Talk:YouTube Poop

Requested move 13 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opponents have effectively argued that it is not a proper noun but a genre. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

YouTube poop → YouTube Poop – If I counted them all correctly, literally all of the sources in the article itself consistently refer to the subject with the 'p' capitalized. See: . Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. That condition is clearly met here. HappyWith (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This video-editing format is not typically called "a poop" as a generic noun — it's almost always called a "YouTube Poop". It's not even a stylization thing, it's just more of a "this is the complete title that everyone uses, since it's more of a Proper Noun than a common noun". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support A Google Scholar search also shows it being the overwhelmingly used capitalization among English-language sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Most of those scholar hits are not English-language sources, and a couple do use lowercase; hardly overwhelming evidence for caps being necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support move. YouTube Poop is a proper noun. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is not a proper name. It is a category or type or genre. See MOS:GENRECAPS, MOS:ACTCAPS, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• support because all the sources i saw (and all but one pooper) refer to the "fecal matter" part as a proper noun, so even if genrecaps and actcaps apply (which i don't believe they do), commonname should cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's called the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. In short, WP does not change its writing style to suit the habits of insider writing within a topic (e.g. we do not write about video games the way gamers write). Nearly everyone deeply involved in some topic has a tendency to over-capitalize things within that topic that they think are "important". WP has a rule against this: MOS:SIGCAPS (in addition to MOS:GENRECAPS which separately applies to this).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a proper name, given how it is used by most sources as well as people who make these videos. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – it may be "conventionally capitalized in sources", but is not "consistently"; here are 8 books that use lowercase: , , , , , , , . It's certainly not a proper name and caps are not otherwise necessary for any reason I can see. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  These aren't good sources to use for this argument. Half of these sources only mention it in passing. Book 1 also calls vaporwave "vapour wave", which is extremely irregular, and Book 4 only mentions it in a quote from an unclear source named "Deidre". A ton of these books put it in quotes, and don't really talk about it in depth, whereas basically all of the sources that do cover it in depth in the article itself capitalize it the way the community does, with a capital 'p'.

  Also, Book 6 does capitalize the 'p'. This is the quote: "Next up is Tyler, who's doing a YouTube Poop channel". HappyWith (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like I copied the wrong link on that one. Point is, general sources independent of the subject don't consistently see it as a proper name. Natually, the insider sources cap what they're into. That's why we look to sources that are independent of the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno what you mean by "insider sources" - they're all independent from the topic. If I'm not mistaken, the writers of the articles I referenced aren't all Poopers themselves. I think the best way to go about this is to create a list of reliable sources that are actually covering YTP as their primary topic and see how they capitalize the 'p'. I think that way we can get a better gauge on what the accepted format is. HappyWith (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think "as their primary topic" makes them not very independent. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t grasp your logic at all. How does writing a paper about a topic make you not independent of the topic? HappyWith (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, by “as their primary topic”, I mean when a single paper or article has YTP as its topic, not that it’s coming from a YTP-themed newspaper or website. HappyWith (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's not a proper noun; it's a genera of art. Sources are overcapitalizing because it's a new and I guess exciting thing. It's hard to take their style choices seriously when some don't capitalize the "T" in YouTube. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's not new at all - the style was established in 2005 and the articles range from 2009 to the 2020s. Wikipedia follows the sources, even when we think they're wrong. The community itself also consistently capitalizes the 'p'. HappyWith (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. We have MOS:GENRECAPS for a reason. I think the nom is confused into thinking that if something has an all-caps acronym like "YTP" that the elements that make up the acronym should be capitalized, but this of course is not the case. See MOS:EXPABBR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GENRECAPS is about musical and literary genres, which YTP is neither of. HappyWith (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that video genres should have different conventions than musical and literary genres? That would seem odd. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not me saying it, the guideline just doesn’t mention video genres. HappyWith (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I guess some people need more explicit and complete guidance; I added a bit in a parenthetical there; we'll see if there's objection to the obvious extension to other media. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Even given that, it wouldnt apply if, as I argue in the nom, reliable sources consistently capitalize it. It’s a guideline, not a policy, and doesn’t apply when common sense factors in. HappyWith (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  One application of common sense is that if the phrase describes a genre (and thus a common noun) and we try to avoid excess capitalization on Wikipedia, then we should avoid capitalizing 'poop' in this case, even if we see that often being done in sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  GENRECAPS says that proper nouns are exempt, and from what I've seen from years of watching these videos, it's almost always written "YouTube Poop". The videos themselves also use the term "YouTube Poop" not as a genre but as something of a label or brand: see, for example, any of the various intros created for use in YouTube Poops. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, as "something of a label", but a label is not a proper noun any more than rap. A brand is a proper noun, but it is also created owned and copyrighted by a person or corporation. A brand is not a label or a genera. Look at the text from that search.

