes history quite quickly. I remember that after UTube started getting traffic they set up their page like YouTube's and showed videos. It was all very new - we certainly didn't know which the real YouTube was. And really, UTube had a better name. But I've tried Googling it and there doesn't seem to be much information about it. Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference 524 for YouTube revenue sharing

The reference is indirect (not linking to a Google or YouTube blog/press release). Additionally, the article is behind a paywall, which isn't ideal. Pola8976 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find a different source. But you're right it should not a be behind a paywall. Timur9008 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rt2510 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

link to Censorship of YouTube article

In one of the opening paragraphs, about the societal impact of YouTube, there's the sentence "Criticism of YouTube includes the website being used to facilitate the spread of misinformation, copyright issues, routine violations of its users' privacy, enabling censorship, and endangering child safety and wellbeing."

The sentence links to the article "Censorship of YouTube" on the words "enabling censorship". This article is on a different subject. The words "enabling censorship" seem to refer to YouTube censoring topics on the site, but the article linked to is about governments which have censored YouTube. Both topics are important, in my opinion, and it makes sense to link to a page about YouTube having been censored by various governments, but I don't think it makes sense to link to this specific page in this sentence. Hazyco (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source.[4] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

YouTube Go

Re this edit: another reason for reverting this is that YouTube Go was retired in August 2022.[5]. It was launched in 2016 with the aim of providing a version of YouTube for slower mobile data connections. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Why does it say YouTube was launched on February 14th 2005 then right below say in October of 2006 ‘’10 months after its official launch’’? The February 14th 2005 launch date should be officially changed to April of 2005 when YouTube actually launched or December 2005 when it officially launched out of beta testing it doesn’t make any sense for a domain registration date to be an official launch date or founding date of a website after registering a domain it takes coding and work to build a website it’s not as simple as registering a domain and the site just magically appears. If a domain registration date is considered to be the founding date of a website or launch date of a website then why isn’t the official founding date for googles Wikipedia article not September 1997 instead of September 1998 ? As September 1997 is when googles domain was registered. It’s time we get a change on this February 14th 2005 launch date to the actual real facts it’s not hard. 2603:800C:400:28:ACE2:EEA4:7BA4:16CC (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Done: YouTube never really had an "official launch". It was rolled out during early 2005 and did not have anything that could be described as a launch day. This has been discussed before and although the domain was registered in February 2005, no videos were uploaded until April.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting there that the above post was made by a well-known LTA that regularly falsifies dates. None of the above information should be taken at face value. IceWelder [✉] 12:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Add the discontinuation of the Wii u version of Youtube

While the 3DS version of Youtube has a mentioned discontinuation date, the Wii U doesn't. This makes it possible to confuse the 3DS Youtube shutdown for the Wii U one as well. Wikibrowser30 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Oldest YouTube video" found in January 2023, but it wasn't

Re this edit: it was a clever prank by someone, but it had various flaws, as Mashable points out in this well written article.[6]. Me at the zoo survives as the first YouTube video. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There was an article I passed in my newsfeed that explained how one could fake the upload date on their videos. To that end, I would say that the videos up to 2022 should be considered fixed and immutable - that is, no new additions that claim to be earlier than 2023 should be added unless we have legitimate reason to trust the date. Masem (t) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Could we make a page for a list of YouTubers in specific categories like history, cars, gaming, challenges ect? Jake the brain (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

unlocktruck 2600:6C67:4004:100:D037:B89E:8E4E:9160 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

History of the Like Button is lacking

There is a paragraph detailing the controversy around the dislike button removal, but not a single mention of the rating system in general or how it was changed from stars to like/dislike in the first place. 188.164.235.32 (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

Decoy4644 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) YouTube is the third most visited website only behind Facebook and Google search

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Alexa Internet became defunct in May 2022, Wikipedia has used the rankings by Similarweb. This has YouTube in second place behind Google Search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

hits

Out of curiosity, why this page got 3,5 mln views two days ago? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Susan Wojcicki announced her resignation I believe. commemorative (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

