Talk:YouTube poop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Copyright and Fair Use' section[edit]

Most of this looks like original research to me. It is citing the U.S. Copyright Office, and making assertions about the law in regard to 'poop'. Furthermore, it implies that only U.S. law is applicable - which is questionable when the 'poop' sources and/or compilation isn't U.S. based. I think the section needs to go until it can be sourced to material directly discussing 'poop' and copyright law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - I haven't got past trying to find a good reliable source to replace the knowyourmeme.com one at present. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the WP:OR, together with other unsourced claims regarding copyright status. I ask that they not be restored before discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, though I'll ping @Thechemistryguy:, who wrote most of the article, towards this conversation, as they're a new editor, they won't necessarily understand or appreciate all of Wikipedia's policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poop Afc submission/acceptance[edit]

First off, thank you for helping me to get ytp onto wiki. My jaw literally dropped when I saw it up. I was never able to check out the previous attempts, but I imagine they were pretty abysmal.

I have a couple of questions/comments with regards to the changes:

1) The very last line in the Technique section has been added. There is very little use of the older sources such as Super Mario, or cdi cutscenes. These were used greatly back in the first few years of ytp, but are all but abandoned by now. It is a common misconception by outsiders that these are still popular. Everything and anything is used. I, frankly, would like to eliminate any mention of particular sources (they come and go) except with reference to History/Origin. I'd love to move it to Origin, or eliminate it altogether.

2) I figured the reference for the interview given by Mazur [6] was imperfect, but it is the best there is. There is a general consensus in the community on a lot of details, but very few are documented with people's real names. What can I do to strengthen this reference? I'm certain I could get in touch with either Matt Mulligan or Andrew Hartford, and reasonably certain I could reach Mazur.

3) The section on Copyright and Fair Use was completely changed. The petition by the Electronics Frontier Foundation and the subsequent ruling by the Copyright Office were relevant to the rights of non-commercial video makers. Why was all of this removed?

Also:

I held back on some items I hoped to improve on later. With regards to artistic merit, there are several online lectures (YouTube) given by Professor David Bailey that explores ytp and its similarities to postmodernism. Are using YT videos as references generally frowned upon? Once again, I can easily get in contact with him as well.

Thanks!

Also, I noted another error. The person that was attributed to creating youchewpoop was not Tom Johns, but Conrad Slater. Johns started the trailer mash as mentioned in the reference. I don't have a reference for Slater except for copies of interview he gave years ago that are on his blog site. I don't suppose these are usable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechemistryguy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your questions
1) Wikipedia works on Verifiability, not truth. The key reason for citing those book sources was primarily to demonstrate that the topic is notable - if you start removing them, there's the risk someone might nominate the article for deletion (and given that the article has been speedy deleted a fair few times and deleted via a previous AfD, we need all the reliable sources we can muster).
2) I can't find a better source either for this interview. knowyourmeme.com has been criticised as a self published source, though this interview seems to have been written by the editorial staff rather than any random visitor to the site, so it does have slightly more credibly. I'll ping @SexyKick:, who's a bit of a Mario expert, to see if he can comment, as he's probably heard of SuperYoshi's work.
3) The above section started by AndyTheGrump explains why the copyright section was removed - but in summary, the prose and references were talking about copyright infringement and fair use generally, and not in the specific context of YouTube Poop. Therefore, explaining copyright / fair use in this article can be considered original research. The book source here stayed because it specifically linked YouTube Poop to a copyright lawsuit.
Anyway, in summary, well done for getting the article in mainspace - at least the term is considered notable enough to have some presence on Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: About citing YouTube, I'd say is a bit like working with fireworks or high voltage mains - you can do it if you're careful, but if you're not seriously sure about what you're doing, it's likely to cause trouble. Many YT videos are copyright violations, which are completely unacceptable to use as sources, so you need to make sure you are citing to an official channel. Something where the uploader's name is DavidBaileyOfficial or DavidBaileyScience are good, names like yoshi5154dude are not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, that's a hard question. I've never heard of Super Yoshi, I don't know anything about YTP, and I don't know much about knowyourmeme.com - if that interview is the only place the information you need for the article can be found, then it's the only place it can be found...and definitely the article would need to be by staff for it to have some credibility. I wish I could be more help.--SexyKick 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do thank for all your help in the creation of this article and now I understand the reasoning for removal of the portions related to Copyright/Fair Use.

