Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Former page

To see the page formerly under this name, please go to Wikipedia:Video linking.--Pharos (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status

I very much support the use of videos on Wikipedia.

This page should include all the guidelines regarding the copyright status of videos. If it would be too overwhelming to place them here, there should be a clear link to where they can be found elsewhere. Sebwite (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Text vs. other media

Please join a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Text vs. other media. Maurreen (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Annotations

Because videos will be multi language text can't really be put in the video. So I think there should be something like subtitles or annotations that can be easily added to a video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.11.241 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This exists when using the mwembed gadget. See these links

Mahanga^Talk 08:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Video

Commons:Video has additional information on using video on Wikimedia projects. Mahanga^Talk 08:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading video

Videos should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Upload, where they will be accessible to all of the different language editions of Wikipedia.

We recommend the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.

Fair use videos that cannot be replaced should be expressly excepted from this. Icedog (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New WikiVideo mailing list

I'd like to invite folks to join the new WikiVideo-l mailing list, which will cover both creative and technical topics of video on the Wikimedia projects. Old hands and newbies alike are both very welcome!--Pharos (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Userbox?

Is there a userbox for this Wikiproject? I can't seem to find the template. I clutter my user page with userboxes so I can remember which projects I'm interested in :).--Jp07 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 workshop? panel?

Only thing I see close to this topic is WIKITV submission, Of course this project hasn't been that active, but just in case... Submissions page. Submissions so far. CarolMooreDC 20:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

IEG Grant Proposal: Wiki Makes Video

Feedback and comments welcome on an IEG grant proposal at meta:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiki_Makes_Video

-- Fuzheado | Talk 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WebM licensing and HTML5 video

I posted this in the commons, but I'm sure where the best place is to put it. I wanted to mention that WebM has both patents and licensing. Google admitted this month that it had made arrangements with the MPEG group. Thus OGG would be the only preferred format at this time.

Also, it's misleading to say "For a better video playback experience we recommend a [ html5 video browser]." Every browser out there has some form of HTML5 video implementation, but there is no standard codec/container, and this statement is extremely misleading. It should say something like "We recommend a browser that can play OGG files" or something like that. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos as a source citation

I have a question about if YouTube videos can be used as a factual source. Please guide me on this matter. I am working on an article Erica Andrews. Andrews had appeared on the Tyra Banks, Maury Povich, and in the music video of some singers. None of the videos were uploaded by the original author of the shows, i.e. not by Tyra Banks or Maury Povich but by other people into YouTube. When you view the YouTube videos, it is very evident that she appeared in the the video clips from those shows that were aired. I feel this video content has value to the Wikipedia article on her. However, the content that I had written into Wikipedia leveraging these YouTube videos as a source to prove that Andrews did indeed appear in those shows were removed by other Wikipedia authors who insist that YouTube videos are not allowed on Wikipedia. I had even noted in the Wikipedia article at what time marker you could see Andrews in the music videos that she appeared in. She did not play a large part in some of the music videos - she had a cameo role and in one case, she did have a larger supporting role. The music videos itself (not in any other printed or online published article) is all that is evident that she did partake in those projects. Please guide me on how videos can be sourced. Thank you. Lightspeedx (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a primary source (e.g. a video that has her in it), then it's definitely not a good idea per WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." As such, unless a reliable source (typically not self-published like a blog) talks about her being in the video, then per Wikipedia it didn't happen (see also WP:SOURCE). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The actual video clips are a source/proof that she did indeed appear in the video. I did some research on this on Wikipedia and it's stated that rather than point to the YouTube clip, that I should use the video source template to mention about her work in such music videos. In the case of her being in the talk shows, there was mentioned in other news sources that she appeared in such shows and it seems like Wikipedia's guidance is that the episode #, date, season # be used leveraging the video citation template. You brought up primary source as a discussion point here - while primary source is not encouraged - strong argument could be made for that the video shows if a subject is in that particular news segment or music video or even motion picture. In such, the video is very much a reliable source, no? I mean if we can see you in the video/film, it's visually evident that you really were in it.

In regards to usage of blogs and social media sites, there's also Wikipedia guidance on this matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves This policy applies to social media sites.

Thanks. Lightspeedx (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Take, for example, someone like me, who has never seen her in video or photo and have no knowledge of her other than a brief glance at the Wiki article. If you posted a link to Youtube, and said "this is her", I'm then having to take your word for it, as I wouldn't be qualified to make that assessment beyond saying "yes, it at least looks like her". That would make it a primary source, with you as the Wikipedian doing the "original research", as it were. A person's likeness is certainly up for debate, and look-alikes frequent celebrity watches, so that would be a case where a reliable secondary/tertiary source would be needed to provide some form of "authority" to the statement.

I could see a video being linked in certain circumstances: imagine a description of a classic scene, or some aspect of the video, that would be considered a valid and hardly-disputed axiom. It still wouldn't always be ideal, but it's passible in some cases. Were she credited in this film at the end of the video, that would be a possible way to reference it were there no other source that did so.

I just mentioned blogs and other self-published sources, because it's likely easy enough to find several cases of Joe Smith who said X about Y, but there's rarely any accountability for fact-checking. I wasn't trying to say it applied in this case; just that it's something to also be aware of. In cases with people particularly, it's important to stick to very reliable sources as best as one can. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note User:Lightspeedx was blocked for one week on May 12th for sockpuppetry, with User:Braveyoda being his sockpuppet. The puppet was used to push for changes at the contested article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Embedding

I suspect the answer is no but is there a way of embedding Youtube videos onto pages like you might on a html webpage. Francium12 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope! But if you have the rights to the video, then you're welcome to upload it to Wiki commons. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem! I don't have the rights. I suppose that is the problem with video and Wikipedia. Very few videos are released under creative commons . I didn't even realise you could until yesterday having known you could do so with photos for several years. Francium12 (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Get to URL of video

When a video is embedded into a Wikipedia article, how does one navigate from the embedded video into the URL of the video alone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that it is embedded as a thumbnail, click the

icon, next to the caption. –Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh perspective. I was not noticing that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding narration and text on video

The policy here is that narration or titles and other text should not be included in a video on Wikipedia. First of all, why does the video on this page break this policy? Fair enough, since it's not an article but on a project page and narration and text is necessary to understand it. But this could apply to other videos as well. And second, aren't subtitles possible now? I've seen them on a few National anthems here. So this should be possible to add to videos right? Some videos can demonstrate a subject well without any narration, but some, like the tutorial on the page here needs it. So does anyone agree with me on a changing the policy?

Of course anytime it's possible we should omit narration/text, so it's easier to put on other language wikipedias. But translating and subtitling isn't too much of a hard job either.

--PWNGWN (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast

I am a citizen archivist/videographer. Since 1997 I have documented the NYC scene. First music, some community events and, more recently, tech. Many videos, and including some pieces by other people, were posted on my old site Punkcast and, more recently, my YouTube channel. A few years back I started contributing to Wikipedia, including adding framegrabs to commons, and posting the occasional video EL. Out of several 1000 punkcast videos, there are maybe around 100 ELs added during the years, mostly on music acts. A fair number survive. I have never been accused of linkspam, since I an an active editor. As for licences, in the case of music videos, my standard arrangement with music performers is that I post the videos as cc-by-nc-nd. I don't think many musicians would be willing to go the SA route, the FMA notwithstanding, and it's my policy to let them retain rights, including takedown. I use more liberal licences on some spoken word stuff. Since January I have been single-mindedly harrassed/forum shopped by a newbie editor for COI. You'll see some discussion on my talk page. Just recently a more experienced editor has become involved and taken it upon himself to examine all the video links, and started deleting them, for example diff - summary "linkspam by someone with a massive conflict of interest". Since I don't get paid for my video work, by definition I am interested in whatever I shoot. By his/her criteria it doesn't seem much of my stuff will survive. My feeling is that a video can be a valuable tool for perception and comprehension, and that ELs should be judged intrinsically on whether they are/are not useful, not on the basis of who contributed them. So, my question is, how can I appropriately contribute punkcast video to wikipedia, particularly stuff that is not cc-by-sa, if at all? Or should I just forget about it and leave it to people to google it up? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the most relevant guideline here would be Wikipedia:Video links, which would seem to be favorable as long as the videos are relevant and without copyright issues.--Pharos (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Pharos. I agree. The video links page says "It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines." and links to [Wikipedia:External links] which says "It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines." What do you think of this, does it affect the links he is asking about? It is good to get some interest finally, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast

Help with specific videos

Is there anywhere to go where video specialists or tinkerers can help a neophyte such as myself with a video issue? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You might check in Wiki Commons instead, as this page seems to be fairly dead. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WebM or theora?

