Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Beginnings of an essay on the notability of YouTube celebrities

Please see some research I am doing about outcomes of AfD discussions regarding YouTubers. Would it be appropriate to move that content to a new page within WikiProject YouTube, before creating an RfC around it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This would be a very interesting policy. If this does play out, @Curb Safe Charmer: it could be very beneficial for YouTube related articles on Wikipedia. Before we do this though, we definetly need some consesnsus. Any ideas how we could go about doing this? Jamesjpk (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jamesjpk, thanks for replying. My thinking is that the first step is that this should be an essay. Wikipedia:Essays says that "policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances, consequently many essays serve as interpretations or commentary of perceived community norms for specific topics and situations." That sounds like exactly what we should create. They have no official status, and as such they can be created without discussion, approval or consensus. Bringing my draft out of my userspace and into the main article space would encourage contributions and debate. It would only be after some level of consensus here that we would consider marking the essay as a proposal though that doesn't have to be the objective. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We could start with that, and to encourage discussion, I can send out a group wide message notifying group users about the new essay. Where do we start? I have never created an essay before Curb Safe Charmer. Jamesjpk (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Jamesjpk I've gone ahead and created the essay here, and it is added to Category:WikiProject notability advice. Please could you encourage the other members of the project to review and comment via the talk page? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer I am drafting a mass message right now. Thank you for creating the essay! Jamesjpk (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Curb Safe Charmer, all I am waiting for now, are administrators to send the message. The message can be found on this page. Jamesjpk (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost

1.  –
2.  –
3.  –
4.  –

Going forward, each participant receives the interview questions about the project's work, problems and achievements. Note: above not done, but kept to document. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about "Related projects"

Greetings, In order to help connect WP YouTube into Wikipedia, can the Project page be updated with a "Related projects" section? For examples see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture#Related projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet#See also. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I can create that now JoeHebda! Jamesjpk (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Y Done Jamesjpk (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jamesjpk for doing this. It may seem like a small thing to do, but it helps with "the WP glue" AKA "What links here" (left column). This helps WP YouTube being a bit more visible. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Signpost!

We are going to go ahead and do some interviews about WikiProject YouTube for the Signpost. Are you interested in being featured? Please email me! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jamesjpk, can I interview you? Do you have any other leads? No one has written me back unless it hit my Spam filter. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl sure! You can totally interview me! Any leads that I could maybe ask is Curb Safe Charmer, as he is a really active participant. Any thoughts? If you want to send out an interview to the whole group, I created a template that you could use:

I created it when I was interviewing the group :P. Here is the withdrawal request if it is any help: Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders (It's at the bottom) Jamesjpk (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, another great lead is Hillelfrei, as he is an active participant, that is a participant in both the English Wikipedia WikiProject YouTube, and the Simple Wikipedia WikiProject YouTube. Jamesjpk (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jamesjpk, Hillelfrei, and Curb Safe Charmer: Sounds good! I'll follow up with everyone later and check my email. I just got back from a road trip, so may not have all questions ready till tomorrow. Thanks for the cool template, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessing importance of articles

I'm suggesting/proposing this rule of thumb, or guideline of sorts:

• Top importance: Basically any article related to the core of YouTube (YouTube itself, its founders, the list of most subbed channels, the list of most liked videos, articles of non-Vevo YouTubers with over 20 million subscribers, the Spotlight channel, MCNs, YouTube Red, the social impact article, just things like that)
• High importance: Everything else in the YouTube navbox template (note: I think we should discuss if Video game walkthrough belongs in this template); also any YouTuber with over 10 million subscribers
• Mid importance: Any YouTuber with over 5 million subscribers, although YouTubers with less probably should still be included if they had historical influence on YouTube (like if they used to be #1 most subscribed on the channel or were otherwise popular on YouTube before it made the big switch over to emphasizing watch time over video views and all that) + specific viral videos (more iconic viral videos can probably be included in High or possibly even Top importance)
• Low importance: basically everything else

Also, when it comes to musicians, if they became popular on YouTube and are known for being YouTubers, they should be assessed with higher importance in this WikiProject than musicians that were already popular and just have Vevo channels (i.e. Lindsey Stirling and Christina Grimmie should be assessed higher than say, One Direction or Ed Sheeran.)

Soulbust (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discord Chat

Noticed this new project while browsing today. I wanted leave a friendly invitation to you, if any of you might be interested, to an unofficial Wikimedia Discord channel. Discord is a free chat program that a few editors use as an alternative to IRC, available for PC and mobile. We setup sub-channels as needed or requested, and if there's interest, I will be glad to add one for this project. The server is moderated by enwiki administrators, and we expect the general IRC conduct rules to be followed. You can reach the server with this link. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

More information now available at WP:Discord. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed YouTube videos split?

Hey gang, I don't venture around here much. But I thought I'd bring this your attention, I didn't do it on the talk page of the article because it seems to be a bigger thing. So there's List of most viewed YouTube videos, and it seems as though 1990hello1990 is maybe doing a split? I say that because of his recent creations which seem to nearly duplicate this article. Such as...

• Historical most viewed videos on Youtube
• Most viewed YouTube videos by year of release
• Youtube billion view club

That last one I think, at the least, is a bit misnamed, since I could only find one reference referring to it as the "Billion view club". Anywho, not sure if this is something or nothing, but figured having more eyes on it couldn't be a bad thing. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Are these ladies notable?

Blaire White and Zinnia Jones if no what is the standard to be a notable youtuber? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

As there is no specific guideline for Youtubers, Wikipedia:Notability (people) applies. What kind of secondary reliable sourcing do you have for either? -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest and Ferret: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability for what I have established to be the position on notability of YouTubers. This is a personal essay and falls short of being a Wikipedia guideline mostly because of a lack of peer review - so if either of you wish to contribute to it, that would be welcome. If nothing else, it will provide you easy access to a range of AfD discussions about YouTubers and you can see the type of arguments made both for keeping and for deleting them. I am currently attempting to have something added to WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES - see this discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

For Blaire White I have these sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Zinnia Jones I have these sources [9][10][11][12][13] do you think either of these people have merit ferret (talk) ? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say you have enough to at least start a draft. I don't work on BLPs much so I hesitate to say "yes". One comment though, is you've at least two cases where you seem to be linking to where the person is an author for a site. That won't help with WP:N as they are essentially not about the person, but simply written by the person. It might help a little bit in showing they have been published though. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Liza Koshy needs an article. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• see Liza Koshy (actress).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am still uncertain whether to write about Blaire White.

Liza Koshy (actress)

This article has been nominated for deletion. You can comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy (actress) -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Inactive?

