Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 3

Comments sought on External YouTube link
Your views are welcome on the subject of adding an External link to the Susan Boyle article. Talk:Susan_Boyle SunCreator (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube, yet again
Timeshifter is removing the extremely important point that links to YouTube "would happen infrequently" and is making a claim that consensus was to change it. I've done a search of the archives of this talk page, and I see nothing to support this claim whatsoever. In fact I have seen an overwhelming majority (something like four or five to one either saying explicitly that that text should stay there or saying that the wording should remain "as is", and the wording of the page at the time included this line). Based upon what I see as a clear consensus, and because it's very important to setting the expectations that these links should almost never be used, I am restoring it. If Timeshifter would like to remove it, he's free to demonstrate an actual consensus to do so, if he can. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are free to show an actual consensus to add it. All consensus has been for "due care." I participated in a recent discussion concerning this. There was no consensus to add this. Someone snuck it in without consensus.


 * DreamGuy ignored this compromise by Conti: --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are either misremembering or misrepresenting this discussion. First off, "due care" is still included, so this is not an either/or situation. Second off, it wasn't a question of adding this line, as it, in one form or another ("would happen infrequently" or "would be infrequent"), has been on the page for a long, long time. You were the one to remove it, and you did not have a clear consensus. In fact it was clearly overwhelmingly *against* you.


 * And I'm not sure what you hope to prove by claiming I "ignored" a compromise that was merely bolding a line and still removing the phrase that had overwhelming support.DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comment. We don't know in advance whether it happens frequently or not, nor can we prognosticate about a rapidly shifting commercial business here in a guideline page what the frequency is of copyvios. Also, we shouldn't highlight one site or another. The comment to be careful about formats, selective in linking, and watch out for copyright violations applies to all user-submitted video sites. Actually, all user submitted content sites. Consensus is established descriptively, not prescriptively, and I've never encountered a consensus to tell people in advance what format a file is in. If there is that is a style issue and we should link to some instructions on a template to use. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that videos are such a problem, I think the External_links reminder is very, very helpful. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular thing is a style point. Shorter policy / guideline pages are more effective.  If you need to emphasize it, it works a lot better to figure out how to actually word it more forcefully. Saying it twice or creating internal links within articles doesn't make people do it more readily, it just makes more for them to read.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth do you mean that we do not know in advance whether it happens frequently or not? Based upon the history o this talk page we know that it's almost impossible for a video link to meet our criteria. Hiding that point seems to want to slant the perception. If readability is a concern we can remove a good chunk of the recently added text, as that just repeats the rest of the page. DreamGuy (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider the "infrequently" issue to be a matter of well-known and trivially verified fact: In actual practice, video links are only infrequently accepted into ==External links== sections.  Such links are almost always reverted.  Additionally, such links always violate WP:ELNO #8, so they are always deprecated (which is different from banned:  if there's a particularly good reason to violate ELNO, it can be done, but you must have a particularly good reason for it).
 * I object to the complaints about the inclusion of this long-standing phrase as being anti-consensus, but I'm not sure that it's necessary for us to report these facts in that section. Rather than continuing the discussion about "infrequently", I think that it might be better for WP:YOUTUBE to redirect to  (instead of a sub-sub section) and to restate WP:ELNO #8 in that section so that editors are more aware of both the labeling requirements and the reasons why it is deprecated-but-not-banned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very few links of any stripe are suitable for articles. I don't agree that videos are almost impossible to meet prescriptive guideline points here, as opposed to other links, and prognosticating on how frequently external video links might abide by the guideline is pure speculation.  It depends greatly on the subject matter.  If the same content is available by rich media or text (e.g. a transcript versus an interview) we would go with the transcript.  If the problem is truly that we want to keep Wikipedia usable by not calling on external applications we should just say that directly, and not conflate it with copyright issues, which are present in any external link.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed that we do say that we want to avoid rich media links: It is plainly stated at WP:ELNO #8.  Do you think that this should be repeated in the WP:YT section?  I don't mind intraguideline redundancy  in the service of busy editors that might not like to read through the entire page to find the couple of relevant lines.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While it may have been an issue at one time, I don't think we need to worry about whether users have Flash installed. The program has 99% market penetration. - Eureka Lott 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that market include all the people using elderly computers over dialup connections, such as many people in developing countries or even rural America have? The point is not whether most of our readers in America have the software; it's an issue of whether Wikipedia is going to remain accessible to people on the other side of the digital divide.  Filling articles with links they can't reach, or graphics they can't process, or files they can't download is a subtle way of saying "Wikipedia is only for those with better resources."
 * Ultimately, it's a personal-values issue: I value those readers.  Not every editor does, and that's not necessarily a bad thing:  What's good/helpful/accessible/friendly to that reader may be dull/boring/stuffy to an "entertainment addict".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Last major discussion concerning YouTube had a rough consensus of "due care." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "due care" was supported by all sides, so you can't say a consensus for "due care" language means a consensus against pointing out that such links would rarely / infrequently fit the criteria. If you look at the comments above, that was also well supported. It's very clear from the criteria on this page that it's extremely unlikely a video link will qualify, and I don't know why you so desperately want to avoid having that pointed out to people who come here.... other than that your comments on this talk page make it very clear that you want YouTube links that do violated these rules to also be included, and that apparently you ignore these other rule and ignore what other people say to try to rewrite the page so people can add links that do not fit our rules and claim ignorance. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can add me as a voice that supports language specifically letting editors know that most youtube links will not be suitable entries. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And me (for any video link, not just those hosted at YouTube). The video I most recently encountered duplicated the content of a single paragraph in the article -- only it took them three minutes of low-quality, but high-resolution graphics to say the same thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A few spam fighters does not a consensus make. Several previous discussions have had many people who disagree with the regular spam fighters who camp out here. There are thousands of official YouTube channels where the copyright is not in question. "Due care" is the only rough consensus. See also: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights --Timeshifter (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And one person ignoring and/or misrepresenting what everyone else says does not make consensus either. You've been consistently told your version is wrong, so you have to accept that. Refusing to is just violating a clear consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See reply farther down.


 * As I said below, copyright-issues are by far not the only thing that should be looked at:
 * WP:NOT -> we are not a linkfarm
 * Intro of WP:EL: "... other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy..." -> often the video is just an example, it does not always add something to the wiki.
 * WP:ELNO 7: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." -> these videos require bandwidth, that is something that here is common good, but not everywhere, there are many users still using dial-in.
 * WP:ELNO 8 -> "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required." For the modern windows machines the site works fine, but I wonder if it works under downgraded systems (old windows versions?), is sensible under text-only browsers, or for people who have to use screen-readers
 * WP:ELNO 16: "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." -> It is a hosting service, can we be sure the links stay there forever? That the video's don't get deleted or renamed?
 * WP:COI: Regularly editors add their own videos -> Not something to be encouraged.
 * I would argue, there are videos which are also hosted by the original organisation. Though this is not strictly a 'redirect', I would prefer to link then to the original source, even if copyright is not an issue.
 * And
 * If copyright IS a problem, it simply should not be linked.
 * All in all, Youtube is rarely suitable or encouragable as an external link. Count me in for the "Due care"-term, it still is a good way to describe this type of media (and not only youtube, this goes just as well for other sites, whether they are containing video or not).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we agree. "Due care" is the way. Each YouTube link must be examined on a case by case basis. Very few links of any kind, not just YouTube links, are suitable for external links. So the "rare" or "infrequent" phrasing should be put at the top of the quideline page, and not in the YouTube section. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube links and other video links are going to be much more rare than any other link because the fact that it's a video means it has far more ways to violate our rules on links. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the official link of the organisation is often, or frequently, a suitable external link, YouTube or Blogs are rare, or infrequently suitable external links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rare: IMO, if a type of link is appropriate for less than 1% of Wikipedia's articles, then it is rare.
 * There are more than 2.8 million articles on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt that there are 28,000 official channels on YouTube.  Furthermore, I expect that a significant proportion of the official channels on YouTube are also prominently linked on the regular official website, and we don't provide YouTube/MySpace/anything else links that duplicate easily accessible links from the regular official website.
 * Therefore it is appropriate for YouTube links to be described as "rare". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Official channels contain hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of videos on every topic imaginable. Beyond official channels there are millions of totally legal, user-submitted videos that have no copyrighted material in them. They cover all kinds of events that are covered by wikipedia. The Commons contains videos of all kinds. Videos are of historical interest, too. The Commons also has audio clips of all kinds. We link to those audio and video clips from the commons.
 * When I had dialup internet access I was able to view many streaming videos, and listen to many streaming audio clips. Sometimes the streaming video was not at the full frame rate. It depended on the bandwidth required for that particular video, and how good my internet connection was at that moment. If I was getting above 40 kbps bandwidth from my dialup connection the video streamed fairly well. If not, it was choppy but still useful. The audio was usually always fine. Even if the video was like a slide show it was still informative. On all kinds of subjects. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, if it are 140,000 official channels connected to 140,000 articles here on wikipedia (5%!), then that does not mean that we have to link all 140,000, as we are still not a linkfarm, and large file like movies are less accessible for lower bandwidths or older computers ("When I had dialup internet access I was able to view many streaming videos", yes, but now since more people are behind fast computers, the movies have become bigger, and use new compression algorithms which may not be available on old computers, when I was behind my old 14k4 I would not dream of downloading movies), etc. etc. So of these 140,000 still only a few would pass other parts of the guideline.  And of the other 85% still several will not be copyighted etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Youtube videos are accessible by dialup. I know that some single-purpose-account spam fighters are disappointed by all this, but the official channels from established, notable organizations, and from established news media organizations have hundreds of thousands of videos. Also, 14.4 kbps modems are ancient and almost no one uses them. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I again ask you to assume good faith, and yes, you are right, 14K4 modems are hardly used anywhere, in the US and Western Europe. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So we have multiple editors above saying that "rare" is perfectly acceptable wording, and accurate, and necessary, and we have one editor who keeps removing it anyway. At this point I think his edits are bordering on vandalism, as he is inaccurately representing what was said in his edit comments to try to force his view onto the article. When you are outnumbered four to one it's ridiculous and deceptive to claim you have a consensus. Now that this fact has been pointed out to you, any chance that you made this edit out of ignorance will no longer apply. If you misrepresent consensus again you will be out and out lying to try to edit war your way into getting what you want and I will look into getting you blocked form editing if that's what it takes. this cannot go on. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Multiple editors in this thread and previous ones have spoken against, and removed, the "rare" and "infrequent" wording. In this thread Wikidemon and Eureka Lott have spoken against some of the various reasons for "rare" and "infrequent". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm .. I think that "reaching 99.0%" missed halve of the sentence: "used by over 2 million professionals and reaching 99.0% of Internet-enabled desktops in mature markets as well as a wide range of devices." (emphasis added), and is from Adobe itself, not exactly a outside source. And I still have to install it before I can use it! Multiple editors have spoken against 'rare' and 'infrequent' ... though I agree it applies to most rich media which gives files of considerable size (not only youtube, also other sites, and including e.g. huge PDF files), I am one of the editors who do think that those words indeed describe quite well that linking to such media gives often rise to problems with several parts of the guideline (and more than other user-submitted content!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Survey info:
 * http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer
 * http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/methodology
 * As for "mature markets" the survey is conducted quarterly in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan.
 * It does not matter how big the Flash file is on YouTube since it is streaming video. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Streaming video means that you don't have to download the entire thing before you can see the first bit of video. It could still be entirely inaccessible to a person using an elderly computer on a bad dialup connection because of the length of time that it takes to download even a small part of it. Flash files do not magically become small files just because it starts playing the video before it finishes downloading it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The total size of the flash file is irrelevant. Most people with dialup can view YouTube videos. See my previous, more detailed comment concerning this. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Timeshifter, you are right: 'Most people with dialup can view YouTube videos.' It is only going to take them hours of dialup time to get the whole video through.  Therefore, the total size of the file is relevant, media files, even in compressed form, being mp3-files, flash files, or whatever a) are big, and take a long time on old computers and/or with a dialup (not to mention the cost it implies on downloading those files, not everyone is on a flat fee connection), and b) can NOT be played on every computer, mp3 files because of copyright issues of the codec, flash files still need an installed Flash player, and though a lot of people do install that player, it is not standard.  And the survey is done in United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan, which (apparently) excludes the whole of Africa, large parts of Russia, China, billions of readers in just the areas where glass-fibre internet may not be available.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand how a free flash player, and an almost universal music codec could even fathomably be considered under the "not everyone can" rule. Not everyone can properly view every website either because of brower too -- does this mean we can't link to any more modern sites that use shockwave, flash, etc? Even my fully updated XP using the latest Firefox has trouble with some sites. Not everyone can use PDFs either, I imagine, nor can they use OGGs (which we use in WP). With your attitude, one might as well kill any EL that isn't an official one or a simple plain HTML one with few graphics (gotta think of the dial up users, right?)̲, which would be ironic because it's usually the official sites that are the most modern and flashy in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You forget that people who read wikipedia have a browser capable of reading HTML, and readers of HTML are available since the beginning of the www, even text-only versions exist, and have no problem with wikipedia text. Flash is an add-on, as is the adobe reader, and especially the former are not available for text-only browsers.  There is nothing wrong with the target as described that the content has to be available to most readers.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstood my comment. I mentioned "simple HTML" because it IS the standard, as opposed to some extra stuff which not all browsers might support. What I was saying is that if you want ELs that 'everyone' can access, then you're going to have to limit it to simple pages, which is really silly. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we don't want to limit, but some sense on linking to big files is still worth thinking about. Even wikipedia does it, if our pages become too big we try to split them.  I think that is what the guideline says in WP:ELNO 7 and 8.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube is available to most people with internet connections. Most have Flash installed. Most dialup users can view YouTube, too. The total size of the YouTube file is irrelevant since it is streaming video. They start viewing it after a small amount of buffering time. I had dialup for years. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those figures come from Adobe itself, and no, it is not (totally) irrelevant, if you want to see the whole movie you still need to download all of it, which is even more true for large files which are not streaming. I also had dialup for years, but we are now further, the movies have increased in size, and hence that is not a good comparison.  We are now not discussing youtube anymore, but you clearly disagree with other parts of this guideline as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dialup users don't need to download the video to view it. Neither do broadband users. Very few people download the videos. Most people just view them as they stream. I am focussing on how the guidelines effect YouTube. Most people on dialup can still access most YouTube videos. Many YouTube videos now have a button to increase the video quality, and thus the bandwidth required increases at that higher quality setting. The default setting though is still accessible by dialup users. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, are you now saying that the data that results in displaying the video that I see on my screen here, does not actually come through my cable, but it stays on the other computer? Wow, I have missed a whole bunch of technology improvements here?  Many ISPs must be disappointed that they have increased their bandwidth, because we don't need to push all that data through it anymore.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem. I may be using a too restrictive definition. When I say "download the video" I am talking about downloading the whole video first before viewing it. Streaming the video does not require downloading the full video first. From Uploading and downloading: "Downloading is distinguished from the related concept of streaming, which indicates a download in which the data is sequentially usable as it downloads, or "streams," and that (typically) the data is not stored." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, we do agree that if the video on YouTube is a flash-file of 10 Mb, that the whole 10 Mb has to be pushed through the cable. And for those users who use a dial-in connection, that that is going to take time, a lot of time?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos are of varying length. Most videos are only a few minutes long. People can watch as much or as little as they want to watch. You can also move to any point in time in the video to watch it. By dragging the button at the bottom of the video to that part of the video. There is a short rebuffering time, and then you are watching from the new location in the video. It is not necessary to watch the whole video at all, or in sequence. Try dragging the button ahead in the video and you will see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com - try any video. Many people don't know they can do this. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but if you link the video, then it means that the video adds something to the document (see intro of WP:EL, otherwise it would still violate the guideline). That means, that if the video is of interest, most of it will pertain to the document, and people should be able to see the whole of the video (and, like users on a high-speed, you won't know which timeframe to switch to to know which part is of interest for you, so actually, you need to see the whole of the video to see what part is of interest).  What I am asking is, the link that leads to the video gives the video in a standard size, I have been looking around on some of those pages, but there is no indication of size there (I may have missed that).  If the video is of interest, and the reader wants to see the whole of the video, then how long does that take for e.g. a 1 minute video on a 56k6 modem at full throttle (if I see it correctly, this can't be compressed further, so we are talking about 56 kbit/s, which is 56/8 is 7 kb/sec, is 350 kb/min.  So it would mean that 1 Mb takes about 3 minutes, hoping that the speed is constant)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, the video has to be relevant to the Wikipedia article. For some videos the whole video would be relevant to the article. A simple example would be music videos for specific songs that have wikipedia articles. Another example is famous political speeches. Such as the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King (MLK). See:
 * http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+have+a+dream+martin+luther+king


