Forum:Video Policy changes

Battlefield Wiki Forum: Video Policy changes (Archived Thread)

Search the forum

The following is preserved only as an archive. Please do not modify it.
No further edits should be made to this discussion. If you want to continue a discussion, start a new post

Ok, now recently we had an offer of premium video content out to us by the wikia staff. Now, while that discussion went dead quite a while ago, one thing has been certain to me. Our video policy, compared to our image policy, is inadequate. I mean, totally inadequate. There are no guidelines as to what sorts of videos we should be using - commentaries, montages (god forbid...), general gameplay videos, etc.

Now, over the last few weeks and days, Maxwell's been uploading videos of all forms to weapon pages such as AN-94, 870 Combat etc., with the videos sort of conforming to those proposed under the forum idea above (the blame isn't on him though). This highlighted to me just how bad our video guidelines/policies are. In fact, the current entry in the Manual of Style says:

"YouTube videos may be embedded in text, as thumbnails, but may also be placed in video galleries. Due to the size of video galleries, these should only be placed at the end of an article, not within sub-sections.

We also have an official YouTube channel for anyone who wants to submit videos for use on the site without using a personal YouTube account. Any user may submit gameplay videos to be uploaded to the channel. Details of this can be found on Battlefield Wiki:Social Networks."

Now, while this does mention the purpose of the wiki channel, and the use of video galleries, it doesn't mention the style of videos, their content, the length and all the other stuff that we need to consider for videos on the wiki. But, considering we have templates, general article structure, and all the other stuff that makes our wiki look one of the most proffessional and best out there, it seems a shame to have videos cluttering the pages, being duplicated in infoboxes and on the page themselves, and then having all sorts of different styles of videos going about the mainspace, all seemingly OK under the "weapon demonstration" project that has had no wiki-led input for a long time.

So, having raised a pretty similar point on the forum post above, BP and I have decided to draft a new policy on the usage of videos in the mainspace. The current draft can be seen here, but input from other users is needed.

Redirect Heated Pete - 13:30, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Йура

17:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

One thing I was wondering about is what we should do with the current block of videos that have been uploaded recently. Most of them, under the new policy, would be removed from the mainspace, I would guess, but what would we do about the duplicated ones that are on the wiki's channel (e.g. the 870 Combat Vietnam video in the weapon demonstration section). Would we remove them and only have the infobox video there, or would we leave them?

Redirect Heated Pete - 18:26, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say infobox only. Raw gameplay is, so to speak, long and useless, and allowing montages (I know it's discouraged by the policy, but check the whole point of view) is rather more useful as some kind of endorsing of our part to the montage's creator. With that being said, Infobox only for me. Pedro9basket (talk)

18:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Raw gameplay isn't entirely useless; it gives the watcher a feel for how a weapon handles in an actual situation, instead of a closed environment. Йура

18:41, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

One litte issue about the video thumbnail in template/weapon is that the video frame is so small, therefore i tought it was an idea about taking more bigger frame (standard 640*360). And yes i was worried about it if was gonna take up to mutch space, but i found out showing how weapon handles in bigger format may atract more attention.

In short summary what should we do now and beyond ? Maxwell123 19:01, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Rem: montage videos: My idea was that in the meantime we could post videos about the weapon to we can replace it whit own-made video on bf youtube channel. Something is better then nothing right ? Maxwell123 19:19, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Two problems with the "something is better than nothing" plan:

- one, nada has been uploaded to the wiki YT channel is two weeks - i.e. that stopped when all the uploading of other content started, so the replacement part of the plan is flawed.

- two, the gameplay videos that have been uploaded (not from our own channel), especially for Battlefield 3, are usually completely different in style and make-up, not to mention graphics set up and whatnot.

We want to have good content, yeah? But the problem with having something rather than nothing is that we lose the imperative to get stuff uploaded. By keeping the new stuff that we've been adding, even for a short while, subconsciously the guys responsible for making our videos would think "We already have stuff for the (e.g.)AEK-971, let's not bother with making the videos for that", etc.

