Talk:YouTube/Archive 23

YouTube experiencing "access issues" in apparent global outage.
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 (GMT-4), NBC News reported that YouTube are aware of users experiencing "access issues" and will try their very best to resolve such issues. Maybe this is another threat from a Hacker, like Facebook breach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.55.172 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's back up and is working OK at the moment. It's very rare for YouTube to have serious technical problems on the site, and as Mark Twain would say, reports of the site's death are an exaggeration.- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That quote was not from me. Please don't assume that was written by me. It was from an IP user. Thank you. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry, I've misread the edit history and it was added by 49.146.55.172 in this edit.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering WP:NOTNEWS, maybe this event should not even be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed it in this edit because it has the usual problems with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. It was a technical problem for an hour or so; on many websites it would hardly be noticed, but on the #2 website in the world people spotted it immediately.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018
The launch date should be changed from February 14, 2005 to April 23, 2005.

Sources:

https://mashable.com/2015/02/14/youtube-history/

http://commencement.illinois.edu/assets/docs/Addresses/JawedKarimAddress.htm

79.17.128.9 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) 79.17.128.9 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * See the thread Talk:YouTube above.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Censorship of YouTube & YouTube

 *  also works as a shortcut to this section name; eg Talk:YouTube

Echoing WP:LENGTH concerns that keep popping up on this talk page, I have started a table below to address the long list of previous blocks/unblocks of YouTube in countries that censor. The list seems to be a regurgitation of content already at Censorship of YouTube, but we should verify that in each case before deleting parts or all of the list. I will update the table as I check, but others are free to pitch in. AGK &#9632;  14:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fact-checking feature
I think this should go in but since it's the Daily Mail I expect it will be rejected. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This feature was introduced in March 2018 and was reported by BBC News here. It was originally intended to counter conspiracy theories, but if a person is determined to believe that the Apollo moon landings are a hoax, pointing them to the Wikipedia article Moon landing conspiracy theories may not make much difference. YouTube is aware that people can say pretty much anything in a video without any form of fact checking, but the use of Wikipedia leads to problems with the General Disclaimer, because Wikipedia does not guarantee to be 100% accurate either. This is probably more on topic at Social impact of YouTube.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This feature is known as an "information cue", and I could not find a video that has one, despite looking at various videos about the Apollo hoax and climate change denial, eg by Richard Lindzen who is mentioned in the Daily Mail article. The video Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? is shown in the Mail article with an information cue underneath it, but it doesn't currently seem to have one. As an exercise, maybe someone could find a video that does show an information cue pointing at a Wikipedia article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this BBC News article, Rory Cellan-Jones also failed to find any information cues linking back to Wikipedia articles. This feature was promised by Susan Wojcicki earlier this year, but I'm beginning to wonder if it has been silently dropped as an idea. Can anyone find one of these elusive information cues in a video that is currently on YouTube?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Conspiracy theories and fringe discourse
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * YouTube has been criticized for using an algorithm that gives great prominence to videos that promote conspiracy theories, falsehoods and incendiary fringe discourse. According to an investigation by The Wall Street Journal, "YouTube’s recommendations often lead users to channels that feature conspiracy theories, partisan viewpoints and misleading videos, even when those users haven’t shown interest in such content. When users show a political bias in what they choose to view, YouTube typically recommends videos that echo those biases, often with more-extreme viewpoints." When users search for political or scientific terms, YouTube's search algorithms often give prominence to hoaxes and conspiracy theories. After YouTube drew controversy for giving top billing to videos promoting falsehoods and conspiracy when people made breaking-news queries during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, YouTube changed its algorithm to give greater prominence to mainstream media sources.  In 2018, it was reported that YouTube was again promoting fringe content about breaking news, giving great prominence to conspiracy videos about Anthony Bourdain's death.


 * In 2017, it was revealed that advertisements were being placed on extremist videos, including videos by rape apologists, anti-Semites and hate preachers who received ad payouts. After firms started to stop advertising on YouTube in the wake of this reporting, YouTube apologized and said that it would give firms greater control over where ads got placed.


 * Alex Jones, known for far-right conspiracy theories, has built a massive audience on YouTube. YouTube drew criticism in 2018 when it removed a video from a leftwing watchdog compiling offensive statements made by Jones, claiming that it was "harassment and bullying". On August 6 2018, however, YouTube removed Alex Jones' YouTube page following a content violation.


 * University of North Carolina professor Zeynep Tufekci has referred to YouTube as "The Great Radicalizer", saying "YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century." Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University described YouTube as a "conspiracy ecosystem".

