Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upcoming transition to automated updating of subscriber counts

Hi all! Following up on the consensus here, @BrokenSegue and I are preparing to implement a system that will update the subscriber counts in {{Infobox YouTube personality}} automatically, using a module that sources the data from BrokenSegue's bot on Wikidata. This should both help these articles stay more up to date and also reduce watchlist clutter (as the data updates will all happen at Wikidata). Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll post again once the system goes live, at which point please let us know of any issues you encounter. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily like the idea of the counts being hosted at WikiData, since putting them in a submodule would work just as well, but I'm glad to see this is finally getting off the ground; I know there are a few folks that have been poking around the edges of this for a few years now. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Many articles display

"[...] subscribers (main channel)

[...] subscribers (combined)", with an Efn that contains the subscribers counts of all channels owned by the article subject.

This change completely breaks this. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to create a template to wrap the module, and modifying the module to allow for specifying which channel to grab stats from. This would allow for doing the combined subscribers and view counts. Or add a new function to the module that would output and format with multiple channels listed in Wikidata. (Side note: I'm interested in migrating away from |channel_name=, |channel_url=, |channel_direct_url=, and |channel_display_name= and into {{YouTube channel}}, which dovetails nicely from this issue raised.) SWinxy (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse, thanks for bringing this up! Could you provide a link or two to examples? This seems like a fairly rare use case, but it is something we'll want to find a way to handle. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Not uncommon, surprisingly. Dream (YouTuber), MrBeast DanTDM, and Behzinga, among others. (Nowadays creating multiple channels is less of a thing; I don't expect YouTubers from the last 4 years to have second channels.) SWinxy (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at many YouTuber's Wikipedia page, you can see examples of this. If you see the ones that Swinxy has linked, as well as others such as Jaiden Animations and Wilbur Soot, you can see examples of this formatting under the "Views" section in their Infobox, and you can see that the "Subscribers" section no longer works like this. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Early-stage launch

Update: We've now turned on the automated subscriber counts for most articles. Any that produce errors will fall back on the manual parameters and be placed in a tracking category. Once we've eliminated the errors, we'll be able to deprecate the manual parameters to complete the work. Please let @BrokenSegue and I know if you see anything amiss. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Can the template segregate mainspace articles from draftspace and userspace ones? e.g. [[Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors| ]] SWinxy (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@SWinxy, we could wrap the tracking category in {{ns0}} to get rid of stuff outside mainspace. Would that be helpful or is there a better approach? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like that. I wasn't sure if I should suggest that either. SWinxy (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm not sure I understand what's being suggested. You want me to wrap the category statement in that template when it's not in main namespace? Broken Segue 17:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@SWinxy @BrokenSegue, I implemented the fix, so pages in namespaces outside of mainspace are no longer being added to the error tracking category. It looks like there are about 850 entries in the tracking category out of 2500 total transclusions of the infobox. Doing some spot checks, it appears that the culprit in almost all cases is that the subject's Wikidata entry doesn't have any information about their YouTube channel. Fixing that would be a good gnoming task, or maybe it's possible to bulk import the channel parameter data to Wikidata somehow. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Another source of errors are pages that have multiple YT channels associated but no one is marked as preferred. The bot only populates the subscriber count when there is a single "primary" channel. Broken Segue 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this sounds great. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am confused as to how this is supposed to work. Does it display the subscriber count and date, overriding whatever explicit values are set in the infobox? If so, does that mean we should remove the explicit |subscribers= and |subscriber_date= parameters from each article so as not to confuse editors that setting them has any effect? If an article shows up at Category:Pages with YouTubeSubscribers module errors, how do we tell what the error is that causes the article to have been placed there? Maybe the sorting for that category ought to be by the error, similar to how infoboxes with a category for articles using an unknown parameter sort them by the unknown parameter name instead of by the article name. — Archer1234 (t·c) 09:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks to override them, yes. Each parameter independently falls back to the user-set values when it encounters an error. As Sdkb says, they look to be a result of missing data on Wikidata. SWinxy (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. We'll eventually want to remove the manually entered data once the parameters have been deprecated; I believe that can be done by PearBOT or something similar. But no need to yet unless there's an article you particularly care about.

