This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
YouTube poop article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2009. The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#A7. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should the P really be capitalized? YouTube poop is more of a genre, not a title. — Poopal retentive 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. Sometimes it is a title. -- KoolKidz112 ( talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
Alternately, two YouTube Poopers may engage in "YTP tennis" or "YTP soccer", wherein the same video is remixed back and forth.
" 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)
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)
Should YTPMV's be mentioned here or are they not notable enough? St. Jimmy ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
@ 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
YouTube poop article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2009. The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#A7. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should the P really be capitalized? YouTube poop is more of a genre, not a title. — Poopal retentive 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. Sometimes it is a title. -- KoolKidz112 ( talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
Alternately, two YouTube Poopers may engage in "YTP tennis" or "YTP soccer", wherein the same video is remixed back and forth.
" 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)
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)
Should YTPMV's be mentioned here or are they not notable enough? St. Jimmy ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
@ 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)