This page indicates that ogg theora is the preferred format, but Help:Converting_video on commons indicates that WebM is the preferred format. Which is correct? Or does it depend on who you ask? :-) Subverdor (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles

Rejection of option C (ignoring it entirely), no consensus on A or B. As an initial matter, it's not clear what this RFC is intended to be, as a policy edict or a style guideline or what. Note that I recently closed the Talk:Debbie Does Dallas discussion and noted there that there is no concept of precedents here.

Second, I see that a few editors (very few) expressly or implicitly voted for external link based on some performance concerns. It seems like those concerns are incorrect. Even discounting those !votes (who expressed other general concerns), it numerically about a tie given or take one or two votes. On that basis, there is no consensus formed here. I see some analogies that, should the video exist in a free license, it should be included based on the fact that it is generally done for other media but I think the consensus has been along the lines of "it is not mandated that all free works (of say an old artist) must be on a page" and that seems to be the consensus about that reasoning.

I see that there was discussion for an option D, a "none of the above" option that it seems like User:Rhododendrites removed (I can't see when). I'm not sure why it was removed as there seems to be quite a bit of support for that option and as such, for deferring this until there is a better consensus based on individual pages on an individual so that people can articulate a general rule. The various RFCs on the matter show that this hasn't resolved themselves in either direction which is fairly normal when a new concept is brought up. Some of the RFCs themselves haven't resolve in either direction so this will continue to play out.

I suggest that if people wish to play this out further, there is a vague mention of embedding videos at Wikipedia:Videos#Embedding and otherwhere but it seems like it's noted that this page is more of a technical guidelines on how to do it rather than whether to do it and instead perhaps work should be started on creating a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video to match Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. At the very least, there is at least agreement that if the video exists at Commons, it should included in some way on the page. That can be expressed at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

There have been several discussions recently concerning whether it's appropriate for an article about a film, animation, or other form of moving picture, to embed a video of the subject if available on Commons.

Right now we embed full-length videos in many articles. For example, A Woman, A Fool There Was, and A Day at the Zoo.

Two films which have caused controversy recently are A Free Ride and Debbie Does Dallas, which are sexually explicit in nature. The A Free Ride RfC was closed with no consensus and another RfC is ongoing at Talk:Debbie Does Dallas.

I'm hoping to divorce the question of appropriate use of video from explicit nature of the content of some videos. In other words, I think it makes more sense to first establish a consensus on whether or not it's appropriate to embed full-length videos in articles about those videos before we complicate things by bringing in matters like WP:NOTCENSORED. There are still many open questions regarding the use of video on Wikipedia, and our guidelines on the subject need some attention. This seems like a useful step.

When the subject of an article is a film or video, and the full-length film or video is available on Commons, should it be general practice to:

A. embed the full-length video,

B. link to the full-length video's Commons page in the external links section, or

C. neither embed nor link to the full-length video?

Note: If there is consensus for (A) or (B) below, a follow up question will address the matter of exceptions. The most obvious open question regarding exceptions would be sexually explicit content, but there are others that have been raised (e.g. a limit on the duration of the video). Again, I think it would be most productive to address exceptions AFTER the close of this RfC, perhaps informed by concerns raised through discussion here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

B. Link, and link only. Embedding video makes the page unexpectedly massive to download and causes problems on anything that is not a current new device/computer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: My impression is that it doesn't actually load until you click play. Is that incorrect/documented somewhere? These pages load as quickly as any other for me on my old laptop. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If it plays straight away on clicking, it was pre-loaded. If it is an image linking to a video to download when requested, then everything freezes for 5-10 seconds until it plays. That's how I tell the difference. I miss the old option to not auto-download images. Is there a browser option to not download video? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe the click opens the video player, and the video player starts the download. It only has to download a little bit to start playing the first second of the movie. You can watch the white time-bar expand showing the download in-progress. It starts from zero. Some websites do wait 5-10 seconds before they start playing - that is a tradeoff choice. Delaying the start of playback reduces the risk that the playback will stall if the download doesn't go smoothly. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So, it is not an embedded video proposed under A, it is an embed link to a video behind an image? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that is technologically incorrect. A video in an aurticle is essentially the same as including an image, unless and until a user explicitly wants to play it. Alsee (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is not meant to autoload, then it is just a link. A great thing about Wikipedia is that every page is of moderate size, it loads well on poor connections. If it is not just a link, some devices, some browsers, will autoload in preparation for a smooth start, and this is not what I want from Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Embedded videos are often the equivalent of links, yes. It's a link to open the embedded video player (the idea being to play the video while still at the article page rather than sending someone to Commons). This is one of the reasons why, in my vote below, I say there's not actually a whole lot of difference between A and B. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

B - In addition to avoiding the automatic strain on resources mentioned by SmokeyJoe, this also requires a positive input from the user to watch the movie/film/video. There are times that you don't want the movie to start automatically. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jkudlick, per above, this is technologically incorrect. Alsee (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