Regarding how to tell what the error is, if you use {{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}} on an article and preview it, it may tell you. You'll want to go to the article's associated Wikidata item (Tools > Wikidata item) to investigate directly. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb, perhaps the error could always be shown in preview and in bold red? (when {{REVISIONID}} is empty) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox of Destiny (streamer) is glitched

Hi there, As brought up on Talk:Destiny (streamer)#Updating YouTube info, and confirmed by myself in the edit history of Destiny (streamer), the article's infobox is completely glitched. Altering the "subscribers" and "views" data points doesn't result in any changes; It keeps displaying 406,000 subs no matter what.

If anyone knows what might be causing this and/or knows a solution to fix this, it'd be appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I take it that it's related to the switch to automated subscriber counts discussed in the above section. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The template overrides inputted numbers if it can successfully grab things from Wikidata. But in this case, the bot isn't updating the channel statistics. I think because of problems like this and above that the current template code should be changed so that it will only run as a backup or invoked manually. I've updated his wikidata page and it should propagate shortly. nvm it was because the module takes from P8687 instead of P2397. It was an instant update. SWinxy (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@SWinxy: the bot (which I operate) only runs once a week. is that not frequent enough? Broken Segue 05:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot's not updating his statistics. See wikidata:Q60320906#P8687 and wikidata:Q60320906#P2397, as besides the main channel which I manually updated yesterday, it's all out of date. SWinxy (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this isn't on enWiki to allow for easier updating if things are out-of-sync? Primefac (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Why would it be easier to have a bot update the numbers on enwiki instead of wikidata? That would mean maintaining two bots (one for enwiki and one for wikidata) for no reason. Broken Segue 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

besides the main channel data that you added under P8687 there is no youtube data whatsoever (it's all twitter data). This is because until I updated the P2397 to point at a singular best channel the lua module wasn't sourcing data from wikidata. The way the bot works (which could be changed if there's consensus) is that it looks for a singular best main channel and tracks the subscriber numbers for that channel. Destiny had no marked best channel and so no data was being tracked. Broken Segue 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That behavior is kinda weird tho. Today I had someone in the Discord ask why their edits to the subscriber field wasn't showing on The 2 Johnnies. The behavior of the bot and the behavior of the module differ in that the bot's update scope is narrower than what the module pulls. Where would consensus need to be established for the altering of the bot? SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot and the module are in agreement I think (I wrote both of them). Each item has one main youtube channel and that is the subscriber count that we track over time. If there isn't a main youtube channel then we populate nothing and grab nothing. I think we can establish consensus for changes here as long as whatever we change is within the remit that was approved on Wikidata (which is pretty broad). Broken Segue 22:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The 2 Johnnies has this problem. The module is grabbing the data from Wikidata and putting it in the infobox. But those numbers are stale. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok I understand the issue for that page. The bot follows the following rules on when to update the count: 1) has the number of subs grown by 10%? 2) is the current sub count over 1 year old? In the case of the page you reference the data hasn't changed 10% and is less than 1 year old. These parameters could be tuned. Or else a human could manually add a new subcount to wikidata. What if I made a webpage that allowed anyone to click a button and summon the bot to update the count immediately (maybe with some sane limits like > 1 week and >2% subs)? I agree that the internal functioning of this process is not transparent but I'm not clear how it could be made better. Broken Segue 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What's next

The change has led to confusion among editors unaware that their additions to infoboxes are being overridden by the module mixed with not great automation behavior. Here's a proposal on what changes I think need to be made:

Change the code in the infobox to not override manual entries, falling back to the module: {{#if: {{{subscribers|}}} | {{{subscribers}}} | {{#invoke:YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice}}}}
Update the module to pull all entries in P2397 unless there are preferred entries (in which case only those would be pulled)
Change the bot's behavior to query for all entries in P2397, not just the preferred one
Deprecate P8687 in favor of P2397 (Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/03#social_media_followers_(P8687)_was_a_terrible_idea|discussion)

SWinxy (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on 1. Against 4 (I think it's a non-starter). And 2 and 3 are both options but I don't think it's clear what it means for the module to pull all entries. What number will it return? The maximum? The most recent? Broken Segue 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I should have specified the output of the module for #2. Format it the way that many articles have: {{ubl|123,000 (channel A)|56,000 (channel B)|10,500 (channel C)}} etc. List 3 channels by default, and anything more would have the third entry be "combined", e.g. MrBeast. SWinxy (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