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not mentioned in any subtopic article. The social impact was moved to Social impact of YouTube and is therefore not part of this discussion. This article should be shorter, not longer. Also, this shouldn't be confused with YouTube, which is about content that violated YouTube's community policy. I personally think that this would be more appropriate for a more general article about Internet culture, or some article like YouTuber, which actually deals with some of the content on YouTube. Furthermore, the sources cited are news articles about these studies, but don't provide any comparative analysis for us to be able to determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give it. After all these years of people trying to write about the whole of YouTube, maybe it's just impossible to cover such a massive platform beyond the stereotypical article YouTuber. The only sentence of the lead section talking about the content of YouTube (Available content includes video clips, TV show clips, music videos, short and documentary films, audio recordings, movie trailers, live streams, and other content such as video blogging, short original videos, and educational videos.) talks about the style, medium and type of YouTube videos, not about the substance of them. Of course, if there have been consequences to some of this content, it should be covered in YouTube, or a Criticism of YouTube article which currently does not exist (but could be created as the Criticism of Google article should not cover criticism specifically about YouTube). And yes, I realize that YouTube did something to prevent some of it, but that's not significant enough for this overview article, and would not be accurate enough (as YouTube usually reveals their bigger changes with delay, which would not help this already-outdated article). w umbolo   ^^^  17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, mechanical issue of the proposed subsection would not fit any of the existing sections.  Second, only the first para seems significant and smells a bit SYNTH to gather up not previously joined critics together.  Third, this is all said elsewhere, and it’s all social media (e.g. twitter) not just YouTube so not YouTube-specific article material.  For example, the article Conspiracy theory mentions YouTube and Alex Jones mentions it and so do others where it was prominent, as in fringe elements (or the President) unhappy with media coverage turn disproportionately to social media.  Prominence is within those topics ... but those topics are not prominent within the larger YouTube.  Fourth ... NPOV, covering just criticisms here lacks rebuttal views, or the due WEIGHT inclusion of proportion praising YT or views like it’s too many stupid cat videos.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Extensively sourced content, with news outlets undertaking in-depth investigations on the topic, and with academics describing YouTube's role in the promotion of conspiracy theories as highly significant. The content should not, as one of the comments above suggests, be forked or hidden away in articles that no one reads and no one bothers contributing to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced content and salient. Anybody who has spent time of YouTube, has seen the changes. As the time passes, the issues raised in the two oppose votes will be addresses. scope_creep (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The references are adequate.  I do not support the view that relevant material should be omitted merely to shorten the length of the article. --Saranoon (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this is not the place to argue that. WP:SIZE is a well-established guideline, and it applies to all articles, whether you like it or not. This is not Wikia, where you can write how much you want, as long as it has "adequate" references. w umbolo   ^^^  22:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the one who argued size...asserting the article should be shorter, not longer, as an argument for omitting this content. I disagreed.  In my view, the guidelines regarding WP:SIZE easily accommodates the additional material.--Saranoon (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not me. Many, many editors have assessed the article length in discussions over the years, including GA (re)assessments, WikiProject discussions, etc. Pretty much everyone agreed that the article is too long. And that's basically the reason we use WP:Summary style. There are multiple split proposals, and the WP:SPINOFF articles have often been kept at AfD because this article is too long. However, this is not the subject of this RfC, but an observation of the obvious consensus on this talk page that this article is too long. w umbolo   ^^^  06:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose [Summoned by the bot] Sources seem to be purely media outlets, which may or may not know YouTube's algorithm for promoting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryfee (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use WP:PRIMARY sources outside the Features section. w umbolo   ^^^  20:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Article length should not be a reason to keep pertinent material out of it. The paragraphs written are much more interesting than a lot of other content in the article (such as the Features section). ImTheIP (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why the Features section has always been trimmed, and should be even shorter. Whether something is "interesting" is totally irrelevant. w umbolo   ^^^  10:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article should clearly mention the Alex Jones and Las Vegas shooting controversies, but I think this could be made more concise. Kaldari (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed version.... let's wait till we have academic analysis of the topic and can be summarized properly.--Moxy (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: A report prepared for the US Senate by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika notes "the IRA’s heavy use of links to YouTube videos leaves little doubt of the IRA’s interest in leveraging Google’s video platform to target and manipulate US audiences." The IRA is the Internet Research Agency, a Russian disinformation unit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From the source: "Google submitted information in an especially difficult way for the researchers to handle, providing content such as YouTube videos but not the related data that would have allowed a full analysis. The YouTube information was so hard for the researchers to study, they wrote, that they instead tracked the links to its videos from other sites in hopes of better understanding YouTube’s role in the Russian effort." So this is basically useless for this article. Or am I missing something? w umbolo   ^^^  13:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "the IRA’s heavy use of links to YouTube videos leaves little doubt of the IRA’s interest in leveraging Google’s video platform to target and manipulate US audiences.". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That says more about the IRA than about YouTube: "... leaves little doubt of the IRA’s interest in leveraging Google’s video platform to target and manipulate US audiences." (emphasis mine) w umbolo   ^^^  14:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Extremely well-sourced, deals with an important aspect of the topic. None of the "oppose" comments have a strong basis for policy. If the topic should be discussed in other YouTube-related articles, then it can be added there; that should have little/no bearing on whether it should be discussed in the main article. The claim that the "criticisms here lacks rebuttal views" is baffling to me. First of all, this is straightforward reporting on an aspect of the topic, not "criticism" in the normal sense. Second, I haven't seen reliable sources that deny that extremists and terrorists have sometimes made use of YouTube. Third, the idea that we should ignore the issue based on a lack of "academic analysis" is misplaced for two reasons: (A) academic analyses of YouTube's role do exist (e.g., Agarwal & Sureka 2015, Yusha'u 2015, Chen et al. 2008, Ekmam 2014); and (B) even if these sources didn't exist, there's zero reason, for example, why the Columbia Journalism Review cannot be cited. Neutralitytalk 03:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not these studies again... When someone requests academic analysis to determine WP:WEIGHT, they don't request WP:PRIMARY papers with one or two citations which merely use YouTube as a platform for their research because it is appropriate and it is appropriate because it literally has all kinds of content available for research. There are hundreds of studies of Wikipedia every year – try adding all of them to the article about Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING and "extremely well-sourced" is a bad argument in general (it doesn't take NPOV into account at all) and the worst argument on this talk page since YouTube is one of few topics that can have a lot of useless information and be "extremely well-sourced". If you know about WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, isn't it logical that this article only summarizes other articles, and it's a good idea to try to get content into a sub-article first? I don't understand how criticism is not criticism, and no one has claimed that extremists and terrorists do not use YouTube (furthermore, all of this is already mentioned in YouTube and is not even the topic of this RfC). Your comment is a misreading of oppose !votes and a couple of non sequiturs; please read other comments more carefully, and I hope this explanation of mine helps show my points. w umbolo   ^^^  10:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should disregard the Columbia Journalism Review and various academic sources on an important aspect of the topic lacks any basis in policy. These sources are way stronger &mdash; and the issue is way more important &mdash; then a bunch of material already in this article, including content about an annual April Fool's Day joke. Neutralitytalk 16:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When an article is too big (per WP:SIZE), we should remove undue material, not add material that seems more due than the existing one. The April Fools Day content is part of the "Features" section, which is in the process of being spun-off into Features of YouTube. When I proposed the split, I got one support !vote and one oppose !vote. The latter stated that much of the Features section is undue, original research or similarly inappropriate. This further supports my point that we should trim the Features section instead of adding more material on the basis that it is much more important than the worst parts of the Features section. w umbolo   ^^^  21:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:DUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Update the screenshot.
The current screenshot is old (2017) and the year is currently 2019 so I have provided this photo from 3:02 PM February 3, 2019:



