Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 January 29

= January 29 =

Wrestler in The Wrestler
Who is the wrestler that Randy the Ram wrestles early in the film? The guy with the mohawk? AnyPerson (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do when the question scrolls off into the Archives?
I responded to a question, but since it is in the Archives, it might not be seen! :(  TresÁrboles (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really a question for the Reference Desk talk page, I guess, but I'll answer here. If you want to make sure the original poster (or anyone else in the thread) sees your response, the thing to do is to add a section to their personal talk page telling them about it. Either copy your response onto there or link to the archived Reference Desk page. --Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, January 29, 2009.


 * Also, we're not supposed to respond in archives once they are no longer transcluded here. Unfortunately, our archive bot archives based on the date the Q was posed, not the date of the last response, so it may archive something right after a poster asks you a follow-up Q, and you may feel the need to respond there.  Another option is just to respond to their talk page, and leave the follow-up Q in the Ref Desk archive forever unanswered.  Or, if the follow-up Q is worthy, it may justify a new posting on the Ref Desk on it's own.  But, again, be sure to provide the Original Poster with a link, so they can find the new posting. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea we shouldn't respond in archives that aren't transcluded. I know that's the general consensus with talk pages, but I've never seen anything suggesting the same of the Ref Desks. In fact, I seem to recall there used to be a notice somewhere to the exact opposite effect. It is, of course, more effective repost the question. And yes, the person should be given a link to the archive if they might not have seen the answer. 79.66.89.178 (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Identifying a song
There's a song I'm trying to identify, and all I can recall is the music video. It involved a male singer, and the centerpiece of the video was a large tree which a lot of people were climbing and sitting in. They were wearing old-timey clothes and may have represented the singer's family. Does this ring a bell with anyone? 129.174.184.73 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading music videos in YouTube
Should I upload music videos in YouTube? David Pro (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Youtube has a set of community guidelines located here. You can read them at your leisure.  It should be noted that the likely important bit in those guidelines says, and I quote, "Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Read our Copyright Tips for more information."
 * In other words, don't upload stuff where you didn't make every bit of it YOURSELF (the video, the music, everything)... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically though, YouTube seldom enforces those rules unless someone who owns the copyright on something they see on YouTube asks them to take it down, because you'll see TONS of music videos, movie and TV show clips and slideshows of copyrighted images over there roaming freely with no consequence. Only on a rare occasion might they act on their rules, such as this music video where they disabled the music, but the video itself is still a copyright violation since it's also property of the record label, so getting rid of only the music is a moot point. If someone tried uploading a screenshot of said video without a valid fair use rationale here, it would get deleted within a week, and no exceptions have been made for that. The difference between YouTube and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia walks the walk when it comes to the rules, but YouTube is nothing more than talk 90% of the time. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't listen to Jayron, but I doubt you'll have YouTube officials swooping down on you like a Wiki admin would. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I totally respect copyright (I wouldn't like anyone breaking mine), it sometimes frustrates me to no end. It often happens to studios or production companies have no plans to release something on DVD or some other medium. By holding on to the copyright of this material, it slowly disappears to the point perfectly popular material is no longer available to anyone. I believe that copyright laws should be changed to reduce the time material can linger in limbo. These laws should only be applied to material that is publically available. But, of course, that's just my opinion. (If you ever make something, use a Creative Commons license. It makes things a lot easier and people like Scott Sigler show it's still possible to make money of it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)