1 has to be implemented. There are several articles where the Subscribers paramter is used to display subscribers for multiple channels, e.g. over at Linus Sebastian and Rhett & Link, where both creators have numerous YouTube channels. Having automated subscriber counts means only one subscriber number will be displayed, which doesn't accurately reflect either creator's total subscriber base. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 08:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what "total subscriber base" even means. You can't just add the number of subscribers across all their channels. There is considerable overlap between those? Broken Segue 15:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: total subscriber base = total number of subscribers across all channels. and yes, you literally can add up the total number of subscribers. have you checked either article? i'm referring to the "main" and "combined" numbers several articles about YouTube creators use. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did check either article. And yes I know one can just add up the numbers. I'm questioning if that number is meaningful. Broken Segue 00:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is. Various creators spread their content across multiple channels. I think its useful to have the combined total of all subscribers, especially if the infobox has a list of all YouTube channels. Having one figure is NOT representative of a creator's total following or fanbase. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure but a youtuber with 2 1million sub channels is not comparable to a youtuber with 1 2 million sub channels. It seems odd. Are there examples of non-Wikipedia sources using this metric? Broken Segue 04:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but why does it matter? The primary channel shouldn't be the only channel that counts towards a creator's total subscriber count. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I share BrokenSegue's view that adding up subscriber counts is a misuse of parameter. If two channels are closely related enough that someone seeks to have the presented together in the same infobox, they're also presumably going to have significant subscriber overlap, so adding them up would count many subscribers multiple times, artificially inflating the count.

To answer the direct question above, the degree to which reliable sources use the metric matters, because Wikipedia is supposed to be based on such sources.

I think that the proper way to talk about subscribers for such channels is a question that goes beyond the direct scope of what we're doing here. I'd suggest opening a separate level-2 thread on that to try to reach a consensus among project participants. Once you have that, feel free to let us know and we can figure out a way to implement it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Linus Sebastian for example, has multiple channels under his Linus Media Group banner. I think its very wrong to only include the primary channel. It cancels out people who may subscribe to one channel but not the other. That's why I honestly severely disagree with even implementing Wikidata support in this instance. Or, there should be at least a way to disable the automation per channel if necessary. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for you to find examples of other sources using a simple sum of subscribers as a metric. There are other ways to show the breadths of subscribers to an individuals channels than a simple sum (e.g. just list their followings on their top accounts). Broken Segue 18:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think to put it another way, there are two extremes here. YouTuber A has two channels, both of which are subscribed to by 1 million people each - however, these 1 million people are all the same. YouTuber B also has two channels, but the 1 million subscribers to each channel are completely unique. There is no way to know which one of these, or anywhere on the spectrum between both extremes, is the case, so while its [sic] useful to have the combined total of all subscribers, without an RS to support that combined total, there is literally no way of knowing that value. Folks can add two or three numbers together if they really want to get a rough estimate of those figures. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I knew going in that this was a very big change to roll out, affecting thousands of infoboxes, so I expected that there would be some kinks to work out. Given those expectations, I'm actually fairly pleased at how it's gone. As anticipated, we've uncovered a few kinks in edge cases, and we're going to work those out (with patience appreciated while we do so), but it seems to be working as intended for the vast majority of instances.