 * Other videos, as you say, may not be totally relevant to the article. Maybe only part of the video. In that case people may want to indicate at what time in the video the relevant part starts. The slider button at the bottom of the video can take the viewer to that time. The time point is indicated on the right side of the slider. For example; MLK's speech begins at around 55 seconds into this video that has over 6 million views:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk


 * A one minute video always takes one minute. The underlying kilobits per second does not matter in this regard. The video may go to a lower frame rate at times depending on network congestion and how good the local dialup connection is. But the video still takes one minute. If you have a really bad dialup connection that day the video frame rate lowers further, and can become like a slide show. The audio is almost always fine even when the video frame rate lowers. All the text in the world can't really duplicate watching an MLK speech, even at a low frame rate. That is why encyclopedias include videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what I always see it that the movie stops, the 'download' goes on, and then the movie starts again. That suggests to me not that the video goes to a lower framerate, but that it still downloads the whole movie, every single bit of it.  So to see the 1 min movie, it takes sometimes longer to get all frames.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes if there is network congestion, stressed servers, or other bit-rate lowering, the video will stop for a little bit and "rebuffer." Sometimes if there is too much stuff running in the background on one's computer, then that also can cause some hesitations. So it is possible to have lower frame rates, and some hesitations in order to rebuffer. With dialup connections it is helpful to keep stuff running in the background to a minimum to lessen these problems. On a broadband connection it is very possible that the full video will be downloaded in the background in the first 10 seconds even while the video is playing at the full frame rate. This is especially true at the default video quality setting. But my statement about a one minute video taking one minute to view is accurate for the most part, give or take a few rebuffering hesitations during difficult situations. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Depending on the default bit rate of the video dialup users may have to wait longer for it rebuffer. It has been awhile since I had dialup and so it is likely that there are more videos using higher default bit rates. In any case dialup users can view them too. They can click the play button and see how long it takes to buffer. For dialup users it may be easier in some cases to just download the video in the background rather than to stream it at first. I have figured something today that I didn't completely understand before. Once one is on a YouTube page it automatically starts downloading the video in the background whether one clicks the play button or not. Clicking the pause button does not stop the download. It justs stops playing the video. It continues to download even while one goes and looks at other web pages. One can see the line get darker across the slider path. That indicates the part of the video that has been downloaded so far. Clicking on any part of the darker path allows one to start viewing there right away. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point of info for dial-in users charged by the minute. As I said previously when one opens a YouTube page in a browser tab, and then goes to other web pages in other tabs, the video keeps downloading. Even if you hit the pause button on the video. One can go offline and play any part of the video that was downloaded before going offline. So even dialup users charged by the minute can see YouTube videos. It doesn't matter if one goes offline before all the video was downloaded. One can view what was downloaded. Just click the video play button, or on any part of the darker part of the slider path at the bottom of the video. Broadband users can test this out by going to a YouTube page and pulling out your broadband cable before the video is fully downloaded. Or click "engage internet lock" if you use the free Zone Alarm firewall. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Emerging markets" penetration of Flash players
The survey has this methodology page, http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/methodology, that says this: "The study is conducted in several other countries including mainland China, South Korea, Russia, India, and Taiwan every other quarter."

Here is a page that has info for those parts of the world:
 * http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html

98.7% penetration in China, S. Korea, Russia, India and Taiwan. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite OK then, should ELNO 8 be removed from the guideline? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an out-of-date rule. The Flash part of it should be removed. I haven't studied the Java issue. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that does not involve big files, as you state above, then indeed, it can be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, great! --Timeshifter (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But I think we just established above, that for large video's on YouTube (or whereever a big file is located, but video is generally large), people on a slow connection will have to wait a long, long time before they can admire the whole of a, say, 10 Mb Flash (how long is that on a 56k6, and how big is the standard file on YouTube for a movie of 1 minute?)? So it is not impossible for them to see, but, at the very least, quite a hurdle?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply higher up, too. Since it is streaming video you can start watching the video almost immediately, and you can jump around in the video and start watching from that point almost immediately (after a little time to rebuffer). Videos are of all lengths from less than a minute to much longer. Most are a few minutes long. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, you're still missing the point. If it takes 30 minutes to get 10 MBs' data to your desktop computer, then you cannot just jump around in the video.  You cannot, one minute after you click the link, skip to the point in the video that will reach your computer 20 minutes from now.
 * Furthermore, video is always inaccessible to blind readers, just like audio is always inaccessible to Deaf readers. It would be remarkably unfriendly to encourage these links (especially without warning:  Imagine tying up your computer for ten minutes only to discover that the link is utterly useless to you).  (I would support the inclusion of more important examples in ELNO #8, such as the occasional ActiveX-type page that only works on Microsoft Windows.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With YouTube videos you can drag the slider button below the video to any point in time in the video, and start viewing there after it rebuffers. It takes longer on dialup to rebuffer. See streaming media. You may not have read the more definitive discussion in the previous talk section. Please check it out. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We now have indeed solved one part of the big files problem (at least for streaming media, other files still need to be downloaded in full, and downloading a 10 Mb file over a dial-in is not fun (and however you turn it, those are still used in significant numbers, and I would really think twice before downloading these pages while having to pay for my dial-in, and there are other cases where users don't really have the possibility to download huge files). Flash indeed seems quite OK for that (and Flash seems to have quite coverage, though 2% of Chinese inhabitants with internet may still be several millions of users who can't use it).  But then the other issues, video and audio are not really useful for blind and deaf people, respectively.  Though many movies do have copyright sorted out, quite a number still don't, they still have to add something to the page (not being a mere illustration), quite some edits to user contributed content have coi problems, and the linkfarm problems.  I still see numerous problems which gives me the feeling we still are much closer to 'it is rarely a suitable external link', than 'often it is a suitable external link' ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dial-in or dial-up internet is paid on a monthly basis, and there is no limit on time or kilobytes in nearly all cases. See Netzero for example. $10 a month for unlimited access. And it is hard to download huge amounts anyway since it is capped at 56kbps. We don't limit external links only to those pages suitable for deaf or blind people. Copyright is sorted out on a "due care" basis. Same as for text pages. Plus there are hundreds of thousands of videos, even millions, on official channels alone. And there are millions more videos with no copyrighted material at all in them. On every topic imaginable. Just like the images and videos on every topic imaginable at the Commons. Videos are another form of images, and we don't say that pages with images are "rarely" or "infrequently" suitable as external links. Single-purpose-account spam fighters don't a consensus make. Consensus is for "due care". Most other people commenting on the YouTube issue do not agree with the "rare" or "infrequent" phrasing of full-time spam fighters, and the "external links paranoia" (as phrased by User:DGG on this talk page) of a minority of spam fighters. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, I get the feeling you are talking about America. Other countries do not necesserily have a flat-fee system on telephone lines (IIRC, British Telecom charges you per minute, just like using your mobile phone "Calls to UK landlines in the evening 1.45p/min, during the day 4.5p/min").  And I don't know, if you read the above discussions, there are still people who do think that these links are rarely/infrequently suitable.  May I also know what you mean with Single-purpose-account spam fighters?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, if external links are not suitable for deaf and/or blind people, then that would be a reason to limit them. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Full-time spam fighters are those users with user contribution pages that indicate they mostly remove spam, or deal with spam topics. The people on per-minute dialup have to decide for themselves how to allocate their download time whether they are downloading/streaming music or video or whatever. That is their choice. There is no consensus for "rare" or "infrequent". The consensus is for "due care". --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, Timeshifter, that you appear to have a strong cultural bias towards those who have high-speed and/or unmetered connections, which is still by no means all of those we seek to serve. The United States is not the world; the American upper-middle and higher classes are not all of America. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am poor. I don't pay for the broadband I am using. I had dial-up for years. I watched many YouTube videos on dial-up. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless though, it sounds like you have little worldwide experience as in the vast majority of countries, timed access is common both for dialup internet access and for the phonecalls necessary to use dialup Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my latest comment in the previous talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I see this thread, I don't think we have arrived at consensus, and if there was previous consensus (I don't see the thread).. well. And due care does not exclude infrequency ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dirk Beetstra here. I don't think there is often a good reason for such links, but there often is a good reason not to have them. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What reasons? What you are saying is true for any links. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I already told you, there are certain links which are welcome, others which may be welcome, and some which are seldomly welcome. It is not true for every link ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Video links cover all the issues and topics covered by text links. What you are talking about are technical limitations, not content limitations. Copyright issues are similar for text pages too. At one point photos were not welcomed on wikipedia pages by many editors. That has changed, especially after the Commons success. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we describe here which are, and which are not welcome.. And no, I am not the only one talking about this, please read comments from others as well (who, by the way, are not all single-purpose-spam fighters (though I don't think I am ..)).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people have removed "which is rare" or "infrequent". Some have discussed it here on this talk page in various YouTube threads. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we don't put in "rare" or "infrequent". Another point; blind people can listen to the audio portion of videos (such as the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King). Deaf people may be interested in watching videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct links to Flash video pages
About WP:ELNO number 8 from "Links normally to be avoided":


 * Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

I think "Flash" should be removed from it since 98-99% of internet-connected PCs have it installed.