Hope you guys will put this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intergalactic Cheese (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We're lucky to have a screenshot in the infobox after some people moaned about it, saying that it had thumbnail videos which failed WP:NFCC. The screenshot as a whole isn't very informative, because it is mainly thumbnails which are bound to change over time. The new image has already been nominated for deletion on Commons. The current file has fair use tagging.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed content
The following was removed here by Ianmacm. I am preserving it here so that it can be included in a potential WP:SPINOFF about child protection. w umbolo  ^^^  06:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Suicide instructions spliced into child cartoons In July 2018, doctors on a pediatrician-run parenting blog called to attention inappropriate content spliced into cartoons on YouTube Kids, which featured a clip of a man simulating cutting his risk and explaining "sideways for attention, longways for results." The video then quickly returns back to the cartoon. YouTube took it down a week later, but the video reappeared in February 2019. Through further investigation, these hidden suicide tips were discovered in several cartoon videos, along with other inappropriate content such as glorification of sexual exploitation, abuse, human trafficking, gun violence, and domestic violence. YouTube issued a statement against the video clips, vowing to improve on their screening of flagged videos and include more options for parental control. Such options include the ability for parents to hand pick videos and channels on the app.


 * I don't like to remove well written material, but in this edit I cited WP:RECENTISM, WP:TOPIC and WP:SIZERULE. The section about the 2019 child abuse controversy is now getting rather too long, and may need a spinoff article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtoob listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Youtoob. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 21:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Add mention for archival of YouTube annotations
There was a project to archive and restore YouTube annotations. There are several extensions that support playback.

Annotations from 1.4 billion videos are available on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/youtubeannotations

Extensions: https://github.com/afrmtbl/AnnotationsRestored https://tech234a.bitbucket.io/AnnotationsReloaded/ https://github.com/omarroth/invidious/pull/303

Sources: https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1114290495482728450 https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=YouTube#Annotations_removal

https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/aa6czg/youtube_annotation_archive/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/al7exa/youtube_annotation_archive_update_and_preview/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/b7imx9/youtube_annotation_archive_annotation_data_from/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarroth (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of those are primary sources and self-published. Unless you can find a journalistic website, periodical, or academic journal that discusses the issue, I would conclude that without proper sources it cannot be mentioned here and probably isn't important enough to matter. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for taking a look! Omarroth (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Word "YouTube" (when made clickable) absent from Wikipedia?
For some reason, when the word "YouTube" is made clickable, it's completely absent on this website. I'm not quite sure why. Can someone fix this? Dpm12 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the link you made, it took me to the article. Where do you see the problem?   ~ GB fan 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On my computer, it's not showing up at all. All I see in what I wrote above is "For some reason, when the word  is made clickable"... Dpm12 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see any problem. As usual, try replicating the fault on different devices and Internet connections.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it looks like it is a problem with your computer not Wikipedia. You will need to fix it on your end. Is this link, Broadcast yourself (a redirect to YouTube) visible? ~ GB fan 12:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Advantage of abbreviated numbers
YouTube will soon only show inaccurate counters.

From a technical point of view, which advantage does it have to show inaccurate numbers?

And why is “consistency” an argument to do so? What exactly is more consistent about these inaccurate numbers? --Chanc20190325 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Adverse changes (no pun intended)
YouTube has been doing more and more adverse changes in the past, where over 95% of tweets and comments from the community stated that they do not like that change and that nobody asked for it.

Here are the few biggest ones:
 * YouTube 2013 “One channel layout” redesign.
 * Direct messaging (August 2018)
 * Inability to add YouTube Annotations (May 2017)
 * Removal of YouTube Annotations (January 2019)
 * Removal of YouTube AutoShare (January 2019)
 * YouTube A.P.I. will only show inaccurate (abbreviated) counters as of August 2019 (see:  )
 * Removal of video statistics.