For (1), the change I would support would be to have the infobox use whichever value is more recent. I wasn't able to code it to do that without my brain turning inside out, but if one of you is, feel free to go for it. I would not support having the manual entries override the automatic ones, as the entire point of this enterprise is to move away from manual entries for a piece of information that fundamentally is much better served by automatic updating than manual updating. If there are currently too many issues for the change to remain live, I'd prefer to have it just rolled back with the understanding it'll be reimplemented once we've had time to address the issues. But from the level of issues I'm seeing so far, it does not appear that there is a need to do that.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that seems like a sensible way to handle sub counts. An easier solution might be to just take the larger of the two values given that sub counts almost always go up? The main problem with your proposal is parsing dates consistently. Broken Segue 02:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What if I made a new lua module that implemented "newer value" logic where you'd use it like {{#invoke:NewerValue|v1=101 million|d1=March 2020|v2=111 million|d2=March 2023}} and it would return the value of v2 (in this case). Broken Segue 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue, if that wouldn't be too hard of a module to create, then I'd say go for it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're going the bot route, then remove all option to even give a count manually. This way people aren't confused (i.e. the information will show up without parameters), and people won't make things up to get around any date values (i.e. they will very quickly figure out that putting "today's date" will keep their value ahead of the bot value). In other words, if the bot is working as intended, and there are mechanisms in place to point people where to go if there is an issue, there's no need to have a named parameter in the infobox. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's where I'd like to work toward. We have to first take care of the error tracking category, though, to ensure that everything will work once the full launch is done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for sure, let's work out the bugs first. My suggestion was more long-term. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

so do we want that module? I can write it this weekend if there's interest. Broken Segue 02:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue The newer value one? I'd say yes! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

ok I made it. It's at Module:MostRecentValue. You can look at the test cases to see how it works: Module talk:MostRecentValue/testcases. Tell me if this is sufficient for your needs. Is there a central repo of modules that people use that I can publish this to to encourage reuse? Broken Segue 01:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Kinda not a great idea if we're having to list multiple channels. It'd be forced and against current consensus on those articles. Leave it up to the editors of the page to put in which channels to pull from. SWinxy (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into how the bot/module works, but I feel like that is something that could be coded for? Primefac (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

currently the bot only ever shows a singular youtube channel subscriber count. if you want to do more than that I can add functionality for it but at the moment it's not clear how it should look. Also, the bot is only updating the sub count for one yt channel per article so that would need to change to. All of this is doable though and I'm willing to put in the time to make this happen. I just need people to say what it should look like for various cases and I can try to figure out a way to represent that in wikidata and in the module. Broken Segue 02:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for a module to grab a specific entry in a property? I'm thinking it'd be cool to {{YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice|UCfga98sd7AFJK7vACA|}} and it spit out the number for it. It'd be easier to make the editor make it than for the module to format it. SWinxy (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

that's possible but only if the information for that YT item is attached to the current wikidata item. So for example Wikidata doesn't think Linus Sebastian (wikidata:Q22810736) has any yt channels right now because the channels are linked to other items. But if you were willing to write something like {{YouTubeSubscribers|subCountNice|chan=UCfga98sd7AFJK7vACA|item=Q111862397}} this could be done. The wikidata mediawiki interface doesn't let you ask "find the youtube channel called $foo anywhere in wikidata and then tell me its current sub count" (that would be too inefficient). All you can ask is "for this item find me the subcount for the attached youtube channel". Broken Segue 00:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah. I left out in my question that it would be pulling from the linked wikidata item. I think I like that a lot. SWinxy (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Hey, I've been reading this discussion for the past few days and I wanted to ask how this module also accounts for YouTubers who have had their account terminated, along with the infobox automatically linking to a YouTube channel in question. For example, I've been working the past few weeks on the article of YouTuber Etika to get it to GA status. To make a long story short, YouTube terminated two of Etika's accounts for uploading inappropriate material between October 2018 and April 2019. However, the infobox still links to his original channel which is deleted (under the subscribers and total views section). Seeing as how there's no way to access his YouTube stats unless with SocialBlade or an archive link, I think in that case it would be redundant to have that link appear as a reference. Perhaps there should be a parameter that grants the option for users to either add or omit a YouTube channel's link from the infobox, or find a way to integrate it with an archive tool or SocialBlade functionality when a YouTuber's channel no longer exists. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question, @PantheonRadiance. The template currently (separately from any changes we're making here) automatically creates a reference to the channel URL for any subscribers count, and there's no way to add an archived URL. We could add a parameter for that, and edit the Wikidata entry, but I think it might be better to create a new generalized override parameter, e.g. |subscribers_manual=, that could handle any sort of edge case. That would also work for having multiple channels as Evelyn_Marie is seeking above. If that parameter is used, you could put in whatever data/reference and it'd override the bot-derived data. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: This sounds promising then; adding a new parameter to manually set that up would definitely work for any edge cases, and it may be convenient for separating the stats of the channel from the rest of the other sources by grouping it as a primary source. I've noticed a bit of a pattern recently where YouTube articles have categorized sources in the References section based on whether they're primary/self-published or secondary, reliable articles, and I think having this parameter would make it easier to place stat-based info in a section for primary sources. Thank you for all your work on improving the infoboxes! PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've implemented 1 for a few reasons. While I don't really have an opinion on if total subscribe count is a good thing or not (it does seem somewhat WP:ORy to me), I think that a consensus should be gained on that point before overriding articles that do have that.