B And in some cases, not even that, if there is any reason at all to consider that a valid claim of copyright, personal privacy or of legally offensive material is involved (vide Bollea lawsuit). Collect (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) B at the very least, but C is my preference Wikipedia is not Netflix or Blockbuster. We don't and should not either serve as a place to locate these resources or help others locate them. We wouldn't help people to find things that aren't free, so I don't think we should do the same for free material like this either. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A (weak 1st choice) or B (2nd choice) - If the subject of an article is a form of media that we can easily provide to readers as a supplement to enhance understanding, and if doing so doesn't disrupt the article or the reading experience in any appreciable way, I don't see why we wouldn't do so. Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between A and B. Embedding displays a thumbnail in the article and requires clicking to play. An external link does not display a thumbnail and requires clicking the link, then clicking to play. In other words, the difference is a thumbnail and one click or no thumbnail and two clicks. I think that any cases that would benefit from a second click could be dealt with as a content-specific exception and don't see any benefit to adding a second click and removing the thumbnail for the vast majority of articles to which this will apply. If, as SmokeyJoe mentions, the file loads when the article loads on some devices, that would probably be enough to push me over to B, but my impression is that is not the case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
B I don't actually see the value to the reader of embedding a full length film. As another user said we are not netflix or youtube and readers would be under no expectation to find full length features here. Our goal should be to summarise the film/feature and present analysis and information about it from secondary sources. This seems counter intuitive to this aim, much the same way providing overly detailed plots is looked down upon. An external link is fine and this is a situation I see as being tailor made for that section. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
B, I guess, if we have to have to have a rule. No rule -- leave it up to the aesthetic, page design, and information design of the main editor(s) of the article (which I guess is the current status) -- would be OK, granted this seems to be leading to i I'm not for C because we do link to an entire book (at Project Guttenberg or wherever) when we can, and why not. A is not terrible but it puts too much of a straitjacket on designing the page. My gut feel based on my personal page design and information design approach is that the entire film is extra-credit enrichment info and we curate best by separating the link down in the External Links section. Herostratus (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I request this RFC be withdrawn, or closed as a local consensus with no project-wide policy authority. This page has zero status as policy or guideline and something of this magnitude needs more clear drafting and a proper venue (Village Pump Policy). It would impact a VAST number of articles from Felix the cat to Night of the living dead. A local consensus on this page can't rewrite project-wide policy. For the record I Oppose mass-removal of valuable video content from articles (i.e. I support option A). Alsee (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Responding to your message on my talk page here, as it's the same general idea (and pinging Crisco 1492 who concurred below). You raise some good points. To summarize, it sounds like you object to this RfC because of the venue (given the potential impact) and the wording/presentation? Because our guidelines on video use are so poorly developed, and therefore because videos have been added inconsistently, any attempt to develop those guidelines will necessarily have significant effects. This is an information page for now, and its condition is a shame, but it is the page we have to address the use of video on Wikipedia. So I disagree that it's the wrong venue. That said, it is something people should be aware of. If the issue of venue is mainly about eyeballs, that it's added to centralized discussion and indeed has been posted to VPP would seem to address that. So I don't think there's any real justification for withdrawing on the sole basis of venue. You also said you had some issues with the RfC language. I tried to keep it pretty simple, acknowledging the debates which highlighted the need for this question to be answered without actually dragging the other discussions into it any more than necessary (hence attempting to defer exceptions and content-specific discussions in an effort to gauge consensus on a more basic matter. In other words, I wanted to reduce it to a basic question and assume good faith that people won't jump in with a particular opinion just because of a POV with regard to the two adult movies under discussion recently. So the timing isn't ideal, but it's so long overdue that I think it just needs to happen. You also mentioned you'd like to compile a list of pages that would be affected. That might be a good idea, but again, especially after many people have weighed in, that doesn't seem like cause to abort the RfC. If you have a strategy for tackling that project that isn't just going through all the pages in the video clips category, I'd like to hear how I can help contribute to that list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites there's clearly a lot of confusion here on what is meant by "embedding" and the technical aspects and the scope. Does option "B" REALLY mean not including a "full" 1 minute video? If some videos are to be excluded the RFC needs to be better drafted to sort out what sort of criteria to apply. You also intended to divorce from the from question of explicit content, but you inadvertently made it central point of what you wrote. Sorting this out is also going to involve rewriting Policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY - there is an internal conflict between points 3 and 4 that needs to be addressed. This RFC needs more thought and careful development, and it definitely belongs at Village Pump. We can't rewrite policy here. Alsee (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Well, I still disagree about venue. And WP:NOTREPOSITORY is clearly written to be about texts (it should be updated and would require a separate process regardless of what happens here). But the point about intending to divorce but not actually doing so is entirely fair, and your point about unclear scope (full 1 minute videos) is a good one. But it's just too late to just withdraw the RfC or radically rewrite it. Perhaps there's a minor wording change that everybody who has participated thus far would agree to (I would leave messages), which would address some of this? For example, I don't think it would be controversial to remove the DDD/AFR examples from the RfC text, but of course participants of those threads are already aware. A statement on length, perhaps? Maybe narrowing the scope of the question to a sort of guideline-friendly gray area like "films which are not reasonably short"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites you've got at least two other participants arguing that this RFC is null and void. This entire process is a waste of time if the closer affirms that any outcome here has no effect beyond rewriting the essay page that it's running on. I think there's abundant basis for the author to withdraw it to prepare a better developed RFC to post at Village Pump Policy. Alsee (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's now three editors endorsing withdrawal. You would be the 4th, and the author. Let's minimize the mess and plan out a quality policy proposal. Alsee (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus per Alsee, but if a project-wide policy is needed/desired, then A (if and when the film is in the public domain). The full length film serves both as a primary source regarding the plot / summary section and as a medium illustrating the subject of the article. The encyclopedic value of these films is high (you can write, for instance, "Film X features a number of quick cuts, with the average shot lasting less than a second", but for a lot of readers a proper understanding of exactly how those cuts work will only come from actually seeing the film). I am strongly opposed to C, as for many of these films getting access may be quite difficult, and thus we would be doing our readers a disservice by not at least including a link to public domain films. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think samples of a film would be okay, and would adequately serve the purpose you describe. They can be presented with multiple others on the same page and users can click back & forth between them at any time. One film can have multiple quirks like the hypothetical one you presented, and simply plastering the film onto the page does not, in my view, allow for users to give this a meaningful examination. The Internet is largely a skimming medium these days, and if people come to a film's page they're likely skimming for information they can glean in a matter of minutes. We can probably use multiple samples, as I said, but I do not believe more than bits & pieces of a film should be used for this purpose; my impression is that we're really only here to say, "Yeah, so it goes like this, you get the picture." Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If we have the video hosted on Commons, absolutely A. SmokeyJoe seems to be under the incorrect impression that the video loads to completion when the article loads. Even if it is not an incorrect impression, issues of load-speed of the article-proper should be filed as a phabricator request, not worked around with a policy/guideline. I don't understand Jkudlick's comment. Videos don't start automatically and already do require reader participation to start. (This is an accessibility best practice.)
As regards Horrorist's comment, the WMF has performed a study (@WhatamIdoing (WMF):) which shows that readers are looking for more interactivity, not less. We are in a world of hypermedia and should remain in the world of hypermedia. Wikipedia (and the movement) may not be the best place for video content, but it does have the best motivations. We should expose users to this content if we have it available and the license and copyright fits.
I see little reason not to respond to this RFC. --Izno (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many things people want from Wikipedia. We have tomes upon tomes of things that are not allowed on Wikipedia no matter how badly people want them there. People may want more interactivity, but the ultimate question is whether this provides any functional utility for Wikipedia, which in my view it does not, as I cannot imagine any way in which text or media samples cannot adequately demonstrate the concept under discussion. That, in my book, is as far as interactivity needs to go on Wikipedia. Samples can be given specific context (e.g. a 30-second clip of a recording artist's song to demonstrate a style to which the artist adhered, esp. in combination with other clips that, say, demonstrate an artistic evolution of that artist's recorded output), but productions embedded in toto are really only presented like, "Here." It doesn't really add to the article's value at all, and there's no way to add commentary to it the way we could with samples (as in the hypothetical case I presented). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A assuming that in fact it doesn't cause significant data usage until clicked on. If we weren't worried about copyright we'd always include every film, book, etc. It's what the article is about and so should be front-and-center. I do have some concerns about doing so on pornographic movies, but NOTCENSORED would seem to indicate the way forward there. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: While I think this is a discussion that needs to be had, if the result is simply changing this guideline then this RFC won't have much effect. I agree with Alsee that a wider discussion should be held. Before having that discussion, let's make sure the technical details are understood and let's find out how many articles have embedded films already. Nigel Pap (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nigel Pap, it's even worse than that. This isn't a guideline. It's an essay page. Alsee (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A - Also I agree that this seems to be the wrong venue for this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
B - Relevent clips should be used to enhance the reader's understanding of the text, as we would for images. If there is a large gallery of free images associated with a topic, we don't present all of them to the reader but a curated few; similiarly, the full movie is not appropriate to embed in the article, but relevant clips are much more useful. We should be very clear that the full PD/CC movie is available to watch and provide such linkage at the EL, but it shouldn't be embedded. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
B (but with no prejudice to a still image or clip of a part of the film/video). All the <video> tags have preload="none" as a parameter, so except in the worst of browsers it would not "eagerly" load, but nonetheless it would be more useful to feature clips or stills of notable, selected parts of the film/video to demonstrate something covered in the text as it relates more to the content itself. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A As others mention above, there is a high demand amongst readers for greater interactivity. Like graphs and maps, we should be providing the fullest usable version of the material, whenever possible. Video performance improvements, are achievable things, so we should our infrastructure to the test on that one. Sadads (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A obviously. I really don't understand why this even needs a RfC. We are in the 21st century where streaming video is a common feature, so an article about a film without the film looks completely ridiculous. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
D: Determine on an article-by-article basis, allowing everything from embedding to linking to leaving out entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
A or B, as long as it is click to play. Readers expect us to fully exploit the wiki medium's explanatory power. Embedding at least part of the movie is a no-brainer. If B, the full video on Commons needs a prominent link (something like Template:Commons, but "Watch this film on Wikimedia Commons"). MER-C 09:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
B We're an encyclopedia , not a collection of media. Commons, on the other hand, is specifically a collection of media. Linking to a video on Commons is no more inconvenient than linking to an image on Commons. We provide full information, but there's no advantage in doing it directly rather than indirectly; the advantage of doing it indirectly is that possible objections can be considered under the Commons content policy. What would not be at all acceptable is C, which is opposed to basic policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- But we don't generally link to images on commons, we include them in the article. This wouldn't be us hosting the material, correct, it would still be on the commons? To me, the reason to do this is that it makes it more obvious that the whole film is easily available. I suppose a really big link at the top of the page could do the same thing, but I think an image would do a better job (which is what an embedded video would _be_ until clicked on if I understand correctly). Hobit (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DGG, that rationale didn't make any sense. There is zero difference in how anything is handled at commons regardless of how we write the link here. And I find it seriously hard to believe you would support removing images of Michelangelo's nudes from those articles, to convert them into external links so that "possible objections can be considered under the Commons content policy". Alsee (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Yann added a new option "D. case by case decision" to the RfC (along the lines of what Mendaliv said above). I removed it for discussion for now. Case-by-case is more or less what we have now, but because we don't have any existing policies or guidelines which provide a clear path in those cases, the discussions are a mess. I don't think that any outcome here will result in hard rules (at best it would be for a guideline, with other dimensions concerning content etc. do be hashed out later). But at least we would have a concrete starting position on which to base discussions. In other words, I assume this is the first of several discussions, given how much work there is to do re: videos on Wikipedia, but I feel like it's a decent starting point. ... All that said, perhaps what Yann/Mendaliv intended was to codify (in this guideline or via RfC) that all three are viable options (i.e. it cannot be claimed that policies/guidelines only support one of these outcomes). What about this instead of "case-by-case": "D. "either embed or link to the full-length video (both A and B are appropriate)" and option "E. either embed, link, or omit the full-length video (A, B, and C are all appropriate)". I don't know that (E) would achieve too much, but it's better than nothing, and (D) seems to reflect what several people have expressed, allowing for some flexibility while determining that the general practice should be to include the video in some way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
B I'm not comfortable with an encyclopedia becoming a multimedia affair. Links to videos seems reasonable; embedding the video seems like a craven ploy to draw in more of the public we already have too much of. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
B - Although I think some exceptions could be made for short videos and films, maybe 15 minutes or less. Basically, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a movie-watching site. Watching movies at Commons makes more sense. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
B - let's not turn WP into YouTube or Hulu. If we start embedding 90 min feature films or 60 min TV episodes, we just as well start writing 100 page books instead of articles with 30kb—50kb of readable prose. Atsme^📞📧 02:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that we already do this. A is the current status. B is a change. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That is an incorrect understanding of the matter of issue. No one is suggesting that we "start embedding" anything. The question here is whether to maintain the status quo, or whether to initiate a mass-removal of content from a vast number of articles. Alsee (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A. I believe some people are acting in bad faith here. It is obvious that the video does not start loading unless the Play Video link is clicked. There have been several concurrent RFCs about this in which this has been clearly explained by multiple people! Nonetheless, should they claim some kind of victory after enough tries, I am going to take them at their word, which is to say, I'm going to write a template that includes a still scene from the movie, which links to the video player when clicked, and which has text and size designed to match the current "embedded" video box. The result will be as indistinguishable from the "embedded" player as I can manage, nonetheless, it will be strictly in accordance with Option B as it is an external link as directed, helpfully labeled by a still picture. But it will be somewhat more aggravating to set it up for the thousands of films that aren't the topic of their little crusade, which will be the civilian casualties of their little war. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
B, not least because it's likely that the video, at full resolution, will be rather larger than can fit comfortably in the natural flow of an article. --Carnildo (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever tried playing one? The "embedded video" fits comfortably in the usual space for a preview photo, and when you play it, a new window opens that is a more appropriate size. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A - Readers may want to watch the video without having to fuck around with commons (especially if Commons move the file or category and don't update the article(s)), I personally believe it'd be beneficial to the readers to have the whole video in the infobox. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
B, We're an encyclopedia. It would be absurd not to link it, but embedding is not in the spirit to draw the reader in. Mootros (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
A Embed the movie, just as we would embed other works.