Nearly the entire community opposes these changes and feature removals.

Should this somehow be mentioned in the page? –Chanc20190325 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends on the sourcing. As the saying goes, you can't please all of the people all of the time. To give an example, YouTube said that it dropped the Annotations feature because it worked only with a web browser, and did not work on its mobile apps, leading to a 70% drop in their use. But the fans weren't pleased about it, as some people had put a lot of time into the Annotations.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019
50.237.97.194 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC) how to go in youtube to see
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. NiciVampireHeart 15:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

YouTube (YT) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YouTube (YT). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 14:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The intro should note that more than 500 hours of video content are being uploaded every minute
After this:

As of August 2018, the website is ranked as the second-most popular site in the world, according to Alexa Internet.[1]

It should add:

As of May 2019, more than 500 hours of video content are uploaded to YouTube every minute.

100.12.249.14 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--SharabSalam (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No mention of polymer design?
YouTube's most recent layout is called “Polymer”. I am surprised that that word has not even been mentioned once in the entire article.

Additionally, another minor change is that the notification icon only conuts 9 notifications (above 9 shows “9+”), while the legacy design showed 99 notifications.

Playlist notes
In YouTube's earlier design, it used to be possible to add notes to playlist items.

These can not be seen or added in their polymer version.

Notification system changes
Their notifications used to be unified everywhere at Google, therefore YouTube comment notifications could be displayed while browsing Google.com. And directly replied within the notification, which is a feature that got removed and then added back again.

Direct messaging
I could not find a mention of the direct messaging feature being removed one year ago. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

“Show more comments”
YouTube does no longer show all comment replies since August 2018. Instead, it shows “show more coments” to load the 10 next comments.

Some additional information gets mentioned here. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be great to get a better photo of the headquarters building
The building looks better in mid-summer rather than early spring (when I last took a photo) when the trees have fully grown out.

Unfortunately, every time I am in San Bruno in the morning, there are always one or two police cruisers circling the YouTube headquarters (I'm assuming because of that unfortunate incident last year) and I don't want to point a camera in case it gets mistaken for something else! Can someone take a better photo when they're in the neighborhood? --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

PRISM (surveillance program)
I'm concerned about attempts to give this undue prominence. It isn't really worth an entire section when the text is short and PRISM (surveillance program) has its own article. This shows that YouTube is only one of the companies involved, and other major parts of the Internet were targeted. It is now not much of a surprise that the NSA listens in on practically everything.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019
Typo at section 2.2.1 (Community) Row 7: "conuts" Correct spelling: "counts" Minecrafter50wp (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done aboideautalk 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

“Playlist Notes” – Too trivial?
YouTube's legacy design (accessible via “disable_polymer=1” or “disable_polymer=true” URL parameter) does have a feature that allows playlist creators to add notes to each video.

Is that worth mentioning? --Handroid7 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be a feature that is mentioned by third-party sources, otherwise yes, it is too trivial. --M asem (t) 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Content (non)-accessibility
It appears YouTube has universally disabled downloading of videos, effective early September 2019. I have a browser plug-in that used to be able to download MP4 files for local viewing on my older Linux system, but the plugin link is now gone in the browser, although it still shows as being installed and enabled in the Add-Ons Manager. Also, youtube-dl, a command-line utility for Linux and Windows can't fetch any videos that I've tried downloading, including four-year-old "funny cats" compilation videos; it displays "ERROR: This video is unavailable." If anyone can confirm this, the section should be updated. Of course, it could be a short-term coding screw-up at YouTube, but who knows? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 18:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They did not disable it, they just changed something. Web downloaders still work, and there is already a patch in youtube-dl. Furthermore, and more importantly, the section cannot be updated just because someone confirms it (on their computer). Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that section Features be split into a separate page called Features of YouTube. The section itself contains a disproportionate amount of information compared to other sections, bringing the whole article near the character limit. 9March2019 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has had WP:SIZERULE problems for some time.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft support The features are kind of the "main attraction" to this article, though. What about separating out the "Content and filtering" section instead? This is a tough one. --Doug Mehus (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019
Mistake at the Company history section, in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph (row 13):

According to data published by market research company comScore, YouTube is the dominant provider of online video in the United States, with a market share of around 43% and more than 14 billion views of videos in May 2010.

