Minecraft Wiki talk:Wiki rules/Video policy

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

(untitled)[edit]

I'm just wondering why someone has not yet removed the reference to the Boots of Hermes, as this is not a Terraria Wiki 17:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by TomeWyrm (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2012‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Curse Videos[edit]

  1. Are the Curse tutorial videos (e.g., TNT Video) in compliance with this video policy?
  2. Does the policy need to be changed to accommodate their existence?
  3. Do they really need to be embedded, or could they just be textual links (maybe under See Also)?
  4. Doesn't having an article section devoted to "Video" encourage others to add videos?

See also: Featured videos from the Curse video team

--Munin295 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please update[edit]

Can an admin please update this with Template:YouTube and also Template:CollapsedVideo? It still uses the old EmbedVideo extension template. GoandgooTalk
Contribs
Edit count
08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I just saw that the Template:YouTube is there at the bottom, but the other old style of embedding videos should be removed from the page. GoandgooTalk
Contribs
Edit count
08:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The parser functions are still directly used for other video services. (Although only YouTube is really ever used.) — Hower64 08:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Well at least Template:CollapsedVideo should have a mention on the article. GoandgooTalk
Contribs
Edit count
08:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added a note about it at the end of "How to embed videos". — Hower64 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Private[edit]

Please add the following statement:

"Private videos are not allowed in any namespace, including the user namespace."

Private videos are available only to specific users. 108.210.217.116 18:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of limiting private videos in the user namespace, it is equal to saying users cannot have dead links or something similar. As for the main namespace, private videos are removed as useless, so we don't really need to make them ban worthy as well (the user could have easily though it was available for anyone). KnightMiner · (t) 01:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What happens if I find an video that does not work?[edit]

Hello, I found yesterday two broken videos in the tutorial page Tutorials/Animal farming, How do I with the video (s) if they does not work? Can the video be removed, replaced with a working or add notice template to the article? -- Philip57sundfors TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 09:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Since they're on a tutorial page, I would suggest immediate removal unless you happen to have a suitable replacement video(s) on-hand. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove "Curse Videos" section[edit]

Should this section be removed? No pages have these videos, and the wording makes sure there won't be any: "the most recent version of Minecraft". Also, "to help achieve certain business goals" (ew). More importantly, our overlords are now Wikia, so this policy doesn't seem relevant anymore. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 04:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Reworking this policy[edit]

The current policy is old and doesn't work with both what the wiki is currently doing and has plans to do. Here's my rough proposal:

1. In-content "videos" should be limited to gifs used to showcase content if needed. Full videos should go into a video subsection.

2. The video subsection should be limited to series' of videos decided on by the community or videos that are used as references in the articles. (Maybe not that last bit, not sure)

Problems with the current policies include excluding the very helpful snapshot videos made by SlicedLime. We've decided to include these on snapshot pages, yet they go against this guideline. He has said multiple times, as well in his video descriptions, that his videos are not official. Secondly, the Curse policy is weird, outdated, and kinda slimy. As Nixinova said in the above topic, Curse isn't in charge of the wiki anymore and the "to help achieve certain business goals" seems gross. Third, the community has decided to re-make the MC Spotlights videos to be up to date. These wouldn't be allowed under the current guidelines.

I propose a total rewrite of this page. I don't really have the authority or experience to create a detailed draft, but I think those two points should be the main ideas/rules. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed a bit on Discord, but I support the current draft at User:PancakeIdentity/Video policy. The main differences are removing the Curse exception (per above), allowing videos from the video project and other community approved series (currently only slicedlime's update videos), and restricting videos not in the "video" section to GIFs/APNGs and short videos uploaded to the wiki itself. Wondering if other people have more opinions on this. –Sonicwave talk 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I honestly think we can go ahead with it. Support seemed strong on discord, this topic has been up for 4 months with no responses, and the current video policy barely makes sense for the current state of the wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I wouldn't normally rewrite a policy page based on a discussion that's only received participation from two users; however, in this case, all these new policies have pretty much been already implemented for many months now, they just haven't been written out anywhere. In addition, although not inherently a reason to carry out an action, this did receive a lot of support on Discord when it was brought up there. If anybody objected to this, they could have pointed it out in the months this discussion was open, which is why I've gone ahead and implemented this.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 00:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Videos by Mysticat – Should they be allowed on the wiki?[edit]

User:Tgn aeroux has added videos by Mysticat (probably the same person) to many Tutorials pages. I noticed that one of the videos got removed because it was inaccurate. Perhaps we should add a new rule that prohibits editors to add their own external videos without consensus, as adding one's own videos is considered self-promotion. Fadyblok240 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Centering videos - why?[edit]

Why is there a recommendation to center videos in this guideline? It looks really strange, when everything else in an article is left justified, to see a video centered on the page. Especially on wide displays, it looks strange. Even more so when the video is accompanied by explanatory text.

