This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi all! Following up on the consensus here, @ BrokenSegue and I are preparing to implement a system that will update the subscriber counts in {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} automatically, using a module that sources the data from BrokenSegue's bot on Wikidata. This should both help these articles stay more up to date and also reduce watchlist clutter (as the data updates will all happen at Wikidata). Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll post again once the system goes live, at which point please let us know of any issues you encounter. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
|channel_name=
, |channel_url=
, |channel_direct_url=
, and |channel_display_name=
and into {{
YouTube channel}}, which dovetails nicely from this issue raised.)
SWinxy (
talk)
17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Update: We've now turned on the automated subscriber counts for most articles. Any that produce errors will fall back on the manual parameters and be placed in a tracking category. Once we've eliminated the errors, we'll be able to deprecate the manual parameters to complete the work. Please let @ BrokenSegue and I know if you see anything amiss. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
[[Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors| ]]
SWinxy (
talk)
04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
|subscribers=
and |subscriber_date=
parameters from each article so as not to confuse editors that setting them has any effect? If an article shows up at
Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors, how do we tell what the error is that causes the article to have been placed there? Maybe the sorting for that category ought to be by the error, similar to how infoboxes with a category for articles using an unknown parameter sort them by the unknown parameter name instead of by the article name. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c)
09:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}
on an article and preview it, it may tell you. You'll want to go to the article's associated Wikidata item (Tools > Wikidata item) to investigate directly. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
22:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, As brought up on Talk:Destiny (streamer)#Updating YouTube info, and confirmed by myself in the edit history of Destiny (streamer), the article's infobox is completely glitched. Altering the "subscribers" and "views" data points doesn't result in any changes; It keeps displaying 406,000 subs no matter what.
If anyone knows what might be causing this and/or knows a solution to fix this, it'd be appreciated. CeltBrowne ( talk) 21:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The change has led to confusion among editors unaware that their additions to infoboxes are being overridden by the module mixed with not great automation behavior. Here's a proposal on what changes I think need to be made:
{{#if: {{{subscribers|}}} | {{{subscribers}}} | {{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}}}
SWinxy ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
{{ubl|123,000 (channel A)|56,000 (channel B)|10,500 (channel C)}}
etc. List 3 channels by default, and anything more would have the third entry be "combined", e.g.
MrBeast.
SWinxy (
talk)
23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)its [ sic] useful to have the combined total of all subscribers, without an RS to support that combined total, there is literally no way of knowing that value. Folks can add two or three numbers together if they really want to get a rough estimate of those figures. Primefac ( talk) 19:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
{{YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice|UCfga98sd7AFJK7vACA|}}
and it spit out the number for it. It'd be easier to make the editor make it than for the module to format it.
SWinxy (
talk)
17:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Hey, I've been reading this discussion for the past few days and I wanted to ask how this module also accounts for YouTubers who have had their account terminated, along with the infobox automatically linking to a YouTube channel in question. For example, I've been working the past few weeks on the article of YouTuber Etika to get it to GA status. To make a long story short, YouTube terminated two of Etika's accounts for uploading inappropriate material between October 2018 and April 2019. However, the infobox still links to his original channel which is deleted (under the subscribers and total views section). Seeing as how there's no way to access his YouTube stats unless with SocialBlade or an archive link, I think in that case it would be redundant to have that link appear as a reference. Perhaps there should be a parameter that grants the option for users to either add or omit a YouTube channel's link from the infobox, or find a way to integrate it with an archive tool or SocialBlade functionality when a YouTuber's channel no longer exists. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
|subscribers_manual=
, that could handle any sort of edge case. That would also work for having multiple channels as
Evelyn_Marie is seeking above. If that parameter is used, you could put in whatever data/reference and it'd override the bot-derived data. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I've implemented 1 for a few reasons. While I don't really have an opinion on if total subscribe count is a good thing or not (it does seem somewhat WP:ORy to me), I think that a consensus should be gained on that point before overriding articles that do have that.