I believe it should be

According to data published by market research company comScore, YouTube was the dominant provider of online video in the United States, with a market share of around 43% and more than 14 billion views of videos in May 2010. Primqo (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see that the problem is that things might have changed since 2010 and it would better to find a more up to date source. In terms of its Alexa rank, YouTube is still easily the most visited video website.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019
Please remove "during the PewDiePie vs T-Series rivalry" written in child pornography protection section. There's no need to write that as it already mentions over there that this was done in early 2019. Vansh9 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ To provide a date is not why the rivalry article was referenced - it was referenced because this was a rivalry that featured numerous instances of people attempting to get videos flagged for takedown, so is relevant. <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 10:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019
Youtube is worth £985,090,000,000 159.242.116.98 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019
Youtube has been deleting cryptocurrency videos issuing strikes against content creators who have uploaded videos with information about cryptocurrency content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quota8Star (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Needs a source, which is here. YouTube has apparently deleted a swathe of cryptocurrency videos in December 2019, but it is unclear why, although the users were told that the video was "harmful or dangerous content" or "sale of regulated goods". This is interesting but needs further sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * According to this source, the Stantinko botnet is being used to mine cryptocurrency "by leveraging YouTube’s description". On the whole, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are not illegal, but setting up a botnet to mine them would be a problem. The sourcing doesn't say that YouTube has deleted the videos because of the botnet, but this is worth watching.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * YouTube has apologized for deleting the cryptocurrency videos, saying that it "made the wrong call". This is a strange incident, but it may have WP:NOTNEWS issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Youtube Purge continues. This can be found by searching Youtube Purge. The details about Stantinko are unrelated, that was one isolated incident where descriptions were used to run code. Details about that botnet can be found here While Youtube states the deletions were an error people who contact Youtube saying a video or multiple videos are still removed. the source can be viewed here Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG8V1O0Plqo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quota8Star (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Facebook info link to YouTube videos pulls the head from 'History of YouTube' article why not the 'YouTube' article
The page head of [|History of YouTube] has a very pronounced product placement for PayPal while the page head on YouTube has a more dry and commercial selection of information.

I wonder if the History of YouTube page has been created to push the product placement into the minds of everyone who clicks the info link on a Youtube video on a FaceBook wall?

Could we move the PayPal name on the History of YouTube page just a bit further down so it does not look like Wikipedia has been subverted for covert marketing.

Idyllic press (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The WP:LEAD here says "Three former PayPal employees—Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim—created the service in February 2005." I don't think this is intended to be product placement, it simply reports the facts.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Raising authoritative content and reducing borderline content and harmful misinformation
At the end of section #Conspiracy theories and fringe discourse please add:
 * In 2019, YouTube described on their blog measures "raising authoritative content and reducing borderline content and harmful misinformation" as part of their "Four Rs of Responsibility" (remove&middot;raise&middot;reward&middot;reduce) iniative.

Unsurprisingly the quote in this reference is the point of my suggestion. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI
WT:WikiProject YouTube –84.46.53.117 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Premiere
There should be details about premieres on YouTube. --TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * YouTube Premieres are mentioned here and here. Due to WP:SIZERULE problems, it isn't possible to mention every feature on the site.- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020
i request to also add in the introduction to YouTube that not only Americans but a variety of countries for example the United Kingdom or Australia also use Youtube. Leesha1997 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It largely goes without saying that people can visit a website from different countries. Most YouTube videos can be viewed in a range of countries, but there are occasional regional filters for copyright or unacceptable content. The local versions are mentioned later on in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, it makes sense to only state that it is an American website simply because it was made in the United States and has a headquarters in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoBoBu261 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
I request that the article also mentions (on the second paragraph, where it says: Unregistered users can only watch (but not upload) videos on the site, while registered users are also permitted to upload an unlimited number of videos and add comments to videos) that not only that unregistered users may not upload or comment but also that they may not like, unlike, subscribe, and/or make playlists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoBoBu261 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is rather too complicated for the WP:LEAD. It isn't really necessary as the lead section is a summary.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully concur, that is way too much information for the lead. Also, the proposed sentence is not a valid English sentence; it needs to be broken into two or three sentences to be valid. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Image
I think this file is useful to add to the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YouTube_views.jpg/. Luuk Steusfij (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is this image, it doesn't seem to add much useful information.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Broadcast yourself" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Broadcast yourself. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  23:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Formats and codecs table
Re this edit: the list of formats given in this source is very dated indeed. As I said in this edit summary, "I don't think that YouTube still uses H.263 or 3GP today, these are very old codecs from the early days of the website." Hardly anybody uses H.263 or 3GP nowadays, they are largely obsolete and date back to the first few years of YouTube when they were common formats. YouTube videos today are mostly H.264 and VP9, as the article says. I bet that nobody can download a H.263 or 3GP video from YouTube nowadays.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