When a Wikipedia article is about a painting, we present an image file of the painting. See Mona Lisa
When a Wikipedia article is about a document, we present the document. See United States Constitution
When a Wikipedia article is about a song, we present the entire song. See "It's a Long Way to Tipperary"
When a Wikipedia article is about a play, we might present a file of the performance. Romeo and Juliet has an audio file of a reading of the first act.
For whatever reason, Wikipedia currently usually provides copies of books in the external links section through a link to Wikisource, which is like option B of this proposal.

I am not aware of reasons why video should be treated with special rules as compared to other kinds of media, like pictures or written works. If we have a Wikipedia article about some media artifact, then it seems right to me to provide a digital copy of that media artifact in the Wikipedia article when possible. We do this routinely with images and some documents. Even though Wikipedia does this less often with videos and books, I think this is only because of the relative technical difficulty of rather than because there is a philosophical reason to avoid it. Going forward, I would like for the standard practice to be to provide copies of media in Wikipedia articles about that media, and for the media file to be presented prominently toward the top of the Wikipedia article. I want this for movies and everything else.

I dismiss the claims that embedding videos in Wikipedia articles increases load times, because I think it is established that videos do not load unless clicked. For that reason, there is no burden of bandwidth to include videos in Wikipedia articles.

I do not agree with Alsee's and OpenFuture's claim that this RfC has been done inappropriately. This is an appropriate place to have a conversation and the conversation is appropriately advertised. Another problem with the "wrong venue" objection is that no one has proposed a better venue.

I disagree with Zeke, the Mad Horrorist that "We don't and should not either serve as a place to locate these resources". Other people say similar things. Wikipedia already presents free media like images and texts, and already has a history of linking to nonfree images and texts when they are appropriately/legally hosted elsewhere. This user says that Wikipedia is not a video providing service - I disagree. Commons has functionality to present video and the intent behind that was to archive video in Commons for use in other Wikimedia projects.

I would like for Wikipedia to be a place to see original media files for any Wikipedia article which has that media as it subject, whether that is an image, document, book, song, or video. I fail to recognize any arguments saying why media files in some forms like images are acceptable, but media files which are in other forms are not. I like the idea of one rule for everything unless someone has reasons for treating videos in a special way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Books are linked mainly because there is no standard format for books (or rather, there are tons of standard formats), and therefore embedding them in a popup isn't feasible in a consistent manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A per Blue Rasberry. This is 2016. Readers are not just readers, they are also viewers. The combination of Commons and Wikipedia can provide powerful educational and historical resources like significant video. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If we are worried about bandwidth issues, then we make them loadable on mobile only after the user clicks on them. If we are worried about edge cases like pornography, we make rules for those articles and not for all articles. I frequently read and occasionally edit articles about early film. Having those films embedded is a valuable addition to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A I agree this should be treated like many other articles and have the full video in it. I would also leave the link in as the commons has options for formats/downloading. This is not just about the video but also its history and court action on how a "recent" movie is in the public domain. ContentEditman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — ContentEditman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
B Per others that have argued this is an encyclopedia (ie a tertiary source). We don't embed almost all our sources, so Blue Rasberry's arguments are unconvincing (as is the fact that narrative films are much more like narrative books than any still image). We summarize and contextualize sources about subjects. A primary source film does not provide it's own commentary on itself, its own critique, nor its own cultural relevance, our secondary sources do, and it is only because of those secondary, and other tertiary sources, which we write about that we have any film article at all and they are the central information we seek to convey as an encyclopedia. The primary source is not those things that Wikipedia articles are made of. That's not to say I have a universal objection to embedding a pertinent curated section of a film that is actually discussed in depth in an article, because curated content is Wikipedia's purpose, not just 'here's the primary source find whatever we are talking about yourself.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC) [But, since some below want more clarity on my position, in general, we should treat films like books with a link, and when embedding is used it should be for curated clips that in particular detail the encyclopedia article educational writing (like when a quote from a book is used), and if and where a still image from the film does that than a still image should be considered too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)]

The video isn't used as a source, so that we don't embed sources is not relevant. As per Bluerasberry, embedding a movie should be compared to embedding images and sounds, which we do. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You are only arguing, it is even more irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Even if I agreed with you, that would be one more reason not to embed it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I only proved your first argument incorrect. If you now have a second argument, you are welcome to provide it. However, it in entirely unclear what "it" is or why "it" would be irrelevant to the encyclopedia. I fail to see why things become irrelevant when the type of linking is embedding, but not when it's a hypertext link. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No. What you said is nonsense, unless what you are trying to argue is the embedded film is at most of tangential relevance to the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it seemed to me that *you* were claiming that, but you provided no argument. I guess we agree then that embedding pictures, sounds etc is fine in an encyclopedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You guess what? Wrong. You assert it's of even less relevance than I do by strangely claiming that a film is not a primary source for itself. It should not be embedded - not in an encyclopedia. I've already made clear why I think so, and your nonsensical argument would not change that. Let's assume that you are correct that a film is not a primary source for itself, than it had no substantive purpose related to the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so you don't think we should embed movies, images and sounds? And your argument is "because they can be used as sources". Can you expand on that reasoning, because I don't follow. I also think you will have a hard time explaining why we shouldn't embed images on Wikipedia.