More importantly, there's no indication that the infobox is pulling its data from Wikidata (I think pretty much every case I've seen infoboxes pull from Wikidata at least indicates it), which makes it a very confusing situation for anyone who is not intimately familiar with Wikidata in infoboxes. The bot threshold of only updating for 10% increases also seems pretty high to me, and leads to e.g. articles like MrBeast having an infobox count older than than the article lead. The bot should at least update the count monthly regardless, so that the date in the infobox shows that the count is current as of this month (rather than a couple months old February 2023 as a lot of articles including MrBeast showed).
Also I think it's somewhat confusing having both a "Last updated" for the infobox and a separate date for the Wikidata update. Is there a reason that if we are transitioning to using Wikidata for the stats, to not have both the subscribes and the view count pull from Wikidata, and we can use the "stats updated" parameter for the date of the last Wikidata update? Galobtter ( talk) 08:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In 2023, is Deji Olatunji notable enough to be removed from
WP:DEEPER and have a Wikipedia biography? Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023?
DrewieStewie (
talk)
21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
As you can see, this proposal aims to discuss the notability of Deji Olatunji, KSI's brother formerly known as ComedyShortsGamer, who has 10 million subscribers on YouTube and has expanded to several other ventures. As a little bit of background: several times in the mid-to-late 2010s up until March 2022, there were more than 20 deletions of articles for Deji under G4 and G5, along with at least two AFDs then, including this one. Around October and November 2022, another article (under the title Deji (YouTuber)) was created, due to his fame having significantly grown in recent years following the speedy deletions and AFDs, to the point of facing Floyd Mayweather Jr. in an pay-per-view exhibition boxing match. However, in the midst of a move request discussion initiated by me, it was deleted under G5, despite there (at the time) being no voiced objections to the subject's notability or any initiated AFDs. Afterwards, I established the most recent deletion review, which had two camps forming both in support and opposition of his notability. Ultimately, the closer decided that there was a consensus against his notability, citing User:JzG/And the band played on.... Subsequently, he was added to WP:DEEPER. Afterwards, there was dissent from me and User:PantheonRadiance on User: Sandstein's (the closer) talk page ( see talk page discussion here), with the proposal to establish this RFC to discuss it further. However, I didn't start it until now, due to being preoccupied with my education and to give the issue some rest temporarily.
Opponents to his notability argue that good faith has been exhausted for the subject, due to the 20+ G4 and G5 deletions. They note that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies, even though the subject, Deji, never proposed the article himself or encouraged the behavior of the Ultras (in this case referring to his hardcore fans) that continued creating poor-quality startup articles for the subject. They believe that this erosion of good faith overrides any increased notability after the fact.
Dissenting voices who believe Deji is notable enough for an article believe that his notability exceeds by a long shot that of the other entries at WP:DEEPER. They believe that his reliable source coverage is significant, and that any Wikipedia stigmas caused by the ultra editors are very unfair to the subject. They believe the latest drafts at the time of the Deletion Review, as well as the latest article at Deji {YouTuber) which was deleted just before the Mayweather vs Deji bout, were satisfactory articles that established notability for the subject. They believe that notability can change and elevate to Wikipedia levels later, even in the face of 20+ G4 and G5s beforehand. PantheonRadiance stated it best on Sandstein's talk page:
The deletion did have quite a lot of merit in the past as many of the previous versions were riddled with unreliable, primary, and/or non-independent sources, if they weren't stacked to the brim with original research. Based on those, community consensus was perfectly justified in deleting the article.
However, looking at the recent versions that were created by blocked users, it was clear that there were plenty of reliable and significant coverage of Deji between his video content, his boxing career and personal life. I was going to post my two cents on the article at the deletion review too but it closed before I got a chance to do so. But basically put, there were reliable sources that significantly covered him even present in some of the AfDs (
this one for example), that were dismissed because they were "trivial" even though they did explain significant aspects of his YouTube career and life that could've flashed out the article. Not only were sources like BBC and The Daily Dot present that covered Deji, among others from Business Insider and The Independent, but recently Deji's boxing match received coverage from Sky Sports, ESPN and Bleacher Report.