I suggest that this recommendation be removed, or changed to left-justified.

What is the justification for centering it? ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion wanted/needed on self-promotion rule[edit]

I would like a second opinion on the use of the blatant self-promotion rule.

I've posted a tutorial video in the correct section of the page Tutorials/Iron golem farming, but because I'm the creator of the video it is undone because of blatant self-promotion.

TheGreatSpring edited this and so I've posted the question why on his talk page, and I think that he is wrong with applying the rule. - See the article here: https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/User_talk:TheGreatSpring (Article: Revision history of "Tutorials/Iron golem farming")

So I would like a second opinion on this, because as the rule is applied now; if someone else posts my video there it is alright, but because I made it it must be removed.

The wiki relies on contributions from people in text, image and video form. So either the rule is applied incorrect here or the rule needs to be explained further on what exactly is self-promotion. Could you take a look at this? The RAH (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition: Dhranios agreed with me on the matter and he put it pretty much correctly: Videos that are more targeted towards "Hey, subscribe to me, leave likes and make sure to watch my other videos" are another matter. (i.e. subject to the self promotion rule)
Perhaps we can incorporate that line (or something like it) into the policy for more clarity on self promotion so we can prevent this in the future? The RAH (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Also see my self-revert. I'm sometimes lazy TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support specifying the rules. That rule was made to prevent self-promotion, but if your videos just want to improve the page, or you just say the thypical "remember to subscribe to me" and the end of the video, then I don't see any problem with videos like these being on the wiki. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Changed to  Support but only for more specifications. Per comments below I now  Oppose that a person add their own videos to this wiki. These should be discussed on tutorial talk pages first of you believe your videos can help the tutorial to be easier to understand. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree.
If someone else posts your video, then yes it is all right. It is not OK if you do it. Because you stand to gain financially from the existence of your video in an article, then you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, you aren't qualified to judge whether it should be included.
If you want to include a link to your own video. Propose it on the talk page and let others decide whether it's appropriate. This is the standard practice on the English Wikipedia, and it should be the standard here also.
Far too many videos are there simply to attract likes and subscribers. This has to stop. Ideally, a tutorial should show a minimal number of carefully curated videos to illustrate a concept. Amatulic (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose allowing people to add their own videos.  Support clarifying the rule to prohibit conflict-of-interest editing. Your own video should be proposed on the talk page to let others decide. Amatulic (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment If someone successfully adds a link to their own video without it being reverted, that cannot be regarded as evidence that the practice is allowed. It is instead evidence that the link should be removed. It's like the law: If somebody got away with murder, that does not justify additional murders. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Weak Oppose Although I think that some clarification might not be a bad idea, I believe trying to be more precise about what's allowed or forbidden tends to encourage arguing about each individual case, because people can always subdivide categories to put their situation into a category of its own that isn't explicitly forbidden. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: My opinion is that all videos not covered in the video policy should be discussed on the talk page before being added, whether by the channel owner or someone else (which would not be obvious should they use dissimilar account names). That allows us to mediate the quality of the videos without defining some arbitrary criteria here. If a well known channel pops up frequently, we could discuss for it to be added to the "Community-approved series" here, though that may lead to people arguing for their own channels to be added.
I would also support clarifying how tutorial pages differ from regular articles (if at all), since that's currently not clear. –Sonicwave talk 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: About tutorials, I probably should link this discussion for a similar topic. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I second Sonicwave's suggestion. All videos added to tutorial pages should be proposed on the talk page first. A lot of tutorials here are simply collections of videos, as if the page is nothing more than a YouTube directory. There's no curation taking place. I can search YouTube for videos myself without them being listed on a tutorial page. Amatulic (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support: I also support Sonicwave's suggestion. I do not totally agree with the "financial gain" remark from Amatulic though, as that won't be the case for all who post (as it isn't mine in this case), but there is no way of telling if someone stand to gain from it or not. In any case; overall it would be better to let other people judge if your video should be on the tutorial page or not.
Yesterday Eggfur posted such a request on the talk page and that should be the way forward in my opinion. In his question he also puts arguments about the other video's forward, and although I'm not happy with what he states about my video, the dialogue is good and filters out unwanted video's. The RAH (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 Addition: After it is decided what the rule will be (whatever way it goes) it will be changed on the Video Policy page. I want to suggest that the rule and explanation should be a separate subheader (Something like: Video's in Tutorials) under Embedded video's for maximum clarification. The whole reason why this thing started is that after reading the rules, it was not clear that it was not allowed and that it should have been requested to place the video on the page. The RAH (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)