And of course a video can be a source, but that's not what we are discussing here. Sources are done with <ref>-tags, not embedding, that's irrelevant to this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. I have said when, how, and why embedding curated material may be appropriate. And no that's not the only way to have a source in Wikipedia, that's only for inline citation. That the film is the primary source is just the way the world of primary sourcing works. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd that you just presented an argument that an image of the Mona Lisa should not appear in Mona Lisa. (It's not what you had in mind, but that is the argument you presented.) I am however vastly relived that you do not have a universal objection to embedding a pertinent curated section of the painting. Alsee (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No. I distinguished the still image and no I did not make such an argument, as someone who has created an article like The Captive Slave which is discussed in in its detail, I don't have an objection to the curated still image I put there - if you want a still image of the film [where the still image is] discussed, instead of a clip, that I also do not have an objection to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) [clarified in this edit - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)]

But I already pointed out that embedding a video is similar to embedding an image, but all your arguments are against embedding in general. That means they are just as relevant for embedding images. If you still want to embed images, that makes you have a standpoint that is contradictory to your own argumentation. It's hard to convince people to listen to your arguments if you don't listen to them yourself. You are going to have to come up with a reason to not embed *videos* specifically. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not the same and I have explained why, how, and when embedding may be appropriate and when, how and why it is not. It is your position that appears fundamentalist and inflexible, not mine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was fundamentalist and inflexible. I said that the arguments you have laid forward apply to all media, not just videos. Yet you seem to claim, at least sometimes, that only videos should not be embedded, but that images and sounds should. This means your standpoint is contradictory to your arguments. This is of course allowed, but that also means a lot of people won't take your standpoint seriously, as you won't argue for it. So I'm asking you to actually make an argument that supports your standpoint, but that is your choice alone. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Again wrong. I have explained what the appropriate conditions for editorial decisions are, which is why I have have said to Spirit of Eagle below that we are not far apart. Every editorial decision is a matter of balance -- it's required of the editor by all our fundamental policies. Can you not see that the consensus of many editors is basically this indiscriminate inclusion you appear to be championing is not well taken. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems rather split in my opinion, and no, you have not explained why we should embed images and sound but not videos. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Those other things are not the subject of this proposal, so it's rather odd that you would expect me to. But, as a matter of fact, I did show how books are linked, so films should be also, and I did show that the use of the image in The Captive Slave is consistent with what I have said, and Blue Raspberry, already brought forward a partial sound performance of Romeo and Juliet, so embedding parts, clips, or sections, of works is already done on Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your argument applies also to images and sounds, and has the absurd effect of arguing against embedding images and only linking to them. When asked for clarification on this issue, you skirt the issue, reply with books, which is not what I asked about and pretend we only include clips of sound or details and pieces of paintings, both which are untrue. We do embed both *complete* sound files, not just clips, and we obviously embed complete images. For example, the complete Maple Leaf Rag is embedded. Your argumentation continues to contradict your standpoint, and apparently this is how it will be. I can only hope the closing admin doesn't treat this as a vote, but actually looks at the argumentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No. My argument applies to the proposition we are here to discuss which is film. It appears you do not know how RfC's work or just are making things up. My position is not contradictory but perhaps it is too nuanced and balanced for you. I have explained how an entire image and work like in The Captive Slave would fit entirely within the position I have taken (with discussion and curation). I have also noted any claim that we always embed the entire work is demonstrably untrue, and thus perfectly consistent with my position - we do embed portions as needed. Perhaps, you find my position so strong that you have to keep bludgeoning away in my comment section but you just keep saying things that are wrong or untrue and perhaps should stop. As a full film is more like a full book, we should generally treat it as a book with a link and embedded clips or even shorts may be used under the circumstances and considerations I outline. -Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I said was untrue, and you have not explained how an entire image would fit into your position, you have only repeatedly claimed that it would fit in your position; which, may I remind you, is that we don't embed our sources, and both images, videos and sounds (and books) are sources for themselves and should therefore not be embedded. I do maintain that this argumentation is both absurd, as it leads us to not embed images, and incorrect, as sources should be referenced with footnotes, and illogical, as the conclusion can't be drawn from the premises. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have explained how the image which is the primary source in The Captive Slave because it is fully discussed and curated in depth fits into my position, and yet it's still true we don't usually embed almost all our sources. So, you are again falsely claiming something that is not true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So we shouldn't embed images, except if you when you decide that the image is "fully discussed and curated in depth"? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Where a still image is the subject of an article it is most likely (if we are being good encyclopedists) that the entirety of the still composition is described and discussed in depth. A full length film is not likely to get such an in depth encyclopedic written description of every frame or scene or setting, just as a full book is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously each frames composition is not going to be discussed in depth, no. But that would be an absurd requirement. The film may very well be discussed in depth, for example, the films entire plot may be summarized. Yet your stated position is to not embed films, at least if they are "full-length", whatever that means. And who decides if the film has been "curated and discussed in detail"? That sounds awfully like a matter of pure opinion. I for example do not agree that The Captive Slave has has it's still composition described and discussed in depth. It actually only discussed the composition with "It shows a man, manacled, on a stone bench and looking pensively or plaintively upward." How is that "in depth"? It doesn't discuss layout or use of balance in the composition or anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have not read the entire article or you are deliberately misrepresenting it and if you have problems with that article take it to its talk page. But as Spirit of Eagle said discussion and as I have said curation is the way forward in such individual matters. Back on topic, as a general matter a film should be treated as a book with a link, as I have argued. I get that you don't like it but your not putting a dent in it by your bludgeoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Books is a good example, but have you considered why we aren't embedding books? It's likely more of a technical reason. We need a generally available book format, and an embedding reader for that. And here we already get into the question: What format? Should it be one that are scans of the book, or one of the popular text-based formats? Both have drawbacks and benefits. And modern browsers include video players natively with HTML5, but no native book readers.

I see no reason NOT to embed the books once there is a general agreement on what digital format to use for books and readers can be easily embedded in ways that are widely supported. But I don't think such and agreement exists today. That's why books aren't a good comparison in practice, but images are. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not embedded because there is no good reason to related to the encyclopedia article purpose and text and we are not a repository, we are an encyclopedia meant to focus and convey tertiary information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"We are not a repository": No, but videos are at commons. There are several good reasons, starting with practicality. But these new arguments you have at least make sense and aren't contradictory to your standpoint, so I'll leave it at that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not 'we are technically not a repository'. We are not a repository because we choose to be and are an encyclopedia, purposefully to convey tertiary information -- not because we don't have the technology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

But THAT argument is only relevant in as much as that we don't have media that isn't otherwise notable. If you claim that WP:NOTREPOSITORY is relevant otherwise you again end up with removing pictures because we aren't a repository of pictures, which again is a patently absurd argument. And WP:NOTREPOSITORY is eminently clear in what it means. It is not a repository of Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. (my emphasis) So once again WP:NOTREPOSITORY is NOT an argument against including video files. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As read there, my position is consistent with that section of policy, although I was actually talking about the fact that we are not a repository, by choice and purpose, not because we don't have the technology (as you appear to claim). That your statements continue not to recognize rule of reason and common sense, makes your arguments appear to be fanatical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that is by choice and purpose, but you misunderstand the policy. Once again WP:NOTREPOSITORY refers to adding media with no accompanying text, not having media as a part of an article. That policy is simply not applicable here. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no misunderstanding, as you agree Wikipedia is not a repository by choice and purpose than there is no misunderstanding, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, then you agree that WP:NOTREPOSITORY is irrelevant to this RfC, and not an argument against embedding films. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What? No. Don't pretend to put words in my mouth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