Is a link to a YouTube page a "direct link"? A YouTube page is an HTML page with a video in it. I would say it is an indirect link. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, it is still applicable (it still has to be installed, most operating systems are not shipped with it). If you have to link to flash content, then make a note of what application is required.  It could however be expanded with even more relevant cases (ActiveX, PDF, etc.).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you addressed my main point. From External links: "It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I see the problem. A link to a YouTube video page is not a "direct link" to rich media. The meaning of the section would be clearer if it were titled
 * Direct links to rich media instead of Rich media.
 * WP:YOUTUBE is a subsection of External links. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for a random opinion for this quasi-RFC (canvassing the village pump, oh noes!), YouTube links should be a "no." A "no" that can be ignored when it makes sense, like any other rule, but the default is that they are not appropriate. In short, while we're bantering quasi-legalese, I'd suggest moving from a standard of "due care" to "above meaningful doubt." SDY (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See replies farther down.

I think it would be nice if you just told people that some extra plugin is required. Its annoying to click a link and then not see the whole point of it because my old computer (Windows 2000) can't do some of this newer stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.228.181 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube official channels
There are hundreds of official channels on YouTube from government agencies, the White House, music companies, television companies, and much more. They own the copyrights, and therefore they have the right to post the videos on their channels. Some of them can be found with this link:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.youtube.com+official%20channel

Of course; each channel must be looked at individually. We should start a list of such verified channels. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no value to this proposal. YouTube links are so rarely desirable in EL -- simply because they use rich media (see WP:ELNO #8, and remember that not everyone in the world is using a computer or an internet connection as nice as yours) -- and the list so likely to require significant maintenance efforts that I consider it a waste of time.  Individual editors can check out the information when it is actually needed (just like they'd have to do even if the list existed, since they'd have to confirm that the list was accurate).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will maintain the list. Others can help. We can put it as a subpage here or elsewhere. There is no ban on rich media such as PDF or videos.


 * Here are some official channels below. Check out the number of views for various channels:
 * Politicians
 * Associated Press
 * Musicians
 * Directors
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can put it in your user space, but if it's any other place it'd be deleted for being in direct contradiction of EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you make this stuff up as you go along? There is no blanket EL rule against subpages. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)?
 * Well, we certainly do not allow subpages that contradict what the main page says. What you recommend would be equivalent of creating a subpage of the WP:NPOV policy where you state that it's perfectly fine to push opinions onto articles as long as they agree with you. Of course subpages like that would be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That the links are official does not mean we have to link to them. Linking to media on external sites is discouraged, linking to sites which require a substantially strong computer and fast internet is discourage, it still has to add something to the page, we are not a linkfarm, for some, having a conflict of interest discourages adding the link as well, etc. etc.  Yes, there is no blanket ban, and now copyright is not a huge issue anymore, but that is, by far, not the only reason why these links are often inappropriate.  It would be good to have a list of youtube links which are not in violation of copyright, makes it easier to check.  But that does not mean they have to be included, userspace is a good place for that, indeed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see this: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Here is a comment from that discussion:


 * There's tons of speculation that YouTube is going to change copyright laws themselves, but until the dust settles I don't see that we're in any position to call this fight. The current language at WP:EL suggests a case-by-case basis examination; that seems reasonable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As you said, there is no blanket ban. She also wrote this:


 * "Due care" seems to me what Wikipedia does; we remove copyrighted content whenever we discover it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Due care" has been the rough consensus of many editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not questioning that copyright is not the issue anymore, but there are many other reasons not to link to these sites. "Due care", "happens infrequently", perfect way of summing up several concerns.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether it is infrequent or not is an opinion, and unnecessary on the guideline page. That phrasing is oftentimes a big stick for spam fighters to use to arbitrarily delete YouTube links without examining on a case-by-case basis. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything in the WP:EL list is an opinion of what Wikipedia wants and doesn't want, so we most certainly can and do put those opinions in there. And we need more big sticks to fight off people like you who have made it abundantly clear that you think the default should be to add links to videos for reasons that violate our rules and common sense. Your claim that the vast majority of videos on YouTube are not copyright violations, for example, is just nonsense and would absolutely end up linking us to countless copyright violations, which is not only against policy but potentially against the law as well. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith in how spam fighters evaluate the additions of YouTube links. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the word "oftentimes". --Timeshifter (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, suggesting that the spam fighters use it oftentimes as a stick. Examples please?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Search the talk pages here, and on the millions of Wikipedia articles. Let me clarify. I and many others have pointed out on this talk page and elsewhere that single-purpose-account spam fighters will delete YouTube links with edit comments like "YouTube not allowed". Where do they get this idea? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the "millions of times" "no youtube" has been used as a stick, how many times was the youtube link actually appropriate? If it aint broke, dont "fix" it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I ask you provide the examples where we did not examine the situation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (expand)Of the single-purpose-account spam fighters that I know, I have hardly seen anyone use '(fill in your external site name) not allowed' (and if they do, it is for external links which are not allowed. Still, that does not change the point, youtube links are rarely appropriate.  But I will analyse some youtube reverts of XLinkBot to see how many mistakes it makes.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no blanket ban on YouTube links. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never said that, no-one has. You don't have to repeat this guideline to me.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed "which is rare" which in effect is almost a blanket ban. See farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) See also: farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica
Encyclopedia Britannica has many audio and video clips. They are not "rare" or "infrequent."

Videos are common in encyclopedias. See also:
 * commons:Category:Video
 * commons:Category:Audio files

I am holding the DVD case of Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 Ultimate Reference Suite. It says it has "650+ Audio and Video Clips." Encyclopedia Britannica would probably have many more videos, but is limited by the number of gigabytes one can put on a standard DVD.

Encyclopedia Britannica (EP) has less than a 100,000 articles. Wikipedia has millions. With its limited budget Wikipedia can barely afford its current ever-increasing bandwidth, and increasing number of servers and hard drives. So rather than hosting more videos it is preferable (whenever possible) to link to additional videos that could be useful for our encyclopedia.

So we need to encourage, not discourage, linking to relevant videos. Especially the easy ones to verify sourcing of (such as those from YouTube official channels). They are not "rare" or "infrequent." --Timeshifter (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the guideline. Can these audio and video clips be used as references (then this guideline does not apply)?  Do they add to the article if they are not usable as a reference?  Are they big, do they need software to be installed?  Encyclopedia Britannica has many audio and video clips, because that fits with their targets etc., we, on the other hand, try to be available to an as broad as possible public, including those that run Windows 3.11 behind a 14k4 modem (even if those are rare).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not limit our links according to the limitations of the very, very few people who still have 14.4 kbps modems. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica can set whatever rules they want for themselves, and if they can sound fancy schmanc to make more sales of their products to gullible people impressed by bells and whistles, all the better for them. We set our own rules. Our rules on linking to videos and other media files has always been very clear. If you want to ignore those rules, hey, maybe you should try to get a job at Encyclopedia Britannica. Good luck with that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that now when you have no argument you resort to distractions. What matters is what is best for Wikipedia now, not out-of-date rules. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not limit our links according to the limitations of the very, very few people — Yes, we do. We routinely limit Wikipedia according to the limitations of the very, very few people.  See, for example, WP:ACCESS.  We split articles when they get long so that people can read them in antique browsers or on their iPhones -- even though very, very few of the six billion people on their earth are affected by these conditions.  We write the beginning of even the most esoteric and technical topics so that anyone could understand it, even when we know that very, very few of our non-expert readers are likely to ever look at the page.  Access for the maximum number of people is good; exclusion of those that don't happen to be like you is evil.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not limit our links according to the limitations of the very, very few people who still have 14.4 kbps modems. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The bandwidth argument
I have to say that I find the argument around modem speed rather bizarre. External links (unless they are massive in numbers) do not appreciably increase the time needed to load one of our pages, so they don't have an appreciable effect on the reading of the encyclopedia itself. If people want to follow links, that's up to them. The argument seems to be that we don't want to show them material which we aren't going to show them anyway in exchange for keeping them in the dark about the existence and location of this material. I just don't see the logic. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though we now established that it is not true for flash video content, content that requires the transfer of huge amounts of data would make that data practically inaccessible for people behind a very slow bandwidth (as they would have to wait a very long time). But if the material is detrimental, it can of course still be linked.  It is more a preference, try to link to html content which does not need external applications, which is accessible to all etc.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, these links are less than useful to people whose connections are too slow. But there is no cost to these people for the link simply to exist. There is, however, a cost to everyone else, because without the links they have to find the material themselves (and for that matter, even suspect that it exists). Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I keep repeating this. Youtube links are not "practically inaccessible." I watched many YouTube videos when I had dialup internet access. It's a choice I made. We shouldn't decide for others with dialup access. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, yes, for YouTube we are beyond the bandwidth argument (you are beating a dead horse there!), but not for a 15 Mb PDF. Mangoe, it is merely a part of the consideration.  As I said, if it really adds, well, it is still not forbidden ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, then let us remove Flash from WP:ELNO number 8. We have been discussing YouTube, not PDFs. YouTube uses Flash. Since Flash is already installed on over 98-99% of internet-connected PCs it does not need to be listed at WP:ELNO number 8. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, here we were discussing bandwidth (see header subsection), but well.
 * As you have been saying, one single-purpose-anti-spam-fighter does not make consensus (neither does one YouTube inclusionist), I still think it has its place, you say it does not. Lets hear what the rest of the community thinks ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bandwith is not a compelling argument. Under that logic we would need to not link to any site that had high resolution pictures or such. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention sites like the IMSLP where the whole point is to DL multi-MB sized files. Yet, that site, though not part Wikimedia itself, is cross accessible with the <> prefix. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have slow internet access, and no patience for loading something from YouTube, then you wouldn't click on the link to go there. As long as the link says YouTube, you should know better.  And almost everyone with internet has Flash, the player free.  Also, if this is an actual concern for anyone, you can put the file size in the external link, or the length of the video.  If someone clicks a link and finds it not loading fast enough for them, they can always just hit the back button on their browser.  PDFs are irritating as they lock up browsers as they load things up, no way to stop and cancel them once you click on a link to one.  So any PDF file should be labeled as such, and its size as well.   D r e a m Focus  22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The reader should decide. PDF downloads can be stopped by clicking the stop button at the top of one's browser. Here is a long PDF to see what I mean:
 * http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RDAR-Vol-IIIBook6.pdf
 * It is a reference for My Lai Massacre. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, with Firefox it locks up. I am unable to stop the pdf from loading, or do anything else with my browser while its loading it up.  Tried an add on suppose to fix that problem, but it didn't work.  So having PDF listed there along with the size would be necessary to avoid problems.   D r e a m Focus  21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we have to explain the temporary bugginess of every browser nothing would be linked. I changed from Firefox to Opera cause of some bugginess with bookmarks when one has a lot of them. Probably a temporary problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is rare
I removed "which is rare" from the "Linking to user-submitted video sites" section of External links


 * There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking) which is rare. See also Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights.  Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.  These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content.

