Help talk:YouTube

For the wiki, should youtube videos not have curse words. GalladeBlades

Do you mean actually saying the word or bleeping it out? GalacticPetey

I think he means both. Cat91x (talk)

Nah, you can just add something like "Warning, this video contains swearing." --™ The 'Shroom 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need permission from the YouTube users if we would like to upload one of their videos, or is it perfectly fine to just upload one freely? Ragazzo 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you can freely use them. --™ The 'Shroom 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second!

Wait a second! Whaen I put that code onto my userpage it made Super Mario Sunshine Level Select! I'm not mad, it's just that was not what I wanted. Superfiremario 07:22, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

"YOUTUBE VIDEOS SHOULD ONLY BE EMBEDDED IN YOUR USER PAGE, NOT ON ANY ARTICLE, TEMPLATE, OR ANY OTHER MAINSPACE." is a lie

I have seen plenty articles with walkthrough videos from youtube. --Walleo 18:12, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Name one, please. GreenDisaster 18:32, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

{{YouTube}}

Hi everyone! I'm just wondering, can User:YoshiKong/Youtube become official? It would be good because videos can be embedded into the expandable template, so it doesn't take up much room on a page.

Shokora (talk · edits)

Make an Exception to Embed YouTube Videos on Glitch Pages?

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

do not allow embed youtube videos on glitch pages 2-5
Current MarioWiki YouTube embed policy only allows us to embed videos on user pages. It got me thinking about how we can have the ability to embed YouTube videos be more useful for MarioWiki instead of for personalization only. The only thing that came to mind were Glitches and each game having their own documentation of glitches. Some glitches are hard to perform just by reading the procedure. Some glitches benefit by watching a demonstration, especially if precision or timing is concerned. We could use OGG/OGV/OGA or GIF, but the limit is 10MB as YouTube videos are much less restrictive. We have always used <ref></ref> and <references/> (citations) to link to videos but that could be easily missed or overlooked. {{fake link}} used to simulate citations to show how small those links are:

• Glitch^[1]

Here's an example of where an embed of a YouTube video could be better demonstrating a glitch using the Sneaky Parasol:

• Video
• Picture
• Documentation

Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
Deadline: May 11, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Allow YouTube embedding on glitch pages

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I'm curious as to what other people think.
2. Cheat-master30 (talk) As someone who works on these pages a lot, videos would really help people understand how these glitches work, and embedding them in the article would get rid of the time needed to scroll down, click the link, wait for it to load again and return.

A GIF, OGG, static screenshot, or citation to a YouTube video is sufficient

1. Baby Luigi (talk) Per me, Mega, and Steve in the comments section. Unnecessary use of javascript bloats pages, there's no limit to how many videos to be embedded (even userspace has a limit), and references do the job already. I don't want to sacrifice some functionality for a small video-viewing convenience.
2. Megadardery (talk) Per all
3. Roy Koopa (talk) I'm thinking of the SM64 glitch article, which has plenty of gifs that work fine. Besides, wouldn't it increase loading time for people like who have slow internet?
4. Bazooka Mario (talk) I think the current system is fine. Several embedded youtube videos will bloat the page, period, and I'm not comfortable about using Javascript for something like this when simple linking will do.
5. driftmaster130 (talk) Per the others and the reason embedding YouTube videos in articles normally isn't allowed.

Comments

• There could be integrity concerns. Should we have a template or have a special page type similar to MediaWiki File pages to keep track of allowed MarioWiki main article YouTube embeds? Maybe we can adopt YoshiKong (talk)'s template idea (User:YoshiKong/Youtube) that hasn't been talked about since 2012.
• Should MarioWiki have an official YouTube channel to ensure quality uploads so they aren't susceptible to YouTube's audio swapping feature for example?
• What other concerns could be raised with this proposed policy change? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:47, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

There must be an option for no changes to be made. Keep using citations, maybe. --™ The 'Shroom 16:21, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

I thought that was option #2? I guess I wasn't clear enough with option #2. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:27, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Just a heads-up, We actually don't remove glitches even if they have no reference, so nothing is sufficient in some cases (even though it's super encouraged to upload at least a screenshot), this proposal should deal only with the embedding idea, thus renaming the second option to "do nothing" is better.--

16:29, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

It sounds like that option is invoking that we don't have to upload a screenshot or insert a citation to verify the glitch works. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:45, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

I personally feel that having the embedding will cause the loading times to lengthen, but more importantly, it will also flood the pages extremely, but hey, why don't you create a draft so we can see how this looks like?--

16:29, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Envision a YouTube video player embed instead of an image file here.