YouTube is a web-based video sharing platform that allows users to upload, share, and view an extensive range of visual content. The platform was first established in 2005, and has since become a preeminent digital destination with billions of active users and millions of videos uploaded daily. With a plethora of diverse topics spanning various genres, YouTube has become a ubiquitous source of entertainment, education, and information for users worldwide. The platform also serves as a dynamic community of content creators who produce original content, ranging from vlogs to comedy sketches to video essays. As a result of its rapid growth and broad impact on popular culture, YouTube has emerged as a cornerstone of the modern digital landscape and represents a key cultural artifact of our time. Ohdad (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This contains elements of WP:PEACOCK language.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Revenue update

I think Youtube's revenue needs an update. The current version is from a two year old source and is labeled in 2021. Please, if new information is available, update this metric. Thanks, Lucky7Chromebook (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"Robin Sweet Showbiz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Robin Sweet Showbiz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14 § Robin Sweet Showbiz until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

YT Kids

I feel like there has been enough controversy about YT Kids to deserve it's own sub-section under YouTube Kids. FusionSub (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Revenue Update (Edit)

I have reread the new version of the article and I would like to thank the person who update the revenue. However, it was updated from 2021 to 2022, ignoring 2023. I would like to know if the only way to determine YouTube's revenue for 2023 would be to estimate or there is no way to know. Anyways, thank you for the update.

ItsCheck (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

Change "The company issued special sustainability bonds, 5.75 billion dollars worth, on August 2023." to "The company issued special sustainability bonds, 5.75 billion dollars worth, on August 2020." Source Dated: August 03, 2020 Frenchtoastghost (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done DreamRimmer (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

additional topic, content ideas

Thinking it might be useful to cover some of the behind-the-scenes features, like what content creators can do with videos: schedule previews, enable/disable comments, pinned comments, timestamps in comments, livestream slow mode, limit to subscribers, perhaps of a certain duration, e.g. 5 min., appointing moderators, timeouts, banning, chapters, transcripts, reporting problem comments, blocking other users. Also might be interesting to know what creators, moderators can see about us users. Maybe have some info on monetization for content creators, video demonetization, channel demonetization scandals/drama (most recently Humanist Report). What kind of cut does Google take for Super Chat, Super Sticker, Super Thanks? (IIRC 30% Super Chat) Same for all? Useful superuser feature: sharing URL with video timestamp. More about copyright strike dramas, e.g. high-profile music educator Rick Beato? General creator frustrations with terrible/unresponsive YouTube support on demonetization, copyright-strike, other issues. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Avaburger40 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As of 2023, YouTube has over 2.68 billion monthly active users. 52% of internet users worldwide access YouTube at least once a month.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Something Missing

Where are the criticisms and controversies? I know there are reliable sources. I feel like it would fail the broadness criterion of a GAN without any of the bad reception. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR 97.94.157.81 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

We could sleuth some information to share truth on Wikipedia.

1. What is the real reason (mentioned without citationneeded, strangely, which makes it weasel-words) for removing dislikes? I was quite proud of my 500- to 0 likes/dislikes over 50+ videos shared. It deserves a prize on Youtube, more than obviously pleasing videos, it's a highly technical subject and so requires 100% accuracy in sharing information.
2. Why was the decision made to destroy Youtube functionality with Made for Kids? Extremely few allow comment censoring as usual, but the kicker is, you can't even put cartoons on a playlist for kids. It's so [stupidhttps://support.google.com/youtube/thread/25007475/why-can-t-i-favourite-a-video?hl=en stupid] it requires investigation.
3. There is not enough historical information here about Google Videos being hugely unsuccessful and being the actual reason for purchasing Youtube.
4. After Google became successful (by buying up a competitor), Google has isolated itself from the public completely, with no accessible product forum for complaints. This is consistent with their other products. There is not enough mention of how this has affected the Youtube brand they purchased. Passages on this page may reflect poorly on those who created the original product; therefore, it's important to point out the timeline reasons for the takeover of the product.