I haven't seen much activity recently. Anything I should do? Epicandrew1220 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting AfC review

Requesting AfC review on Draft:DavidDobrik, which is in the project's scope. Seems to reference TubeFilter a few times, which, if I know my YouTube, isn't the greatest. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't TubeFilter make the Streamys? Also, I think TubeFilter is fine. On the other hand, I've never heard of (nor do I know the reliability of) most of the other sites. Epicandrew1220 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:iDubbbzTV

We need more sources and expansion. Can one of you guys help us? DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

rename beauty youtuber articles?

hi, i've recently made some edits to beauty youtuber related articles Jaclyn Hill and Nikkie Tutorials. was wondering if Nikkie Tutorials should be renamed with her full name (it's in the article lead), or if it should be kept as is. i believe she's more notable as NikkieTutorials (her youtube name) but the current title makes it look like "Tutorials" is her last name. in that case Manny MUA may need to be renamed as well. let me know your thoughts! i was going to be bold and move them myself, but wanted some feedback first.Melodies1917 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If she's more notable as NikkieTutorials, then that should be the focus of the article. I can also remove the space between Nikkie and Tutorials as it seems that it's not actually in her YouTube name. Zoom (talk page) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zzzoom: thanks. also, should Bunny Meyer be kept as is? Melodies1917 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Melodies1917: it's better to have a WP:RfC for moving Bunny Meyer to grav3yardgirl._{Probably a good idea to move if everyone's okay with it.}But I'll move NikkieTutorials now. Zoom (talk page) 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:List of YouTubers#Reorganization ideas

Hi all. See above, I'd like some feedback by interested editors. TIA! Regards SoWhy 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Started Draft:Clint Basinger

Need editors as I'm bad at writing and don't have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I formatted the infobox for you, you have to try finding reliable sources and notable information on him. Zoom (talk page) 17:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on expanding project scope

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to convert this WikiProject to include other online videos and online video platforms. Zoom (talk page) 22:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Should we expand the project scope of WikiProject YouTube to include other online videos/video platforms? Zoom (talk page) 16:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Since this would shift the scope away from Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites, you might want to advertise the RFC there and on other computing-related WikiProjects. Regards SoWhy 17:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is to include platforms such as Twitch.tv and Vimeo(?) and other platforms (in the project). I will advertise on these WikiProjects shortly. Zoom (talk page) 19:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have always viewed this project as "WikiProject Online Video" with an oddly specific name. YouTube is currently the biggest online video provider of this type, but it doesn't have to stay this way forever. Online video is the medium, and YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc, are the platform. I for one would like to be able to cover all user-generated video in one project. ~Mable (chat) 17:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• So, how is this RFC going? ~Mable (chat) 13:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think anything has happened in about two weeks, so we might as well begin the process of changing the scope. I'll begin in a while. Zoom (talk page) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (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.

Associated acts

How should associated acts in the YouTube personality infoboxes be assessed? Is it people they have worked with closely or have a professional relationship with them as sourced in the article or are there different standards? I'm asking because recently it was brought up on the talk page for h3h3. The article's infobox is full of people, many aren't even mentioned in the article itself at all. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: how about collapsing and perhaps uncollapsing the most notable ones? wumbolo ^^^ 18:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: it's mainly the acts not mentioned in the article I'm worried about - should they just be removed?

Source for YouTube Play Buttons?

Hi WikiProject YouTube,
For the purpose of editing/contributing to a WP article, is there a reliable source where I can see whether or not a YouTuber has received a certain Play Button? I know about the subscriber numbers that they are supposed to correspond to, obvs., but according to YouTube (via Polygon), a channel doesn't automatically receive a Play Button when they hit that number. Where do editors go for this info? Would it be listed on a channel info page that I haven't been able to find? !Thanks. --MattMauler (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose removing YouTube Play Buttons from the infobox template, since it simply is not an accurate representation of when someone had how much subscribers, and even then people might not get it. wumbolo ^^^ 14:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I am pretty new to editing YouTuber articles, so I neither support nor oppose removing Play Buttons from the template. I was about to add one to a YouTuber WP page and realized that the subscriber count alone might not be sufficient to figure out if the creator actually got the Play Button. I thought then that there might be a channel info page or something where YouTube posted stuff like this.--MattMauler (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Other channels in infobox

Should infobox modules be added to YouTubers' infoboxes to include information about their other channels? That's currently the case at iDubbbz. Or should it be merged into one infobox like at Jack Douglass? Also, where should the line be drawn, should only the most notable channels be included? wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What about these guys?

Are Hunter Avallone and JaclynGlenn notable youtubers?Dwanyewest (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jaiden Animations AFD

Jaiden Animations is up for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiden Animations (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD Phil Mason

Is Phil Mason notable enough as YouTuber? Please see his AfD. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Complete page overhaul

Opinions on the new design I have created for this project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheMasterGuru/sandbox Complete overhaul, a lot neater and easier to navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMasterGuru (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested articles list

I see you all have a Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Articles Needed For Creation. Nice! Can I move the youtuber requests from WP:REQ (specifically, this sublist) over there, and then have the section link to your page? (Please ping me when replying.) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Ralph Retort in the WSJ

Should The Ralph Retort have an article as it's being covered by the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream outlets. These are some third person sources [14] [15][16]. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: perhaps, but maybe the article should be titled Ethan Ralph after himself. I'm seeing a lot of coverage in the past few years in a Google News archive search [17]. wumbolo ^^^ 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey on multiple infobox issues

​​​​​​​​​There have been some infobox improvements and suggestions recently. I suggest some criteria are crafted for infobox inclusions and similar. Due to the low activity on this talk page, I'm pinging all active WikiProject participants. Feel free to state whether you feel consensus exists for some of these things, or suggest alternatives. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​Pinging the rest of WikiProject YouTube participants. wumbolo ^^^ 10:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Associated acts

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube § Associated acts

A good place to start is with taking reference from similar precedents. In this case we can take reference from Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, which also uses the same field and states:

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

Separate multiple entries by using commas, {{Flatlist}}, or {{Hlist}}.

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and WP:Bandname, use sentence case for lists of band names. Example: The Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Who

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• For groups: the solo careers of its members
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single song
• Groups that have played or toured together as separate acts
• Groups that are merely similar

Would this suffice? —Madrenergic^talk 17:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This seems applicable. wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

YouTube Play Buttons

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube § Source for YouTube Play Buttons?

I concur with removing Play Buttons from the infobox on the ground that Play Buttons are awarded to channels, not persons, whereas the infobox is specifically for biographical articles. YouTube channels are entities that may be owned by individuals, groups, or companies, and incorporating the Play Button datafield in a biographical infobox renders it unusable by YouTube channel articles that are not also biographies, and even limits its use by biographical articles for people who own more than one YouTube channel. If it is necessary to showcase Play Buttons, then they should be a separate template, and not part of a biographical infobox.

I also have an issue about the way that editors are currently entering Play Button information in articles; editors appear to assume that a channel immediately receives a Play Button upon hitting the subscriber milestone, but that runs contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and sounds perilously like WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Play Buttons are physical awards, and per Wikipedia's policies, the receipt of a specific award by a specific channel must be specifically supported by a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. It is wrong to assume that a channel must have received the award simply because we know that its subscriber numbers have reached the milestone. —Madrenergic^talk 17:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes and infobox modules

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube § Other channels in infobox

Aside from {{Infobox podcast}}, which is part of WikiProject Podcasting, we have {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and {{Infobox Twitch streamer}}. Both are under the scope of this WikiProject, according to this RfC. In my opinion, some rules should be crafted so we know when to include infoboxes or infobox modules for individual YouTube/Twitch channels (is it if they verifiably own the channel or does the channel have to be notable?). wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I can see how this can be an issue. Many notable celebrities like musicians, artists, and actors also have their own YouTube channels, even if they are not notable for their channels specifically, and these channels would not normally included within Wikipedia articles. I think it would be best to take reference from the principles used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography about notable persons who have a non-notable career in a smaller subject. I'm sure they would have probably encountered similar situations before.