However, if you check the reference regarding the creation of the youchew website, you'll see that Tom Johns is credited for creating thetrailermash.com. The author's writing seems a bit muddled in this paragraph since she jumps from this website, to mashups in general and over to the youchew website. A casual read will make it sound as though this guy was responsible for both sites...which he is not.

I can also understand the philosophy of verifiability over truth (don't like it, but understand it), but there will be a veritable shitstorm when poopers finally discover this page. I've been keeping it quiet until I think there won't be a bunch of guys coming in and changing things left and right. There are certain "facts" well known in the community and giving credit to someone other than Conrad Slater will raise a lot of hackles. I'd like to prevent that. And if it means simply omitting that line/reference and losing a bit of verifiability, I see this as the safer choice.

The same goes, to a lesser extent, about the preference of sources. Would it be possible to move this line to the Origin section?

Thank you for your time

Thechemistryguy (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really is awkward. I've certainly watched things that might qualify as YouTube Poop (the Beaker singing Ode To Joy video redone at half speed, Cassetteboy vs The Apprentice, wouldn't Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict be an early example?) but I'm no expert. People writing in reliable sources are not necessarily experts either and just summing up trends, while the real experts write on the web in unreliable sources. It means people laugh at Wikipedia and say "look all those lies!" but it also means you get an article that doesn't get slated as "not notable, speedy delete, salt, flush down the toilet" by WP regulars. Not sure what to suggest. But from my point of view, as long as you keep all the sources referenced somewhere in the article, I'm pretty much ambivalent about what text goes where. I don't own the article - I just approved it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I thank you for you help. Hopefully the last modification retains enough of a unbiased view to strike a compromise between truth and verification :) Thechemistryguy (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just an ||animutation|| posted to Youtube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

Should the P really be capitalized? YouTube poop is more of a genre, not a title. —Poopal retentive 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess. Sometimes it is a title. --KoolKidz112 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of material[edit]

This material had been repeatedly removed [1] as being improperly sourced. knowyourmeme.com is not a reliable source (it's user-generated and on Wikipedia's list of websites to avoid) and somebody's YouTube video is no better. I don't know that the material is worth including at all, but it cannot go in with the current sources. Meters (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't embed external links. Meters (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: If KnowYourMeme.com is not a reliable source, then why is this sentence below about YTP Tennis still in the article? (It also has a KnowYourMeme link as the sole reference.)
Under Techniques:

Alternately, two YouTube Poopers may engage in "YTP tennis" or "YTP soccer", wherein the same video is remixed back and forth.

Sole reference: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ytp-tennis
This said by the same editor who once put the sub-section on YTPMV in the article, which I see was removed because it was “poorly sourced” (because the only sources I could find to support it were from KnowYourMeme and I didn’t want to use anything else either from another wiki or that could be perceived as original research). ‐⁠‑🌀⁠SilSinnAL982100⁠💬 03:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have nay particular interest i this article and I don't believe I have touched it since I made that deletion in 2017. Now that you've drawn my attention to that bit I'll remove it. We have a reliable source for the "remix", and we don't need someone's personal definition of repeated remixing as tennis. Meters (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poop featured on Fox6Now[edit]

"Turn this feature off to help keep your kids safe on YouTube" by Rich DeMuro wants readers to turn off autoplay to keep kids safe from YTP. How can this be worked in? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Spingebill" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spingebill. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poop music videos[edit]