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted, as you could have seen, there are several editors in these threads who still think that it is rare (and not only single purpose anti spam fighters). This was not the only argument used by them, and your countering them does not mean that there is consensus for your change.  Please get consensus here first.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if I see above threads, Dreamguy, Ronz, WhatamIdoing, TheRedPenOfDoom, and me have problems with the removal, while you and Wikidemon actively would like it removed, and some others have argued that certain points are not an issue for YouTube (but I don't see a clear mention of rare or not rare/frequent or infrequent. You keep repeating 'due care' has rough consensus (i.e., not full consensus?), and I do not believe 'due care' excludes 'rare' or 'infrequent'.  Please either show where consensus is reached to remove 'rare' or 'infrequent' in favour of 'due care' before removing it again.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Many other people besides me have removed the "which is rare" or "infrequent" part from External links. And they have commented on it in various YouTube threads. A few spam fighters keep returning it, but a few full-time spam fighters does not a consensus make. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This line, with one wording or another, has been on this page for YEARS, and that only Timeshifter and occasionally one other person has opposed it, while many editors have clearly supported making the clarification loud and clear both in the past and every single time it comes up in discussion. For Timeshifter to still be claiming there is no consensus is pushing good faith assumption of innocence to the breaking point. I pointed out in the past that if he continued to make such claims in face of such overwhelming opposition that they could only be taken as intentionally misleading comments. If he keeps this up he should be blocked from editing this page, if it comes to that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to expand to clarify my previous point, there are two things here:
 * a) people have to take 'due care' when adding links to user submitted data as it may involve copyright issues. That is true for practically all user submitted content.  Timeshifter says, and I believe and agree with it, that 'due care' has rough consensus.  Certain extremely popular sites, like YouTube, are specially named as people have to take care with these links.  However, there is much content which is OK.  And I totally agree with you there!
 * b) For all external links, one has to see if it is includable considering the guideline. Some links, like the official link of a company on a company site, is frequently (well, practically ALWAYS) appropriate, for user submitted content which often fail several of the WP:ELNO rules, those are less frequent (or more rare, depends what words you want to use).  That is, for user submitted video content even less frequent than for the self created relevant blog on blogspot, as YouTube hits more WP:ELNO's (even with 98% market coverage, it still means that 2% don't have it, and it still needs to be installed by the user) than blogspot does.  That does not mean that there are no YouTube video's that are appropriate, but there are not many which are really appropriate enough (regarding your example of Martin Luther King .. yes, that video is suitable and free of copyright, but that does not mean that that copy has to be included (vide infra).
 * These two points are totally SEPARATE, Timeshifter. I agree with the 'due care' AND with having 'rare or infrequent' in the guideline.  I believe you if you say 'due care' has (rough) consensus, but that does not mean that 'rare or infrequent' does not have consensus.  According that logic, WP:EL should only contain the words 'due care', as the rest does not have consensus?
 * Timeshifter, I indeed spend quite some time in spam fighting. YouTube is generally not a part of spam (though videolinks get spammed .. caught two youtube clones yesterday).  I don't spend my time reverting youtube links as spam, there are better links to revert.  I do however, come across the odd video site which gets added.  If I see those links, they often are not suitable external links, they do not add to the page (or don't add more than other sites do).  Coming back to Martin Luther King, I expect that a movie of the official talk is embedded in most official sites regarding Martin Luther King, so do we need the youtube link as well, no, because it does not add.  That again does not mean that there are no places where it is appropriate, but they are far, far from a 'must'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For and against "which is rare"
It doesn't matter what many people have said in many YouTube threads. A few spam fighters keep trying to block YouTube links with a variety of almost-blanket-ban phrasing at External links (or use WP:YOUTUBE).

Many people have removed "which is rare" or "infrequent." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two people is not "many". Clearly the broad consensus is to keep it. 2005 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are more people than two in this multi-part thread. Also, check the history of External links for people who have removed it. Read their edit summaries, too. Check the archives of this talk page. There have been many YouTube discussions. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Consensus is not a vote. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the discussions, and the overwhelming majority stand behind the idea of rare or infrequent. Your insistance to change what is broadly accepted just seems uselessly stubborn at this point.  Let's move on.  2005 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming majority, or three three or so people who talk a lot? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current status of TFD#Template:YouTube portrays the consensus attitude quite well. All admins and most editors commenting there, agree that linking to youtube is a normal practice, and that it is used for far more purposes than just violating copyrights.
 * I support removing the "which is rare" wording from this style guideline. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion and template are completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is no dispute that sometimes Youtube can be linked.  Let's stay on topic here please. 2005 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quiddity's comment seems perfectly on topic to me, saying that since it's a normal practice, it is indeed NOT rare. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean that at all, in fact the assertion is bizarre. There are external link templates that only have a few dozen usages.  The fact there is support for using an external link template for Youtube links is completely irreleavnt to how rare such links are appropriate.  Some people want the links templated for example because that makes them easier to police.  Do you really need to use something completely unrelated as justification for your position?  The sun rising in the east is not a justification for using the phrase rare or not rare.  There are billions of youtube videos.  We link to thousands that (allegedly) meet the guideline.  The question is whether .001% guideline compliance merits the word "rare" or not.  Support for a template is not even remotely on the same subject. 2005 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) YouTube links are often helpful (e.g. Sabre dance (pitch-up) has one I followed just recently) and shouldn't be outright banned, but what does "due care" mean? "Which is rare" meant that the links were to be avoided unless obviously appropriate, but "due care" means absolutely nothing to me. All external links should be treated with "due care," YouTube links should have a higher demand. As it is, there's no point in saying "due care" again in that section. Maybe it'd make more sense if I read the megabyte of discussions on the topic, but the policy should be clear. SDY (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will add myself to those who support the removal of "which is rare". Even if true, it's not necessary or helpful to state here. Whenever an External Link to Youtube is challenged for any reason, "which is rare" gives editors an excuse to dismiss the link out of hand without really addressing the arguments. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30: There are many more people who have voiced similar opinions here on this talk page and elsewhere in related discussions. It is not "rare" or "infrequent" for people to find acceptable YouTube links. Show me where there was ever consensus for "rare" or "infrequent". Maybe at a mostly spam-fighters thread.
 * What about all those thousands of articles where it is appropriate? And for that matter, the "edit this page" tab makes it look too that someone can edit a page and write whatever nonsense he wants. People will continue to add YouTube links, with or without a template. Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 19:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's a blatant violation of WP:EL, as indeed there is no blanket ban on YouTube links. I can think of multiple cases where a YouTube link would be a worthwile external link; for instance, a music video from an artist or label's official YouTube channel, or in an article about a YouTube video that has become notable enough to warrant its own article (see Category:YouTube videos for several examples). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube links are often appropriate in articles, as mentioned above, and link templates of the kind are good for a standardized look (just like Official, imdb title, memoryalpha, ...). Does not violate WP:EL. -- Amalthea 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one use of the word "rare" in External links, and it is basically an incorrect editorial opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can also give you many examples of where the YouTube link is not appropriate, might I again mention Martin Luther King? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Which now actually contains at least one duplicate video link ....

Trying to follow the discussions
I reverted back to the version that contains "this is rare" for now as I didn't see consensus to remove it (it appears to be a variant of the original wording of "which would be infrequent"); but I'm trying to review the discussions on multiple talk pages to try figuring out all the issues involved here. I have no strong opinion on this yet myself, still trying to figure out everyone's arguments each way.