Comment 1. Having mentioned WikiProject Biography, I realise that while other biographical infoboxes fall under WikiProject Biography (in addition to the WikiProject on the topic in question), the abovementioned {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and {{Infobox Twitch streamer}} currently do not. Considering the biographical nature of these infoboxes, they should be placed under the supervision of WikiProject Biography as well (in addition to WikiProject YouTube). This would be important when fixing bugs with the source code, and making sure they play well with other infoboxes, as I believe other biographical infoboxes tend to follow a similar syntax to allow easy debugging.

Comment 2. As another aside, I feel that having two infoboxes specifically for YouTube and Twitch personalities comes with many problems:

1. The infoboxes are far too brand-specific and gives no room cover other online personalities who may be using other services such as Mixer or other video hosting/streaming services. The infobox should ideally be able to anticipate and allow room for this, considering that personalities that use YouTube and Twitch can very often switch between them and still be considered to remain within the same career.
2. The use of coloured infobox headings that are similar to the brand colours of YouTube and Twitch.tv appears to support the branding of these websites, which appears contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia of being brand-neutral. Consider that the infoboxes in the YouTube and Twitch.tv articles are not themselves coloured.
3. The separate infoboxes is also troublesome for personalities those who use both YouTube and Twitch, as it forces editors to embed one within the other. Right now there are no issues when dealing with people like PewDiePie and Ninja (streamer), because they dedicate themselves to one platform. However, when you want to employ the infoboxes for people like Jesse Cox (YouTuber) or the late TotalBiscuit who use both YouTube and Twitch, then it becomes highly inconvenient. YouTubers and Twitch streamers are two very closely related careers within the same field of online content production, so there will be many people who cross over. Just because they use two different companies should not be a reason to have to force editors to use two different infoboxes. It would be like forcing an article on a scientist to use two different infoboxes just because the individual publishes in both Nature (journal) and Science (journal).

Recommendations. Taking all these into consideration, I would like to suggest the following actions:

1. Combine the two infoboxes into a generic uncoloured {{Infobox online personality}}, {{Infobox online content creator}} or something to that extent, with data fields for YouTube channels and Twitch channels within the same infobox, and open-ended data labels for other video hosting services.
2. Submit this infobox to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes for review and help with standardising the code.

—Madrenergic^talk 09:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of this reasoning. {{Infobox presenter}} is a good example of what we're looking for, and it can already include a lot of YouTubers. Infoboxes should be classified by occupation, not platform. YouTubers may have a lot of things in common, but most of these properties are unapplicable to the infobox. Many articles about YouTubers can include a different infobox as they have another career, and the rest can be combined with other Internet personalities (see Internet celebrity). I don't think we should have an infobox about online personalities, because they are too diverse for an infobox more specific than what {{infobox person}} allows. wumbolo ^^^ 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are excellent points and I agree. A separate infobox about online personalities would not be appropriate considering that their presence on internet or conventional media would not significantly affect the datafields that would still need to be presented. In fact, having made a similar earlier argument regarding YouTube Play Buttons, I am now also of the opinion that a lot of the YouTube-specific and Twitch-specific datafields on {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and {{Infobox Twitch streamer}} should not be part of a biographical infobox, and should instead be transformed into {{Infobox YouTube channel}} or {{Infobox Twitch channel}} without any biographical fields. Not all YouTube channels represent a single individual, so YouTube channel information should not be presumed to be intrinsically biographical. —Madrenergic^talk 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}, I would say that the neutral infobox would be {{Infobox television}} (and the other ones, like {{Infobox podcast}}). While YouTube channels (other than web television) generally don't follow an orthodox format with seasons/series and episodes, {{Infobox television}} seems to have plenty of usable fields. {{Infobox flash series}} would be useful for animation channels. What I would like to say, is that there aren't that many YouTube channels that are more notable than the person/company that runs it. If the very T-Series itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article specifically about its YouTube channel, I don't know what does. Obviously, Michael Stevens (educator) is a separate article from Vsauce, and the article about Vsauce is largely about the YouTube content. However, notice that it could use {{Infobox programming block}}, which is arguably better than the current YouTube infobox. Many of these "television" infoboxes have to be included only in article related to television, but some of these infoboxes (like {{Infobox programming block}}) don't rely on parameters like "TV transmitters" and "Height above average terrain", and are quite applicable here. wumbolo ^^^ 19:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that "there aren't that many YouTube channels that are more notable than the person/company that runs it". There are plenty of groups that are primarily known for their YouTube content. Right off the top of my head, I can think of Game Grumps, The Yogscast, Hat Films, Sorted Food, Dude Perfect, and ChuChu TV. The infobox should anticipate and give allowance for such scenarios, because they already exist, and likely more will appear in the future. Currently, all of these articles use use different infobox templates to display information, which appears to show that there is a lack of consistency in how infoboxes are employed for articles on YouTube content creators, be it individuals or groups. —Madrenergic^talk 09:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What I meant by that was that articles don't focus on the YouTube channel as a medium, but rather on the group of people behind it. You may have a point that some articles about YouTube channels are about a group of people (The Yogscast, Dude Perfect), while others are about the videos as creative works themselves, made by one or more persons (Game Grumps, ChuChu TV). Sure, Hat Films and Sorted Food aren't obvious cases, but these belong to the group of articles about groups of people, proving my point (they aren't limited to the YouTube channel). Now, articles about groups of people use the same infoboxes as the articles about single persons of that occupation (e.g. Monty Python uses {{Infobox comedian}}). I think we would then agree that articles about YouTube channels consisting of a group of people are biographical in nature, and should use a biographical infobox instead of a YouTube-specific one. We're now left with specific YouTube channels. In my comment above, I suggested {{Infobox television}} and many others listed at {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}. I believe that {{Infobox television}} can be used at Game Grumps and ChuChu TV. If you disagree, we may want to ask wikiproject Film or Television, or take the infoboxes to WP:Templates for discussion so that more editors weigh in. If you agree that {{Infobox television}} can be used at Game Grumps and ChuChu TV, you may want to try to find an article which can't use any one of the infoboxes listed at {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}.