They you have a misunderstanding. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

NOTREPOSITORY does not apply here because NOTREPOSITORY #4 explicitly states it does not apply to a video with surrounding text, and you know damn well that trying to shove videos under #3 was explicitly and overwhelmingly declared invalid in the policy page RFC. It's time to DROPTHE(repository)STICK. And if you don't, I suggest that OpenFuture resit replying any further. You can stand over this dead-carcass playing with your stick alone. Extending this mess beyond 36 replies is pointless. NOTREPOSITORY means Wikipedia does not serve as host for stand-alone content or galleries. It is blatantly invalid to claim NOTREPOSITORY removes relevant supporting images and media from articles. *IF* the closer is even still reading this crap then they have made up their mind by now. Alsee (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, you are joining the bludgeoning of my comment section. The strength of my arguments appears to call down such foolish, wrong, and endless comments, such as now, bizarrely, damnation - it's really not a matter to damn anything about. As for NOTREPOSITORY, for those who are citing to it in their arguments that appears to be done in accord with the fact that "adherence" to policy requires honoring the principle of the policy, and the principle of that subsection of NOT policy is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a digital library (that is the linked phrase, there). It's perfectly fine for them to elaborate on that principle. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A, but preferably select on a case by case basis I think that whether or not a film should be included depends heavily on context. If its a very brief film, like the 12 second Newark Athlete, it should absolutely be included. A number of articles include videos that are several minutes long to improve context, and it would be silly not to include a 12 second clip when the clip is the subject of the article. In this regard, including a very brief film would not be fundamentally different from including a picture of a painting in that painting's article. However, if the film is two hours or more, it should obviously not be included. Where we draw the line about excessive length and other content should be decided on the individual Wikipedia article talk pages based on the merits of showing or not showing the film rather than with a sweeping blanket ruling. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Spirit of Eagle:We are not that far apart you and I, although it seems advice or a guideline is precisely what is needed to get the discussions going that you talk about, and to get the curation that I talk about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly B because (A) Wikipedia is not a repository of media, and (B) since it is obviously impossible to contain in a Wikipedia entry the full body of every work that happens to be in the public domain, uniformity across articles should be sought. Note that uniformity is evidently an objective in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the files reside on WP:COMMONS so Wikipedia is not the repository. I'm not sure why it would be impossible to include all works, if they are available, which is uniform enough. Can you expand on that? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The above ~~!vote~~argument is invalid. An RFC on NOTREPOSITORY policy overwhelmingly rejected that interpretation of policy as invalid. #4 of NOTREPOSITORY explicitly excludes media being used in an article to support that article, and it was never possible for #3 to mean anything except source texts - Wikisource only accepts text. Alsee (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's not your place to call !votes valid or invalid. Let everyone say their piece. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The present RfC would be redundant if we have admin-decided consensus in Wikipedia about media in general. (For the record, I was not called to participate in that RfC although I was recently involved in a couple of arguments on the core issue. Naturally, I abide by the decision.) Therefore, either this RfC needs to be closed down before a decision is reached, or someone (probably the initiator) should specify/clarify where exactly the differences with this RfC and the RfC on "media" may lie. -The Gnome (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Option A in general, but B for explicit material. There's no encyclopedic interest in thrusting porn in people's faces. C, however, would be a WP:NOT#CENSORED problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So relevant content does belong in the article unless you consider it "too explicit" for your taste, then it should be removed from the article and hidden behind an external link. You flatly contradict established policy, and even cite that policy while you do it. Alsee (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Option A or Option B. If something notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, whether a film, photograph, TV program, MIDI file, sound recording, flag, poem, book, score, painting, or other creative work is in Commons because it has been released by the copyright holder, or because it has fallen into public domain, then the reader should absolutely be able to access it by simple and direct means, preferably one click either by launching a player or display means embedded in the article, or by clicking on an external link which brings up some library such as the Library of Congress, Gutenberg, Commons, or the Internet Archive. I don't care which of these is the means of accessing the work. Wikipedia is absolutely not censored. One of the promises of the "information highway" in the 1990s was that we would be able to enjoy every recording, book, or film ever created, right here, right now. This discussion applies to those creative works which are notable and in public domain or with some sort of Creative Commons license. So let's do it. (By the way, how would one find a listing of full-length films available at Commons? Responses at my talk page, please). Edison (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Certain people I could name may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to every post bloats the discussion and makes it less likely that anyone would want to actually read through the lot to determine what, if any, consensus has emerged. I think you've been heard loud & clear; if the !votes you're responding to are as self-evidently flimsy as you claim, the closer & other readers will be able to conclude that on their own. They don't really need help or to be told what to think. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
A, Oppose B, and Strong Oppose C - Throwing readers to a sister project is likely to frustrate and confuse them, and is seemingly unnecessary as the file doesn't preload unless clicked per above. If they were hosted locally I wouldn't care as much, though I still don't see a reason to dis-include them from articles. We have pictures and audio files already, I see no problem if the media moves and has sound. WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies to "photographs or media files with no accompanying text"; if videos are in an article, they are surrounded by text and likely have a caption.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Cautious B, with the understanding that embedding a short excerpt is fine even if the whole film is linked. The average reader who comes on a page to have an encyclopedic overview of a subject, in that case a film, does not generally need to have the whole thing in the article. However, excerpts may be required; for instance, Modern Times (film) is 90 min long but a 30-s excerpt of the famous assembly line scene could be accompanied by some discussion. Also, if the whole video is relevant, then full inclusion is warranted.

Compare with the treatment for books: we usually pull a few excerpts in the main body to discuss them and link to full-texts. Now, it is more practical to include a film than a full book, but none would contend (I hope) that putting the full-text in a collapsible box would bring value to articles such as Frankenstein. Tigraan (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Option A as a flat out mark that only makes sense. This is just as silly of a RfC as I've ever seen, and really an attempt to rewrite WP:CENSOR. If you don't like that pretty foundational policy on Wikipedia.... do it there and not here. The only reason this is an issue is strictly the sexual content and not the fact it is full length, like what is found on The Beverly Hillbillies where an entire episode (which is in public domain and on Wikimedia Commons) can be viewed. Frankly I think the location of that embedded file on the Beverly Hillbillies could use better placement, but that is an editorial decision.... just like the other embedded video content found on the controversial pages. The guiding policy that people placing these embedded videos on page should be WP:UNDUE so far as a tasteful location for the embedded media could be found on the page, as I don't think it necessarily needs to be in the lede.... but that is an editorial decision on the page itself. Don't make this into an issue of content censorship.... which is what it looks like it has become. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I fundamentally misunderstood the proposal, or I overlooked a trench war involving the OP, but it seems to me that the content of the video itself is irrelevant. The question is whether, when a video is the subject of a standalone article and a full-length file is (technically and legally) available on Commons, editors should by default embed, link or not the file. Tigraan (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not misunderstand the proposal, and it makes no sense (or is silly) to claim that "B" (a link) is censorship. And it is precisely policies like undue which under-gird the many editors above who are for a focused (eg., clip or short) use within encyclopedic context. Also, we do not make every guideline or advice into a policy, so this need not be, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

On first glance it does indeed seem silly to claim it's censorship. However, this discussion only came up because several editors wanted to remove the videos from articles such as A Free Ride etc, because they are pornographic movies. So the origin of this discussion, the only reason we have this discussion in the first place, is because those who wanted to remove only pornographic movies encountered WP:NOTCENSORED and therefore in their dogmatism started arguing for removing ALL embedded videos of public domain films. Yes, that makes no sense and is silly, you are completely correct, but that's how this started. So the claim that B is censorship is in fact not as wrong as you might think. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The people initiating this discussion are trying to use this to justify and rationalize their editorial censorship, which is why I am bringing that issue up. It is censoring Wikipedia as the only reason for removing the video content, as the technical reasons (aka lack of hard drive space or managing megabytes of content) is utterly ridiculous. I don't see them really trying to argue for the removal of the full-length episode of The Beverly Hillbillies, as that would really be an absurd argument as well. If an editor wants to tastefully place an embedded player version of the movie for somebody who really desires to watch that movie into the middle of the article, there are zero practical or technical reasons to prevent that from happening as a matter of policy. Option "B" to shove the video content elsewhere is just like people complaining about the placement of images of the Mormon Temple Garment on the Undergarment page. That option was considered in the talk page of the Undergarment article until I finally made a tasteful edit that seems to have removed most of the objection except for the diehard people who really do want censorship. The same exact rationale and justification can be had in this situation as well, and there is no need for a blanket policy to prohibit full length embedded versions of films on any other article either except for strictly censorship purposes alone. The only reason this doesn't happen more is because of a lack of open source/public domain cinema which would permit full length videos from becoming much more common. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I initiated this RfC and I'm in favor of A. Granted, it may have been a mistake to assume good faith that people would make an effort to separate the basic stylistic question from the content question, but it is nonetheless intended to divorce the two. Please direct your accusations at those actually making that argument. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