YouTube's deletion of Nazism promoting videos
YouTube's policy changed and they now delete videos which promote Nazism. I feel like this should be added to the article.--HalMartin (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? (eg, something akin to this for 5G/coronavirus theories ) --M asem  (t) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This source https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/youtube-supremacists-conspiracy-theory-accounts-delete-channels-users-a8945851.html talks about it in the second and third paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalMartin (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, this is probably stemming from the chain of events from the Christchurch shootings in March 2019 to the ban in June 2019 which I can multiple sources on that. A separate section on "Hateful content" under "Controversial content" is warranted but I need to make sure to lay out the sources to write to it first. --M asem (t) 05:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And now added (including the run-up to that change). --M asem (t) 16:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020
Add Category: Korea Image Awards Winners, reference: YouTube will be awarded the Korea Image Stepping Stone Bridge Award for playing a key role in encouraging the popularity of “Gangnam Style” and other “hallyu” or Korean wave content. 43.239.157.198 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ per WP:OC and WP:CATV. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What about the rest of the market - Vimeo, et al?
Surely somewhere this article should mention the market landscape (including history). Let's have some context. Competitor Vimeo was founded first, so what did YouTube guys do to address and beat it? And there are plenty of others out there now of course, eg. Wistia, Brightcove, Hippo Video, SproutVideo, vooPlayer, Uscreenr. - Onanoff (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Vimeo and Metacafe were launched before YouTube, Dailymotion at around the same time. The article here doesn't claim that YouTube was the first ever video sharing website, because it wasn't. YouTube took off and became far and away the most successful video sharing site, and there would need to be sourcing to look at why this happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We do have half a picture that might help with sourcing, in that we know YouTube took off with the appearance of Saturday Night Live's "Lazy Sunday" short, proving the platform wasn't just for people to share their own videos but ANY video content, which made it take off, and which I'm sure had a "float everyone's boat' effect on the other video sites. What is needed though is sourcing to show that there was a push on video sharing demand of which YT was but one of several and why "Lazy Sunday" may have made it unique. --M asem (t) 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * YouTube was originally intended to be a place where people could share their home videos of piano playing cats, trips to the zoo etc. However, it soon became clear that people were also uploading prodigious quantities of copyrighted material such clips from TV shows, movies and pop videos. YouTube's guidelines asked people not to do this (they still do). During the first years of its existence, major media companies such as WarnerMedia, Universal and Viacom hated YouTube and would gladly have put it out of business. Eventually they learned to live with it. The policy of WP:YOUTUBE is an admission that YouTube is awash with copyrighted material even though people have been asked not to upload it. There is a good article here about the Lazy Sunday clip that kickstarted all of this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have that THR article in use in the article, I'm just trying to frame if we can establish that when YouTube was setting itself up that there was a push for video-sharing of users' own videos (no one was thinking for sharing of copyrighted content at that point) and YouTube was the one that struck gold. I'm suggesting that this is where if one wants to look for sources, the areas and topics to look in, around 2003-2004-2005. I did try a quick search earlier, but couldn't find anything immediately but not dismissing that there should be more to explain why YouTube successed over Vimeo and the other mentioned. if it was just the pure luck of timing with it coming on line the same week as "Lazy Sunday"... hopefully some RS has that documented. It *would* be nice to explore that more. --M asem (t) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Another important factor that drove the growth of video sharing websites was the rise of home broadband in the early 2000s. During the days of dial-up Internet access there was hardly any video on the web. The BBC and CNN websites had a few news video clips, but you had to download them in full before watching them (with RealPlayer, QuickTime and Windows Media Player if you remember). They were usually no more than a few Megabytes, which is all that dialup would handle. Streaming media requires broadband to work. The first person I knew who had broadband at home was in 2002, and I was jealous at the time; it was very expensive back then. I didn't get it until late 2004 and the price had dropped a bit by then. Broadband didn't really take off in the home until 2005-10, which corresponds with the rise of YouTube. This is also something that could be explored in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

YouTube and age restrictions
Re this edit: YouTube requires a person to be at least 13 years old to have an account.. However, some videos require a sign in, such as this one. This doesn't say that a person who signs in has to be at least 18 years old.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry for reverting your edit, I misread the part that says "Age-restricted videos are not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have Restricted Mode enabled".—J. M. (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, I would like to discuss the Age-restricted content policy. Does the sentence mean that in order to view "inappropriate" content, you have to be both logged in and 18+ years of age? I think I'm a bit confused. :-)—J. M. (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also a bit confused over this. The minimum age for having a YouTube account is 13 years old, per United States law, and Facebook also requires a person to be at least 13 years old to have an account. However, Age-restricted content this answer on YouTube Help says "When a video is age-restricted, viewers must be signed in and 18 years of age or older to view it. These videos are not shown in certain sections of YouTube. Also, age-restricted videos won't show ads by default and can't be monetized." There aren't very many videos on YouTube that require this type of sign-in, and this one may require the viewer to be 18+. This isn't explicitly stated on the sign in page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's clear that the age-restricted videos require a person to be at least 18 years old, so the wording in the lead was adjusted. On the whole, YouTube is not an 18+ website because extreme violence and sex are not allowed. However, there are some (but not many) videos that have an age-restricted sign-in.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020
I would like to add some information about youtube, some of the people on the app 2607:FEA8:A300:9B:7D0F:AF24:F323:5A29 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit 1:
As of 07th May 2020, Youtube is available in:

106 Locations and 83 Languages

But here in Localization section of the page: Click to View | Screenshot: Click To View

It is showing localized versions in 103 countries and 76 language versions - which is wrong.

Please update it!!

I also request you to add this information in infobox vcard, here: Click to View Screenshot

You can add in this format:

Available in: 106 Locations and 83 Languages

Edit 2:
In the same infobox vcard, here: Click to View Screenshot

Only two products are added: YouTube Music and YouTube TV

But there are five more products by YouTube, which are not added there:

1. YouTube Kids

2. YouTube Go

3. YouTube Originals

4. YouTube Premium

5. YouTube Studio

Please consider to add them also.

Cocomelon & ChuChu
I removed content critical of Cocomelon and ChuChu TV. The sentences were placed in a paragraph next to a sentence that implied that these channels were among many that lure children in with familiar nursery rhymes and then .... for whatever reason .... display inappropriate content once they've got their audience. This is not true and I have not seen anyone making such a complaint about those YouTube channels specifically. What I have found, though, is that when I search for nursery rhyme lyrics I sometimes see a wide variety of video links to various YouTube channels, some of which are extremely poor quality.