Even considering the poorly made attempts at creating this article in the past, I think even the most cynical Wikipedia editor can't seriously dismiss all of these sources as trivial coverage. From a quantitative standpoint each source covers him in multiple paragraphs as opposed to passing mentions. And at best, saying the topic of these articles is insignificant is merely subjective skepticism that doesn't change the fact that reliable media outlets consider him significant enough to report on him. And at the end of the day,
isn't that all that should matter?
Therefore, I once again ask in this RFC: Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023? DrewieStewie ( talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Reference Number | Reference | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | The Verge: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is extensively about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic of article is about boxing event. |
2 | The Independent: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is about the subject (in a negative light) and even flat out identifies the subject as "among YouTube's biggest stars" | Yes | Yes | Topic is a feud. |
3 | The Independent: 2 | Yes | Yes, article is extensively about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic is a feud. |
4 | BBC News: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic is about a legal matter involving subject's dog, which would not have been notable to write about had not the subject been notable. |
5 | Kirkus : 1 | Yes | Yes, review is not only about the book the subject wrote but also covers a bit about the subject himself | Yes | Yes | Main topic is a professional review of book the subject wrote. (the reviewer is not kind) |
The reviewer said the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Any help finding things that should be sourced but aren't, or unreliable sources if there are any, would be greatly appreciated. I did make some changes since the draft was declined, so if it is now good enough tell me that too. AKFkrewfamKF1 ( talk) 18:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
KevJumba has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Re-listed for the third time at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Content ID (system)#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 05:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators seem to be waiting for more input:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf.
If you commented more than a few days ago please also review the discussion and re-affirm or update your opinion as needed. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
07:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Shaylee Mansfield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to garner more feedback on the peer review for Etika in order to address concerns with the article in anticipation for a featured article nomination. Please leave feedback if interested. Thanks, PantheonRadiance ( talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I started working on a draft for the YouTuber NileRed, which can be found at Draft:NileRed (YouTuber). I would like to ask for help in creating this article as I'm having trouble finding any sources or information. Poxy4 ( talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to return to this discussion from 2023 about automatically sourcing subscriber counts from WikiData so that we don't need to manually update the {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} infobox. I think we need to come to a consensus about whether the WikiData subscriber counts will be preferred going forward, and how we will respond to manual updates to the infobox.
As I understand it, this mechanism doesn't properly handle content creators with multiple channels, so lets put that aside for now.
From the channels I've seen, BorkedBot works reliably and is fairly up to date. The problem is that people still manually update the subscriber count in the infobox. When this happens, the infobox will permanently display that number until manually updated again. On one hand, I don't feel comfortable reverting these edits if they are truly more accurate (no matter how insignificantly so). On the other hand, eventually WikiData will update, and waiting for that to happen so you can point the infobox back to WikiData is an annoying manual action that the bot was designed to eliminate.
I'm going to propose 2 solutions, and I'd like to get some input on them.
It's my opinion that (2) is pretty difficult to do reliably.
No matter which option we choose, I think it would be a good idea to create a maintenance category of the pages that have infoboxes that are overriding the WikiData number.
Mokadoshi ( talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
|subscribers_manual=
release valve) or a firm consensus that the edge case is a misuse (e.g. based on the argument that you can't just tally up subscriber counts when there is likely to be significant overlap).Hiya! got an album draft here i'd like to be looked at by an admin / page mover about youtuber james marriott's debut album, here is the link:
Draft:Are We There Yet? (James Marriott album)
Have also nominated his main article as a good article so feel free to contribute and add anything you can! Link:
James Marriott (musician) George ( talk) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
As this project is only semi-active, I suggest (as a non-member) merging it into the YouTube Task Force at WikiProject Internet culture, and renaming its categories accordingly. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture#YouTube task force AND WikiProject. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi all! Following up on the consensus here, @ BrokenSegue and I are preparing to implement a system that will update the subscriber counts in {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} automatically, using a module that sources the data from BrokenSegue's bot on Wikidata. This should both help these articles stay more up to date and also reduce watchlist clutter (as the data updates will all happen at Wikidata). Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll post again once the system goes live, at which point please let us know of any issues you encounter. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
|channel_name=
, |channel_url=
, |channel_direct_url=
, and |channel_display_name=
and into {{
YouTube channel}}, which dovetails nicely from this issue raised.)