B, Link Only - Wikipedia is not a movie-hosting site. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, they are hosted on Wikimedia commons. If you mean to say that it's not a site where there are videos in the articles I think you will find that Wikipedia does that quite a lot and is unlikely to change in that regard. Just FYI. The question here is specifically about full-length public domain videos only. Wikipedia will (through commons) continue to host videos no matter the result of this RfC. So if you argument is only about full-length public domain movies, it's unclear exactly what you argument against embedding is. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia. AIRcorn (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A There's a lot of thing wrong with this proposal. What you see as a embedded full-length video is just a thumbnail. Only when you click the thumbnail, does it start buffering and downloading the video. Since, you already preload images, it's essentially the same thing. Also, I don't see why videos cannot be useful, ofc they are, they speak more than a few words can show anymore and give more interaction and visual help. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A - with no reservations fredgandt 17:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A - this sounds like the logical user interface to use, which would be expected by readers. "B" doesn't make any sense to me, as Commons isn't an external link - it's a Wikimedia sister project. Or "D" - decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

B'ish Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Our goal is to get visitors to read an article about a topic and inform them of the salient aspects of the topic. Our goal at Wikipedia is not to publish full-length media. That's the goal of some sister projects. Embedding the video is sort of like asking the readers to do primary research as part of reading the topic, which is not the goal of an encyclopaedia. We summarize the results of research; we don't present the full data or the full analysis or ask the readers to do a full analysis themselves (which is watch watching a full-length video usually is). I say "B'ish" because I don't know (or really care) where the link to the actual video is. I suppose if I had to guess, I'd use a right-floating template box (like {{External media}} or a new custom one) that informs the readers there's a full video available on Commons. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
B in almost all cases. I'm not sure I can imagine a case right now where we'd want a "full length" video on an article, but it is entirely possible that a reasonable use case could arise, or I'm not accurately classifying current use cases as reasonable. ;) Protonk (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A Trip to the Moon - I rest my case. :-) Granted, having both a black and white and a colored print seems unnecessary. I see absolutely no reason to not include the whole film. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha, OpenFuture, that's a really good example. :) I'd still prefer links rather than embedding for most cases; even w/ that example there's only so much encyclopedic usefulness from having the full film inline. However, that's not the strongest position to argue from. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A: we should use all forms of media possible with current technology—some scientific concepts are best explained with a diagram; showing a film, where it's free and available, on a page about the film is also illustrative and helpful in a way words are not. As a reader, I am far more likely to watch a video if I'm going to watch it on the page I am on right now and not on some strange unknown website called "Commons". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A: I see no problem with a full video provided it is not a copyright violation. As for the censorship, I echo those who are using WP:NOTCENSORED as an argument. As per WP:RISK, and WP:DISC we have policies that make it clear that Wikipedia has this kind of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
B as the baseline: Including an embedded version of a movie, film, or something else of significant length is not encyclopedic. It is file-sharing. We are not Netflix. We are not Youtube. We are an encyclopedia. Along the lines of WP:Summary style, we should be summarizing what occurs in a video, not hosting the entire thing. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Of course, there may be some situations where embedding is encyclopedic, but that should be the exception, not the rule. ~ Rob^Talk 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Just to clarify, it would actually take fewer clicks, I think (if not the same number), to download the video if it's not embedded. We host these videos and have them available for download via the Commons page regardless of the outcome of this RfC, and if we link to the Commons page directly rather than embed it, it's more directly available for download. In other words, whether to host them isn't part of this RfC -- it's already well established the Commons does so and nobody is proposing Wikipedia host anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Whether embedding them means we're technically hosting them (it doesn't, to be fair) is besides the point. My point is that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to directly embed content that is not encyclopedic. When I say "host", you can consider it to mean "present directly to our readers as part of an article". Whether it's embedded from another site or hosted by us is not really important. ~ Rob^Talk 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    - But that just raises the question of why this would not be encyclopedic. As others have mentioned, with paintings we include the whole painting. With music we include the whole song. Why not videos? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
      - It has to do with length. If a song were 20 minutes long, I would similarly oppose embedding. On the other hand, I would support embedding a notable thirty-second commercial (assuming it's public domain or otherwise not a copyright issue). This is for the same reason why we wouldn't include the full text of a public domain book in an article, but instead quote some relevant passages if they're encyclopedic. We would, however, link to the public domain book in the external links if available. ~ Rob^Talk 19:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
        If there was a way to embed books in the same pop-up way as videos we could very well have embedded them. But we don't include them today, because we would have had to include them in the main article space, which of course makes no sense. That would make several browsers extremely slow, take a long time to open the page and you would have to scroll down for minutes to get to the end of the article. So the reasons we don't include the whole book are purely because of technical limitations. So, no, we don't embed books because of their length. But if you don't want to include long videos, then what length is too long, why and how come that makes it "unencyclopedic"?--OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Highlights fragment starting at 55 seconds, ending at 1:10 for playback
Didn't know about this RFC until recently... I note that people are leaving out a very important option. It is possible to use the start and end parameters to include a fragment of a video into the page. This allows for encyclopedic commentary and highlighting of a section, while still including the entire file. (The option doesn't work on Safari and old IE, because those browsers don't have fully working html5 video support yet, but that is something that Brion Vibber is working on). These start and end options are admittedly badly documented :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

TheDJ You are right - this is an important option that could change the conversation. I did not know this existed. The video you provided is long, but you configured options to make it play for only 15 seconds. Some people said that they wanted Wikipedia articles to only have clips, and I expect that in almost every case hosting a whole video but only playing part is better than expecting people to upload multiple files only showing certain clips.

To the people who only wanted parts of videos shown, how do you feel about this tool? The entire video is hosted, but in Wikipedia, a clip is curated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearing up misconceptions about embedding of files

This is what I have understood from previous discussions, I believe it to be correct, but I haven't been able to find any documentation other than this (which isn't very useful). Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of these points.

the embedded files are mostly stored on Commons (just like images)
embedded files do not increase the size of pages (at least no more than including an image)
embedded media (audio or video) don't play automatically (the reader has to start them playing by clicking on them)

If a reader starts the media playing, then obviously they will be using whatever bandwidth is required to stream that file. Unless they do that it is just a placeholder image. Since editors can specify start and end times for files, this is how "clips" of specific scenes or musical passages can be embedded in articles without having to make new files containing just the "clip". In thsi case, only the bandwidth required for streaming that portion of the file would be used. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure video doesn't preload. That's been one of my long-standing arguments for completely removing gif animations from articles wherever possible (that and video codecs can usually compress the same animation frames far better). Now, I do think the video player buffers while playing, which might account for why some editors are experiencing "instant playback" when clicking on a media file. It works the same as a YouTube embed, meaning it doesn't start loading until you hit play. I think this proposal might do with some improved crafting. No opinion on the merits of the proposal at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The buffering while playing is obvious. You can see the little grey bar go across as it loads, much faster than your current position within the grey bar. (Now if only you could save the thing without having to re-download the whole film from scratch! What is to blame for that??) Wnt (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Crucial distinction about how policy is made, qualified, and altered on Wikipedia

Alsee is thoroughly, unambiguously correct in pointing out that this RfC is going to have absolutely no influence on actual Wikipedia policy or process, being conducted here. This is a talk page for an essay folks. In order for this discussion to have community support (and I absolutely do think it is a policy matter worth discussing and one I have opinions on), it needs to be held in a central community discussion space (e.g. WP:VPP as suggested above, or maybe WP:CD) or else at least on the talk page for a relevant policy and then publicized in those central spaces. That way the discussion is handled in a properly transparent manner that affords the wider community to comment on policies that will effect massive numbers of articles. Information pages are meant to summarize policies and guidelines, not supplant them; to try to change the wording of this page to suggest that those guidleines say something they don't (rather than going to those policy pages and affecting the change through normal community processes) would be an attempt to do an end-run (intentional or mistaken) around the broader community's established consensus--and that would be inappropriate, bordering on WP:Disruptive. I suggest this RfC be moved, part and parcel, to WP:VPP or another appropriate forum. And please do someone let me know when that happens, so I can provide my own substantive opinions on the questions raised! Snow ^{let's rap} 12:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating a new section for your own comment, marking it "crucial", and placing it above everybody else's discussion section seems awfully melodramatic.

