Forum:Are videos now banned from articles?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Are videos now banned from articles?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5771 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Why is it that Ron Paul has videos removed from it, but Hillary Clinton, Mario, Glenn Beck, etc are allowed to have videos in them? Did I miss something, because Jocke Pirat, one of my fellow pirates, started to remove videos from Ron Paul citing that videos are not allowed in articles. Since when did that rule take place? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I think they make articles a bit ugly and stuff, but sometimes they're very funny and have to be put in. And videos are allowed as far as I know (well that's not the most extensive of knowledge) - 20:30 19 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTE
- Yeah. I've used video a grand total of two times. I generally say that I used it "two onces". That makes it sound like a bigger, more important number. Like seven. Damn you and your big and importantness, seven! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you ask him on his talkpage? Oh, you did. Why are you here then? You know that simultaneously posting on similar subjects in two places is like crossing the streams from Ghostbusters, right? That would be very bad. Of course, I've never seen the end of the film. I assume that the not-stream crossing rule continued to the end. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah....worst ending for a film ever. But its always better to be safe. -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
“Gozer the Traveller - he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants, they chose a new form for him - that of a giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you!”
- I change the channel after Rick Moranis' speech in the lab. I figure; the film can't possibly get better than that. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- This time Gozer came in the form of Ron Paul and I had to cross the streams to close out the portal. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah....worst ending for a film ever. But its always better to be safe. -- Sir Mhaille
- Sorry I just wanted to know if I had violated any official rule by placing the video into an article. I wanted to know if anyone knew of any rule that says no videos in the articles. I am working it out with Jocke in my talk page. He says it throws off the feung shey, so maybe it would be better as a link back to the youtube web site instead of an embedded youtube tag/frame. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you just said "official rule". Welcome to Uncyclopedia. Either the video fits, or it doesn't. Most of the time, they don't. This is Uncyclopedia, not Youtube. It might help to think of their videos like our templates; most of the time, the page is no better for them and, therefore, better off without them. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er... videos are rather ugly on an article and don't look professional - externally linking to it is fine unless it seriously adds to the article (ie. the article would be shit without it). --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- i agree...i don't know what this forum is about but still--jrads-uncyclopedia guy... 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er... videos are rather ugly on an article and don't look professional - externally linking to it is fine unless it seriously adds to the article (ie. the article would be shit without it). --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
- Dude, you just said "official rule". Welcome to Uncyclopedia. Either the video fits, or it doesn't. Most of the time, they don't. This is Uncyclopedia, not Youtube. It might help to think of their videos like our templates; most of the time, the page is no better for them and, therefore, better off without them. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- What was the video in question, Orion Blastar? ----OEJ 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, it was this video. The only thing that strikes me is, this particular video is a stand-alone work of satire, and not original content created for the article. There are arguments for and against including material like this in an Uncyclopedia article. Just a thought. ----OEJ 00:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- What about having some kind of extension that lets videos be created and edited by the community? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:10, 21 May 2008
- And then we could have it for a week before deciding that we don't want it? That would be awesome. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the video, but it describes a typical Ron Paul supporter that uses strong words (as most Paul supports use), claims Ron Paul is discriminated against and as a result wants to be able to vote multiple times for Ron Paul during an election. Almost all of the things that Ron Paul supporters actually do, minus maybe submitting articles to Digg/Reddit about how there are conspiracies against Ron Paul. There was a section about Ron Paul supporters, and I thought it described them to an almost exact science. But now Jocke agreed to let me make it an HTML link, and flush out a funny description of Ron Paul supporters. No more embedded video. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's probably a good compromise. Some arguments might run: Embedding somebody else's satirical video inside an article is no different from copying somebody else's satirical prose and pasting it into an article. We all know that's wrong. On the other hand, embedding somebody else's video in article in order to satirize it is no different from copying somebody else's image and putting a satirical caption on it. We all do that sometimes. Pick your point of view. ----OEJ 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Door number three! Door number three! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to "fair use" in the copyright act for parodies? I cite the spork clause that our founding fathers put into the original copyright act. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The argument was not meant to refer to copyright wrongness, but to the creative wrongness of plagiarizing somebody else's jokes instead of making your own. We've had instances of people copy-pasting humor articles from other sites, and these are usually huffed. How is putting someone else's video humor into an article different from copy-pasting their humor writing into an article? On the other hand, we commonly do include such material in order to make fun of it, and the sporking of material for purposes of parody is an honorable act. So, as I said, choose your point of view. There are arguments on both sides. ----OEJ
- Ah, "spork". Who says english ain't as classy as it once was? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The argument was not meant to refer to copyright wrongness, but to the creative wrongness of plagiarizing somebody else's jokes instead of making your own. We've had instances of people copy-pasting humor articles from other sites, and these are usually huffed. How is putting someone else's video humor into an article different from copy-pasting their humor writing into an article? On the other hand, we commonly do include such material in order to make fun of it, and the sporking of material for purposes of parody is an honorable act. So, as I said, choose your point of view. There are arguments on both sides. ----OEJ
- Whatever happened to "fair use" in the copyright act for parodies? I cite the spork clause that our founding fathers put into the original copyright act. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Door number three! Door number three! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's probably a good compromise. Some arguments might run: Embedding somebody else's satirical video inside an article is no different from copying somebody else's satirical prose and pasting it into an article. We all know that's wrong. On the other hand, embedding somebody else's video in article in order to satirize it is no different from copying somebody else's image and putting a satirical caption on it. We all do that sometimes. Pick your point of view. ----OEJ 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I been a YouTuber and I follow their Terms of Use. YouTube has been sued by Viacom many times and now the House of Representatives have passed the Pro-IP bill which increases hefty fines for illegal downloads and, if possible, they can seize your home even if you don't own a computer or anything that involves pirating movies, games, and music.--Jtaylor1
02:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)