--Henrik Erlandsson 00:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We require third-party sources to make any claims related to these changes. We cannot deduce from disparate information to come to a conclusion. --Masem (t) 03:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Masem 97.94.157.81 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad revenue [citation needed]

Alphabet inc (Youtube’s parent company) releases quarterly financial reports on their website (abc.xyz).

This report has a line item for “Youtube ads” on the second page every quarter, comparing this quarter to last year’s same quarter.

Summing the four values, found at:

https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2022Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf

https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2022Q2_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf

https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2022Q3_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf

https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2022Q4_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf

Gives 29,243 million dollars, or 29.2 billion dollars.

I’m new to wikipedia, so I don’t know how exactly to cite this, so I put it here in the talk page.

edit: I found the yearly report, it has the same number on page ~65 of the pdf (labeled page 28):

https://abc.xyz/assets/d4/4f/a48b94d548d0b2fdc029a95e8c63/2022-alphabet-annual-report.pdf

Note that this is the *advertising* revenue, Youtube has other revenue sources that aren’t included in the figure (which is the same number already on this wikipedia article), so the phrasing should probably be changed to reflect that (like how the 2021 ad revenue number is phrased). HaphLife (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@HaphLife you know 2A00:23C8:3697:E801:9CCC:2F6B:A503:BD2 (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do people use secondary sources for this when the primary source is easy to find? HaphLife (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

More info

this page does not actually seem to mention any YouTubers..? CherryLS (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it's about the site itself, not the personalities on it. If you'd like to list some prominent YouTuber, there's List of YouTubers. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@ASpacemanFalls Thank you. =] CherryLS (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Shadow banning

YouTube has a well known policy and practice of 'shadow banning' certain comments for political or personal reasons not related to their posted terms of service. By adjusting their 'algorithm' YouTube can censor comments in such a manner that the commenter can see his posts but no one else can. This is not in dispute. It is therefore instructive that Wikipedia has not explored this nor has it included this highly relevant issue of blatant and unjustified censorship in its article on YouTube. If Wikipedia has any integrity it will examine this policy and practice and add the issue to this article. But I won't hold my breath. 2603:8001:C200:1637:D550:D9C0:832:7CF6 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

please let me update this page 2804:D51:441C:400:3C34:8C99:87DA:33BC (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed some issues

Optional 120.29.107.78 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube Top 100" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect YouTube Top 100 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § YouTube Top 100 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube" in Top 100 Wikipedia.org.

User's who deal with this topic, - ala "Icon's". Next. If someone can exert their influence on "Icon"... we will be the super - ICON? As the first Ikon's, - Web admin's. On TOP topics. They are always "online" for everyone who is interested. But...

 There are already a number of professionals there. With military, academic training .Ala GUidon (glawnyi). This is usually not a problem. If an “icon” is presented, it is painted and cared for. However . Cheaper . And more efficient. Spoil, scratch, poison, damage. Comparable result. At the “0” tariff. Will be, - Super - Symbol!

Top topic content. Of secondary importance. Number of visitors, “community members”, “herd”. Anyone disagree? There, jump in an anti-sabotage department.TatarTartar (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect YouTube. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § YouTube. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