Of course, many infoboxes are suitable only for actual television shows/channels/stations. But that's because they have a lot of TV/broadcasting-specific parameters, and I'm not convinced that an infobox for YouTube channels would contain any YouTube-specific parameters that are not already present at a generic television-related infobox. For example, {{Infobox television}} already has |website=. Fields like "total number of views" and "number of subscribers" seem like the only ones worth it, so I will now discuss those. "Number of subscribers" is not encyclopedic for TV-like YouTube channels, and we don't have similar infobox parameters for much else, other than |circulation= for {{Infobox newspaper}}. Note that subscriber counts are useful for popularity, and less so for the number of followers, because people can die and still be subscribed (this will be a big problem in the future, but we'll have to wait for YouTube to tell us about the point at which YouTube deletes inactive accounts). "Total number of views" is not a very reliable metric for anything, as a "view" can be anything from watching the first 15 seconds to watching the whole video. Furthermore, I wonder how useful a number like that can even be, considering WP:NOTSTATS, at least for an infobox. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and "total number of views" of a YouTube channel doesn't say anything about individual videos, and is rarely mentioned in the news. I would go as far as to suggest that view counts for individual videos aren't that important, as articles about songs don't tend to mention it beyond "the music video has more than X billion views". wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox

The subscriber and view counts are obviously expected to increase over time. How does the Manual of Style prescribe writing them? Many articles say e.g. "11 million+" subscribers in the infobox, but the plus sign seems obsolete since the numbers are dated (the infobox states the date as of which the numbers are correct). wumbolo ^^^ 09:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of Wikipedia articles include statistics that very quickly become outdated within seconds, like World population for example, so this is not unprecedented. The proper guideline to follow is Wikipedia:As of, which recommends that such data should be dated to a specific timestamp. A suggested template that can be used in such situations is (rather unsurprisingly) called {{As of}}. In addition, Wikipedia:Verifiability means such data must be verifiable, so a number must be backed up with a reference from a reliable source that gives evidence for that specific number at that specific date. —Madrenergic^talk 18:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the current infobox numbers, as {{infobox newspaper}} has a similar |circulation= (and it does use {{as of}}). wumbolo ^^^ 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

After re-reading your first comment, I think I may have misread your question. I apologise. I shall try to answer again.

Assuming the number has been dated, I think the editor's intention of adding the "+" is possibly to show that the precise dated number is actually higher than the approximated number; for example, the real number is "11,234,567", but to make it appear cleaner, the editor instead types it as "11 million+". However, MOS:UNCERTAINTY appears to recommend it as unnecessary:

Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled. The reader may be assumed to interpret large round numbers (100,000 troops) as approximations. Writing a quantity in words (one hundred thousand troops) can further emphasize its approximate nature.

I presume that in such a situation, the "+" sign would be considered similar to using the words "approximately" and "about", so it should be avoided.

On the other hand, if the intention of the "+" sign is to show that the number is going to be higher in the future, then that would be considered WP:SPECULATION and therefore prohibited. In fact, not all YouTube channels necessarily have increasing subscriber numbers, so it is inappropriate to make that assumption. —Madrenergic^talk 18:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this guy notable?

Is Andywarski considered notable? [18] Dwanyewest (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Took a search, and no. He's less notable than Dick Masterson. wumbolo ^^^ 16:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 minute crafts have their own article? ZakeryaWP (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@ZakeryaWP: Maybe. Here's one source: [19]. wumbolo ^^^ 18:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What about Barcroft TV?

What about Barcroft TV being a Wikipedia article what other people's opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi. I am gearing up to do an RfC on statistics from social media networks and I would welcome thinking from members of this project. My draft work can be found here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: ouch! I completely missed this comment on my watchlist, and nominated {{infobox YouTube personality}} for deletion/deprecation. My proposed deletion would surely have much higher chances if your RfC had passed. wumbolo ^^^ 17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo while I !voted keep at the personality, I am with you on the larger idea. I welcome any thoughts you might have about the RfC and hope that you'll choose to support it when I formally propose it. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about discussion

There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:Infobox YouTube personality. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as keep, even though almost every participant agreed that the infobox has problems. The closer did not specifically say which parameters should be removed per the consensus. I'll wait for the social media RfC to be closed, as it has a good chance of having an effect on the infobox. If the subscriber parameters are removed, I might renominate the infobox at TfD. If the subscriber parameters aren't removed, the closing statement of the social media RfC will probably have instructions on how to continue. wumbolo ^^^ 11:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

stated policy on using an article subject's YouTube videos as only support for assertions?

Over at Talk:Mark_Dice#Political_Positions_Of_Mark_Dice we've got multiple SPA meatpuppets coming in to argue that Dice's YouTube videos should be used to provide the only support for assertions of his political positions. I've argued that once the opinions are commented on by others in reliable sources, we can use their own videos to source a response or to confirm what was actually said, but that if no one else is commenting in the first place then including that information in the article is inappropriate because it's not considered relevant by reliable sources.

Do we have stated policy on that? Not that these people will listen, but as part of their arguments they're of course dragging in WP:OTHER and when someone pointed out a particularly egregious example at Kyle Kulinski I did a major cleanup, and if I get pushback there, I'd like to know what if any policy/guidelines we have in place, and most of the stuff I can find at WP:OR and even WP:YOUTUBE doesn't address this question specifically and directly. Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Information

Hello, I am Zellmer from de:WP:WPYT. And I have a few questions or suggestions. Currently it is with us so the number of subscribers always be inserted by hand. i am currently working on having the data automatically inserted. Do you have any experiences? Do you use wikidata? It would be nice if wirwikidata could use the Youtube channels to create uniform data. For answers please mention me ZellmerLP (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello ZellmerLP: I was thinking about changing WikiProject YouTube to WikiProject Online Video (as seen in the RfC above). I don't know how to use Wikidata that well, but I would love to help out with anything and learn. We also just insert the subscriber count by hand and make a general estimate of the count (so if a channel had 1234567 subscribers, we would approximate to 1.23 million subscribers). Thanks! Zoom (talk page) 22:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We do the same. I'm currently trying to get the data from Wikidata. I'll get in touch when it works

ZellmerLP (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I was working on the same problem but instead of using wikidata I was using Youtube APIs to extract the updated view count and subscriber count. With thousands of articles using this template, this might be a long running script but probably we can run it once a week. Do you guys have some opinion on this methodology? Also, can you share some ideas about how it can be done using wikidata? --Maskaravivek (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of DBase (dbase.tube) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of DBase (dbase.tube), a YouTube statistics aggregator, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dbase.tube. — Newslinger talk 08:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MarbleLympics that may interest this project. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Joana Ceddia

Hi
I've made a draft for this short biography I'm working on. Is what I have so far appropriate/legitimate? Not entirely sure if I'm allowed to reference the YouTuber's own video. Will someone please skim through it and let me know what I should change or tell me where I can find good sources?
I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. HeyitsBen (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

JK! Studios up for deletion

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• JK! Studios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Start up studio staffed by Conan refugees. Sources exist and can be improved. WP:NEXIST, and WP:Notability questions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on procedure

Hi! Quick Question: Is it better to have the subject of the article be the channel/organization itself, or the main person in it?

In explanation, I was considering creating a page for Forgotten Weapons, which is a channel with over 1M subscribers. The channel (or it's associated website, which predates the channel) is often cited in firearms related content on wikipedia. I think it meets notability criteria on merits other than the raw number of subscribers, as my understanding is that that's not a strong enough argument in its own right.

