Talk:Video clip

This was made a rediredt to music video in October 2002. That is not only now incorrect but the world of video clips has dramatically changed in the last few months, makinmg an article now fully justified, SqueakBox 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Google Video

Google Video may not be a producer, but it is a provider, which is the what I was going for in the list. While most videos are from other sources, it does also have locally hosted content (see Google Video Upload Program). User:Pimlottc (forgot to sign)

Moreover, with the way videos are presented on Google Video, many users don't realize the distinction and know a clip as being "at Google Video". Pimlottc 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Can you source this last claim. I still don't believe you have givena good reasonn to include Google video and not say yahoo video, Blinkx etc, SqueakBox 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added google and yahoo video to the search. I would point out that Google Video does not have its own article hence it should be linked in the EL section. ifilm and you tube do ahve their own articles, SqueakBox 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, Google Video does have its own article (I had it linked when I added it) Pimlottc 02:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Video sharing community websites

There's around 100 video sharing sites now. I propose we move this list to a new wiki page. It goes beyond the definition of "video clip" and more into video sharing.

--119.160.116.36 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)== Video clips. ==

"Video clips are short video clips," for real?

External links

These external links do not belong under an External links section on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:External links, section "Links normally to be avoided": "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.", and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, section "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". JHCosa has reverted me twice now, without defending the reverts. I am not interested in a revert war, so if JHCosa would please explain which Wikipedia policy mandates the links, we can discuss it. Haakon 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But these sites dont appear to be blogs, social network sites or forums. They are video clip sites, no idea how popular they are but they look like normal, professional sites and I imaginme that far more than the first BBC site they are good examples of the emerging video clip culture. I read this article yesterday and found these links useful in giving me an idea of what video clip culture is. Returning to the article this morning I noticed they had disappeared and so signed into an account (I have edited a bit anonymously but never opened an account till today) to restore them as it seemed to me they enhance this article. JHCosa

Some of them are "community" sites, which I suppose is pretty close to "social networking". External links are not for site listings in any case; if you found them useful that's great, but these sites are not material for "External links" and were in their time added by webmasters looking to promote their sites through Wikipedia - so-called linkspamming. The only exception seems to be the "short example" link, which i suppose somebody added because they thought it was a cute video -- neither a criterium for inclusion. Besides, the video does not work for Linux users, since it uses a very new version of Flash (WP:EL says to avoid links to "sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community").

So, it comes down to this: Wikipedia is not a link directory, but there are notable link directories out there, such as DMOZ. It is common for Wikipedia to include links to appropriate DMOZ sections, and in this case we could replace the links with this. What do you think? Haakon 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just put in the link you suggested. It would still seem like a shame to me not to have some other links but I am a newcomer here and that is just my opinion. What do others think? JHCosa 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, "link directory style" links (besides not belonging in the first place) are not necessary when there is a link to an actual link directory there, which is why DMOZ links are great in Wikipedia articles. But yes, what do others think, indeed; hopefully there are more people watching this article who can comment. Haakon 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We should be including articles about video clips rather than the video clips themselves, such as the AOL article I just added. El Rojo 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sirs, this is the Link with the exiting examples of the 3D FX in the video clips and shorts made in Hollywood by the russian guy. If you could approve it, I’ll be glad to see this external Link on your page. "3D-FX " Link>>> [1]. Thanks. Yury Chernavsky GC 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See also

Added a Screencast ref. Also related to the external link discussion, I'm concered there is limited info on 'Video Clip' or 'Video Recording' HOWTOs. There isn't even a decent 'Video Recording' section in the parent page Video, to which 'Video Recording' is redirected. -HTH Awildman 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Title Change proposed

I think the title video clip is not enirely descriptive of the content of this article. It might be changed to webvideo. See the discussion on Talk:Webvideo for details. Titusn 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article, IMO badly named, called webvideo. That article should be merged here, SqueakBox 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is the correct title; Webvideo is a neologism in English. —dgies^t_c 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, SqueakBox 20:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why webvideo is merged with video clip. These seems to be quite unrelated concept in my mind. I mean, if webvideo where mainly made of video clip it was a technical matter more than a conceptual one. Now, you can see web video of any lengths on different sites - Vimeo feature half hours documentary, you can hardly equate that to a clip. I propose a complete new way to look at this. Clips should refer to very short film characterize by a kind of spontaneous nature - as opposed to most video for news report or music. Basically, the video clip is a format of video, a kind of video. On the other hand, webvideo should be seen as an umbrella term refering to the different form video take on the web. This would include: livestreaming (or webcasting), vloging, web-tv or video webseries, viral video, hypervideo, etc. The idea is to create a clear category for this new experience of video that provide interface for sharing, commenting, participating (chatting). I am putting this as a cultural category, ratter than a technical one. However, as more and more of these video are likely to be consume on mobile device, webvideo might be slightly fallacious. However, Internet video seems more appropriate in a technical category. Now, if webvideo is a neologism, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoqualia (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposing article split, please vote

I don't see how web video is the same as video clip. These are different things, and clips don't necessarily have to be put online to be part of web videos. Different concepts, they must be separated. I propose separation of web video and video clip. I don't care much about the latter, a clip is a clip, a piece of video, a scene, a take, unless you talk about what Europeans mean by video clip, that is, a music video. I would contribute to web video article. See the above comment as well. Mikus (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Video clip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070328232558/http://www.businessweek.com:80/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/07/youtube_100_mil.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/07/youtube_100_mil.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070507173036/http://www.redherring.com:80/Article.aspx?a=20843 to http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20843
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060814044000/http://www.nefilm.com:80/news/archives/2006/02/podcasting.htm to http://www.nefilm.com/news/archives/2006/02/podcasting.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)