This subject came up earlier at the Cocomelon page and a different editor did much the same as what I did here. This page, of course, has far more activity, so I wanted to post on the talk page rather than just assuming that my edit will stand unchallenged. Thanks, — Soap — 01:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue given by the sources with these statements is that there's no idea of ownership or their purpose, so there are questions if they are being used to draw children for such means. It is part of the larger issue that YT (outside YT kids) lacked control on children's content that has since led up to the changes that had to be made in making content child-friendly or not. --M asem (t) 01:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To stream we're in a section called "Child Protection" and the paragraph is about "Even for content that appears to aimed at children and appears to contain only child-friendly content, YouTube's system allows for anonymity of who uploads these videos...." Per the sources used for this, parents do not like not knowing who is behind these video, even if the videos aren't violating anything else, and the concern about what entities were earning money from these videos was a question. --M asem (t) 02:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok,I see that there was a need for a thought break int he paragraph to make sure Cocomelon and the other channels were not grouped with "bait and switch" channel, though they are still channels to be wary from the direction of child protection. --M asem (t) 02:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is largely a crosspost from your talk page because I want it to be seen here too ... but I will use different words.
 * I appreciate the change you made to the article, but the rest of my objection remains. We're using three outdated web stories which claim that the creator of Cocomelon is anonymous, which is no longer true .... technically it wasn't true even in 2019 but I don't want to quibble.  The fourth source, simply put, does not say what we're claiming it does.  It is quite a long article, but mentions these two channels only once, in the How Does Kids YouTube work? section.  And in that section,   all it says about Cocomelon & ChuChu specifically is that they have "Baby Shark" and "Finger Family" videos. That's literally it.  But from that story, we derive our claim that
 * "Cocomelon", ChuChu TV, and other channels like it raise concerns because of the lack of knowledge of what purpose they are trying to serve, and which have made it difficult for earnest content creators developing children's related content to compete with them.
 * I haven't  bothered to look into how we got here from there, but I think it is improper for us to leave it up. — Soap — 20:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I get where you have the issue, that the 'unknown' status of CocoMelon has changed. That's fully fair, and I've reworked it to try to be clear its "unknown" factor was a thing of the past. --M asem (t) 21:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. I was still hoping someone else would post here, but since no one has ... I just request one more change, which I could do myself if eveyrone's okay with it ... just remove the words like ChuChu TV, please, because as far as Im aware they were never mentioned in any of those stories as hiding their identity. I can no longer get to the WSJ article, but the others are clear.  I'm going to be busy for a while but I don't want to stop halfway and say "good enough" ... if I did, it'd look like I was taking sides.  Thanks,  — Soap — 21:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I move ChuChu out the part about unknown operators, but did add it as an example of a "large channel" that is difficult to compete again (which the Vice article directly supports). --M asem (t) 22:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Observation: The mobile website has a custom HTML5 video playser since late 2019.
Worth mentioning inside the article? --84.147.39.226 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * YouTube was one of the first websites to offer HTML5 video, starting in 2010. I couldn't find any sources mentioning the custom player, though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Video player debug options and Statistics for Nerds
Should the video player's debug features such as “Copy debug info” and “Statistics for nerds” be mentioned in the article? And where? --11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.199.108 (talk)

AutoShare
YouTube AutoShare was removed on January 31st 2019. It allowed tweeting a video automatically upon liking, adding to playlist, uploading and earlier subscribing.

I think it is worth mentioning, but just my 2ct. --79.241.199.108 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

URL extensions
Is there an explanation here or some other Wikipedia article?

Basically the structure being you have youtube.com/watch? followed by various criteria linked by ampersands (&)

The standard being v= since that uses the alphanumeric video code. It seems like order doesn't matter: it's usually standard to generate v= first since it's mandatory but playing seems to work if you have v= specified after other criteria like t= (aka start=)

All that comes to mind is you can use either ?t= or ?start= to put the default position of the position bar somewhere other than zero: by default any number you put is seconds but you can do #m#s to type the time in that format, guessing probably #h too

Some sites have suggested ?end= but that doesn't seem to function to automatically stop play at that point. Is that possible an old extension which doesn't work anymore?

I know &feature=youtu.be shows up if you use those short URLs to bounce to the main site. Functionally doesn't seem to do anything so I imagine that's just for YT's internal tracking purposes.

Probably some other stuff... if YT has a page it seems worth noting if not quoting entirely here to help people use it and understand the URLs properly.

Like for example when trying to pare down a bloated URL you might remove ?feature= because it's not necessary to play the video, and indeed would give YT bad data if you didn't remove it because you're not even using a youtu.be link if you're actually copying what that generates. WakandaQT (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical error
Hello, while reading "YouTube", I noticed the following phrase: "A small number of videos, can be downloaded as MP4 files." I believe this should be changed to not have the comma: "A small number of videos can be downloaded as MP4 files."
 * ChikoritaLover (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right - updated. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo in the infobox
In my opinion it would be better to change the photo in the infobox. I say this because there may be children looking at this article and they may get scared looking at the IT clown photo Dr Salvus (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but apart from anything else - WP:CENSOR - wikipedia isn't censored, even in the case of a tiny thumbnail image of a TV show. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt anyone who is old enough to read this article would be scared by that very low-res screenshot with that tiny thumbnail. Besides, when kids go directly to YouTube, chances are they can see this picture or even something much worse on the front page. This is just reality, the real YouTube homepage, and Wikipedia is not censored—that is, Wikipedia does not care whether a group of people may find the content, including images, objectionable.—J. M. (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can just about read that it is the trailer for It (2017 film). I'm not seeing a big problem here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing the hatnote
I did a change to the hatnote to YouTube (channel) to "For the channel owned by the staff of the video hosting service", because simply stating "For the channel" feels insufficient to distinguishing it from just any channel. It's specifically from the staff of YouTube, and while it might seem obvious that the existence of YouTube as a channel exists, not everyone would know that YouTube themselves have their own YouTube channel, and not just some imposter who calls themselves "YouTube", even though legally speaking it's obvious you can't just name your own account after an existing public corporation without being the corporation itself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Message
Thank you Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim for making this beautiful website/app! You guys are the best! Thank you!