Any thoughts are appreciated. ^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 17:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New discussion

New discussion on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – archived. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is WP:s position on having a Youtubers number of subscribers mentioned in the article cited to Youtube directly mentioned in any guidance or similar, or is it a question of arguing WP:PRIMARY, WP:V etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything in the lede and an infobox has to be covered in the body of the article (below lead, above ELs), was that your question? Of course I cheat, e.g., hide ugly socialblade crap in an edit summary. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There's some discussion of this at WP:NYOUTUBE. I think one of the objections to citing YouTube rather than a third-party source is that subscriber counts can go up or down, so a third-party article provides a point-in-time snapshot. Using secondary coverage implies there is some, so helps establish notability better than a subscriber count alone. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, thanks, I saw WP:NYOUTUBE, it's something, but personally I think it would be helpful if this was at guideline-level somewhere. Say I remove the YT-based numbers from Angry Joe citing WP:NYOUTUBE. I may be pessimistic, but I see "only an essay, PRIMARY allowed here" reverts coming. Something like "had X subscribers/views as of 2018" cited to The Hollywood Reporter or whatever is better, but can be argued to be lacking context depending on stuation (example). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Social Media Statistics

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Social Media Statistics that will affect many articles within the scope of this project. Please share you thoughts there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Closed as no consensus. I didn't expect that. Well then I won't be changing the infobox for a while. I'm pretty sure that a proposal limited to infoboxes could pass, as the vast majority of discussion participants suggested. wumbolo ^^^ 09:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's a fair reading of the discussion. I made a crucial mistake in mandating style in addition to substance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Missed that, IPs don't read WP:VPP. IMHO WP:NOTSTATS is clearer than this archived proposal. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing shop?

@Barkeep49 and Wumbolo: How about tagging this project as dead instead of semi-active? Asking you, because nobody else answered questions here, or did anything with the project page later. I'm familiar with the List of YouTubers including Emma Blackery, Emma Chamberlain, Hannah Witton, (maybe) Kim Iversen, and related articles such as YouTube Creator Awards or SitC.

Frankly, an almost dead project is not helpful, if you look at the following unanswered questions or tons of talk pages apparently guarded by this project in the case of AFDs or PRODs, but actually nobody cares. That's of course not your or my fault, but you are entitled to say no, not (yet) dead. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a member of this project and would have no opinion on what its status is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

More alerts on…

List of YouTubers (January 17)

YouTube (February 1)

Infobox YouTube personality

List of most-liked YouTube videos

YouTube navbox

NYOUTUBE (February 3)

–84.46.52.96 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Plan A: merge "up" to WT:WikiProject Internet culture and tag as defunct.
Plan B: Tag as inactive and recommend to replace YouTube by Internet culture in WPBS manually.
–84.46.53.188 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Assistance request Draft:Wode_Maya

Originally posted at WikiProject_Ghana

Seems to be one of the most-subscribed youtubers from Ghana (>300k subscribers) [20] [21]. Are there protocols for interpreting Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Keep_/_delete_tally with regards to more typical non-western subscriber counts? I also note that few of the people on this list are on Wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:TheRunawayGuys

• Draft:TheRunawayGuys

Hello, I'm writing an article on the collaborative YouTube channel 'TheRunawayGuys', as I think the group is notable enough for their own article and not just a redirect to the Chuggaaconroy article. I think this due to the fact they are one of, if not, the first group to do collabs on YouTube in their manner, plus they have many panels at conventions as well as their partnership with Direct Relief. However, at the moment the draft won't be accepted due to citing of unreliable sources. I was wondering if anybody could help me with this. Thank you. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

For any article on YouTubers they need to pass WP:GNG which can also be supported by WP:ENT. In practice this means that they need several reliable independent sources written about them, in a non-trivial fashion. There is infomation at WP:NYOUTUBE with some statistics about articles of YouTubers which end up getting deleted, and unless the YouTuber has over 5m subscribers it is more likely than not that their article will be removed, not because of the subscriber count, but because they don't pass WP:GNG. 'TheRunawayGuys' only have 491k subscribers and so this would indicate that they are unlikely to have enough coverage, however if there are multiple independent, reliable, non-trivial sources, then the subcriber count would not matter.

YouTube sources are seen as unreliable (as per WP:NOYT), so I would remove the majority of them if you can. Looking through the other references the only ones which are independent and non-trivial are the deadsplinter.com and nintendoenthusiast.com. I don't know much about either website and I don't think they are on WP:RSP to know whether they are unreliable or reliable, you could check WP:RSN to see if there has been a discussion on them there. Unless there are other sources not yet cited by the draft, I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Ym2X (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please grade this article and add it to the WikiProject?

I have just published Liam Thompson (YouTuber). Everything is sorted (it meets all the requirements I can find) and is backed up with adequate sources. I believe it is suitable for this WikiProject. Thanks, WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Considering creating a bot that automatically updates YouTubers' subscribers.

Is this a valid idea? Creating a bot that will automatically update all YouTubers' pages (that have Template:Infobox YouTube personality) with the correct subscribers and/or views. Not exactly a huge thing, but a QOL improvement nonetheless. POC code is at https://github.com/TisTiller/WikipediaYoutubeSubscriptionBot EncodedRainbow (talk) 20:52, 08 09 2020 (AEST) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Category talk:YouTube animators

Is this kind of mess appropriate? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• For now, I've WP:Boldly removed the most redundant WikiProjects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article: List of biggest banished YouTubers

I am starting draft: List of most subscribed banished YouTube channels.

I only have little experience editing Wiki, so correct me if I make any mistakes.

If I missed anything in the list, please also add it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.110.86 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ami Rodriguez

Hi, i do a draft for the knowed youtuber Ami Rodriguez, ¿Can you reviewed?. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 17:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with revision of article on YouTube racial equity special

Hi. There is a discussion about revising the lead to the article Talk:Bear_Witness,_Take_Action#Request Edit November 19th, a series of livestreams being put on by YouTube as part of its $100 million initiative to support Black creative and to address racial inequity and civil unrest in America following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others. Bear_Witness,_Take_Action This article has been rated mid-importance for the You Tube Project. Your participation in the discussion would be welcome. I have a disclosed COI on the page. Oceans87 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding the rest of the YouTubers

You guys need to add the rest of the YouTubers. ArekSmith (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@ArekSmith: Only notable people should have biographical articles. Please see WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people) for guidance. Being a YouTuber neither means you are notable nor does it mean you are not notable if you otherwise would be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Hardcastle at AfD

Daniel Hardcastle has been nominated for deletion. See the nomination page for more details. SK2242 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Tubefilter

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Tubefilter. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Tubefilter. — Newslinger talk 11:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:New Rockstars

I need help getting this article ready to be published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:New_Rockstars. TonyStank123456789 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

TommyInnit at AfD

TommyInnit has been nominated for deletion. See the nomination page for more details. Notifying WikiProject as the article was not tagged as a WP YouTube article at the time of nomination. SK2242 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohamed Henni

Could someone please review Mohamed Henni? He passes both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ethan Payne#Requested move 4 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ethan Payne#Requested move 4 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SK2242 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with draft article about YouTube Pride 2021

I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 “live stream” events: User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project including whether it is ready to go live. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove subscriber numbers and total view count from YouTuber infoboxes

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’m working on a Zerkaa draft and would appreciate help

The page is at Draft:Zerkaa. Although he is the least most subscribed member of the Sidemen, I think there is a lot of sources about him. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Section move discussion for History of YouTube