From what I can see so far, the wording "which would be infrequent" was added in 2007, and that wording doesn't appear to have been disputed until early 2009 (although I'm still trying to review the change history). Can someone point me to where the discussion/consensus took place to remove the "infrequent" wording? Thanks in advance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus. Infrequent/rare is the longstanding consensus with basically overwhelming support.  One editor keeps stating otherwise, but the edit history of course show differently. 2005 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been many editors who have removed "infrequent" and "rare". A few single-purpose-account (SPA), fulltime spam fighters (mostly) keep adding it. There have been many YouTube discussions. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've removed the wording many times, and in contrast four different editors have reverted you. There is virtually no support for your position. 2005 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No support? See the previous talk sections. Almost everyone continually adding back "which is rare" or "infrequent" are spam fighters (most of their edits have to do with spam). See their user contributions (contribs) in the links below. By the way, on April 5, 2009 was blocked for a week for 3RR. See: his block log. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? If I got blocked for 3RR (it didn't take, obviously), that doesn't mean you can try to claim nothing I ever say is right. That's a transparent attempt to try to prevail not on strength of argument but by personal attack. The phrase has OVERWHELMING support, and you KNOW this, yet you LIE in the edit comment when you remove it, falsely claiming you have consensus. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the previous talk section. I only claim consensus for "due care." Please see WP:CALM and WP:1RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As both versions of the line in question contain "due care", claiming consensus for that as rationale to remove something you clearly do not have consensus to do is highly deceptive. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I let this slide at first. But your continued insistence on some version of "rare" or "infrequent" in spite of a lack of current consensus is also combined with this personal attack of "deception." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really a strong consensus either way in the edit history. From what I found, "infrequent" and "rare" was supported/restored by, , , and  (and myself, but I'm not counting those at this point); and has been removed by , , and.
 * Also, looking at the discussions that I can find so far - I haven't found consensus one way or another there either. Both sides appear to at least state that they firmly agree that there should be no blanket ban; and the "due care" comment appears to be related to the copyright issue, not the appropriateness of the links, so that's also not related to the "infrequent"/"rare" question.
 * From what I've found so far ... the issue seems to come down to opinions of multiple editors on the preferred wording to express that the links can be used only if all other guideline requirements are met.
 * I'm still trying to dig through the archived talks, and I've spotted several spin-off discussions on other talk pages. If anyone has links to specific discussions showing consensus one way or another, I'm sure others such as myself who joined this late would appreciate the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The only operative point is the text has been there for a very, very, very long time, and there is quite clearly no consensus to remove it, so the agenda pushing edits are really out of line. If a new consensus emerges on this page to change the longstanding text, fine, but it's just very inappropriate to just change it when by any measure the clear majority of people commenting on the issue oppose removing the wording.  2005 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed me in your count of people who fully support the inclusion of explicit language clarifying that youtube links are rarely appropriate. I offered a re-wording ( a variation of WP:BURDEN ) that didnt last long.-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Barek is only "counting" the opinions of people that have actively engaged in Timeshifter's edit war. It therefore misses many people, including myself, that support the inclusion of language to indicate that video links are only appropriate in (1) a small proportion of our articles AND (2) a small proportion of YouTube's videos.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to use the word "rare" or "infrequent" in only one place on External links (for YouTube links). There are far fewer acceptable MySpace external links than acceptable YouTube external links, but we don't use the word "rare" for MySpace links. There are thousands of official MySpace pages that are linked. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:MySpace. The thousands of official channels for YouTube have hundreds of thousands of acceptable videos where the copyrighted material is legally posted. There are millions of other YouTube videos on other pages outside official channels that do not have any copyrighted material in them. Since Flash and bandwidth were shown to be arguments without merit, YouTube can not be shown to be substantially more unacceptable than most other web pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you not read the guideline? We don't say "rare" for Myspace because we use much stronger language.  Myspace links fall under ELNO, as in NO.  Youtube's warning is far milder so your comments are completely wrong.  Additionally, the vast majority (pretty close to all) Myspace links are official ones.  Similarly an official Youtube link will often be fine.  I suggest you familiarize yourself with the guideline before making further clearly incorrect comments. 2005 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:ELNO (Links normally to be avoided): Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: ...
 * Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. - (Numbered note says this: Note that under WP:External links, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person.)
 * As I said "rare" is not used. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, can't you just admit you were wrong? On what planet is "rare" worse than "avoid"?  How is do it rarely worse than avoid doing it?  If you were to say you made an error it would be easier to take your comments seriously. 2005 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Planet Earth. Look it up:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=define:rare - "especially valued for its uncommonness"
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=define:avoid - "avoiding - action of the verb to avoid"
 * Point was that saying it is "rare" to find acceptable YouTube links is ludicrous. Especially when there are much fewer acceptable MySpace links, and we only say to "avoid" them. You'll figure it out. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Were I to avoid running in front of traffic as opposed to doing it rarely, I'd probably end up with less bruises. If the issue here is your command of the English language rather than a genuine issue with the guideline, then I suppose there's nothing left to discuss here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The section starts with this: "Links normally to be avoided. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." Which is exactly how MySpace links are treated. That is not as much of a prohibition as "which is rare" for YouTube links. You'll catch on. It's funny. It is the difference between those who understand how Wikipedia guidelines differ from Wikipedia policies, and those who don't really understand. It is understanding the difference between those who diet by trying to "avoid" too much in the way of refined carbohydrates, and those who "rarely" eat refined carbohydrates. It is the difference between relaxed self-control and anal retentive. Or as DGG said, "external links paranoia." Or control freaks on external links patrol. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I saw your edit, and listed it at User:Barek/sandbox/EL, where I was trying to sort through all of this.  But I couldn't tell from the edit itself which side you supported, so I didn't mention you in the counts.  I also left off  and  for the same reason, although they also made some edits to the related wording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, counts aren't really relevant. I was mainly just trying to figure out the history of the edit warring itself.  It's probably best to just ignore that list of users, as it's certainly not all-inclusive of those on each side of the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall question is: are YouTube links held to a higher standard, or are they just another link that is normally to be avoided? Other than a couple pop-culture related topics the only other justification I see for them is historical footage, and that's really because we don't have an internal method for storage of important records (something like wikisource). I'd replace "which is rare" with examples of where they're appropriate and examples of where they're inappropriate, but they are definitely links that are normally to be avoided. "Due care" and "which is rare" are sentiments, not policy. SDY (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really involved in this conversation, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. "Due care" is alternative terminology for Due diligence which is a legal concept balanced against malfeasance. It doesn't refer to Sentiment, but to ethical or legal standards. As such, it seems quite proper in policy. But perhaps I've misunderstood you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Legal language only works in the context of law and lawyers-it has meaning there because people have argued at great length and now the "users" know what it means. Policy should be plain language because we want non-WP:LAWYERs to make quick sense of it.  SDY (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle, but I think the words "due care" are probably plain enough language to be understood by the average layman. :) I don't think they're overly "jargonistic", and I don't myself find them sentimental. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SDY, you wrote: "are they just another link that is normally to be avoided?" No, they are not. The guideline is "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." See WP:YOUTUBE. "which is rare" is without consensus. Also, you wrote: "we don't have an internal method for storage of important records (something like wikisource)." Actually we do have some video clips on Wikimedia servers, and they are linked to from various articles. See: commons:Category:Video and commons:Category:Commons video resources. But we can't store unfree copyrighted videos. Same as for Wikisource and unfree text. So, YouTube links serve a very useful purpose in that we can link to copyrighted videos. YouTube videos cover every topic imaginable. We do not currently have the funding to host substantial amounts of video. That requires many more servers, and much more in the way of bandwidth costs. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't like the language. Policy should be "do" or "do not do" statements: "do not link YouTube videos that are copyright violations."  "Do not link YouTube videos that do not meet policies for external links."  I'd like to see a policy for linking YouTube videos akin to the "educational value" of the fair use doctrine on pictures: only when they serve to illustrate the subject at hand in a way that cannot reasonably be done with text.  SDY (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On this talk page higher up User:DGG wrote the following: "Objecting to these was another example of what I call 'external links paranoia'. If there is a public free accurate source of information on the subject and it serve to extend the material of the article, then we should use it. The more sources/links/whatever of this sort we can find, the better, and we should add them everywhere they apply." In the end the editors of an article have to decide which external links to use, and what best illustrates the subject at hand. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a guideline, not a policy ... guidelines should state what is common, what is rare. I have been away for just over a week, and still we are bickering.  To put it simple, there is no consensus either way, it has been there for years, so I suggest that we get consensus before removing it.  As I don't see an answer, I'd like to hear the removal-advocates' reply to: "For all external links, one has to see if it is includable considering the guideline.  Some links, like the official link of a company on a company site, is frequently (well, practically ALWAYS) appropriate, for user submitted content which often fail several of the WP:ELNO rules, those are less frequent (or more rare, depends what words you want to use).  That is, for user submitted video content even less frequent than for the self created relevant blog on blogspot, as YouTube hits more WP:ELNO's (even with 98% market coverage, it still means that 2% don't have it, and it still needs to be installed by the user) than blogspot does.  That does not mean that there are no YouTube video's that are appropriate, but there are not many which are really appropriate enough (regarding your example of Martin Luther King .. yes, that video is suitable and free of copyright, but that does not mean that that copy has to be included).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dirk Beetstra, you wrote: "To put it simple, there is no consensus either way, it has been there for years, so I suggest that we get consensus before removing it." It has been removed by many people, and people can go to the talk section higher up called  to see the current lack of consensus for "which is rare." The only consensus is for "due care." Acceptable YouTube external links are easy to find, not rare. For example;
 * From WP:ELYES (emphasis added):
 * Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
 * An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * There are many more acceptable YouTube external links. YouTube videos cover almost every imaginable topic. And many of the videos are quality videos on many official channels. See higher up:.
 * WP:External links focuses mainly on what should be avoided. And quality videos found on official channels of many notable organizations are not to be avoided substantially more than quality text pages of notable organizations. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, 'due care' has rough consensus, as you said, there is NOWHERE consensus for or against 'which is rare', that is what we are discussing here. NO, 'due care' is not the same as 'which is rare', they are different texts, they need separate discussions.

It has been removed by many people (mainly you, by the way!), and also included by many others. There is no consensus to remove it at the moment. That much is clear.

Youtube has many good links, but they still fail a LOT of WP:ELNO, and there are also many which fail WP:EL .. You may by the way in your citation have missed (shifting your emphasis):


 * 1) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy ofthe work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I just found this added to an article, what do I tell the editor they should have done before adding it? Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a copyright violation -- tell the editor to NEVER link to YouTube for anything broadcast on TV or on a film (etc.), as it's almost certainly going to violate the law. If it looks like an official video, go to the website of the person/company involved to see if there's a video there, which would more likely demonstrate following copyright laws and link to THAT instead. As a general rule, it is extremely rare that YouTube would ever have anything that would fit our policies. Things that are worth linking to would most likely be copyright violations. Things that are not copyright violations are personal videos and not encyclopedic. There might infrequently be something there that meets our rules, but it is highly unlikely in general. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I indeed see no copyright transfer or copyright information. The exact same video is by the way available from an official site (and the video is not an embedding of the YouTube video, but a flash on the site itself!  By the way, also on the latter I do not see a copyright transfer, but as it is an official site, I don't expect them to break copyrights ...), and if the information is so informative as the editor believes, then it is certainly suitable (as it is a news-item!) as a reference!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If "which is rare" stays in the guideline, then a clear explanation of why that is should follow. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the content there is blatant copyright violations, which is described in that line already. Certainly the links to YouTube you've been adding lately violates our pretty clear policies on such matters (there is no "fair use" exemption in our copyright policy to link to sites with legal violations). As I mentioned above, most anything that would be of value -- solid, informative content by recognized authorities -- would only be on YoutTube in the first place is someone violated the copyright of the person who made it. Sources of value -- news programs, famous experts, etc. -- have their own sites, and would have that content on those sites. Someone just uploading something they don't own isn't something we can link to. The people who do have rights to the material they upload and then don't upload anywhere else are typically amateurs without there own sites. Those links are legally fine, but very rarely of any value content-wise. I would support a clarification to that end, seeing as how so many people here don't seem to get that basic fact. I've looked at the times people here have said that they had good videos to link to that show why it isn't rare that YouTube links are of value, and those have been a long string of copyright violations. So, if that's their evidence that it's not rare, then that's not persuasive at all. DreamGuy (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even assuming it's true that "Most of the content there is blatant copyright violations", that does not translate to a legitimate EL to Youtube being rare. Even if only 25% of Youtube content adheres to copyright, that is still thousands upon thousands of videos, and among them there could potentially be many many many good EL candidates. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are literally billions of Youtube videos. It is plainly obvious only a very tiny fraction, less than .01%, are encyclopedic in nature and do not violate copyright. 2005 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have explanations for why Myspace, forums, personal webpages and the other things have the far greater prohibition in WP:ELNO. The fanaticsm a few editors have on this point is hard to comprehend.  We already give youtube a break by not putting it in ELNO, and say in the rare cases where a Youtube link doesn't violate copyright, and is directly on topic, and is encyclopedic and meritable that it can be linked.  2005 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I now see the problem. The "rare" is first and foremost relative to Youtube, rather than to Wikipedia, which had not been clear in the wording. Hopefully my latest edit solves this. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your change ("overwhelming") is fine. 2005 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed to some clearer wording: "Most YouTube videos containing copyrighted material (outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies) do not have permission of the copyright owners." Please see: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best way of putting it, though it could probably be slightly changed to flow better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting close, but the statement above is not accurate - every video posted is copyright material according to US law. "Most YouTube videos containing material not originally and totally created by the poster do not have permission of the copyright owners." -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One of only the few people who originally opposed "which is rare" agreed to keep the phrase if it was explained why it was rare... which we did, and then, no surprise, somebody went and removed the phrase again because they just can't accept that clear consensus is against them. This is completely unacceptable, and, seriously, if this continues the person or persons responsible need to be blocked from editing here, because it's clear that they hope to force the page to read their preferred way an get away with it because people aren't watching closely, even though they KNOW they don't have other people's support to make the change. I lso support the rewording saying "overwhelming majority do not" or even the original "infrequently" -- one way or another, some phrase like that NEEDS to be there, period, as agreed upon by clear consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you OK with leaving out "which is rare" as long as we say "which is not the case with the overwhelming majority of videos on such sites"? My impression after some discussion, as I explained above somewhere, is that the "rare" was first and foremost relative to Youtube rather than to Wikipedia, but the way "which is rare" was used did not make that clear. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I and others have pointed out that acceptable Youtube links are not "rare" or "infrequent". So "which is not the case with the overwhelming majority of videos on such sites" does not apply either. It is just another way of saying "rare" or "infrequent". --Timeshifter (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't spoken up here yet, but after looking over this long-winded discussion, I see one editor trying to fight an uphill battle against consensus. I support the stricter version, and nothing Timeshifter has done has made me believe that the wording isn't sound.  After dealing with many EL problems on Wikipedia I can most assuredly say that it is indeed rare when a youtube video is proper for an external link.  Them  From  Space  05:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you have ignored this discussion, and the many people who disagree with you. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, the fact that a small number of editors believe that at least 50% of YouTube links are not copyright violations does not change the data that Themfromspace reports here: in Themfromspace's actual experience, most YouTube links that Themfromspace has encountered in articles have proven to be inappropriate for one reason or another.  This is much more important than your two assertions, which are that (1) YouTube is doing better policing copyrights than they used to, and (2) a large majority of readers [but not ALL readers] will be able to view videos at YouTube.  Your two points are not actually contested; what's contested is whether "improved" policing is good enough to stop worrying about copyright issues [Answer:  NO], and whether a "large majority of readers" is good enough [Answer:  probably not] -- and, to point out the important point that has been entirely neglected by the pro-video contingent, whether dramatically loosening restrictions on links to these videos would actually improve the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no dramatic loosening of restrictions. Please see this talk section higher up: and this one below: . --Timeshifter (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking to image pages and video pages
I think what is important is what best illustrates the subject at hand. A combination of text pages, image pages, and video pages. We have millions of images on the Commons because we want people to illustrate Wikipedia articles.

Videos are another form of imagery. Moving images. There are many Wikipedia pages that have external links to image compilations.

