Talk:Bill Wurtz

K_arunamon ^Talk 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

split into their own articles

The videos "history of japan" and "history of the entire world, i guess" should be split into their own articles. Although the first maybe should be titled "history of japan (video)" or "history of japan (Bill Wurtz video)" --I'm on day 4 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@I'm on day 4: We should not be too quick to create an article on a viral video. Many other videos have millions more views, yet are not deserving of a separate Wikipedia article. It is unnecessary to include wikilinks that redirect back to the article itself. We don't need the wikilinks until the articles are made (if we decide to make the articles). We should wait and see. For now, I think we should keep the videos contained in the Bill Wurtz article unless more sources are covering them and they grow considerably in notability. The articles would not be long anyways, and the content on the Bill Wurtz article is nowhere near too expansive or detailed. According to the template transclusion counter, there are only 10 articles using the Template:Infobox internet video, so many "viral" or popular videos are not given their own article. —TheAnonymousNerd ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We could split those two videos out if their sections got too long, but seeing as both are only two lines right now, I don't see anything to worry about yet. ~Mable (chat) 12:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Give it some time. I'll check back later.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@I'm on day 4 and Maplestrip: It seems user I'm on day 4 has created the article history of the entire world, i guess without discussing here (the page was previously a redirect to Bill Wurtz. The split article tag was not removed either. I'm not sure if History of the entire world, I guess fits the notability criteria; there have only been about 10 sources covering the video (Google advanced search for exact title), and the amount content in the Bill Wurtz page is minimal, and in the video's article even less. I am not experienced with tagging / proposing article deletion. No consensus was agreed on whether or not to create the separate article in the first place, so is it favourable to remove the page's content and replace it with the original redirect? —TheAnonymousNerd ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be considered separately notable, but as long as Bill Wurtz' article only describes the video in two sentences, there is no point in creating a new article. This is especially jarring because the article I'm on day 4 wrote doesn't even say anything the main article doesn't already say. I'll redirect it back to the main article ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 07:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Maplestrip: and think it should be made a new article if new content is added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper1931 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Since we're not going to be creating a separate article until more information is present, should we also remove the split section template? —TheAnonymousNerd ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the foreseeable future, then sure. Of course, people are always free to discuss the topic here. ~Mable (chat) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Case?

Because bill wurtz spells his own name in all lowercase, shouldn't the article reflect this, as with e e cummings, bell hooks, or danah boyd? Sea Captain Cormac 23:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Good catch! I think we should follow sources for this one, rather than the Youtube username. I have only checked a few of them, but they all seem to use capitalization when naming Wurtz. I think we should follow suit. We could do the same as in E E Cummings article, though, noting that it is stylized as bill wurtz. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

He is pretty much known for using lower case but mainly on his website. I did note that he rarely uses capital letters on his site (sort of a trademark) although he uses caps in his videos. Should I source it because someone will probably delete it for vandalism or something. B-Movie Fan (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

History

Should I add history? Quite a few things happened on his website before history of Japan and history of the world B-Movie Fan (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Italicised or quotation marks?

Should "history of japan", history of the entire world, i guess, and "hi, i'm steve" be put in quotation marks ("example") or italicised (example)? It seems since they are short pieces of work, they should be put in quotation marks. — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought too. I think I'll change the article to use quotation marks. — Elliot Winkler 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Found a credible and sourceable article about Bill Wurtz

MEET BILL WURTZ, THE INTERNET MUSICAL GENIUS YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF, by Mel Magazine https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/meet-bill-wurtz-the-internet-musical-genius-youve-never-heard-of

Feel free to use this article to improve the bill wurtz page and provide it with more information.

BoatyKappa (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Outsider music

I don't think it's accurate to call Bill's work outsider music, but I don't want to remove the genre tag without discussing it first. Outsider music is generally by self-taught musicians, and considering Wurtz studied at Berklee and has a very technical composition style, it doesn't really fit. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Blank "Discography" section

As of now, the Discography section of the article is blank except for a link to a source. Work on this can be done in the Article's sandbox page. - Trg5503 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)