An article that may be of interest to this WikiProject (History of YouTube) has a section that is proposed to be moved to another article (YouTuber). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the appropriate talk page proposal. Thank you. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jordan Maron#Requested move 27 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality § Proposal: Move subscriber counts to Wikidata and update using bots

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality § Proposal: Move subscriber counts to Wikidata and update using bots. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

New draft: YouTube in Germany

Help from fellow Germans would be appreciated. --LuxBlu (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

YouTubers with multiple channels

So this might be an obvious question, but in the Infobox, do we list all channels that the YouTuber has content on (i.e. also listed in their YouTube channels page) or just the ones specifically owned/uploaded by the YouTuber? I ask because I have one YouTuber I maintain that has four channels, but only two are actually his while the other two (VODs and Clips) is owned/managed by others. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I would stick to channels that are actually owned and operated by the article subject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:REDTV (online TV channel)#Requested move 12 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:REDTV (online TV channel)#Requested move 12 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Generated channel URLs are incorrect

YouTube now uses /c for channels rather than /channel as previously. The Infobox and YouTube hyperlink templates both still use /channel and these now produce broken links. I'm happy to help with changing this if someone can point me in the right direction. Neil Mayhew (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the templates a bit I found that /c is for custom YouTube URLs, and I can get the get the links I need with channel_direct_url in the Infobox and custom= in the hyperlink. /channel URLs do still exist, they're just not what I thought they were. (They use the cryptic machine-generated channel names.) Neil Mayhew (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

YouTube infobox in record label articles?

A discussion is taking place at Talk:NoCopyrightSounds#Youtube regarding the question of whether Infobox YouTube as a module is necessary for some, possibly all, record label articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fun game

• User:MJL/Wikipedia YouTube video script

Not sure why I didn't notify this project sooner because people here would obviously be interested. I launched a fun game that will last until Friday. The premise is simple; you write whatever you want (subject to the posted terms), and I will make a YouTube video following whatever script the community has collectively written. If you want to play, please be sure to add your name to the CC-BY 3.0 declaration, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts

I've started a discussion to potentially remove the associated acts parameter on infoboxes over on Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality. Head over there to participate in the discussion, where you support it or not. – DarkGlow • 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

MrBallen

Does the YouTuber MrBallen meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article? CoffeeEnergy (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Only if you can demonstrate that he is discussed by an adequate number of reliable sources. See WP:BIO for more info. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the response. CoffeeEnergy (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

JaackMaate

Hi all, I am currently preparing an article on commentary YouTuber and podcast host JaackMaate. Would anyone be available to help? Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox YouTube personality is at odds with the WP:ELMIN guideline

Hi folks,

I was about to BOLDly do things to the Template:Infobox YouTube personality, but then I figured I'd open a section here first. Having a channels parameter in the template invites editors unaware of Wikipedia guidelines to add every single channel of the YouTube personality to the infobox, whereas on Wikipedia Normally, only one official link is included (WP:ELMIN). Wikipedia is not a repository nor a linkfarm. The main YouTube channel of a YouTuber has a "channels" section linking the secondary channels anyway, so nothing will be lost to our reader.

My recommendation is to replace the channels parameter with channel in the template, and to keep channel_name / channel_url / channel_direct_url. This will also require altering the example infoboxes on the side of the template by removing secondary channels listed. Pilaz (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your implementation of this/removing the parameter. Requiring users to navigate the users main channel which may or may not explicitly list their secondary channels to find the information they are looking for (non-primary channels) is not a better system then having them available using the longstanding channels parameter. The guideline states "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" and I think multiple YouTube channels falls into this "significant unique content" category, and often are inconsistently linked. I also would argue that having their multiple channels in the infobox is in the spirit of "A person who is notable for more than one thing might maintain separate websites for each notable activity, (e.g., one website for music and another website for writing)." --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

How does a YouTube clips channel "provide the reader with significant unique content" which is "not prominently linked from other official websites", aka the main YouTube channel? They are both YouTube channels - it is even a stretch to qualify them of "official websites".

Your other justification makes little sense either. Whether a person is notable for more than one thing is determined by reliable sources coverage. In most cases, there won't be reliable coverage of that. Pilaz (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I am arguing that multiple channels are in the spirit of multiple notable activities. Often times, channels have completely different content from each other, but even if they are similar, having them all provides a more complete picture of what they are notable for that can't be understood from only linking their "main" channel. For instance, Rhett & Link as a brand have numerous notable channels covered on their article, choosing to arbitrarily select one as notable and throw away the rest because readers can find that information elsewhere is not the best solution from a reader's perspective, which is ultimately what matters. The longstanding inclusion of multiple channel ain't broke, so why fix it? Removing them only makes the article worse. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

having them all provides a more complete picture of what they are notable for that can't be understood from only linking their "main" channel

We don't determine what is notable or not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If there are reliable sources that discuss the secondary channels, then they might be notable, in which case I can see them staying under the exception listed in the footnote. Failing that, no. I mean, given your recent revert on Sodapoppin, can you provide reliable sources that discuss the notability of the clips channel you reinstated?

The longstanding conclusion is that the template encourages guideline-breaking behavior and that removing them makes the article not worse but better, clearing it from unnecessary clutter and making exceptions to otherwise well-established principles. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Cerebral726. We should just keep it as it is now. Changing it just makes it harder for the general reader. I also think it counts as "significant unique content". They are different channels for a reason. The content differs between each. It also makes it easier for editors, such as ones that want to update views and subscriber counts. They can see all the channels, and they know they haven't missed any. If not all channels are linked on one channel, it seems strange to include some, but not all, and make the user search each one. They should simply all be listed in the Infobox. It doesn't distract from the content. We've been using it for a long time now and it hasn't been a problem before, why should it be now? Strugglehouse (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing it just makes it harder for the general reader - to find clips channels? We are not a link farm.

They are different channels for a reason. The content differs between each. You could make the same argument for Coldplay, since they have a website, a 23M subscriber YouTube channel, an Instagram page, etc. And yet, we've only kept their website up on their article. Curious. Pilaz (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clips channels are only one type of channel a YouTuber may have. There are many different types of channels someone can have. A vlog channel, a music channel, etc..

Also, Coldplay is a band, not a YouTuber. They need their official site, maybe not their YouTube channel, and definitely not their Instagram page or other socials (per Wikipedia:NOSOCIAL). Strugglehouse (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clips channels were the largest category of channels I removed when applying WP:ELMIN and were present in almost all the articles I worked on. There is no utility whatsoever in keeping them on Wikipedia as they constitute a lesser known derivation of the same platform with rehashed content of a YouTuber.