Most of the videos on YouTube are totally legal user-submitted videos without any copyrighted material. We have totally legal images on the Commons, too. Use them both. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Related RfC
Participants in this discussion and other interested parties are invited to comment at a related RfC at Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy Dlabtot (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't be a more blatant example of a copyright violation link... If you don't understand that that link is prohibited then you shouldn't be adding any links anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is again noted. Dlabtot (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And your continuing crusade to remain intentionally ignorant of our rules is again noted... you were told in no uncertain terms there that the link was not allowed and why, and you're still here and on other pages pretending otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

which is not the case with the overwhelming majority of videos on such sites
According to whom? Is there any factual, or verifiable basis for this assertion? Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There clearly is not, based on the deafening silence of the response. Dlabtot (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead we should come up with a list of criteria similar to and based on WP:ELNO, specifically concerning links to user-submitted videos. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing particular to YouTube versus any other type of link that makes it any more likely to violate the restrictions on linking. See previous discussion. All links must meet the restrictions on linking (see WP:ELNEVER). One can not link to copyrighted material posted without permission whether it is text or video. Most YouTube videos contain no copyrighted material. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a significant fraction of YouTube videos that do contain copyright-infringing material, though it may not be a majority. For that purpose, every YouTube link should be scrutinized, but that doesn't mean we ban every link, just make sure that it was uploaded by the copyright owner or someone that has the permission of the copyright owner.  The problem here is that last check is difficult to do without additional sources, which is why most video links from YouTube, despite claims of being ok copyright-wise, have to be questioned and removed until better information can be made available. --M ASEM  (t) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a significant fraction of YouTube videos that do contain copyright-infringing material While I recognize that you firmly believe this, the question is,  Why do you believe it? Is your belief based on some evidence? Something you read?  Or is it something you just 'believe'? Dlabtot (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not automatically remove Youtube links unless they contain copyrighted material and are outside official channels that produced the copyrighted material. This statement is incorrect: "have to be questioned and removed until better information can be made available." There is no blanket ban on YouTube videos. If one does not see copyrighted material in the video, then there is no default position to remove YouTube video links. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misreading what I wrote - I'm not saying we blanket ban youtube, nor are a majority of videos infringing. But there are enough infringing videos (whether they are homemade videos using copyrighted songs over them, excepts or full cuts of television shows, or the like) on the site that we have to place such links under a more rigorous microscope in terms of whether the work is controlled or licensed by the uploader. That's it.  Not a ban, just a higher level of scrutiny. --M ASEM  (t) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, Why do you believe YouTube has "enough infringing videos? What is the basis for your belief that YouTube is hosting a large number of infringing videos? Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can go there and find episodes of TV shows not posted by the copyright owner. I can find music videos not posted by the copyright owner or band. I can find homemade videos using unlicensed music as the background (a new common way to "distribute" music videos). And these are not hard to find. It's not a majority since they've stepped up enforcement but it is more than just a few isolated cases. --M ASEM  (t) 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the fact that you believe what you say. So repeating that belief won't advance the discussion. Can you point to any source for your belief? Other than your own statements? Dlabtot (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And of the ones without copyright infringement, they are mostly kids fooling around in front of the camera, which is not encyclopedic and would never even be considered for external links. It's damned obvious that next to know YouTube clips would ever meet our criteria, and that's been explained over and over on these talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people disagree with you. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many, many MORE people disagree with you, hence the clear consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true; see the previous multi-part discussion. Also, most of the videos on YouTube are totally legal user-submitted videos without any copyrighted material. We have totally legal images on the Commons, too. Still images versus moving imagery. See the talk section higher up: . --Timeshifter (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been over and over and over this a zillion times. One version of this wording or another clearly has consensus, as it has been there forever. One of the people who originally disliked the wording agreed with the new wording, so there is even less reason to object to it now. Seriously, based upon the intentionally misleading edit comments by TimeShifter claiming there is no consensus when there clearly is, I think we need to start pursuing some sort of disciplinary hearings to prevent him from his edit warring, which has gone on for months now. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to please stop making threats. If you wish to start pursuing some sort of disciplinary hearings against someone, just do so, please skip the idle threats, which are a disruptive, off-topic waste of everyone's time. Dlabtot (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an idle threat, it's what needs to be done when someone ignores consensus and leaves deceptive edit comments that he knows to be false. And it's sad that a small handful of people who have clearly stated their intentions to ignroe other oplicuies (like the copyright policy) think that they can jump in and try to pretend to have anything useful to add here despite the overwhelming rejection of their claims time and time again. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, just pursue the disciplinary action you think is appropriate, instead of wasting everyone's time by threatening to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for "rare" or "infrequent" or "overwhelming." See the previous discussion. Many people disagree with you. Feel free to take your threats and personal attacks to admin noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're either highly deluded or purposefully lying at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the talk section higher up: . So who is deluded? Please see also:WP:No personal attacks. See also this talk section farther down: . --Timeshifter (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not make such emphatic statements without evidence. For example, I was watching AskaNinja at YouTube recently and my impression that these are broadcast there by the creators.  And I gather that Google is or has made some general arrangement with copyright holders as they are naturally concerned to control copyright infringement.  In any case, the point does not materially improve this guideline as links have to be judged on a case-by-case basis anyway.  It should therefore be trimmed per WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So let's have some evidence: In terms of substantiating the fact that the scope of copyright violations, we could start with YouTube, which is based on things like major lawsuits reported on the BBC.  Viacom asserts that a single copyrighted work has been illegally viewed 1.5 billion times.
 * You could also wonder why YouTube would go to the trouble and expense of developing sophisticated video screening software if violations weren't a major problem. Recently, they've been removing the audio from thousands of videos, because it's entirely possible for a video to be "homemade" and still violate copyrights.
 * As automated screening has gotten better, I doubt that a majority of videos that have remain functional on the site for more than a few weeks are entirely copyright violations (like a complete copy of a television show). More directly, however, a study in 2007 indicated that almost 10% of the "most viewed" videos were taken down within the study period (three months) due to formal complaints from the copyright holder.  Given that YouTube takes no action in the absence of a take-down notice (it has no legal duty to do so), and that these videos were generally full, direct copies of entirely copyright works, I suspect that rather more than 10% of videos have a copyright problem (such as an unauthorized sound track combined with original visual content).
 * While it constitutes rather less than a "majority", I think that "almost 10% of popular videos were removed as obvious copyright violations during a short study", especially with the caveat that more copyrighted materials remained on the website due to not having received a complaint during the study, is still an "overwhelming" problem in terms of compliance Wikipedia's mandatory WP:ELNEVER rule.
 * (Note that I'm just addressesing the significance of the copyright issue, and completely ignoring the proportion of videos whose content would otherwise be appropriate for an encyclopedia, which is where the much larger problem lays.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that copyright violations are removed does not work for the argument that YouTube is full of copyright violations, it works against it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the copyright violations are just put back up again by people using new accounts after tey were removed is proof of rampant copyright violations... and on top of that, the violations are only part of the reason we do not link to them: If you;'d bother to read this talk page or the actual External links page you'd know that. Instead you came here pissed off that your copyright violation links were removed and refuse to follow our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This interminable discussion can go on forever, but the inappropriate edits to the guideline consensus can not. The longstanding consensus wording was "rare".  One of the three editors opposing that suggested the "overwhelming" wording which is also fine with most people, but if the now three editors object to to that, I suppose we may need to go back to "rare", but simply removing the language is totally out of line, and very tedious now. 2005 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just done that. The new text ("which is not the case with the overwhelming majority of videos on such sites") had, as far as I can see, no consensus before being added, so let's go back to the status quo ("which is rare") and discuss from there. The point is that most videos on YouTube should not be external links, and "which is rare" sums that up quite nicely, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "which is rare" did not have consensus either. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of " Which of these several ways of saying the same thing should we use? " The question is, what is the basis for saying that " it is rare for youtube links to abide by the guidelines on this page " ? Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the different ways of saying it has widespread consensus. And, no argument has been made the other ways, except the basically offtopic point about percentage of copyright violations.  the point is that there are billions of Youtube videos, and only a relatively tiny amount of them are meritable enough, authoritative enough and high quality enough, (and copyvio free) to merit being external links.  Even at a very "rare" rate of .01%, that's about 500,000 that would qualify.  Really, absent any argument as to where we would even have a "rare" rate of 1% or fifty million external links to Youtube on the Wikipedia, it's really puzzling how this point even keeps being brought up (and up and up) by a few editors.  There is no prohibition against Youtube for external links, but all the stuff like this is not appropriate to link to from the hair and twirling articles.  (Also, the "basis" is the consensus of opinion of editors, just like we make judgements on forums, personal pages, etc.)  2005 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing is abundantly clear: The belief that YouTube hosts a large number of copyright violations is strongly held, but those who hold to this belief have been unable to articulate a factual or verifiable basis for it. Dlabtot (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not the subject of this talk page. 2005 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Claims of consensus

 * Re: the "status quo", the wording prior to the disputes was "which would happen infrequently". If you go back through the history, the wording "which would be infrequent" was added May 6, 2007 and was changed to "which would happen infrequently" on May 8, 2008.  In February 2009 edits back-and-forth stated to add/remove this wording.  It wasn't changed to "which is rare" until March 10, 2009, and changed again to "which is not true of the overwhelming majority of Youtube videos" on April 11, 2009. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, infrequent then is the longstanding text. Perhaps that will end this topic. 2005 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Barek demonstrated that you misrepresented the facts. (In good faith, no doubt.) Why would this end the discussion? Your error was corrected, so now we move on, discounting that portion of your comments that was based on that good-faith misrepresention. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake, I thought the "which is rare" version was the original one. "Which would happen infrequently" would work just as well for me. --Conti|✉ 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "which would happen infrequently" was not discussed before its addition. Please see this talk archive: Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 2.


 * As to frequency see:, the many news media official channels, , and . They are not "rare". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks Barek for examining and detailing the edit history of WP:External Links concerning the addition of "which would be infrequent" etc. to External links (or WP:YOUTUBE).

That inspired me to update the archives of YouTube-related external link discussions. Please see:
 * Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube
 * Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 2 - February 2007 onwards.

From my reading of the YouTube-related talk I do not see any consensus for the addition of "infrequent" or "rare" or "overwhelming."

Please see the talk sections higher up. There are many acceptable videos that don't contain copyrighted material. See for videos with copyrighted stuff in them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that there is no utility in arguing about what the consensus was, since we are in the process of forming a consensus right now. Let's look forward. Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but some people claim a past consensus for "rare" or "infrequent." See: and.


 * In any case things have changed over time. Flash penetration worldwide has increased to around 98% to 99% of Internet-connected PCs, and there are many more official YouTube channels for organizations, news media, and much more. See: . Video quality has increased. From both average users and official channels, there are many more videos on topics of interest to Wikipedia. So the guideline needs to change.


 * The most ridiculous wording, "which is rare", was added without discussion on March 9, 2009 by User:DreamGuy. See this diff: . He didn't mention the word "rare" on the talk page until March 25, 2009. There was ongoing Youtube discussion on this talk page starting March 9, 2009. See: . --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I'm pretty tired of this. Anybody have a favorite approach in dispute resolution that they'd like to attempt? I doubt that we could get ArbComm to take the case at this point, but I'm open to suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that an RfC has been started on this issue. See WT:EL at the bottom of this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Official news channels
Official news channels have many acceptable videos. For example;
 * C-SPAN. http://www.youtube.com/cspan
 * Associated Press. http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociatedPress
 * CBS News. http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSNewsOnline
 * Al Jazeera English. http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish
 * White House official channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
 * Russia Today. http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday

How many of the news departments in the media, and news networks, listed in the categories and articles below, have official YouTube channels?: --Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Commercial-free television networks
 * Category:Legislature broadcasters in the United States
 * Category:Legislature broadcasters
 * Category:24-hour television news channels
 * International news channels
 * Category:American television networks
 * Category:Television networks by country