SWinxy (
talk)
17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Update: We've now turned on the automated subscriber counts for most articles. Any that produce errors will fall back on the manual parameters and be placed in a tracking category. Once we've eliminated the errors, we'll be able to deprecate the manual parameters to complete the work. Please let @ BrokenSegue and I know if you see anything amiss. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
[[Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors| ]]
SWinxy (
talk)
04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
|subscribers=
and |subscriber_date=
parameters from each article so as not to confuse editors that setting them has any effect? If an article shows up at
Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors, how do we tell what the error is that causes the article to have been placed there? Maybe the sorting for that category ought to be by the error, similar to how infoboxes with a category for articles using an unknown parameter sort them by the unknown parameter name instead of by the article name. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c)
09:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}
on an article and preview it, it may tell you. You'll want to go to the article's associated Wikidata item (Tools > Wikidata item) to investigate directly. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
22:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, As brought up on Talk:Destiny (streamer)#Updating YouTube info, and confirmed by myself in the edit history of Destiny (streamer), the article's infobox is completely glitched. Altering the "subscribers" and "views" data points doesn't result in any changes; It keeps displaying 406,000 subs no matter what.
If anyone knows what might be causing this and/or knows a solution to fix this, it'd be appreciated. CeltBrowne ( talk) 21:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The change has led to confusion among editors unaware that their additions to infoboxes are being overridden by the module mixed with not great automation behavior. Here's a proposal on what changes I think need to be made:
{{#if: {{{subscribers|}}} | {{{subscribers}}} | {{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}}}
SWinxy ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
{{ubl|123,000 (channel A)|56,000 (channel B)|10,500 (channel C)}}
etc. List 3 channels by default, and anything more would have the third entry be "combined", e.g.
MrBeast.
SWinxy (
talk)
23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)its [ sic] useful to have the combined total of all subscribers, without an RS to support that combined total, there is literally no way of knowing that value. Folks can add two or three numbers together if they really want to get a rough estimate of those figures. Primefac ( talk) 19:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
{{YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice|UCfga98sd7AFJK7vACA|}}
and it spit out the number for it. It'd be easier to make the editor make it than for the module to format it.
SWinxy (
talk)
17:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Hey, I've been reading this discussion for the past few days and I wanted to ask how this module also accounts for YouTubers who have had their account terminated, along with the infobox automatically linking to a YouTube channel in question. For example, I've been working the past few weeks on the article of YouTuber Etika to get it to GA status. To make a long story short, YouTube terminated two of Etika's accounts for uploading inappropriate material between October 2018 and April 2019. However, the infobox still links to his original channel which is deleted (under the subscribers and total views section). Seeing as how there's no way to access his YouTube stats unless with SocialBlade or an archive link, I think in that case it would be redundant to have that link appear as a reference. Perhaps there should be a parameter that grants the option for users to either add or omit a YouTube channel's link from the infobox, or find a way to integrate it with an archive tool or SocialBlade functionality when a YouTuber's channel no longer exists. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
|subscribers_manual=
, that could handle any sort of edge case. That would also work for having multiple channels as
Evelyn_Marie is seeking above. If that parameter is used, you could put in whatever data/reference and it'd override the bot-derived data. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I've implemented 1 for a few reasons. While I don't really have an opinion on if total subscribe count is a good thing or not (it does seem somewhat WP:ORy to me), I think that a consensus should be gained on that point before overriding articles that do have that.
