Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:45, 25 February 2019 editSpirit of Eagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,557 edits →PewDiePie's most-subscribed streak - further discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 20:08, 25 February 2019 edit undoMy Lord (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,007 edits →PewDiePie's most-subscribed streak - further discussionNext edit →
Line 322: Line 322:
*'''Reluctant Support''' (Changed from comment, see below comment) T-series did briefly pass PewDiePie, but this was entirely because of action on the part of YouTube rather than the subscribers (who quickly pushed PewDiePie back into the lead). But for YouTube’s interference, PewDiePie’s streak would not have been broken. Normally, I would argue we should check if the secondary sources are treating this as a true break or as a technical footnote. However, the Mashable article was the only source covering this. Waiting things out is also not an option, since that effectively be a decision in favor of maintaining PewDIePie’s streak. After giving this a ton of though, I’m unable to support one over another since either decision would be a controversial declaration based more on the judgement of Wikipedians than the secondary sources. I'll update this comment if I can come up with a solution.] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC) *'''Reluctant Support''' (Changed from comment, see below comment) T-series did briefly pass PewDiePie, but this was entirely because of action on the part of YouTube rather than the subscribers (who quickly pushed PewDiePie back into the lead). But for YouTube’s interference, PewDiePie’s streak would not have been broken. Normally, I would argue we should check if the secondary sources are treating this as a true break or as a technical footnote. However, the Mashable article was the only source covering this. Waiting things out is also not an option, since that effectively be a decision in favor of maintaining PewDIePie’s streak. After giving this a ton of though, I’m unable to support one over another since either decision would be a controversial declaration based more on the judgement of Wikipedians than the secondary sources. I'll update this comment if I can come up with a solution.] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
::The Mashable article, as well as and have all reported that T-Series surpassed PewDiePie, albeit briefly. At this point, I think that the secondary sources show PewDiePie's PewDiePie's five-year streak was broken on February 22, 2019 and that a new streak began the same day. Personally, I think this was a really cheap way to end PewDiePie's streak and that YouTube should have taken more care to audit PewDiePie and T-Series at the same time given the ongoing competition. However, its not our place to ]; we need to follow what the secondary sources say. ] (]) 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ::The Mashable article, as well as and have all reported that T-Series surpassed PewDiePie, albeit briefly. At this point, I think that the secondary sources show PewDiePie's PewDiePie's five-year streak was broken on February 22, 2019 and that a new streak began the same day. Personally, I think this was a really cheap way to end PewDiePie's streak and that YouTube should have taken more care to audit PewDiePie and T-Series at the same time given the ongoing competition. However, its not our place to ]; we need to follow what the secondary sources say. ] (]) 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' Opposing may reflect bias against T series. It needs to be mentioned as per ]. ]<sup> ]</sup> 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


== Proposition == == Proposition ==

Revision as of 20:08, 25 February 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of most-subscribed YouTube channels article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGoogle Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Google To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconYouTube Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
The contents of the List of YouTube Diamond Play Button recipients page were merged into List of most-subscribed YouTube channels on 11 September 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of most-subscribed YouTube channels article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

Most subscribed YouTube channel in US shouldn't be PewDiePie

Wherever that info was taken from, it's definitely wrong. PewDiePie is not from the US nor does he live there. He has said on many occasions that he lives in the UK (more specifically Brighton). It also can be Sweden because he is Swedish. KasraIDK (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I quote a previous response to a similar question made by another user (FeWorld) : "The channel is listed as being from the United States, despite him not living there, as seen on his channels about page. I believe he has previously stated their are some algorithm benefits by doing this."

This obviously shows that there is no plan to change this. I would say I agree with you logic, however, I guess it goes down to technical details. YourWorstThought (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Most subscribed youtuber of Malta

this title goes to Grandayy with 1.9M subscribers.

should be added to most subbed per country list

--Twelve People (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The "by country and territory" list: going forward

When I first began regularly editing this article fourteen months ago, I found the list beneath the secondary table, named "by country", to be in a decidedly poor state. It attempted to list the most-subscribed channel from each country, but the reference for each row simply cited its channel's YouTube page; there was no verification that it was actually the most-subscribed channel from that country or that it even was from there. I then proposed and implemented a reconfiguration in which the table was based on the lists provided by VidStatsX, which I chose in part because, unlike Social Blade, it did not include PewDiePie and the channels of non-American music artists in its list of most-subscribed U.S. channels. When VidStatsX ceased functioning, we had the options to either select another reliable source to cite or remove the list entirely. I again noted that Social Blade designates PewDiePie as an American channel, highlighting this as a potential issue and predicting that listing the channel as American would be received poorly. I instead suggested we use the lists provided by DBase, and implemented the change a week later.