 * Once again, "official channels" (1) do not constitute the majority of videos on YouTube and (2) solely address the issue of copyright, which is not the only reason why YouTube links might be inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. "Rare" and "infrequent" is not true concerning WP:YOUTUBE. These news videos cover every imaginable topic. Both currently, and in history. See the many other official channels of organizations of all kinds. See also: higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your point then? Why did add this section?  No one disputes there are some official channels, and that they often make fine links.  They fall into the rare/infrequent/tiny minority of videos that are housed on Youtube which can be freely linked to. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other requirements for rich media
Timesshifter, I recently added descriptive text that re-stated well-acccepted, long-standing other sections of this guideline in WP:YOUTUBE -- e.g., "(e.g., Adobe Flash for YouTube links) and, if unusually large, the file size." You reverted this, along with other changes made by other editors. Is this just because you were being sloppy -- in which case I expect you to fix it -- or because you really think that it's inappropriate for us to help out editors that might not know, for example, that YouTube uses Adobe Flash? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been covered somewhat here: . Can you please comment there? --Timeshifter (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That discussion seems to have gone stale, so I'll put my reply here: 1 in 50 users is still too many to pretend that "everybody" already has the right software.  It doesn't actually hurt Wikipedia to point out that specific software is required.  It might even make it possible for people without the software to figure out what they need and install it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Software dependencies are often complex. The concept that there is a "right" version of software is based on the often incorrect premise that the most recent is the best. (Only last week, I made the mistake of updating my video card driver, and am suffering the consequences.) What's good for one application, or one computer, or one user will not always be good for others. Customer service departments may insist on upgrading, but this is in large part because they don't have the ability to debug earlier versions. Therefore, adding information about what is the "right software" is inappropriate to an encyclopedia, because the information will usually be incomplete, misleading, or wrong -- at least for some users. (Citing what the most recent software release is may not be an improvement, since the tacit assumption many will make is that earlier versions are "wrong".) Piano non troppo (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Piano, I don't think you understand the issue. YouTube flatly requires Adobe Flash software (and broadband access, BTW).  It's specifically named in their system requirements (which haven't been updated to reflect Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia).
 * It is simply not possible to view a YouTube video without using Adobe Flash software. Typing "(requires Adobe Flash)" at the end of the link isn't making a detailed recommendation about exactly what to do; it just gives our readers fair warning that, unlike the vast majority of external links in WIkipedia articles, simply having software that lets you read the Wikipedia page is insufficient for viewing the content at this link.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Youtube (and other) videos can be played without Adobe Flash installed. See Flash Video intro : "...or one of several third-party programs such as...". Even if you cannot play them within your browser, they can still be downloaded and played in various programs offline. If we're going to recommend something, then we should be software-agnostic about it. See the other Category:External link file type templates for how we should be doing it (eg. we do not link Adobe Acrobat/Reader after every PDFlink). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to identifying the file format without naming the software company. I continue to object to proposals that we leave rich media links entirely unlabeled.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My iPod Touch doesn't have Adobe Flash and plays YouTube videos just fine. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Full protected
Full protected for two days. Please engage in civil discussion with each other on the talk page and if necessary, seek out dispute resolution. See also ANI thread. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Current thread:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818 --Timeshifter (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, editors who are currently parties to the dispute will limit their responses to the RfC below to a simple statement of their position and not filibuster the process by continuing the prior arguments which did not result in any consensus. Let's hear from some folks who have not yet weighed in on the issue. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Filibuster? You're kidding, right? Consensus has been clear on this for years and is still clear. The people opposed to the wording have been the ones filibustering, wikilawyering, tag teaming and otherwise doing their damnedest to keep an issue alive that was a nonstarter from the very beginning. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline?
Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline?


 * Yes. There are two means of measuring whether to link a YouTube video:
 * Copyright issues. While YouTube and other sites have taken steps to reduce copyright violations, they still exist in non-negligible numbers.  These may not be a majority but more than significant enough to require scrutiny of their inclusion.
 * Relevance. External links should supply material that would otherwise be part of an article if it were Featured Content.  If the video link is providing an interview or statement that supports the article, it should be included as a reference.  If the video is just augmenting what is already been stated, its redundant.  Basically, once you've passed the copyright issue, either most YouTube videos should be used as references, or should not be linked to at all as they provide nothing new already stated in the article.  There are limited exceptions to this but they are exceptions.
 * Thus it is true that a majority of YouTube videos should not be used as EL. --M ASEM (t) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No External links should be examined on a case by case basis. No evidence has been presented that supports the assertions concerning the prevalence of copyright violations on YouTube. Dlabtot (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No The information is too vague and general in nature to be useful.  YouTube and other sites contains millions of entries.  What matters in a particular case is the particular entry.  The attributes of all the other entries in such a case are quite irrelevant.  Per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR, we should keep our guideline brief and to the point. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. See: External links (or WP:YOUTUBE). The current emphasis is adequate: "as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page."


 * The disagreement concerns the non-consensual addition of "which is rare" or "which would happen infrequently" to that section:
 * There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking), which is rare. See also Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Most YouTube videos containing copyrighted material (outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies) do not have permission of the copyright owners. Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content.


 * "which is rare" and "which would happen infrequently" both never had consensus. For more info see the ongoing multi-part discussion higher up that started at . In particular: . --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's simply not so. They have been on the page for YEARS AND YEARS, and were actively supported and endorsed time and time again when brought up for discussion. It has always been added back by multiple editors whenever you and the couple of other people who are opposed to it removed it. Continuing to insist otherwise is either outright lying or an indication that sheer stubbornness has biased you so severely that you are simply incapable of admitting you were wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Or some other explicit languge that makes it clear to spammers and fanboys and well-intnetioned "everything must be linked" editors that including a link to YouTube site needs to be solidly based on the particular value and appropriateness of the video being linked. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but we can say something very close. On process grounds, it seems too much like prior restraint to simply announce that Youtube videos are suspect.  A Youtube link is a medium of communication, something that constantly evolves.  For instance, whereas once most film trailers on Youtube were copyright violations, most are now licensed.  If we had enshrined an observation two years ago that most are copyvios we would be wrong - we would have enacted as a guideline something that is merely an observation.  We could say more or less the same thing, though, in more careful language, such as "experience has shown", or "Editors should be particularly careful..."  But I also disagree that it is "rare" for videos to be valid.  It is "rare" for any random factoid or link to be right for the encyclopedia - one out of a million.  However, things are not added randomly.  Editors add things they think fit.  Is it rare for videos that experienced editors have found and wish to add to an external links section to be valid links?  I doubt it, it really depends on the editor.- Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'm not committed to any particular way of presenting this information, but there are several several independent problems with the "average" YouTube link, including:
 * Copyright. A study (linked in one of the endless discussions above) found that almost 10% of the most popular videos were shut down because of formal copyright complaints.  Imagine how many more are actual violations, but aren't the subject of formal complaints (for example, the copyrighted music at a child's dance rehearsal:  "homemade" videos uploaded by the videographer are not necessarily free of copyright violations).  I sincerely doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would consider a 10% chance of a copyright violation to be an ideal level of risk.  Linking to copyright violations is in the WP:ELNEVER category, and many editors, especially those that skip directly to WP:YOUTUBE instead of reading the whole page, won't be aware that this is a serious and complex problem if we don't explain this problem in that section, especially given the prevalence of the erroneous belief that 'YouTube cut some sort of deal with the copyright holders'.
 * Low-quality, non-encyclopedic information. Many user-submitted videos that have no copyright issues are essentially "vanity videos".  Wikipedia is not best served by linking to homemade videos of "me and my friends at the skatepark" any more than it needs yet another penis photo.  There are hundreds of thousands of these videos, and nobody here would consider them appropriate.  But somehow, they magically "don't count" when we're calculating the percentage of YouTube videos that could be appropriate in a Wikipedia article.  Even many of the video clips in official channels simply aren't good external links.  Yes, we can assume that "official channel video" are very likely to be free of copyright problems.  But they're also often advertisements or promotional works (WP:ELNO #5) or news stories (WP:NOT).  An enormous number of the "educational" videos I've seen on YouTube merely repeat information that is already present in plain text in the articles (WP:ELNO #1 violation).  While they might be useable in some cases as reliable sources, these are dreadful external links.
 * Country-specific limitations. Many videos at YouTube are not available in substantial parts of the globe.  Linking to such videos violates WP:ELNO #7.  Many American editors -- and Wikipedia has many thousands of active American editors -- are entirely unaware of this issue.
 * Rich media limitations. A ten-minute video clip is a *huge* file, even if you don't have to wait until the entire thing has been downloaded before it starts playing.  Special software is necessary, and we have established above that one out of 40 Internet users does not have the software.  Despite these agreed-upon facts, the few pro-video editors have consistently oppose compliance with simple WP:EL standards, like naming the necessary software (Flash video) and identifying the total file size.  Video links, and particularly unlabeled video links, directly discriminate against disadvantaged readers.  If you're paying for every packet, using a slow Internet connection, or have an elderly computer, videos are simply not good choices.
 * Accessibilty for screen readers. Videos that are primarily visual are unfriendly to people using screen readers, and unlike images, they don't come with explanatory captions.
 * Should we ban these links entirely? No.  Should we give editors a bit of "fair warning" that there are many specific and complex issues to consider?  Yes.  Can that be done by indicating that most of the time, a YouTube video is not going to comply with our standards for one reason or another?  I think so.
 * Also: Timeshifter's constant claim that phrases like "which would happen infrequently" supposedly never had consensus not only demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the simple consensus that is proven by the phrases being kept in this closely watched guideline for months and months, but it might inappropriately suggest to editors that they're not "allowed" to support this now, simply because it was so obviously correct, and so obviously reflective of practice in Wikipedia's 2.5 million actual articles, that no formal discussion was necessary.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not it should state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet external links guideline, but if it does it should do it with a tag and explained in the reference section. --  Darth Mike (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, largely per WhatamIdoing: Copyright is not the biggest problem, though also a significant one. Although Flash players have high market penetration, software to play YouTube still needs to be installed, it does not come with most operating systems. YouTube does not only contain English language movies. The large majority of non-official movies (for which copyright is seldomly an issue) simply fails that they add to the page (the link to the birthday movie of my Granny Smith is not a suitable external link on Granny Smith, for obvious reasons), and of the official movies which are uploaded with questionable copyright, they should certainly not be added. What is left over is 'millions' of video's which are of official channels, where copyright is not an issue, and which are indeed fine, but which still have to be scrutinised for 'what do they add, they still need the software installed, etc. And I still argue, that people behind low-bandwidth connections have a lower access to these, as do have blind people (for which videos are also of lesser use). I realise that many of arguments also goes for linking to mp3 and other multimedia files, but video sites have simply more problems than a text-only site.

Do we need to ban them completely, NO, there certainly are good links which do add, and that should be said, but 'copyright is not a problem anymore' is not a blanket reason to include all youtube video's which are there, most simply fail for other reasons. Of all available youtube video's the ones that do pass this guideline are relatively rare. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a poorly considered question. Most of all websites do not meet the external links guideline. Arguing against this point thus is absurd, but aruing for it is to be redundant. In the case of Youtube though, there are billions of videos (not millions). A very puny percentage, less than 1%, of these are even remotely in the ballpark of meritable external links. So, either Youtube should be added the NO section with personal sites, forums and open wikis which require any non-official media outlet video to be authoritative/expert... or there should be (as now) a less restrictive statement saying You tube videos will infrequently meet the criteria of this guideline. This could be said, like now, with a single phrase, or it could be expanded to perhaps three sentences that explains how official/copyrighted videos will often be fine links while anonymous user-submitted videos or copyright violations will almost never be good links.

Additionally, I say yes because the clear consensus for two years has been to call this out, and there is quite obviously no consensus to change that. 2005 (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Side comment: It's rumored that the YouTube had fewer than 150 million videos as of mid-August 2008, and that the number was staying fairly steady.  "Many billions" is the number of times that videos are watched each year, not the number of individual videos.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think a lot of new editors are confused in how to interpret this guideline. It is better to be clear that most Youtube videos are inappropriate as external links. This sets expectations appropriately, and does not restrict those videos that are appropriate to be included. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral. I see nothing particularly wrong with stating this, but it seems unnecessary, as the vast majority of web pages in general are not appropriate External Links. However, the current wording "which is rare" is misleading, as it creates the impression that appropriate External Links to Youtube are rare, which does not automatically follow from the fact that only a small percentage of the billions(?) of Youtube videos would be appropriate as ELs. This is why I previously changed it to "which is not the case with the overwhelming majority of videos on such sites". PSWG1920 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PSWG1920, that the wording is problematic because it gives extra special treatment to YouTube where it's already clear from the guideline that most YT vids won't -- one might as well say that 'any' website is rare to link... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. Listing off statements about what is or is not acceptable isn't helpful if people aren't capable of reading them for understanding, either because it's too long to sort through all the individual parts or because the jargon is above their experience. The edits of many people, as well as comments by some above, clearly indicate that we need to specify this so people follow what has always been the whole point of this guideline in the first place. Most of the people voting no above have made comments and edits in support of links that clearly violate WP:COPYLINK, let alone the external link rules. Rewriting this to make it more ambiguous would give people the idea that they can go ahead and link to things that clearly cannot be linked to for many, many different reasons. We shouldn't leave room for people to try to argue against pretty clearcut principles.