YouTube Ad Blocker Controversy section needs to be put back up

This is an ongoing situation and people should be made aware of it. I put up information about it only to have the section removed. This is a grossly irresponsible move. And the justification is currently non-existent. Yes, the information came to light as the result of a single announcement in may 2023 and the recent explosion of discussion on Reddit, but that does not make the information unworthy of being given to the people reading the YouTube article. Especially since Reddit itself is the platform most discussing it. What exactly will it take for this to be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarwolfPrime (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We need the issue to be discussed in reliable sources, not user forums like Reddit. Masem (t) 18:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that cover the adblock controversy. Removing the entire section was uncalled for. You should have replaced the Reddit sources and references with other sources and references rather than just deleting the entire thing Gradientgamer (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Will Forbes do? https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2023/10/17/youtubes-anti-adblock-feature-frustrates-users/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarwolfPrime (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Since at least May 2023, some people have been seeing the message "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube".[7] Basically, this is a way of selling YouTube Premium which costs £12.99 a month in the UK for an individual, and £19.99 a month for a family - ouch, no thanks. YouTube Premium is supposed to be the only way that you are officially allowed to watch the videos without ad breaks (there are other ways, but I won't mention them here). The problem is that saying that some Reddit users were appalled isn't a suitable source. This may be worth a brief mention, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for saying how appalled and outraged people were.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbes contributors are not reliable sources Masem (t) 19:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

ExCUSE me? An article in Forbes isn't a 'reliable source'? Ok, no. Absolutely NOT an okay response. You wanted a source. You got one. What more do you want?!

Please see WP:FORBESCON. "Most content on Forbes.com is written by Senior Contributors or Contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." --Masem (t) 20:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Except this is based on events going on currently, and matches the actual situation. I would call it distinctly reliable. --WarwolfPrime

YouTube wants to have unskippable ad breaks, because it argues that this is the only way for the service and its content creators to make money. The "no ad blockers, thank you very much" message is not new, but in October 2023 they have been pushing it more aggressively so that more people are seeing it.[8] If this is causing annoyance, try the Brave browser.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Brave is the reason I deleted the YouTube mobile app. Browser based YouTube on brave actually functions better than their app, and there's no ads for free BovineHoromones (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are some alternative sources

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/youtube-tests-restricting-ad-blocker-users-to-3-video-views/

https://www.ign.com/articles/google-responds-to-reports-of-ad-blockers-being-banned-on-youtube

Bleepingcomputer and IGN are known and trusted sources, there shouldnt be a problem with those Gradientgamer (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did put it back up, citing only sources that shouldn't be questionable. Gradientgamer (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, most people hadn't been seeing that message until October, unless something is very, every wrong with people's browsers, as this started up literally middle of the month and even the Forbes article reflects this, as it's dated October 17th. --WarwolfPrime

Re this edit: I think it is wandering off into original research territory. It's true that YouTube's Terms of Service don't mention ad blockers specifically, but Terms 1 and 2 are sufficiently vague that they would cover the use of ad blockers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. However, I dont see reason of you removing the following " whitelist the site on the ad-blocker, or disable the ad-blocker. Users who continue to use the ad-blocker will have YouTube playback disabled with a similar message" I feel it should be mentioned that YouTube will and already had, been blocking "Video Playback" until the ads are enabled or premium is bought. Gradientgamer (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the wording fairly short, as it isn't necessary to give a chapter and verse list of all of the things that the message says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Google not Alphabet?

the article states a certain past-fact (even a precursor toward need for equitablize ownership into Alphabet (both.most visited and appealed toward each other)) of Google owning YouTube. 136.54.130.70 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sjkline3 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sjkline3 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube Guru" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect YouTube Guru has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § YouTube Guru until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Youtube guru" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Youtube guru has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § Youtube guru until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

File:YouTube screenshot.webp listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YouTube screenshot.webp, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Line with 5 equal signs

There's a line of text saying "Sexualization of children and Pedophilia" that has 5 equal signs between them instead of 4. 2601:83:4280:A9E0:FC00:95F:EF1E:93AB (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube guru" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect YouTube guru has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § YouTube guru until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

Kakadde (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please administrators, add the google+ comment system beta released on "September 24, 2013" please do it and update this wiki.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

New source with an estimate for total number of videos, statistics about view counts, categories, etc.