Redirect Heated Pete - 19:42, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pete: i agree you regarding my previous submitted youtube videos - Those videos i posted is very different in style "We should try to find one ideal way how to demonstrate things" but again i quess its ok have one video embedded in the meantime to we can replace it in future. I try to pick up somewhat ok video from my view.

Currently my Sony Vegas editing software ended so i may find another software. Any recommendations? Maxwell123 19:54, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Final review

OK, so having finished the draft of the policy, I now need people to comment on any changes that could be made to the policy draft, and how we go about implementing the policy. Please let it be noted that it is still a draft and subject to change, it's not like this is going to be implemented literally overnight and instantly.

My proposal for the implementation of the new policy, however, is complicated. We have an awful problem with videos, and considering we're going to be coming under some pressure before October 25th/28th, this NEEDS to be sorted. So, here's my idea on how we implement the policy:

There are two stages to the implementation:
- Review
- Removal/Replacement (main part of the stage)
Considering the main problem we have at the moment is a huge range of videos and no idea on how to use them or deal with them. Some may say I'm being heavy-handed with this, but we need to get our act together with this one.
The Review stage of the implementation is where we look at the current videos we have and decide on what course of action we take. The Weapon Demonstration Project here is not exempt - in fact it seems to be the main culprit, allowing videos of any format to be uploaded and deemed "fine".
- While some may say that all videos are needed, that is not the case. Our overall goal with videos is to be able to upload our own videos, instead of having to use other's videos, and keeping videos on the mainspace reduces the drive to get our own videos done.
The Removal/Replacement stage is self-explanatory - we remove the videos that we highlight in the Review stage, and then replace any videos that we keep (or delete) with Wiki/Wiki-user-made videos.

Now, this isn't me trying to pull off a huge revolution against or mass homocide of videos - this is a simple policy change, accompanied by a lengthy implementation process, that is needed. Like having-a-roof-on-your-house neeeded... _{(see, random examples do work!)}

Redirect Heated Pete - 21:55, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

k Йура 22:08, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the whole having to apply to use your own videos, but otherwise I think it covers all the bases it needs to. - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 22:16, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

It was part of an idea (by myself) to stop people from randomly uploading videos to the mainspace. I think I remember SSD having to enforce a similar rule last year, hence the reason why I thought it would be a good idea.

Redirect Heated Pete - 06:50, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think Pete is meaning, we need to be more "conscious" about "Which video style" we should be heading towards to post in the mainspace, for exsample there is many different styles, maybe we should try to find one "Ideal" demonstration style - Just my toughts ~ Feedback ? Maxwell123 08:08, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

So what about videos of, say, trailers. They're not on our channel, so would we embed them from an official channel? I presume that would be allowed? - Bondpedia (Contact) [

] 13:42, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Good shout. I think trailers that we put up should either be from the eavision or the Battlefield YouTube channels. I'll make amendments to the draft for that.

Redirect Heated Pete - 14:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

About space use in sub-sections: there is positive negative sides about that.

Postive:

Often people dont go down to the video gallery's, they play the demonstration video because it give them an fast clearview about how the gun perform in-game.

Video gallerys' dont use that big frame, because it's small video frame some people may go to youtube to see it.

Negative:

As mentioned, it take up some huge space, well it isn't mean to be tranformed to an semi-youtube website.

Other then that i can't see more downsides about it

Maxwell123 08:14, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

See, that's the problem I have with that though, Maxwell. We are a wiki, not YouTube. I feel that if people really want to see how a weapon works, they should be able to use the video in the infobox rather than have one in the middle of the page. As long as they can maximize it, there shouldn't be much of a problem with that. I thought that was the reason we added the video section to the infobox in the first place. :/

Anyways, this new video policy seems very comprehensive, Pete. The way you plan to implement it would certainly take time, but it can be done. Were I not in college right now, I'd be able to help out immensely, but I've found my free time lacking in the past few weeks with midterms coming up next week. However, I can still help with the reviewing process regardless.