  • Youtube Poop intro
  • Alle Youtube Poop Intro (2007-2021)
  • Youtube Poop Intro (where there's smoke)
  • Youtube Poop Intro
  • (ORIGINAL) NEW YOUTUBE POOP INTRO (HD)
  • Timeline: What If You Couldn't Stop Pooping?
  • Youtube Poop Intro: BECAUSE YOUTUBE IS WHERE THE POOP IS!
  • All YouTube Poop Intro (2007-2022)
  • YouTube Poop Intro: BECAUSE YOUTUBE IS WHERE THE POOP IS! (HD)

  All except one that capitalizes "Poop" also capitalizes "Intro". Nobody thinks this makes intro a proper noun. Should we change the platform's name to Youtube with the "t" lower case based on this?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe I should specify: I'm not referring to the titles of the videos but rather the intros in those videos I linked to. The fact that there are intros with frequent usage indicate that this is more than a genre or label, and these intros write "YouTube Poop". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  You mean the on-screen titles? Those don't have any relevance to how the term would be capitalized or not in sentence context, which is the only context that matters at all. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I believe to 2600:1003:B12B:57C4:65F1:7990:340D:41EE (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith. you're engaged in what is known as WP:Wikilawyering. Everyone (but you, apparently) understands that if a rule applies to genres of music, film, literature, and every other art that it also applies to videos. See also WP:AJR. It looks like we're going to have to go make an edit there to expressly make it clear that it applies to videos, just to stop you from ever wasting everyone's time pretending again that it doesn't apply to videos. We should not have to do this. You are making a mistake. The WP:Wikilawyering page was written for a reason. So were all the other rules we have at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:P&G, and various other policypages saying to always interpret WP policies and guidelines as they were clearly meant to be interpreted, not in "see what I can try to get away with" mode by nitpicking at their exact wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I had already conceded that point. HappyWith (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per MOS:GENRECAPS - it does not seem to be a proper name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Screenshot-media article

Just wanna note this here for future editors, since I almost fell for this myself: I am 90% sure that this article by Screenshot-Media is cribbing from this very Wikipedia article, making it essentially unusable as a source. It flat-out name-checks this article at least once, and also goes through extremely similar progressions to older versions of this article (the exact same ordering of common sources in the "Throughout the 2000s" paragraph, citing the same Cvetkovski source with the exact same quotes featured, etc). HappyWith (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff

@BeatBro Please stop edit warring and adding badly sourced details. We need good sources to cover those things to include them. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding an example

Hello! Yesterday I've uploaded File:Meamboat Billie's Steamed Willie - The Broken Lynx (edited).webm on Commons, a modified version of "[YTP] Meamboat Billie's Steamed Willie", a YouTube video marked as CC BY 3.0. Although Steamboat Willie is in the public domain, the video had some meme images and sound effects, so I spent some time cutting out and substituting the copyrighted content, sometimes replacing some jokes with others. Significant pieces of the free media reused for the Commons video are listed on the file page.

So I wonder if someone watching this page had feedback on its appropriateness for this article. I'm thinking about including it onto the "Style and techniques" section, to aid readers about the genre's "vibe". Maybe on "Copyright and fair use", like how Internet meme#Copyright includes a public domain image of a meme format. If no one opposes, I might add it to the article. Thanks! ObserveOwl (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading this! It certainly looks useful, and I agree on how it can be used. I'm not going to oppose, so I'd suggest waiting for 1 or 2 more responses before adding it. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have also made my own example poop, File:YouTube Poop - Guns Fucking Rule!.webm, which is shorter and lower-quality (both could be argued for or against its use as an example) but features sentence mixing, something that isn't exactly possible with Steamboat Willie as a silent film. I am in support of Memeboat as well though, and both could be implemented, with Memeboat being a "modern" style YTP while Guns Fucking Rule! is more of a classic single-source vintage.--RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We should not add editor-generated videos to this article, even as examples. The idea that such an example is representative of the genre is inherently going to be an WP:OR problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

this means we need to push the emergency dathings button

...is what i would say, but she hasn't made a lot of ytps of public domain content, so i'd recommend using a poop of the dover boys at pimento university, or praying for the chance of all footage of chef jonathan locke lonathan conveniently being released into the public domain consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 19:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This one is CC, mostly uses recognisable US government content, and shows quite well the basics of how sentence mixing is typically used (Trump talking about 'anus attacks' and how America must always be 'violent and lawless')- if you just replace the emojis and remove the end card with a TV static stock photo, I assume it'd be fine, at least assuming the clips with Guardian thumbnails are US government content that was reuploaded and not an original Guardian journalist recording.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTcGNLbjv1Q RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not really CC, most of it is video from The Guardian, it even has their watermark all over it. Much footage of presidential speeches is from the press pool and is not produced by the government. MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, OK! Understandable. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that is understandable. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Concerns by the opposing were effectively countered. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