YouTube is famously difficult to research, and doesn't typically share basic information about the content it holds. There's a new paper in the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media that takes aim at these kinds of fundamental questions about the site by generating and analyzing a large random sample: Total number of videos, growth over time, mean/median view/like/comment/subscriber counts, category distribution, etc. The paper is very long, but the conclusion summarizes key findings and there's a table of key statistics in the appendices.

There's also an article in The Atlantic today based on the paper: Lessons From Deep YouTube.

I have a COI, which is why I'm putting it here (and on the history talk page) instead of adding it myself, but it seems like a logical addition to the article.

Oh, and while the journal, which is open access, is licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, I'm pretty confident there wouldn't be an issue getting any of the figures uploaded to Commons with a compatible license if requested. Cheers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bremps: To respond to your comment, yes it is peer reviewed. Maybe it would help if I formulated an {{edit COI}} request rather than hope someone else will dig through the work. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! I'll just add in the info if it's peer-reviewed, then. Bremps... 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Super. It looks like you accidentally cited an older, already-cited source for it ([9]), though. Also, to be clear, the peer reviewed estimate in the paper is 10 billion based on data from the end of 2022. 14 billion is an updated figure from mid-December 2023. It's reliable, based on the research in the paper (and I think The Atlantic is typically considered reliable for such things), but that figure has not gone through a peer review process. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Google YouTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Google YouTube has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Google YouTube until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

IRL versus online

Propose to split article into: (1) RealLife history & business and (2) online usage structure & content. 3MRB1 (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This article currently has 8 sections. Are you suggesting to collapse it to two? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 it seems to be a logical way of organizing the information in the article, or separating into two articles. not to collapse but to re-layout the hierarchy of presentation. 3MRB1 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We're always going to have a YouTube article because our readers (millions of them every month) will want it and YouTube obviously passes our criteria for inclusion. Multiple other topics - include 1 or 2 by me - have been spun off of this one. so in that sense sure we can spin off stuff that goes into more detail than a YouTube summary would deserve. But I'm still unclear what impact your proposal would have @3MRB1. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical issues with YouTube.

There needs to be a section concerning technical issues with YouTube. It is a known fact that for a long time, people have been having problems posting comments on any YouTube channel. I had contacted them on two separate occasions and they refuse to fix the problem. Nosehair2200 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

These would have to be discussed in reliable secondary sources, not just based on what users say. Masem (t) 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Update Google Bought Price, Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

Change the current price of how much Google bought YouTube for in 2006, to a current 2024 estimate. `In October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion (equivalent to $2.31 billion in 2023).[10]` Smell of curry (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This value is automatically calculated by a template which uses the latest available inflation index. The number will update automatically when the 2024 index is released. Jamedeus (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Statistics

Why don't we add YouTube statistics like top 10/50 channels by subs, total views, etc.? Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This would run into problems with WP:NOTSTATS. It would require constant updating and Wikipedia articles are intended to be reasonably stable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

2806:2F0:4001:E6DE:40AB:35A:8F24:2D95 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 

American page. America is more than USA.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Community Post is enabled for all now

title AlliterateTheFirst (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

2600:1005:B014:9750:DC77:9917:A6E9:D1FF (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC) You said the logo was updated in 2024. But the former logo from 2017-2024 was still there

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Python

The article lists Python as being used in the implementation of YouTube. There is constant debate about that in discussion forums. An article from The Register is provided as backing that. While it is certainly true that Python was used until 2017, it is far from obvious that the article in The Register sheds any evidence that it is still the case now, many years after. Python is not one of the programming languages validated by Google in production, and the article quotes a Google YouTube employee talking about plans to continue using Python, but that employee left Google two months after saying that.

Do we have anything more recent? I tried to find references, but could not unfortunately.

Same problem with Go and the link to Vitess. The Vitess Web site does not mention any usage by Google. GitHub does, but it is hardly evidence it is still truly the case.

17:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)