More importantly, there's no indication that the infobox is pulling its data from Wikidata (I think pretty much every case I've seen infoboxes pull from Wikidata at least indicates it), which makes it a very confusing situation for anyone who is not intimately familiar with Wikidata in infoboxes. The bot threshold of only updating for 10% increases also seems pretty high to me, and leads to e.g. articles like MrBeast having an infobox count older than than the article lead. The bot should at least update the count monthly regardless, so that the date in the infobox shows that the count is current as of this month (rather than a couple months old February 2023 as a lot of articles including MrBeast showed).

Also I think it's somewhat confusing having both a "Last updated" for the infobox and a separate date for the Wikidata update. Is there a reason that if we are transitioning to using Wikidata for the stats, to not have both the subscribes and the view count pull from Wikidata, and we can use the "stats updated" parameter for the date of the last Wikidata update? Galobtter (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC: In 2023, is Deji Olatunji notable enough to be removed from WP:DEEPER and have a Wikipedia biography?

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.

Normally this wouldn't merit a formal closure, but it was requested and with the history it's not an unreasonable ask. There is consensus to remove them from WP:DEEPER and to allow work on an article. I'm not going to say there's a consensus to have a Wikipedia biography, because this isn't where that is decided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In 2023, is Deji Olatunji notable enough to be removed from WP:DEEPER and have a Wikipedia biography? Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023? DrewieStewie (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, this proposal aims to discuss the notability of Deji Olatunji, KSI's brother formerly known as ComedyShortsGamer, who has 10 million subscribers on YouTube and has expanded to several other ventures. As a little bit of background: several times in the mid-to-late 2010s up until March 2022, there were more than 20 deletions of articles for Deji under G4 and G5, along with at least two AFDs then, including this one. Around October and November 2022, another article (under the title Deji (YouTuber)) was created, due to his fame having significantly grown in recent years following the speedy deletions and AFDs, to the point of facing Floyd Mayweather Jr. in an pay-per-view exhibition boxing match. However, in the midst of a move request discussion initiated by me, it was deleted under G5, despite there (at the time) being no voiced objections to the subject's notability or any initiated AFDs. Afterwards, I established the most recent deletion review, which had two camps forming both in support and opposition of his notability. Ultimately, the closer decided that there was a consensus against his notability, citing User:JzG/And the band played on.... Subsequently, he was added to WP:DEEPER. Afterwards, there was dissent from me and User:PantheonRadiance on User: Sandstein's (the closer) talk page (see talk page discussion here), with the proposal to establish this RFC to discuss it further. However, I didn't start it until now, due to being preoccupied with my education and to give the issue some rest temporarily.

Opponents to his notability argue that good faith has been exhausted for the subject, due to the 20+ G4 and G5 deletions. They note that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies, even though the subject, Deji, never proposed the article himself or encouraged the behavior of the Ultras (in this case referring to his hardcore fans) that continued creating poor-quality startup articles for the subject. They believe that this erosion of good faith overrides any increased notability after the fact.

Dissenting voices who believe Deji is notable enough for an article believe that his notability exceeds by a long shot that of the other entries at WP:DEEPER. They believe that his reliable source coverage is significant, and that any Wikipedia stigmas caused by the ultra editors are very unfair to the subject. They believe the latest drafts at the time of the Deletion Review, as well as the latest article at Deji {YouTuber) which was deleted just before the Mayweather vs Deji bout, were satisfactory articles that established notability for the subject. They believe that notability can change and elevate to Wikipedia levels later, even in the face of 20+ G4 and G5s beforehand. PantheonRadiance stated it best on Sandstein's talk page:

The deletion did have quite a lot of merit in the past as many of the previous versions were riddled with unreliable, primary, and/or non-independent sources, if they weren't stacked to the brim with original research. Based on those, community consensus was perfectly justified in deleting the article. However, looking at the recent versions that were created by blocked users, it was clear that there were plenty of reliable and significant coverage of Deji between his video content, his boxing career and personal life. I was going to post my two cents on the article at the deletion review too but it closed before I got a chance to do so. But basically put, there were reliable sources that significantly covered him even present in some of the AfDs (this one for example), that were dismissed because they were "trivial" even though they did explain significant aspects of his YouTube career and life that could've flashed out the article. Not only were sources like BBC and The Daily Dot present that covered Deji, among others from Business Insider and The Independent, but recently Deji's boxing match received coverage from Sky Sports, ESPN and Bleacher Report. Even considering the poorly made attempts at creating this article in the past, I think even the most cynical Wikipedia editor can't seriously dismiss all of these sources as trivial coverage. From a quantitative standpoint each source covers him in multiple paragraphs as opposed to passing mentions. And at best, saying the topic of these articles is insignificant is merely subjective skepticism that doesn't change the fact that reliable media outlets consider him significant enough to report on him. And at the end of the day, isn't that all that should matter?

Therefore, I once again ask in this RFC: Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023? DrewieStewie (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as poster, per my various comments on the matter and per User:PantheonRadiance's comments on the matter/ability to establish Wikipedia notability for YouTubers as well. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm extremely skeptical of this idea, but I suppose no harm can come from permitting a draftspace only page to be created and go through WP:AFC process so we can avoid the umpteenth ANI fight. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd second the draftspace page. I don't think an RFC is the appropriate mechanism for this, and, frankly, with respect, this RFC doesn't comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL or WP:RFCBRIEF.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Deji had already been through multiple drafts that were declined and rejected in the past, many of which from ultras as pointed out by DrewieStewie. One of the final drafts that existed during the DRV in 2022 was deleted per WP:G6, shortly after the DRV consensus emerged that he doesn't merit an article. I'd definitely say that an RfC is warranted in order to prove once and for all that he is unambiguously notable, lest this becomes so controversial that any editor who tries to create a page or even a draft receives any sort of punishment under assumption of bad faith. I'm still in the midst of finding sources that prove his notability, but for now, I'll leave some that do cover him significantly:

The Verge: 1

The Independent: 1, 2

BBC News: 1

Kirkus book review (potentially meets WP:NAUTHOR?): 1

PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The only problem with the RFC is that the nominator failed to sign immediately after the question so the bot thinks his (allowed by policy) arguments for his position are part of the question... which they clearly aren't. The arguments are clearly separated from the neutrally worded question by a paragraph break. Calling out WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF is a bit much for what amounts to a mistake akin to a typo. Fieari (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate the correction; that was my mistake that I had failed to notice earlier. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't been involved in this discussion in the past, reviewing this person there seems to be plenty of coverage to justify a biography article. Nemov (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure we need an RfC - why not complete a suitable draft to show it meets GNG and go through AfC? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Hello my friend. Good to see you here. RFC is needed due to several reasons. First, there’s the salting of several article titles relating to subject (hence the WP:DEEPER inclusion). Second, there’s the risk of it being shot down out of pocket due to community bad faith existing towards the subject due to past poor behavior from fanboys attempting to create the article, hence why consensus beforehand is wise. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes - I've done a source review on the sources provided above to see if they meet WP:GNG. Remember, the criteria for WP:GNG is that there exists independent (the subject neither wrote, nor paid to have someone else write) secondary (with analysis and synthesis, not just being the source material) reporting on the subject that is significant (not a passing mention) and that covers more than just a one time single event (so coverage of lots of things is more notable than if multiple sources are all reporting on the same incident). I'd also say that more weight should be given if the coverage itself explains that the subject is notable. Here's what I found:

Reference Number	Reference	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Notes
1	The Verge: 1	Yes	Yes, article is extensively about the subject	Yes	Yes	Topic of article is about boxing event.
2	The Independent: 1	Yes	Yes, article is about the subject (in a negative light) and even flat out identifies the subject as "among YouTube's biggest stars"	Yes	Yes	Topic is a feud.
3	The Independent: 2	Yes	Yes, article is extensively about the subject	Yes	Yes	Topic is a feud.
4	BBC News: 1	Yes	Yes, article is about the subject	Yes	Yes	Topic is about a legal matter involving subject's dog, which would not have been notable to write about had not the subject been notable.
5	Kirkus : 1	Yes	Yes, review is not only about the book the subject wrote but also covers a bit about the subject himself	Yes	Yes	Main topic is a professional review of book the subject wrote. (the reviewer is not kind)

These sources definitely look like they meet WP:GNG to me. I'm not sure how you could claim they don't. I don't know this YouTuber, I'm not a fan, and I have no dog in this fight. I'm just looking at our policies and the coverage provided, and I see no reason for this person's article to be deleted, whether by the AFD process or by speedy deletion. Fieari (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes - Based on the evidence provided in recent comments, it seems the subject has become notable enough to merit an article. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Help with declined draft

Draft:Krew (Youtube group)

The reviewer said the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Any help finding things that should be sourced but aren't, or unreliable sources if there are any, would be greatly appreciated. I did make some changes since the draft was declined, so if it is now good enough tell me that too. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Likely notable group. TVovermind is a listicle and doesn't seem reliable. THR is good, Globe and Mail I think is good, Insider is good. Maybe cut out the 'Competitions' section. Look at articles in Category:YouTube groups, e.g. Smosh, for referencing style and tone. SWinxy (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks. I removed the listicle reference and competitions section. Also added more references overall, especially where there was unsorced content. Will look at articles before submitting. I did look at the Dream (YouTuber) article some to know how to do things, but I will look specifically at refferences of group channels this time. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for KevJumba

KevJumba has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

El Politigato

Re-listed for the third time at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Content ID (system)#Requested move 5 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Content ID (system)#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

SSSniperWolf / Alia Shelesh

Administrators seem to be waiting for more input: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf.
If you commented more than a few days ago please also review the discussion and re-affirm or update your opinion as needed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Shaylee Mansfield

I have nominated Shaylee Mansfield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Etika Peer Review

I would like to garner more feedback on the peer review for Etika in order to address concerns with the article in anticipation for a featured article nomination. Please leave feedback if interested. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Working on a draft for NileRed

Hi everyone, I started working on a draft for the YouTuber NileRed, which can be found at Draft:NileRed (YouTuber). I would like to ask for help in creating this article as I'm having trouble finding any sources or information. Poxy4 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on automated subscriber count updating

I wanted to return to this discussion from 2023 about automatically sourcing subscriber counts from WikiData so that we don't need to manually update the {{Infobox YouTube personality}} infobox. I think we need to come to a consensus about whether the WikiData subscriber counts will be preferred going forward, and how we will respond to manual updates to the infobox.

As I understand it, this mechanism doesn't properly handle content creators with multiple channels, so lets put that aside for now.

From the channels I've seen, BorkedBot works reliably and is fairly up to date. The problem is that people still manually update the subscriber count in the infobox. When this happens, the infobox will permanently display that number until manually updated again. On one hand, I don't feel comfortable reverting these edits if they are truly more accurate (no matter how insignificantly so). On the other hand, eventually WikiData will update, and waiting for that to happen so you can point the infobox back to WikiData is an annoying manual action that the bot was designed to eliminate.

I'm going to propose 2 solutions, and I'd like to get some input on them.

When someone edits the infobox, we revert and point the user to updating WikiData instead. There is already a "pencil" icon near this number that takes them to WikiData. We've also discussed other options, like a webpage where you can force BorkedBot to update the number.
We make the infobox script smarter to detect when the number in WikiData is more recent and ignore the manual subscriber count changes in those cases.

It's my opinion that (2) is pretty difficult to do reliably.

No matter which option we choose, I think it would be a good idea to create a maintenance category of the pages that have infoboxes that are overriding the WikiData number.