I started a thread about this question at WP:VPP and so far nobody has agreed with this position. Well, RGloucester said there was no clear policy on the matter but that important things tend to happen at VPP. Granted, not many people disagreed with it, either, but I would expect that if this were the case that several people would have commented as such. I entered this thinking that if an RfC were on the most relevant projectspace page and saw good participation that it would have a site-wide effect. I've not seen any persuasive argument otherwise.

This is not an essay like a user essay. This is an information page, which while technically a kind of essay, is nonetheless different. As you point out, they're meant to summarize policies and guidelines, not supplant them. But in this case, it's the only guidance for videos that we have. It's not supplanting anything because nothing else addresses this. Thus it's this page that will most likely eventually become a guideline. But more importantly it's the most directly relevant projectspace page to have this discussion. With most essays, there's an obvious policy or guideline on which it's based (i.e. WP:42 is WP:N, WP:BRD points to several like WP:BEBOLD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR, etc.).

Regarding to try to change the wording of this page to suggest that those guidleines say something they don't - nobody is doing this. We have no guidelines on video. Nobody is doing an end-run on anything. This is a basic question on the use of video that will take a step in the direction of working out guidelines that we don't have. It's not to try to modify this page and then say that this is policy; it's to establish consensus on a question that has come up repeatedly and directly concerns the topic that is covered at this page and nowhere else. As I said above, WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which some believe to be the closest thing we have to policy/guidance on video, needs to be modified regardless as its language is outdated, but this is not an attempt to change that. If I wanted to propose a change to that policy, I would have done so directly.

The RfC was listed at central discussion and mentioned at VPP multiple times now. There's no excuse for someone not to see it if they're checking that venue, and I'll post there again a couple days before this closes for good measure. But yes, it could've also been held at VPP. For the record, I'd be fine with moving the discussion there, but I don't think that starting over is appropriate, even if my own position differs from that which has a slight majority at this point. And I'd prefer that move, if it happens, not be unilateral or hasty (you're the first person to talk about "moving" in the sense of moving all the comments, too, I think -- others suggested closing/withdrawing).

TL;DR - We have no guideline on video. This is the most relevant page for video. This RfC is to establish consensus on the question it asks, not to sidestep policies and guidelines because no policy or guideline covers this topic. It is one of several questions that need to be asked and consensus determined before we can properly develop this page and propose it as a guideline. If an RfC is widely publicized, mentioned multiple times at VPP, listed in centralized discussion, sees good participation, and there's no more relevant guideline where it could be held, I find these claims that it won't have site-wide effect problematic per WP:NOTBURO. Nonetheless, if people think moving it is a good idea, I won't object. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We have numerous guidelines on video content. But even if we didn't, it would still not be appropriate to try to make policy via the talk page of an essay, information page or not. Indeed, it is arguably more problematic to do so on an info page than a normal essay precisely because information pages are meant to summarize actual policies and guidelines not create language that implies they have wording that was not put in those pages by community consensus; that would create a shortcircuit in the basic structures by which we formalize and then present community consensus on policy. That's not a WP:BURO nitpick, that's a major predicate of basic procedure for changing our community standards. But in any event, rather than debating the points we disagree about, let's focus on what we seemingly can agree on, which is that it won't hurt (and can probably only help) this proposals chances of becoming useful (whatever the outcome) if we move it to the right location. Does WP:VPP strike you as the right forum, or is there a guideline talk page that you think would be more appropriate? Snow ^{let's rap} 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving this entire discussion (there are templates for move, if that is done - and all participants heretofore should be informed) - and by-the-by, this discussion has been listed at CD and at VPP to draw attention. As an aside, I tend to disagree that all "changes" must come top-down, instead of bottom-up, stating with an essay - starting with the essay has been a standard practice for promoting changes into guidelines and policies. But as a matter of comity, if someone feels really strongly about moving this, fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We have numerous guidelines on video content Where? What policy or guideline addresses video content directly such that we could find answers to questions like this one without trying to parse policies intended for text or images? try to make policy via the talk page of an essay nobody is doing this, except as subjectively defined. That's not a WP:BURO nitpick Still disagreed. The premise of the argument you're presenting is that it doesn't matter if the same number of people see it, if the same number of people participate, or if there's no more appropriate policy/guideline to serve as venue -- all that matters is that it's absolutely crucially urgent that the exact same thread must exist elsewhere, even if it makes no practical difference to the discussion. So, yes, I still say WP:BURO. it won't hurt (and can probably only help) Help only in that a very vocal minority will not have cause to challenge the consensus of a well attended discussion due to the fact of venue alone, and hurt only insofar as this is an unfortunate distraction from the actual matter at hand (and that's why I won't object to moving it). I know you and Alsee don't intend it as a distraction, by the way, and I know you don't intend it as a bureaucratic nitpick. I just think that you're seeing bright lines where there is -- and only should be -- gray. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Would the initiator of this discussion please notify the people already involved if the discussion, per Snow Rise's and Alsee's suggestion, is moved elsewhere? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Consensus can form anywhere if the participation is broad and not a highly local, false consensus, and this has been advertised mega-broadly via WP:CENT and WP:VVPOL. That is sufficient. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS usually only applies to editors of a single WikiProject. Here, however, we're seeing quite a variety of individuals with different interests in Wikipedia. It can apply outside of the context of a WikiProject, but only if it is "a limited group of editors, at one place and time". This has been discussed several times in several different places by many different people. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Follow up

@Ricky81682: Thanks for closing. Some comments, mostly in response to the parts of the close regarding "D" and motivations/purpose. To be clear, there was no D at the start. Mendaliv opted for it in his vote, then Yann added it to the top. This would be perfectly fine, except a simply stated "case-by-case decision" is precisely what we have by default, and would effectively render the RfC moot. I saw a number of heated discussions about use of video with people claiming policy/guideline basis for conflicting perspectives, precisely because we've been trying to make "case-by-case decisions" without sufficiently relevant precedent or guidance for those decisions. So I looked through those threads for an underlying, simpler question to address and came to the conclusion that this was a sensible starting point (one of several) for building that precedent and/or getting a guideline started. I thought that if the matter of the content of the film could be divorced from general practice and deferred to a subsequent discussion, then we could get a clearer consensus about a baseline for how to handle these sorts of video issues. In So yes, I removed D as written for the sake of discussing it before introducing an additional option. I suggested that perhaps we could add a D along the lines of "case-by-case" but which would codify more precise wording along those lines so as to have a meaningful outcome. Nobody replied and I didn't follow up. Probably should have. I think that at the time I wanted to avoid complicating things any further, caught up in defending the validity of the venue of this RfC (I'll eat faults in the formulation of the RfC, but I maintain that the whole "centralized discussion and extensive cross postings don't matter; it absolutely has to be at VPP or it won't count for anything" thing was an absurd distraction). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I understand that but the problem is you are going to get a lot of "oppose the whole thing/reject it all" if you don't give that option. As I noted, I think one solution may be to work on what is agreed upon (namely no one supports option C) and put that in place for the MOS. At the very least, as long as Commons has the media, it should be referenced here, even if it is porn or otherwise. I think we should all be happy that is agreed upon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)