More importantly, there's no indication that the infobox is pulling its data from Wikidata (I think pretty much every case I've seen infoboxes pull from Wikidata at least indicates it), which makes it a very confusing situation for anyone who is not intimately familiar with Wikidata in infoboxes. The bot threshold of only updating for 10% increases also seems pretty high to me, and leads to e.g. articles like MrBeast having an infobox count older than than the article lead. The bot should at least update the count monthly regardless, so that the date in the infobox shows that the count is current as of this month (rather than a couple months old February 2023 as a lot of articles including MrBeast showed).
Also I think it's somewhat confusing having both a "Last updated" for the infobox and a separate date for the Wikidata update. Is there a reason that if we are transitioning to using Wikidata for the stats, to not have both the subscribes and the view count pull from Wikidata, and we can use the "stats updated" parameter for the date of the last Wikidata update? Galobtter ( talk) 08:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In 2023, is Deji Olatunji notable enough to be removed from
WP:DEEPER and have a Wikipedia biography? Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023?
DrewieStewie (
talk)
21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
As you can see, this proposal aims to discuss the notability of Deji Olatunji, KSI's brother formerly known as ComedyShortsGamer, who has 10 million subscribers on YouTube and has expanded to several other ventures. As a little bit of background: several times in the mid-to-late 2010s up until March 2022, there were more than 20 deletions of articles for Deji under G4 and G5, along with at least two AFDs then, including this one. Around October and November 2022, another article (under the title Deji (YouTuber)) was created, due to his fame having significantly grown in recent years following the speedy deletions and AFDs, to the point of facing Floyd Mayweather Jr. in an pay-per-view exhibition boxing match. However, in the midst of a move request discussion initiated by me, it was deleted under G5, despite there (at the time) being no voiced objections to the subject's notability or any initiated AFDs. Afterwards, I established the most recent deletion review, which had two camps forming both in support and opposition of his notability. Ultimately, the closer decided that there was a consensus against his notability, citing User:JzG/And the band played on.... Subsequently, he was added to WP:DEEPER. Afterwards, there was dissent from me and User:PantheonRadiance on User: Sandstein's (the closer) talk page ( see talk page discussion here), with the proposal to establish this RFC to discuss it further. However, I didn't start it until now, due to being preoccupied with my education and to give the issue some rest temporarily.
Opponents to his notability argue that good faith has been exhausted for the subject, due to the 20+ G4 and G5 deletions. They note that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies, even though the subject, Deji, never proposed the article himself or encouraged the behavior of the Ultras (in this case referring to his hardcore fans) that continued creating poor-quality startup articles for the subject. They believe that this erosion of good faith overrides any increased notability after the fact.
Dissenting voices who believe Deji is notable enough for an article believe that his notability exceeds by a long shot that of the other entries at WP:DEEPER. They believe that his reliable source coverage is significant, and that any Wikipedia stigmas caused by the ultra editors are very unfair to the subject. They believe the latest drafts at the time of the Deletion Review, as well as the latest article at Deji {YouTuber) which was deleted just before the Mayweather vs Deji bout, were satisfactory articles that established notability for the subject. They believe that notability can change and elevate to Wikipedia levels later, even in the face of 20+ G4 and G5s beforehand. PantheonRadiance stated it best on Sandstein's talk page:
The deletion did have quite a lot of merit in the past as many of the previous versions were riddled with unreliable, primary, and/or non-independent sources, if they weren't stacked to the brim with original research. Based on those, community consensus was perfectly justified in deleting the article.
However, looking at the recent versions that were created by blocked users, it was clear that there were plenty of reliable and significant coverage of Deji between his video content, his boxing career and personal life. I was going to post my two cents on the article at the deletion review too but it closed before I got a chance to do so. But basically put, there were reliable sources that significantly covered him even present in some of the AfDs (
this one for example), that were dismissed because they were "trivial" even though they did explain significant aspects of his YouTube career and life that could've flashed out the article. Not only were sources like BBC and The Daily Dot present that covered Deji, among others from Business Insider and The Independent, but recently Deji's boxing match received coverage from Sky Sports, ESPN and Bleacher Report.