Wouldn't some JavaScript code fix this load time problem? Instead of auto embed via HTML markup, a button can be clicked to insert the embed code. This is possible through using the innerHTML property that JavaScript can interface with. Unfortunaltely, I can't whip up something due to the limitations imposed by MediaWiki software that MarioWiki uses. I would think that a modification to the YouTube plug-in that Porplemontage (talk) uses would fix this issue (Special:Version). Just refer to the image on the right to imagine how the video would display on glitch pages. It shouldn't look very different than what we do with file links. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:40, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

It's not working: User:Wildgoosespeeder/YouTube/sandbox --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 17:48, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks Megadardery (talk)! That's what I was doing wrong. I was unaware of {{#tag:youtube}}. Now my code is working as expected. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 22:05, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

We wouldn't use the template because I have a more advanced version of the extension that does this. --Steve (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Then we should use that instead of my idea (and Megadardery (talk)'s fix) how to embed the video in the cleanest way possible on MarioWiki glitch pages. My only concern is that there should be a clear way to link the person to the YouTube page for enlargement (like my template idea does). --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 22:32, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

You can always click the YouTube button when the video starts playing. My concern with this is loading times; how much will this affect the loading time of glitch pages? --™ The 'Shroom 22:41, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

My answer to that was vague at best. I mention something about JavaScript coding to reduce loading times but I have no idea how to implement it. I think I need Porplemontage (talk)'s help for this one. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:19, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

JavaScript isn't my strong suit. I'm still leaning towards no videos, with references being acceptable. Let me provide some background for this proposal. The idea has always been that the text and images need to stand on their own - we don't want to entice people to write less and use the video as a crutch, or become too reliant on outside content that we can't always control or guarantee that it won't be taken down. I do understand the argument in making an exception for glitches, which can be very specific, visual, and hard to describe, but the reference link is there for people. Personally, I don't think embedded videos look as nice. There are variations in quality, like even this sample video has a big black border. I'd rather see this than this on the page. --Steve (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Just like we shouldn't mark-up screenshot submissions (only one case I found but very mild File:PM Attack FX B screenshot.png), the same principle should be said about video embeds. The videos shouldn't explain the glitch as that is MarioWiki's job. The videos should just be a very clear visualization of all those words. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:43, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

The black border is not editing-induced letterboxing if that is what you think it is. That is how the game renders the visuals on real hardware. Not sure why Nintendo allowed that when the N64 games were being developed at the time. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:43, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

In addition to the unconfirmed load time increase, the possibility of removed videos in the article form, and the current in-ability to go in fullscreen. The references give more freedom to the users, the screenshots do not necessarily show the steps for achieving the result, they focus on the outcome more. Having the YouTube thumbnail would prevent us from putting actual images because of clutter issues. And it is an inconvenience for readers to be forced to open the videos just to see how the glitch looks like because the thumbnail is not always apparent. Also, many of our YouTube references are from a glitch compilation which wouldn't work in a thumbnail, so we would have to split those ourselves, which is an additional, unnecessary step. Last thing, it's so easy to check the referenced videos, hovering the mouse over the [1] icon basically shows you the link, so you can open it easily. And that big play button just annoys me.--

08:30, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

I'm opposing this proposal. Maybe the load times won't be as bad when the pages are small, but when glitch pages are gigantic and well-documented? No. There's a reason we allow embedding a limited amount of videos on our user page, and I believe this is unnecessary use of Javascript that will unecessarily increase load times. The links are best left as external, and users who can see videos can still see them, they just need to connect to YouTube. Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:36, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

How would JavaScript bloat the pages? It's supposed to be the less intensive way to let the user know a video is there ready to be played, reducing page load time. I understand that the YouTube video player takes a chunk of time to load the interface each time it is called when embedded onto a webpage directly. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 13:41, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Could you make a mock-up page and then add, like, ten, then twenty videos in there? Just to get an idea of loading times. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:14, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Can't because MediaWiki prevents JavaScript from being added to the pages through regular editing. The PHP scripts to allow YouTube embeds (plugin that Porplemontage (talk) uses) needs to be tweaked somehow. See Special:Version. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 02:02, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

Roy Koopa (talk) Not advocating we change over to YouTube from GIF. Just allowing YouTube as an additional option for embedding onto glitch pages. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 04:22, 4 May 2016 (EDT)