Should YTPMV's be mentioned here or are they not notable enough? St. Jimmy (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@St. Jimmy Jammy: There was once a section on YTPMVs, but it was deleted because the only sources that supported it were on a website that is on Wikipedia’s source blacklist: KnowYourMeme.com. I know that because I was the author of that section and I myself witnessed its deletion on grounds of lack of acceptable sourcing. ‐⁠‑🌀⁠SilSinnAL982100⁠💬 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, KnowYourMeme.com isn't reliable for sourcing. St. Jimmy (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they're different enough from YTPs and big enough as a form of media to have their own article, but I see almost no talk about them outside of small circles, YouTube comments, and out-of-context clips on the bird app.
A lot of things on the Internet tend to have this curse. You're either neck-deep in the rabbit hole, or you have no idea what it is or why this Touhou video suddenly has shirtless men screaming at each other.
Still, if it weren't for their relative lack of news coverage (besides the MrBeast edits, which I saw at least 5 low quality articles about) and studies, I think they'd really need an article of their own. cogsan (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and then people started adding info about them, which would be nice
but they were about as sourced as my dentally challenged british friend is chilean, and the events were unimportant at best, so they had to go
it's only a shame that there aren't that many sources on the more meaningful ones, like the old spice, jack black and apparently still ongoing ronald mcdonald collabs, or even gachimuchi
when (and if) i manage to get my home pc running, i'm digging as deep as i can for some of that good, reliable sauce, and leaving my findings here
and shame on my old self for using the scourge of the earth known as capital letters cogsan (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opponents have effectively argued that it is not a proper noun but a genre. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube poop → YouTube Poop – If I counted them all correctly, literally all of the sources in the article itself consistently refer to the subject with the 'p' capitalized. See: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. That condition is clearly met here. HappyWith (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. This video-editing format is not typically called "a poop" as a generic noun — it's almost always called a "YouTube Poop". It's not even a stylization thing, it's just more of a "this is the complete title that everyone uses, since it's more of a Proper Noun than a common noun". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A Google Scholar search also shows it being the overwhelmingly used capitalization among English-language sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those scholar hits are not English-language sources, and a couple do use lowercase; hardly overwhelming evidence for caps being necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. YouTube Poop is a proper noun. O.N.R. (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is not a proper name. It is a category or type or genre. See MOS:GENRECAPS, MOS:ACTCAPS, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support because all the sources i saw (and all but one pooper) refer to the "fecal matter" part as a proper noun, so even if genrecaps and actcaps apply (which i don't believe they do), commonname should cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. In short, WP does not change its writing style to suit the habits of insider writing within a topic (e.g. we do not write about video games the way gamers write). Nearly everyone deeply involved in some topic has a tendency to over-capitalize things within that topic that they think are "important". WP has a rule against this: MOS:SIGCAPS (in addition to MOS:GENRECAPS which separately applies to this).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a proper name, given how it is used by most sources as well as people who make these videos. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it may be "conventionally capitalized in sources", but is not "consistently"; here are 8 books that use lowercase: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. It's certainly not a proper name and caps are not otherwise necessary for any reason I can see. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't good sources to use for this argument. Half of these sources only mention it in passing. Book 1 also calls vaporwave "vapour wave", which is extremely irregular, and Book 4 only mentions it in a quote from an unclear source named "Deidre". A ton of these books put it in quotes, and don't really talk about it in depth, whereas basically all of the sources that do cover it in depth in the article itself capitalize it the way the community does, with a capital 'p'.
    Also, Book 6 does capitalize the 'p'. This is the quote: "Next up is Tyler, who's doing a YouTube Poop channel". HappyWith (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like I copied the wrong link on that one. Point is, general sources independent of the subject don't consistently see it as a proper name. Natually, the insider sources cap what they're into. That's why we look to sources that are independent of the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno what you mean by "insider sources" - they're all independent from the topic. If I'm not mistaken, the writers of the articles I referenced aren't all Poopers themselves. I think the best way to go about this is to create a list of reliable sources that are actually covering YTP as their primary topic and see how they capitalize the 'p'. I think that way we can get a better gauge on what the accepted format is. HappyWith (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "as their primary topic" makes them not very independent. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t grasp your logic at all. How does writing a paper about a topic make you not independent of the topic? HappyWith (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, by “as their primary topic”, I mean when a single paper or article has YTP as its topic, not that it’s coming from a YTP-themed newspaper or website. HappyWith (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's not a proper noun; it's a genera of art. Sources are overcapitalizing because it's a new and I guess exciting thing. It's hard to take their style choices seriously when some don't capitalize the "T" in YouTube. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not new at all - the style was established in 2005 and the articles range from 2009 to the 2020s. Wikipedia follows the sources, even when we think they're wrong. The community itself also consistently capitalizes the 'p'. HappyWith (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have MOS:GENRECAPS for a reason. I think the nom is confused into thinking that if something has an all-caps acronym like "YTP" that the elements that make up the acronym should be capitalized, but this of course is not the case. See MOS:EXPABBR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:GENRECAPS is about musical and literary genres, which YTP is neither of. HappyWith (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that video genres should have different conventions than musical and literary genres? That would seem odd. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not me saying it, the guideline just doesn’t mention video genres. HappyWith (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess some people need more explicit and complete guidance; I added a bit in a parenthetical there; we'll see if there's objection to the obvious extension to other media. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even given that, it wouldnt apply if, as I argue in the nom, reliable sources consistently capitalize it. It’s a guideline, not a policy, and doesn’t apply when common sense factors in. HappyWith (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One application of common sense is that if the phrase describes a genre (and thus a common noun) and we try to avoid excess capitalization on Wikipedia, then we should avoid capitalizing 'poop' in this case, even if we see that often being done in sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GENRECAPS says that proper nouns are exempt, and from what I've seen from years of watching these videos, it's almost always written "YouTube Poop". The videos themselves also use the term "YouTube Poop" not as a genre but as something of a label or brand: see, for example, any of the various intros created for use in YouTube Poops. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as "something of a label", but a label is not a proper noun any more than rap. A brand is a proper noun, but it is also created owned and copyrighted by a person or corporation. A brand is not a label or a genera. Look at the text from that search.
    • Youtube Poop intro
    • Alle Youtube Poop Intro (2007-2021)
    • Youtube Poop Intro (where there's smoke)
    • Youtube Poop Intro
    • (ORIGINAL) NEW YOUTUBE POOP INTRO (HD)
    • Timeline: What If You Couldn't Stop Pooping?
    • Youtube Poop Intro: BECAUSE YOUTUBE IS WHERE THE POOP IS!
    • All YouTube Poop Intro (2007-2022)
    • YouTube Poop Intro: BECAUSE YOUTUBE IS WHERE THE POOP IS! (HD)
    All except one that capitalizes "Poop" also capitalizes "Intro". Nobody thinks this makes intro a proper noun. Should we change the platform's name to Youtube with the "t" lower case based on this?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should specify: I'm not referring to the titles of the videos but rather the intros in those videos I linked to. The fact that there are intros with frequent usage indicate that this is more than a genre or label, and these intros write "YouTube Poop". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the on-screen titles? Those don't have any relevance to how the term would be capitalized or not in sentence context, which is the only context that matters at all. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe to 2600:1003:B12B:57C4:65F1:7990:340D:41EE (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith. you're engaged in what is known as WP:Wikilawyering. Everyone (but you, apparently) understands that if a rule applies to genres of music, film, literature, and every other art that it also applies to videos. See also WP:AJR. It looks like we're going to have to go make an edit there to expressly make it clear that it applies to videos, just to stop you from ever wasting everyone's time pretending again that it doesn't apply to videos. We should not have to do this. You are making a mistake. The WP:Wikilawyering page was written for a reason. So were all the other rules we have at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:P&G, and various other policypages saying to always interpret WP policies and guidelines as they were clearly meant to be interpreted, not in "see what I can try to get away with" mode by nitpicking at their exact wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I had already conceded that point. HappyWith (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per MOS:GENRECAPS - it does not seem to be a proper name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Screenshot-media article[edit]

Just wanna note this here for future editors, since I almost fell for this myself: I am 90% sure that this article by Screenshot-Media is cribbing from this very Wikipedia article, making it essentially unusable as a source. It flat-out name-checks this article at least once, and also goes through extremely similar progressions to older versions of this article (the exact same ordering of common sources in the "Throughout the 2000s" paragraph, citing the same Cvetkovski source with the exact same quotes featured, etc). HappyWith (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced stuff[edit]

@BeatBro Please stop edit warring and adding badly sourced details. We need good sources to cover those things to include them. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YouTube_poop&oldid=1221724840"