Presi dent Eden78

18:29, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Someone who shares my views on the Demonstration section. It also breaks up the page horribly, especially when there is little text in the subsections. It is annoying that we are seeming to lose many of our best editors to blogs/education, but at least next week's the last one before half term. Then I'll get started on the process. (in suitably US accent) Make dates gentlemen... </accent>

Redirect Heated Pete - 20:49, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Which accent? Йура

22:30, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Generic. Like the generic British accent is "slightly upper-class" when barely anyone speaks like that...

Redirect Heated Pete - 14:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

I can try and help you with all replacing things, if you want. User:Sactage/s.js 01:33, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Everyone take an look over the M16 page, this page may reveal the problem in an huge way. Well on that page i agree about it messes up the overall experience view a lot because there is an 640*360 frame nearby in every sub-sections.

So guys we should be using the space in the weapon/infobox instead so can readers choose if they want go to youtube to see an bigger video frame !? my recent idea.

Question about the Weapon Demonstration project. . How will the future be about this project ? --Maxwell123 06:16, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

The weapon demonstration project will continue, the videos used will just have to be refined in both their content and their positioning.

Redirect Heated Pete - 14:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

So I think Pete's saying the weapon demonstration videos should be moved to the infobox? If so, I think I can agree with that. - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 13:41, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

In short, yes. But really the videos we move there should be our own videos. Which means we need to get those done and rolling out quickly.

Redirect Heated Pete - 14:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

I do like the policy draft, and I do agree with the plan of the videos of the weapon demonstrations being the ones on the infobox. I honestly find it better than that commentary on the infobox of the USAS-12, and I don't find raw gameplay pretty necessary for a encyclopedic website, it can be searched basically everywhere, even on Don't Revive Me Bro. Weapon Demonstrations and official trailers however, is what we should only show up in my opinion, as long as we have them copyrighted to the Wiki's or EAvision's YouTube channel. For now other than that I'm against it, again I find the rest not very useful --Pedro9basket (talk)

17:03, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in with the opinion of a new editor. The draft is all right, but that's not what I want to talk about. I've visited the TF2 wiki a couple of times, and I liked how they did weapon reviews. They set up some protocols on how to do it (ie. Show weapon in loadout screen long enough to read description), then they posted the things that are still up for grabs and let people volunteer for the things they wanted to do. While a certain amount of control would have to be exerted over those doing it just so that a troll doesn't screw everything up, I like the concept. --Th3 razor 17:27, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I think, and this is just my opinion, that if we were to implement something like this it should follow something similar to my own current layout: weapon name, a small amount of IRL info, and then the weapon and stats in action. BF42 and BFV don't have a weapon description (and BF2's are very incomplete, seeing how only unlockable weapons are shown), though the later games could use one. Йура

17:45, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Yuri's vids are very well done and are simple yet effective. The gameplay clips afterwards aren't "montagey", and show the gun in most combat situations - prone firing, standing firing, etc...

Redirect Heated Pete - 17:28, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am officially declaring a start to the first stage of the policy roll-out - the review of videos. This will take place over the course of the next few days, starting with BC2 sections and proceeding to BF1942 (if possible). BF3 will also be done as well, but will take a lower priority, as many of those sections will change dramatically over the next few days.

Videos will have notes placed outside the infobox detailing their suitability, per the policy, and all weapon demonstration videos will be removed from outside the infobox, with the videos being placed inside the infobox unless already done. I'll try to mark as many with minor edits to save recent changes and emails from going mental, but the job will be done.

Redirect Heated Pete - 14:15, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Alright - during the test period, i can agree that they take up to mutch space, it feels like it kinda mess up the page. lets keep an demonstration video in the infobox/weapon its ok. --Maxwell123 17:16, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Approve before bf3 release?

When BF3 comes out, then we can probably expect more incoming traffic. I'm sure the statistics will gradually increase after the release date. --Maxwell123 17:23, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

"The graph is aleready beginning its path to an higt peak" - from average 7,4k unique visitors is now changed to an 11,8k.

Quantcast

http://www.quantcast.com/battlefield.wikia.com Maxwell123 17:32, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

So what is right procedure about the current videos in sub-section, was the idea to remove them and keep the video in template/infobox - some pages feels somewhat transfeared to semi-youtube page. --Maxwell123 17:40, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

We remove any videos in the main section that are also in the infobox, and then add comment tags to the review. Take a look at coding for M416 or AUG - that's the overall idea for the procedure of the review. If there are videos that are different in infobox and the main area, then we select the better one, place it in the infobox, and then review that one.