--TheLeaf321 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As lovely as it is to praise the wonderfulness of YouTube, this is not a forum about making comments about YouTube. Feel free to discuss the article itself though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
You really should include the fact that they ban religious content, specifically and only limited to christianity. 71.234.107.146 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A S U K I T E  03:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Youtube kids
What about youtube kids and how they practically make comments non-existant? Skittishmarks (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that something should be added to the article about how YouTube Kids doesn't allow comments? If so, that might be a better suggestion for the separate YouTube Kids page. - Dyork (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, i’m referring to that Skittishmarks (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021
24.46.225.9 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)x Youtube unblock please Y.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. If you are trying to somehow get YouTube to unblock you, or maybe for your connection to unblock access to YouTube, here is not the place to do that. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 15:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

x Youtube unblock please Y. 24.46.225.9 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021
2402:3A80:15CB:85B:F44C:3892:B361:5E56 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Abhishek Kumar
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ~ Aseleste charge-paritytime 15:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

List of secretly banned words on youtube (shadowbanned comments}
who interested in secret youtube political-racial censorship that is not presented at all in overly detailed youtube policies, here is video of this banned words that you cant say on youtube at all. - maybe someone will add this to main article and let the others know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-2OT4G6_eU   Sergey Woropaew (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021
Add to the Youtube Stories section: Publisher can see number of views, comments, and likes on active Story. The Stories expire after 7 days. Source: https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/express-with-stories_overview_video#strategies-zippy-link-1 Pologirl12 (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't practical to mention every feature of the site, particularly if it has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. The source given has WP:NOTHOWTO problems.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
So Youtube is a porn site. Kaelen Luther King (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021
cool video software Cooluser96 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
In the YouTube Shorts section, a sentence reads "The platform is not at first be a standalone app." The "at first be" seems to be improper grammar, and I would suggest replacing it so that the sentence reads something along the lines of "The platform is not itself a standalone app" or "is not currently a standalone app." 2601:681:4502:BD40:2C0E:286B:A749:6E3E (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

LEAD
I notice there has been a lot of work on the LEAD. It's my opinion that the LEAD doesn't actually achieve MOS:INTRO / summary style at the moment. This isn't a huge deal for me as I think the article as a whole needs thinking (like for instance it's not clear to me that everything in history belongs there versus in another section) but since there are some interested editors I thought it helpful to say. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who recently rewrote the lede. I appreciate you writing this message, because it motivated me to incorporate more aspects into the lede (thus a better summary) and do so in a more succinct manner. In particular, a link to social impact was added, and the controversies paragraph has been moved to that section, so it now serves as a useful summary to that lengthy section instead of bloating the article lede. -Pmffl (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it . I saw you removed the controversies. I have my own issues with that section per WP:CSECTION and my plan is to incorporate its content elsewhere (likely some in history and some in features) but it is a substantial aprt of the article and should probably be summarized. Right now this article is very long so the LEAD is likely to be on the longer side too, probably four or five full paragraphs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I didn't remove controversies from the lede - I changed it to a link to that section. As far as I'm concerned, all important aspects of YouTube are now succinctly covered in the lede. (See this version of the article.) -Pmffl (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So the lead (I never understood why we spell it like that rather than lede) is designed to be the article in miniature. Right now that section has about 6,000 words which is a huge percentage of the overall article. This is probably too much. However even in a small format its big ideas should be covered in the lead and not just linked to the section in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree about controversies - it becomes a bloated spam magnet for every new item. I much prefer a link to the section (or article if it ever gets split off like social impact did) with a very brief summary.
 * At the end of the day, most people watch Youtube primarily for entertainment (which is why Despacito and other music vids dominate the most-watched list). The controversies section (and social impact article) are somewhat niche topics in this context; definitely important, but shouldn't be given prominence in the lede. -Pmffl (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Split off the Controversies section into a new article
I'd like to split off the lengthy Controversies section into a new article, similar to how the social impact of YouTube article was split off from that section sometime ago. I'm aware of WP:CRITS, but this is a reasonable exception given that Category:YouTube controversies currently has 78 pages. Any objections? -Pmffl (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I am not in favor of this idea. There is no "category" exception to WP:CRITS. YouTube criticism belongs in our encyclopedic coverage of the topic. In its current form it might be undue (I suspect it is, but I haven't worked with in detail yet). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your objection. What do you mean by "category" exception?
 * Here's the thing - this article is already too long, and a big chunk of it is the Controversies section. Given how popular YT is and how much crap will continue to be uploaded, there will only be more and more controversies over time. Splitting off into a separate article is a good move for the health of this article. Again, similar to the Social impact section, there will still be some prose about it here. -Pmffl (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree the Controversies section is too long. The solution is to give due coverage to it here not to split it off from this article. This is why I noted above my longterm thinking that what should be saved needs to be (appropriately) incorporated elsewhere in the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll let it go. The most important thing is improving that article content, regardless of where it resides. -Pmffl (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)