Mokadoshi (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Have the infobox automatically display the subscriber count from Wikidata and then mass-remove the manual parameter from all transclusions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening this discussion, @Mokadoshi! I forget exactly where we left off, but ultimately I got burnt out (I had some notifications related to it sitting around for literally 6 months until they timed out). Needing to get consensus across two projects that have historically had tension with each other, plus the technical aspects, made it a heavy lift despite everyone being in core agreement that it offered a good solution to a clear problem. We came so close to fixing it, rolling out the implementation. But, as with many technical changes, there were kinks that surfaced when it was launched that we had to work through, and those reporting the kinks made more noise than the folks praising, giving the impression of more trouble than there actually was. My heart sank when I saw @Galobtter's final message in that thread, since it was clear that (while well-intentioned) the heavily neutered implementation it went with would land us exactly where we are today: seeing that you can't jump half way in on a change like this.

I'm not sure how much capacity I'll have to continue tackling this issue, but a two pieces of advice from experience gleaned last round:

Make sure that you have a solid consensus in a discussion with good participation (maybe a dozen editors) before implementing, so that you have something to point to when the error reports start coming in.
Learn whatever you can from last round. Even when the only problems are with edge cases, those edge cases can still make noise, and if there's enough noise the effort gets derailed. Questions like multiple channels can't be put aside — we need either a technical option (e.g. the |subscribers_manual= release valve) or a firm consensus that the edge case is a misuse (e.g. based on the argument that you can't just tally up subscriber counts when there is likely to be significant overlap).

Ultimately, the place we want to end up is exactly what @InfiniteNexus envisions above — where the parameter is removed en masse from infoboxes so that there is no tempting field available to update. Novice editors who really want to update the numbers can be pointed to a simple explanation somewhere on WikiProject YouTube that says that the counts are updated automatically on Wikidata, and provides a means to force an update if there's truly some exceptional circumstance that makes it necessary (99% of the time there won't be).

Courtesy pinging @BrokenSegue in case they have anything to add. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah my general opinion is that we should use the automated solutions for this whenever possible. I'm much more involved on the wikidata side than here but I'm willing to do quite a bit to make things work on that end if there is someone on enwiki who is willing to champion making the changes here. i'm unsure if i would have time to do the "update wikidata's counts by triggering borkedbot via website" approach and I was hoping adding the pencil icon would encourage people to just do a manual update on wikidata but I understand the UI there isn't super friendly. (i kinda wish there were a generic UI for updating wikidata values nicely without having to see wikidata... maybe that is something I would have more time/will to work on). feel free to ping me if you need more input from me. Broken Segue 07:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to champion this going forward. I got interested in this effort because I was going to develop a bot to do this, until I discovered all the work already put in on this. Originally when I posted this discussion I was thinking we were already close to solving this problem, we just needed consensus for how to handle people making manual changes. I can see now that the only acceptable solution to that problem is to phase out manual changes entirely, which we are not yet able to do. I'm very comfortable with my technical ability to push this forward, but will need some time to review all the prior discussions of this on Wikipedia and on WikiData to develop requirements that work for everyone. I understand you will be too busy to lead this effort (congrats on the RFA btw), but I'd like some advice on the nontechnical stuff (Wikipedia procedures). When I have specific questions, is it cool if I ask them on your talk page? At the same time, I'll be jumping in on the WikiData side to figure out what requirements we have there, and talk with @BrokenSegue about potential changes we'd need on his bot.

If that sounds good with everyone, then we can close this discussion. When I make progress on a more permanent solution, I'll start a vote at Template_talk:Infobox YouTube personality and link it here. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

this sounds good to me. I can help move things along on the wikidata side. Feel free to ping me wherever you feel my input would be helpful (including any talk page) Broken Segue 16:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes automation from Wikidata for this Automation to Wikipedia from Wikidata does not work in all cases, but it does in this case, and this is an essential datapoint for putting the subject matter in context. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Are We There Yet? (James Marriott album)

Hiya! got an album draft here i'd like to be looked at by an admin / page mover about youtuber james marriott's debut album, here is the link:

Draft:Are We There Yet? (James Marriott album)

Have also nominated his main article as a good article so feel free to contribute and add anything you can! Link:

James Marriott (musician) George (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge to YouTube task force of WP Internet culture?

As this project is only semi-active, I suggest (as a non-member) merging it into the YouTube Task Force at WikiProject Internet culture, and renaming its categories accordingly. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture#YouTube task force AND WikiProject. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)