Redirect Heated Pete - 17:46, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Could you create an sandbox exsample so i can see it in action. --Maxwell123 17:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Just give us a bit (for real world reasons) and I'll get back to you.

Redirect Heated Pete - 18:10, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Too strict and poorly timed. Few newcomers will want to stick around when you flash unnecessary policies like these in their faces. - Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 21:23, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

It's a case of do we have it too strict, in this case, or do we make it so that we continue to let any random video be uploaded and throw out BF:MOS in the process, as was our pre-BF:VIDEO policy outlook. We made the decision, and it was simply unfortunate that we had to do it now. Better to cut out the initial tumour when the patient is weak than to cut out the resultant cancers when the patient is stronger.

I have no idea why I came up with that but it seems to do the trick...

Redirect Heated Pete - 21:45, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

What tumor? You seem to be finding problems that don't exist. I have unsuccessfully tried to dissuade the community here from adding unneeded bureaucracy to processes that are supposed to be simple. - Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:59, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

It's called an analogy. I use them commonly. And the "unneeded bureaucracy" simply stops us from making a mess of things. I would use another analogy here but they don't seem to be working these days

Redirect Heated Pete - 18:24, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of your metaphor, but it's unclear what you think is so cancerous.

As for bureaucracy, too many rules doesn't serve to help anything. It seems what is trying to be codified here is a process that is incredibly simple on other wikis. The Battlefield Wiki is an encyclopedia; it should be fairly obvious what videos are encyclopedic and which are not. Drafting a lengthy and superfluous policy when there are tens of thousands of new readers trying to decipher pages like this demonstrates a lack of priorities, if anything. - Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:22, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Video styles

I quess the main task is done - removing the demonstration section frame (640*360px).

What I want to take up now is - what types of non BF Wiki Youtube video's styles should we lead towards ?

The problem is following: currently our YT channel covers an limited weapons/sounds of all totals in the battlefield franchise, in fact it is gonna take huge time to record/upload all those things we dont have at the moment. - temporary why not use other videos and past them in gallery/infobox if it is somewhat made up in an good way - waiting for response. --Maxwell123 16:29, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank Sactage and bot-boy for the removal of the demonstration sections. Great bit of work without much complaint...

I think, as a placeholder, we should try and match videos such as YK's, DKWHIT's and our current videos. That way it leaves as little difference as possible between our own videos and ones we nick from YouTube...

Redirect Heated Pete - 16:31, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Pete has an point, some time ago we did ask the "Russian BF Wiki" if they want cooperate by sharing videos from own side to this site and opposite, so far it has worked well.

So how is the policy about different user made - weapon guides/video in general ?

Well you have to remember to NOT use the cyrillic letters in the video names. Йура

16:47, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well what i am meaning is: currently there is some random YB accounts videos in infoboxes some are more made up in quality/style. Those following videos demonstrate the wide difference between them. --Maxwell123 16:56, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield_Heroes_Scoped_sof_m16_gameplay_pl_HD

Note: since BFH is classified as an "cartoon shooter game" - we cant expect to find serius business videos, however the play4free one is granting us an somewhat view about the the guns overall performance. --Maxwell123 17:03, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Embedding Policy

Is there any current qualification requirements about pasting gamplay videos that are not from the bf youtube channel. for example if we "want" to past gameplay media about stuff relevant to the article and past them in infobox/video gallerys. --Maxwell123 20:27, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure about what you're proposing. Could you elaborate a bit more?

Redirect Heated Pete - 07:33, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

I try again, video styles like weapon reviews are considered ok to past in articles if they look somewhat ok

For exsample i embedded an video of the M39 EMR in infobox - videos like that are qualified as ok in terms of service ? - Unsigned comment was added by Maxwell123 (Contributions)

It's good - lengthy and boring at times, but gets all the information down. That sort of video is OK by me.

Redirect Heated Pete - 19:17, November 1, 2011 (UTC)