Answer this: what encyclopedic utility is there in hyperlinking a clips channel such as Dream Shorts? And what reliable sources discuss the clips channel to justify its notability? Pilaz (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still many other types of channels that are listed on Wikipedia pages. Dream Shorts is NOT a clips channel. It has original content on it. Maybe channels that are actually proper clips channel shouldn't be included on pages. I still think every channel should be linked, but I suppose only including channels that have original content could also work. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been elevated and moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Guideline_loophole:_WP:ELMIN_and_Twitch_streamers/YouTubers of WP:EL/N. The issue most related to this discussion is Issue #2. If you decide to participate, please kindly disclose you were notified on WikiProject YouTube to temper WP:CANVASS concerns. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Template:YouTube into Template:YouTube channel

{{YouTube channel}} currently is a redirect to {{YouTube}}, a generic, catch-all linking template. {{Infobox YouTube personality}} uses a bit of a convoluted (but still robust) way of linking to YouTube channels. {{YouTube}} always includes the extra text "on YouTube", and therefore using it in infoboxes is bad. The infobox also has limitations: there are 3 slots for the template to auto-generate channel links, and the types can't be mixed. The solution I propose is to deprecate these parameters in favor of |channels=, and instruct the editor to put a {{Plainlist}} of {{YouTube channel}}s, which will generate a link to the channel, supporting all the ways normally linkable to a channel. {{YouTube}} can wrap this.

Thoughts? SWinxy (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

100% support this, it'll make the YouTube personality infobox far more intuitive and easy to use. The current way of linking is very convoluted and confusing; despite having used it quite a bit I still have to go to the documentation page every time to remember which of the parameters I need to use: channel_name, channel_url or channel_direct_url. This could be solved by changing the parameter names so that they are more intuitive like those used in {{YouTube}}. However, this doesn't solve the issue that the types can't be mixed together when adding secondary channels, meaning that workaround fixes often have to be used such as changing all links to channel_direct_url links even if they were previously using channel_name or channel_url (which isn't the most intuitive fix if channel_name or channel_url were previously appropriate). Having a single channels parameter and separate template for automatically generating links modeled on {{YouTube}} seems like the simplest solution. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I also 100% support this. As per above. I think the YT personality infobox will look much cleaner and neat this way, and it's something I've always wondered why we haven't done earlier. Soulbust (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've published Template:YouTube channel (not before moving what used it to Template:YouTube), and seems to work. I guess unless something comes up, I'll submit an edit request to Template:YouTube and change Template:Infobox YouTube personality. SWinxy (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out what exactly is causing an issue, but I can't integrate it into Template:YouTube. Its testcases have been showing that Template:YouTube channel is emitting an error as if nothing was inputted. Something to do with the parser? idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SWinxy (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:iPhone 6 Plus Bend Test

I've made a new draft, IPhone 6 Plus Bend Test The YouTube video by Unbox Therapy is very notable, and has alot of news coverage on it. I believe it could be an actual article. SMBMovieFan (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

New discussions at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality

There are some new topics over at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality regarding adding or withdrawing support for various parameters including |games=, |teams=, |children=, and |networth=. You are invited to go over there to share your view. — Archer1234 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Language parameter for Template:Infobox YouTube personality

Support for the |language= parameter has been fully added to {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. It is designed to record the primary spoken/written language(s) used on the corresponding channel. Actually, there has been support in the template code to use |language= for the last 4 or 5 years. However, it was never put in the documentation and the template's error checking code would report an error in "Show preview" mode if you used it. Despite the error message, it would display in the infobox correctly. But all those issues have been resolved. The error-checking code now correctly recognizes that parameter as valid and the documentation, including the examples, have been updated. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Wilbur Soot

An article that been involved with (Wilbur Soot ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Lovejoy (band)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

See discussion RE: Niko Omilana

Hello, if you can, please see contribute to the discussion of bring back AfDed article Niko Omilana. - GA Melbourne (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Etika - Good Article Review/Feedback

Hello everyone, I have a bit of a request. I mentioned a few days ago that I worked on YouTuber Etika's article, and a week ago I nominated it for GA status. Per this essay, I would like to ask the WikiProject if any experienced GA reviewers would like to review the article. If anyone can begin the review process within the next 7 days - from perhaps the 7th to the 14th at the latest - I would genuinely appreciate it. I will be free the entire week to work on improvements should the article be reviewed then. A couple notes for any willing reviewers:

1: After nomination, mainly copy edits have been made to the article the past few days.

2: I separated primary and secondary sources to facilitate the review process, and some of the primary/SPSs I may remove tomorrow as well.

3: Etika's history is quite a controversial topic, but virtually all disputes on the article's content have been resolved in the past few years and almost all controversial statements are backed up with fully reliable sources. At worst, it does use situationally reliable sources but in line with their descriptions at WP:RSPSS.

More notes are available on the talk page. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors

Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors is currently flooded with over 700 pages. What is causing these errors and what can we do to empty the category? wbm1058 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I can summarize broadly what the issues are:

1. Some items have no value for channel ID. Someone needs to lookup the channel ID for the creator's main channel and add it to the item. (you can see me do this here; unrelatedly the Wikipedia page for this person is broken and I had to look it up by going to Portuguese Wikipedia)
2. Some items have values but have no single best value. What needs to be done is someone needs to go uprank one of the several youtube channels. Then you need to wait a few days for the bot to run and fetch the most recent sub count (or you can populate it yourself manually). You can see me do this here. If there is no singular best channel then at the moment we have no fix (see above discussion).
3. Some pages don't have a wikidata item at all like Quenlin_Blackwell. An item needs to be created and the first step needs to be done.

Also, it would help if Wikidata fully supported YouTube handles. It's on my todo list to allow you to enter the user's handle instead of their channel ID on wikidata and have the bot lookup the channel ID from that (it has become quite difficult to lookup channel IDs). Unfortunately my time is a little strained at the moment. BrokenSegue 05:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I have used this website to find the channel ID: commentpicker.com.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 11:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is super helpful, thank you. I'll get to work on clearing the category later today. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is what I suspected was happening. The lack of Wikidata should never be considered a bad, top-priority error on Wikipedia. It's an omission, dammit, not an error. Wikipedia editors should not be required, or even arm-twisted, into editing Wikidata, which takes complexity to 11 for newbies who don't even understand the Wikipedia basics. Sdkb, if you or some other template editor don't promptly fix Template:Infobox YouTube personality so that it doesn't flood main namespace errors with false positives (obscuring real errors), I will. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Ok but this isn't a "top priority" error as you said. Is there any way to mark this as an "issue" but not a major one? Nothing is actually wrong with the vast majority of these pages. I had the module mark it as an error but I can change it to issue some other warning. The point is just to have a category where all the problems live so people can go and fix them if they want to. BrokenSegue 13:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is with code like this:

{{#iferror:{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}|{{{subscribers|}}}|{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}}}

We shouldn't be testing for Module:YouTubeSubscribers to return an error, and that module should not populate Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors when there is simply no data. It should just return a code indicating "no data". We should be testing for Module:YouTubeSubscribers to return "no data found". – wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really a fluent module coder yet (still haven't managed to make time to study Lua coding more) but I see four error messages in that module:

• "Encountered a statement with zero or multiple point in time (P85) qualifiers. Please add or remove point in time information so each statement has exactly one"
• "Could not find a date for YouTube subscriber information. Is there a social media followers statement (P8687) qualified with good values for P585 and P2397?"
• "Could not find a single best YouTube channel ID for this item. Add a YouTube channel ID or set the rank of one channel ID to be preferred" (code -404)
• "Found an associated YouTube channel ID but could not find a most recent value for social media followers (i.e. P8687 qualified with P585 and P2397)" (code -412)