Even considering the poorly made attempts at creating this article in the past, I think even the most cynical Wikipedia editor can't seriously dismiss all of these sources as trivial coverage. From a quantitative standpoint each source covers him in multiple paragraphs as opposed to passing mentions. And at best, saying the topic of these articles is insignificant is merely subjective skepticism that doesn't change the fact that reliable media outlets consider him significant enough to report on him. And at the end of the day,
isn't that all that should matter?
Therefore, I once again ask in this RFC: Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023? DrewieStewie ( talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Reference Number | Reference | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | The Verge: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is extensively about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic of article is about boxing event. |
2 | The Independent: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is about the subject (in a negative light) and even flat out identifies the subject as "among YouTube's biggest stars" | Yes | Yes | Topic is a feud. |
3 | The Independent: 2 | Yes | Yes, article is extensively about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic is a feud. |
4 | BBC News: 1 | Yes | Yes, article is about the subject | Yes | Yes | Topic is about a legal matter involving subject's dog, which would not have been notable to write about had not the subject been notable. |
5 | Kirkus : 1 | Yes | Yes, review is not only about the book the subject wrote but also covers a bit about the subject himself | Yes | Yes | Main topic is a professional review of book the subject wrote. (the reviewer is not kind) |
The reviewer said the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Any help finding things that should be sourced but aren't, or unreliable sources if there are any, would be greatly appreciated. I did make some changes since the draft was declined, so if it is now good enough tell me that too. AKFkrewfamKF1 ( talk) 18:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
KevJumba has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Re-listed for the third time at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Content ID (system)#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 05:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators seem to be waiting for more input:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf.
If you commented more than a few days ago please also review the discussion and re-affirm or update your opinion as needed. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
07:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Shaylee Mansfield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to garner more feedback on the peer review for Etika in order to address concerns with the article in anticipation for a featured article nomination. Please leave feedback if interested. Thanks, PantheonRadiance ( talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I started working on a draft for the YouTuber NileRed, which can be found at Draft:NileRed (YouTuber). I would like to ask for help in creating this article as I'm having trouble finding any sources or information. Poxy4 ( talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to return to this discussion from 2023 about automatically sourcing subscriber counts from WikiData so that we don't need to manually update the {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} infobox. I think we need to come to a consensus about whether the WikiData subscriber counts will be preferred going forward, and how we will respond to manual updates to the infobox.
As I understand it, this mechanism doesn't properly handle content creators with multiple channels, so lets put that aside for now.
From the channels I've seen, BorkedBot works reliably and is fairly up to date. The problem is that people still manually update the subscriber count in the infobox. When this happens, the infobox will permanently display that number until manually updated again. On one hand, I don't feel comfortable reverting these edits if they are truly more accurate (no matter how insignificantly so). On the other hand, eventually WikiData will update, and waiting for that to happen so you can point the infobox back to WikiData is an annoying manual action that the bot was designed to eliminate.
I'm going to propose 2 solutions, and I'd like to get some input on them.
It's my opinion that (2) is pretty difficult to do reliably.
No matter which option we choose, I think it would be a good idea to create a maintenance category of the pages that have infoboxes that are overriding the WikiData number.
Mokadoshi ( talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
|subscribers_manual=
release valve) or a firm consensus that the edge case is a misuse (e.g. based on the argument that you can't just tally up subscriber counts when there is likely to be significant overlap).Hiya! got an album draft here i'd like to be looked at by an admin / page mover about youtuber james marriott's debut album, here is the link:
Draft:Are We There Yet? (James Marriott album)
Have also nominated his main article as a good article so feel free to contribute and add anything you can! Link:
James Marriott (musician) George ( talk) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
As this project is only semi-active, I suggest (as a non-member) merging it into the YouTube Task Force at WikiProject Internet culture, and renaming its categories accordingly. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture#YouTube task force AND WikiProject. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)