Talk:youtube

youtube
I think it possible that YouTube (Citations:YouTube) will make the grade, what about the lowercase version? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have enough citations for YouTube and YouTube, and am closing in on YouTubed. I think everyone who can be sued spells it YouTube. Perhaps on groups, unless Google automatically "corrects" the spelling before displaying it ? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this probably deserves an entry, particularly for the thousands of times I've seen the phrase YouTube generation this year. Personally, as a middle-aged man, I only encountered YouTube this year but it is mentioned in various areas: politics, commerce, sociology...--Jackofclubs 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the lowercase version should probably be used as an alternative spelling or at the very least, redirect it back to the uppercase article as I'm sure it's still widely used even though I would probably use it with capitals (= "I'm just YouTubing", "I'm on YouTube", "Just YouTube it!" and so on). I think it's okay it's to be a bit loose with this, at least in the verbal sense, since it's not a very standard form of English grammar to use two capitals in a verb for instance. AndyPandy 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not a word, it is more or less slang. 98.226.32.129 09:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Slang words are still words. See WT:CFI for guidelines. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not certain how this passed because it still has only one citation, whose meaning isn't 100% clear. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2021
(Somehow) passed in 2008–2010 with one citation (as Equinox notes). J3133 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is easily cited on Usenet (example). Assuming we're happy with cites that refer to directly to YouTube as a particular named entity, rather than requiring a more figurative use. But it seems like these are better understood as errors resulting from people typing lazily in informal settings, rather than evidence of a 'legitimate' alternative spelling. e.g. I'm sure it's also possible to find tons of examples of lower-case canada on Usenet or other informal online spaces, but it doesn't seem like we should list that as an alt spelling. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is basically for every internet domain. So somebody wanted, and we could have – which we have only as a verb, because that is another kind of regular. What else? , , ? Another factor is something being a terminal command, as these are generally lowercase-only. So we can probably have  and , which are apparently properly written  and , without me knowing this before, as one encounters them as commands and package names. I have the idea that they should not be included as they are not English or Translingual but computer language,  , which humans sometimes speak and which is the default without setting a locale. Fay Freak (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems a misspelling: see also Fay Freak’s point: we have as an alternative form of the verb, however, not as a noun (i.e., “twitter profile”, as “youtube profile”, would also seem a misspelling). J3133 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)