These messages are just disappearing into the ether. Codes should be returned to the calling module to tell it what the problem is. You might populate four sub-categories, one for each distinct problem. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance but why is populating four subcategories better than what is currently being done? I mean sure it's more specific but how would it be different from the current situation which you say is where it's being "considered a bad, top-priority error"? Like it'll still be adding the same number of pages to categories but just with more specific error conditions? Right? I'm not getting what about the current situation is a problem (I mean sure more specific categories would be good but that doesn't seem like the problem you are pointing out). BrokenSegue 14:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What is function returnError doing?

function returnError(frame, eMessage)
	return frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'error', args = { eMessage } } .. "[[Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors]]"
end

It appears to be populating the category, but that doesn't seem to be the only thing it's doing. It also seems to be causing the translusion of {{error}}. It should stop doing that. You might do better to just remove this function and not call it. Its only purpose seems to be to lump different issues together, making editors work to manually figure out what the issue is, when you could return specific issues without lumping them together. Whether you just return specific problem codes to the calling module or populate (multiple) categories as well, I don't care (since these are not problems I expect to work on myself). I do clear {{error}}s. When {{error}} is transcluded on a page, it should usually be accompanied by a big, bold, red error message pointing out exactly where the editor error is and giving instructions on how to fix it. For Wikidata issues, you should only populate categories, not return {{error}}s. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

ok so you don't care if we put it into a category. you just don't want me to use the error template. is there another template that shows a bolded error message but that doesn't put it into whatever group you are tracking? we currently hide the error messages but they are visible on the Module talk:YouTubeSubscribers/testcases page. BrokenSegue 02:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I use {{strongbad}} for documentation of errors. See Template:Requested move#Error messages.

Someone else I raised this issue with created {{error-small}} for reporting "small errors".

I see how the {{error}} documentation led you down this path.

This meta template returns a state of error (recognized as such by a wiki parser function), and optionally an error-message text in red (visible for the user). It is used by other templates to signal an error, for example invalid input, which can then either be displayed to the editor or caught and handled by other templates.

In my view the message should not be optional, and should always be visible. Explaining my philosophy. We don't want to create hundreds of categories for unusual bad errors and make trolls gnomes trawl through them all searching for errors in haystacks. Not all error conditions populate categories. The error condition is the central location for patrolling top-priority errors. Patrolled by checking "what links here", transcludes {{error}}. OK the "error condition" also includes errors generated by template loops and parser functions such as formatting errors in math calculations, which don't transclude {{error}}, but populate categories. Common problems, like lack of sources, and lack of data, we swim in those, and organize them into swimming pools using things called {{dated maintenance category}} and {{progress box}}. The error condition should be kept to a manageable size so that emptying it can be done with paper towels rather than filtering through a pool drain. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

so I will leave the decision of whether to show the message to @Sdkb:. They designed the Template integration for the module that decides not to show the text. As far as the Module that I wrote it sounds like you would be satisfied if I switch to Template:error-small. Is that ok with you Sdkb? BrokenSegue 01:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors has been cleared out though I don't know how that happened. However the main namespace error transclusions are still there. I see that Template:Infobox YouTube personality is currently undergoing work by Prefall who hasn't recently been active on this talk page, but there is discussion on Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality so we have two talk pages to coordinate between. I can wait until Prefall is done with their work. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, @Galobtter: first edited the template to prioritize the |subscribers= parameter over pulling from Wikidata automatically. They further explained their rationale on this talk page, in the section above. My changes to the template have been mostly unrelated, but I did retain and cleanup that specific change by Galobtter as I generally agree with their assessment that we should hold off on forcing the Wikidata implementation until its functionality has been expanded. Prefall 01:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm back to debugging this. Using Jimmy Conrad as my test page, this code seems to be executed there:

{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}

generating the error: Module:YouTubeSubscribers:240: Could not find a single best YouTube channel ID for this item. Add a YouTube channel ID or set the rank of one channel ID to be preferred

I see this error message is on line 240 of the module.

I would like to replace that error with a return code. Something like "no-best-channel-ID-found" or whatever.

Then in Template:Infobox YouTube personality change:

{{#iferror:{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}}} to:

{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}|no-best-channel-ID-found}}

— wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, no response after 3 weeks, so I'm assuming that everyone is OK with me proceeding to fix this myself.

I will use the following two testcases:

• Amanda Cerny as an example of a person who does have a YouTube channel ID specified in Wikidata (wikidata:Q28549924 – YouTube channel ID: UCbyGK5QKd3z0POnjEQ8jdtg)
• Jimmy Conrad as an example of a person who does NOT have a YouTube channel ID specified in Wikidata (wikidata:Q1385340)

I updated Module:YouTubeSubscribers/testcases to add these two cases.

Test results show that Amanda Cerny has 2.69 million subscribers, which is confirmed by the infobox in her Wikipedia biography.

Test results give a "Could not find a single best YouTube channel ID for this item" error response for Jimmy Conrad. It is this behavior that I'm going to change. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why all the tests are indicated in the test results as "failing". The Cerny test seems to be successful to me, reporting "2.69 million". Why does the results page say it failed? wbm1058 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the results page is misconfigured in a way that reports all tests as failed. Personally I would abolish the separate results page and have Module:YouTubeSubscribers/testcases just be a Wikitext page containing the results in the same way as template test cases work, since that seems to be the style of testing that has been chosen anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery: and now Test results all are passing! Can you tell what changed to make that happen? I don't think it's anything I've done. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Because of a bad edit to Module:UnitTests that incorrectly marked failed tests as passed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The patch I installed today resolved the bulk of them but there are a few less-common scenarios remaining. Rather than error the code -404 is returned as marked above.

Jason Marsden (wikidata:Q739105) is returning the error "Found an associated YouTube channel ID but could not find a most recent value for social media followers (i.e. P8687 qualified with P585 and P2397)" which is another one of the four errors listed above. I added this one to the testcases. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

He does have a YouTube channel ID specified in Wikidata (YouTube channel ID: UCW8N7CjNUTsdbTzfOGuCqIQ)

Amanda Cerny has social media followers (P8687) data, and Jason Marsden has this data too

Cerny has a point in time (P585) specified for her YouTube channel ID followers (22 March 2023), while Marsden does not – wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

And now this one returns the code -412 as marked above. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Learning more Lua functions as I work on this. I see that in addition to the four explicit errors I listed above, the assert function may generate three more:

• "No qid found for page. Please make a Wikidata item for this article" (code -424)
• "No such item found: "
• "Could not find a single best YouTube channel ID for this item. Add a YouTube channel ID or set the rank of one channel ID to be preferred"

That third one ("Could not find a single best YouTube channel ID...") was generated in two places. One an "error", one an "assert".

Karbin is currently generating the "No qid found for page. Please make a Wikidata item for this article" error. I just added a test with no qid specified and that duplicated this error. Again, lack of Wikidata is never a Wikipedia error. I'll patch this. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This one returns the code -424 as marked above. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

— I've updated the Module:YouTubeSubscribers documentation to document these three new data retrieval problem codes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)