Also, I should point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Should the no voters assemble a group of people in favor of linking to copyright-violation links, that doesn't mean they get to rewrite this page or any other page. This has been established quite clearly for years and cannot be changed due to the whims of a handful of people who have organized themselves over an issue that's simply not up for discussion in any real way. Our copyright rules will always overrule what anyone here who thinks differently says, because those come straight from the top. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2005 sums up my feelings quite nicely. Most of YouTube doesn't meet our guidelines of inclusion, just like most of the web doesn't meet our guidelines of inclusion. I'm not sure if we need to say this specifically about YouTube, but it's definitely true, at least. In the end, we can link to some YouTube videos, and we can't link to some other YouTube links, so what's all the fuss about? --Conti|✉ 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No to "Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline? " because the current section "Linking to user-submitted video sites" already says more or less the same thing (or is this RFC asking to simplify that section?);

but yes to greater emphasis on using ref tags (when external links get used as citations), and citation templates with more of the parameter fields filled in (even for external links only).

For context here is what "Linking to user-submitted video sites" says now: There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking), which is rare. See also Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Most YouTube videos containing copyrighted material (outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies) do not have permission of the copyright owners. Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content. 84user (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC) And here is what it looked like in the revision of 4 September 2008: Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis. At first glance I would prefer the older version, for simplicity if nothing else. 84user (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. See also Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis. ). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to 84user: the terms 'infrequently' and 'rare' have been used, indeed. I do get the feeling that the question is if either of those terms should be or should not be used (for the old version going to:
 * The RfC was begun by User:Dlabtot, who opposes any suggestion that enormous numbers of user-submitted videos might have a verifiable problem with copyrights in particular and with compliance with other aspects of this guideline in general. I believe Dlabtot would be happy to have the WP:YOUTUBE section shortened to something not very different from "Of course you can put YouTube-type videos in the ==External links== section, just like you would link to any other website."  This RfC does not concern itself with the use of tags, as citing sources is not within the scope of this guideline.  I'm a little uncertain how to interpret your response; it seems to be 'we should keep what it already says'.  I have some concerns that any responses against "majority" language may be twisted later to claim disagreement with current language (either "rare" or "infrequent"), so you may want to clarify.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't pretend to speak for me. Speak for yourself instead.  I respectfully  request that you strike or remove those comments that falsely put words in my mouth. Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Your characterization of my views is false and insulting. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. PSWG1920's current version (at the time of this writing)  is acceptable to me:

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Just as with the vast majority of web pages in general, most videos hosted on Youtube or similar sites do not meet all of these restrictions, and copyright is of particular concern. Most YouTube videos containing copyrighted material (outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies) do not have permission of the copyright owners. Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I like this version, but I am a bit weary about "Just as with the vast majority of web pages in general, most videos hosted on Youtube or similar sites do not meet all of these restrictions," .. an official page of the subject of a page hardly hits any of WP:ELNO, and is actually an WP:ELYES. We might consider 'web pages containing user submitted material in general' or something along those lines?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I like this version is because it does not single out YouTube pages for special treatment versus any other web page. YouTube has official pages, too. Copyright is a problem with all web pages, not just YouTube. All web pages are "user submitted". I am a webmaster. I have many pages on the web. Some of them are so well referenced that they are used as Wikipedia references. Anybody can put up a web page. There is no magic to it. I recommend using KompoZer to create web pages. Try creating some web pages, and see what I mean about user submission. No one stops you "submitting" a web page. There are many ways to put up a web page. With text, images, flash files, and videos. Concerning imagery, Jimbo Wales said something like "A zebra is a zebra" when someone wanted to require reliable sourcing for images uploaded to Wikipedia and the Commons. The same is true for video imagery in many cases. Videos cover almost every imaginable topic. Just like Wikipedia. In many cases videos are a great addition to the millions of images on Wikipedia pages. Some people still do not like even static images on Wikipedia, and would like to remove them. But hey, this is the 21st century. Almost no one still uses 14.4 kbps modems to connect to the Internet. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I know my wording was unclear. With 'user submitted' I meant sites like youtube, myspace, where the owners of the website/server do not have, or perform, control over ALL content that is on the site.  If we take a company website, then the company has a web-department and they have control over all content on the site.  Same for official publishing sites, where information is controlled and scrutinised before it is added.  Sites like youtube enable people to upload the video of their granny, and as long as there is no copyright violation, YouTube will not delete it.  Links to the former sites are likely WP:ELYES, while the user submitted content like YouTube (and MANY others) often hit some of the WP:ELNO's.  I hope this is a bit clearer.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because there is editorial control does not make a web page a reliable source or a good external link. All external links have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. There are many so-called "news" and publishing sites with "editorial control." They are often not "likely WP:ELYES." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * True. OK, well, I am fine with this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube : "This video is not available in your country"
I am looking at an external link in the Human article, (the cite note is here). But I cannot see if there are any copyright problems or even what if the the video really is really the right music video, youtube seems to block visitors outside the US, (from what I can tell), and I get the message, "This video is not available in your country". So, what is the policy regarding such external links? Can we really have an external links/references that most users cannot see? FFMG (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Such links violate WP:ELNO #7 and should (almost always) be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, somehow I missed that policy. I'll wait to see what others think before removing it. FFMG (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Key word is "most". The guideline is not backward, meaning if one country somewhere blocks it, there isn't a reason to remove it for everyone.  Our linking practices aren't going to be subject to the whims of the most repressive country on Earth. 2005 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I don't think I live in a represive country, (South Africa), but I am happy to hear if others can view the video.
 * I also asked a friend of mine in the UK to look at the video, (to make sure it was at least the right music video), and he also cannot access it for the same reason. FFMG (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the YouTube page and its embedded video are accessible in continental Europe and appears to be posted by the official universalmusicgroup channel. Both also look accessible from a UK-based IP address. After watching the video I accordingly extended the article's citations. 84user (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, I wonder why it is not accessible in my country and from at least one UK IP address, (and apparently from Germany as well according to another co-worker).
 * I am just curious as to why the official release would not be available to everybody, maybe it is common practice for music videos. FFMG (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason you are not seeing the video is that youtube hasn't licensed it to play in your country. It has not nothing to do with your country being 'repressive'. You see, despite the ignorant assertions of many on this page, the vast majority of youtube videos conform very strictly to copyright law. Dlabtot (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Youtube well enough to make a proper judgement about copyright and so on. I knew it had nothing to do with repression, I very much doubt that a song by the Killers would be banned in many countries, (well, at the very least I am pretty sure it would not be banned in mine).
 * My concern is more about the reference in general, not been available to some. I had no way of knowing if the link was in any way related to the music video or if it was some UFO propaganda, let alone tell if it was 'official' or 100% piracy from MTV. Anyway, if others can see it. FFMG (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:ELNO #7 was noted above. I would say it comes down to an editorial judgment about what constitutes a 'substantial number of users' being unable to view, versus whatever benefit the link is perceived to provide the article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove it because of WP:ELNO #7, (because I could not see it and 2 other co-worker/friend in Europe reported that they also could not see it), but 84user seems to be able to see it from Europe, so I guess it is available in parts of Europe? The problem with been prevented from seeing the video is that we have no way of knowing who can actually see it. FFMG (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A year ago, you could supposedly rewrite the URL to http://www.youtube.com/v/n6r4KT8-VX0 to bypass this "feature". I don't know whether it works any longer.   When this 'error' pops up, it means that YouTube has received a legal demand from the copyright holder to restrict the video this way.
 * As for a 'substantial number' of readers, I'd say that if a given link generates two spontaneous and independent complaints, then it's probably affecting many people. Alternatively, if you can identify several countries where it's blocked, then that is also a strong argument.  However, in the end, it's the regular editors at the specific article that need to weigh the relative merits and demerits of the situation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't work, I get 'Embedding disabled by request'.
 * I cannot identify several countries, I could try using proxies but I am not sure it is really worth the effort, but from what I can tell, (co-workers and friends), it does not work in South Africa, UK and Germany. But a user here mentioned that it works in continental Europe, (not sure how he tested it).
 * So far I have not heard from any other Wikipedia users that are also not able to see the video, but I must admit I am surprised that only South Africa would be blocked. FFMG (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Geolocation is an inexact art at best. YouTube guesses your location based on your computer's IP address.  If you're physically in South Africa (for example), but using the computer network of a United States (for example) corporation, then YouTube will guess that you're in the U.S. (and vice versa).  But this conversation needs to be continued at the relevant section of the article's talk page.  I encourage respondents that can attest to whether it is visible to them are encouraged to provide that important information at the article's talk page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am in Cardiff, Wales, UK .. and guess what, I can't see the video. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in Germany, and also can't see the video. Which isn't too surprising, since YouTube blocks music videos in Germany because Google and GEMA couldn't agree on a licensing model. --Conti|✉ 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidently, it works for me, in the US. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This kind of what my friends told me, (not working in the UK and Germany), but 84user did get it to work in the UK and continental Europe, so it looks like not the whole of Europe is blocked.
 * But it also looks like a lot of users outside the US cannot see this particular music video, and given that the article is about the song in the video I am not 100% sure we can keep the link. FFMG (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see it directly in the UK, but it's easy to download if you know how to beat the system. A google search for "download youtube" gives you sites which will stream the video to you in mp4 format, as those sites are usually in the USA, you get the video.  Just tried with http://keepvid.com/ and it downloaded OK.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is not really the point, that particular reference in Wikipedia is unusable to anybody outside the US. FFMG (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WAIT .. whohow. We are talking about the video AS A REFERENCE here.  I see it being removed and reinstated (last addition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_(The_Killers_song)&diff=286788265&oldid=286585681).  This guideline deals with external links, not with references.  If the video was an external link, then it should be removed, as it is indeed not viewable outside of the US (and even if that would only involve a part of mainland Europe (one or two of the bigger countries there), that really is a significant number of readers (millions), and evidence of its use should be really strong, and even then I would strongly suggest to remove it (it is one of problems why YouTube links in external links sections are quite often less appropriate than they seem, but that is a different discussion).
 * However, FFMG, we are talking here about a reference. A reference is attributing the information which it is linked to.  Here it is reasonably appropriate attributing a description of the video, I presume this is an official release of the video (if not then the question becomes if this is a reliable source, 'is this really the video?'), and that copyright is not a problem (if so, then it is a link to a copyvio which is forbidden by policy, even if it is the only available reference).  This means, that the video can be used to verify the information written in the text.  It does not mean that I have to follow the ref to verify if the information is correct, but (if I would not be able to follow the link) if I have doubts, that I can ask someone to follow it for me to check (OK, it would be preferable that everybody can, but for the better reliable sources on the internet, that hardly ever is possible).  Here I can ask e.g. Melodia (or any other editor in the US) to read the section, follow the link, and check if the section and video are along the same lines, and hence, the information is verifiable.  Much information on typical reliable sources are not on a suitable server for by far the most of our readers (pubs.acs.org (science!), elsevier.com, sciencedirect.com have the majority of their information on pay sites, and I can only read it when I go into the university or pull a copy out of the racks of a library.  I can't verify the information from here, but I can verify it by a) go to the university, b) run around the corner into the library (will not have a copy of Science of last year, but you get the idea), or here: take the plane to the US, go to an internet cafe, and watch the video and verify that the info is correct (or ask someone in the US).  The info is verifiable?  Yes.  If the info correct?  Ask someone who can follow the link, or go to a place where you can see it.  So the link is fine.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would make sure that the description of the reference reflects that it is only viewable from the US, and maybe add a note or hidden comment to it so that those editors who can't see the video know that copyright is fine, and that it really is a link to the correct video. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dirk. My response to FFMG's question on policy might be to add a ' requesting another cite for the claims. I sometimes find cite URLs that don't work and after checking they are not in archive.org I add something like ' in the hope that someone will find the source (maybe it got a new URL). If it's a hardcopy cite, I just accept it of course. I aim to add "|accessdate=July 2024}}" to any citation template I follow up to show it has been checked. Oh, and I'm using an Italian ISP to view YouTube and it's still viewable today. 84user (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)