Wikipedia talk:Video links
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Talk section 1
[edit]Is it really ok to embed live links to web sites that play videos as references? In other words, if I click on a reference title, should it take me to YouTube? From the Village Pump discussion here it sounds like all video references have to use a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_76#Videos_as_references
- All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source. YouTube is not a reliable source, for the reasons above, so you need to be able to source this video back to someone who is (such as, presumably, its original publishers and distributors). That information goes into the citation template. The bit about "in practice not everything" refers to non-controversial statements not always needing a citation; see WP:QUOTE for policy stating that quotations are always controversial statements and must always be sourced. As a matter of practicality, in a controversial article like the JFK assassination one, you should in any case treat most everything as potentially controversial and cite everything you can. Having sourced the video appropriately, it MAY then be acceptable to leave the YouTube link for convenience, but the source must cite someone reliable, not YouTube. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, now that I've seen the diffs, see, that's what I was trying to say in my first response: you should be citing as publisher et al whomever produced/distributed/aired the video in the first place, and not YouTube. Note what Template:Cite video asks for. In an encyclopedia, the purpose of citing is not merely to facilitate surfing and further reading and viewing on the subject, but to allow readers to verify and assess the original source in its own context and as support for a particular statement in our article. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
posted by Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of "cite video" template information
[edit]It seems clear from the discussions on this that have taken place that we are to use the {{cite video}} template when citing video. Why was this deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a version of the page that included this information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Video_links&oldid=370259568 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- The template is still mentioned. Some of the details and the change of layout were not necessary IMO while there were also minor MOS concerns. Since this is currently a proposal others will more than likely chime in. Please do not start bickering on this. We finally have something that might work and I would hate to see it bogged down. Another editor also expressed that you may not understand the current guidelines well enough so please be careful.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- It has been completely removed, by another editor. Why? Also, why were my hours of contributions deleted without any discussion whatsoever? Does "bogged down" mean no discussion and summary deletions of other editors contributions? Is this really how Wikipedia is supposed to work - aggressive deletions and edit wars? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Fences & Windows was trying to merge the history in. Probably just an oversight. It hapens. WP:BRD for the other bits.--Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think doing a history merge automatically reverts to the last edit of the page you merge in, and I forgot this and also forgot to double check the diff. I've slapped myself on the back of the wrist. Fences&Windows 12:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Fences & Windows was trying to merge the history in. Probably just an oversight. It hapens. WP:BRD for the other bits.--Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- It has been completely removed, by another editor. Why? Also, why were my hours of contributions deleted without any discussion whatsoever? Does "bogged down" mean no discussion and summary deletions of other editors contributions? Is this really how Wikipedia is supposed to work - aggressive deletions and edit wars? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's about time
[edit]Wow, digital media is really here. HTML5 is a reality, WP should have embedded video clips into articles by now ;) Was it nono effort? They just announced Nintendo 3DS and look - it has two cameras on the outside of the device, capable of authoring 3D media. Woo hah, it could make wonders. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Flash video
[edit]Looking at the Flash video article, I get an impression that there are number of different media formats considered to be "Flash video". The container is ISO base media file format based and could be embedded within SWF, however video/audio codecs could be different, video: Sorenson Spark which is actually an incomplete implementation of H.263 or H.264 which also has so called profiles and what not. On audio codecs Adobe previously used simple Pulse-code modulation (PCM) (not mentioned by WP) and now switching to MPEG4 family HE-AAC codec. H.264 decoder can not grasp H.263 or Sorenson and has little understanding of audio codecs. Basically I'm saying that H.264 might be out of place in lede, kind of prominence issue, and I would like to see HTML5 digital media mentioned more, generally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- A little beyond my understanding. I pulled that line directly from the EL guideline. I have amended it to be less specific.Cptnono (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair use
[edit]Based on the recent discussion at WP:ELN, I wonder whether we should warn editors that they shouldn't trust videomaker's assertions that copyrighted material in the video is justifiable under fair use. Ignorance, errors, superstitious invocation of the fair use doctrine, and outright lies about fair use aren't unheard of, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Tried adding a line. Please tinker with it if you think it could be improved. Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Vevo
[edit]Most music video links to YouTube seem to be Vevo videos. Would this mean that music videos on the Vevo section of YouTube constitute as a good source? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Most" is questionable but there may not be a copyright concern with certain videos if licensed appropriately. Your inquiry is not specific enough to assign a definite answer regarding RS.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
TV shows performances
[edit]Many of the reality singing competition TV shows now upload all the performance videos of their contestants to YouTube, for example American Idol, The Voice, and X-Factor. I'm wondering if it is appropriate to give links to the videos uploaded by content copyright holder in the pages for these shows, e.g. The X Factor (UK series 10), The Voice (U.S. season 6), American Idol (season 13) in a separate column after the performances listed in the tables. I gather however that some of these may limit the video accessibility to particular countries (e.g. The Voice USA). Hzh (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#EL16 and live video streams that you might be interested in. wumbolo ^^^ 10:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
100 MB
[edit]The 100 MB size limit on commons: and in MediaWiki is obsolete since about 2015. Whatever new limit might be applicable now, it's not anymore a reason to use YouTube or Vimeo. IIRC WikiMedia planned to support uploads in proprietary (non-free) formats, converted to WEBM on the fly. –84.46.53.34 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
YouTube Official Artist Channels
[edit]Editors may wish to be aware of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Request to elevate to Guideline
[edit]Promote Wikipedia:Video links from essay to guideline: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Promote Wikipedia:Video links from essay to guideline 2601:601:CE7F:E270:5456:2939:9AB9:38F1 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't an essay now. Promoting it to guideline is unnecessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Example citation put in text here
[edit]Can someone check it?
Bluerasberry (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
YouTube reviews as reception citations
[edit]Books, movies, video games, etc. will often have reception sections on their Wikipedia page, where their reception is detailed-- reviews from IGN and Metacritic, for instance. Can a YouTube review of a video game be used in its reception section? Pie GGuy (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)