---

YouTube poop → YouTube Poop – Most of the sources in the article, as well as most of the sources on GNews, capitalize the P in "Poop". Example here. And as we all know, the P stands for "Pingas". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is not a proper name. It is a category or type or genre. See MOS:GENRECAPS, MOS:ACTCAPS, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support because the Poop is part of the name, and all common usage capitalizes it in the acronym. World Metro (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons I mentioned in the above discussion. "This video-editing format is not typically called "a poop" as a generic noun — it's almost always called a "YouTube Poop". It's not even a stylization thing, it's just more of a "this is the complete title that everyone uses, since it's more of a Proper Noun than a common noun"." Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. My thoughts during the previous discussion still stand: the name "YouTube Poop" is seen more as a brand name than a genre name, and thus should be capitalized. If the reason is because it's in the MOS, I don't see why WP:IAR can't apply. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 05:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent addition

@Evedawn99: This addition of text doesn't make it clear how this is related to a genre of videos. Given that the sources cited don't seem to mention "YouTube poop", it seems original research to claim that it is relevant to point out here. I guess a link to the song could be added to the "See also" section if you think it's appropriate. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ObserveOwl, thank you for explaining the revert. This makes sense and I appreciate your reminder of WP:NOR! I blame my excitement upon finding the historical audio so humorous. I have since discovered that that particular record is an example of the break-in record genre. I may come back at some time to see if I can appropriately summate the genre itself (not just that one record) in a way that makes sense to the article and is properly sourced. In any case, thanks for the explanation and I appreciate the check! Evedawn99 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! ObserveOwl (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please fix sentence (article is locked)

"YTP has had a large influence on much of modern meme culture and internet culture as a whole." This is very redundant. Reduce it to (say) "YTP has had a significant influence on memes and Internet culture." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done! I would suggest you make formal edit requests for these types of edits so they can perhaps be answered quickly. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for an example

In the previous discussion of examples, all the content provided was essentially entire poops with multiple jokes - I wonder, would it be acceptable to have a shorter, editor-made clip that is just say, a single sentence-mixed sentence? For example, cutting down Guns Fucking Rule to just Safe-T saying "Guns fue-king ro-ul" - less an example of the wider style of a YouTube Poop and more just individual tropes/techniques. Might be easier to find existing CC footage with fully-free-use basis this way as well. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As I stated above, We should not add editor-generated videos to this article, even as examples. The idea that such an example is representative of the genre is inherently going to be an WP:OR problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Nor should we add copyright violations, as you just did. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The file page has a non-free rationale, I suggest discussing it at FfD in case there's a dispute. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is the place to discuss whether this article should carry a video or not. MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but FfD invites more users familiar with NFCC. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl; @MrOllie: I've added a clipped version of the video "The Sky Had A Weegee" with fair use justification and a cited caption as the lead example of this article. The video has been chosen as it is discussed in reliable sources as well in the article body itself. It has also been trimmed exclusively to show illustrative elements of YTPs, such as sentence-mixing, vulgar language, audiovisual overlays, mixing clips from source material. The caption provides two references to sources which describe the video. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Old YouTube Poop logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible candidate for example

is not composed by an editor (as far as I can tell) and is entirely freely licensed. Can this be used as the example? Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"Weegee (meme)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Weegee (meme) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Weegee (meme) until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did the "Youtube is where the Poop is" audio come from?

I'm honestly kinda curious on where the audio originated, it'd be cool if someone could tell me! - John YoutubePoop lover (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

According to a post on Reddit, the intro itself is alleged to have been made by a person going by Glitchboyadvance, and uploaded to YouTube around 2007. Those claims mainly reference two archived links. One to glitchboyadvance's old YouTube profile, before its termination, where a video thumbnail and title can be seen with that phrase, and a snippet of unsourced text from CheWiki, a defunct wiki about YouTube Poop creators. The start of the audio itself is apparently spliced from an old Bill O'Reilly rant on Fox News, against immigration laws, where he says: "[...]because YOU, don't like the immigration laws. Yeah, it's great to be compassionate, sitting at home, watching the TUBE!" That's as much info as I could find, at least. Most sources have rotted over the years. The Reddit links I used to find this info unfortunately also seem quite vulnerable to link rot due to Reddit's dynamic data loading not working on the Wayback Machine. Hope it helps though Lunarexxy (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh, intersting.

Thanks!

ps. I had forgotten the the things to access my account JohnathanYouTubePoop (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Overlinking in introductory paragraph

I quote the introduction here:

carrying subcultural significance into a new video for humorous, nonsensical, random, vulgar, satirical, obscene, absurd, profane, annoying, confusing, or dramatic purposes.

This feels quite overlinked, and should really be cleaned up by someone more experienced than I.
-EmsSV (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Source for YTPs Originating in 2004?

The overview section claims that YTPs became popular around the year 2004, but because the platform YouTube would not release for another year, and there is no source cited for that claim, how can we be sure that's when they began? 48lexR (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

After some further reading, this line makes sense now, but because it's not linked to a source, it didn't make sense out of context. Could somebody append a link to this claim in the introduction, since the page is write-protected? 48lexR (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2026

Add “shows from Paula Deen” to sources. ~2026-37154-58 (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)