Nearly a year later, DBase has within the past month begun a sitewide redevelopment which involved, among other things, several significant changes to its lists of most-subcribed channels by country, the most concerning of these being that PewDiePie, which until that point had been listed as Swedish, was now listed as the most-subscribed U.S. channel. As I predicted, the subsequent change to match what is given by the website has been contentious: in the eleven days since, no fewer than four different editors have taken it upon themselves to alter the Unites States row, and I have not relished reverting any of them, because, to an extent, I agree with their reasoning. PewDiePie is a Swedish expatriate residing in the United Kingdom with (as far as I am aware) no significant personal connection to the United States; the reason DBase and Social Blade have both designated his channel as American is presumably because that is the location he manually selected for it, as is evident on the channel's about tab. For the reasons given in this and the following paragraph, I am proposing to have the "By country and territory" section removed from the article altogether.

There are of course other websites providing lists of YouTube channels by country, but if they do not already agree with Social Blade regarding PewDiePie, they are of dubious reliability, or employ questionable methdologies for presenting their data. The greater issue, however, is the surprising level of variance displayed in these websites' results, which points to a more fundamental flaw in relying upon these automatically-generated lists. The existence of the table was, in my view, more or less justified under the assumption that the nationality of each channel is an objective piece of information that can be automatically derived from YouTube's API or from the metadata, but this has been demonstrated to not be the case. The question of PewDiePie's nationality should not have three different answers, but that is the contradiction these sites provide us. The lack of objectivity in this data is the primary reason that I believe removing the table is the best option going forward.

I do not make such a proposal lightly—I have been actively maintaining this list for more than a year, devoting a not-insignificant amount of time to doing so. I could have removed the list in December 2017 when it was in its initial poor state. I could have removed the list when VidStatsX became permanently inaccessible. I instead did what I could to preserve it, in part because I found the information it presented to be relevant and useful. I made sure that it was always updated in tandem with the main table. I reviewed changes made to the list to ensure that they adhered to the cited source. Nevertheless, it has become clear to me that retaining it is no longer sensible. This is a major change, but I believe it is the right decision. I hope to hear others’ thoughts and suggestions. LifeofTau 19:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

make tseries ahead for 5 seconds 2600:1702:4F0:2420:74F8:A47E:1F61:1C4E (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Source?: Here is a link to pewdiepie talking about the issue with a screen shot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F882_Ih61Sc&feature=youtu.be&t=616 doylej0011 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2019 (GMT)

Can someone update the table/graph

Right now PewDiePie is the most subscribed by around 7K but for a few minutes around 1:15 PST on 2/22/2019 T-Series was ahead by around 3-4K? Best picture I have is here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0CgBkzWsAEtCn0.jpg:large I don't know how to do it but if someone could edit the historic progression table/chart that'd be great Battle Salmon talk

NO, this has caused a fire in the talk page. BMO4744 (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Extremely brief change in rank due to a technical error

About an hour ago, a technical error caused the subscriber count for PewDiePie, as reported by Social Blade, to dip by around 20,000 such that it was briefly exceeded by that of T-Series before almost immediately regaining those subscribers. This is evident when comparing the subscriber count at 16:00 for each channel on their respective Social Blade pages, which means that we do have a reliable source to cite. Should the historical progression table and other relevant parts of this article be amended to make note of this glitch? I would appreciate it if users engaged in level-headed discussion here rather than rushing to make any changes; this is not an emergency, and we should feel free to take the time we need to come to a rational decision. Thank you. LifeofTau 22:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC); edited 02:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Too small to be noted on this page BMO4744 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's too small. Ninux2000 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I lean toward agreeing with both of you. I must report that I was mistaken about the change in rank being evident on Social Blade and have stricken that part of my comment. As long as there is no reliable source verifying that this occurred (a livestream is wholly insufficient), we cannot even consider making any changes that acknowledge it. LifeofTau 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

After further investigation, I feel the need to correct some inaccuracies in my first comment. Rather than being a technical error as I had presumed, the sudden drop in subscribers seems to have been one of the regular audits YouTube performs to remove illegitimate or inactive subscriptions. This was not reversed "almost immediately"; what instead seems to have occured is that PewDiePie's subscriber count rose very sharply—but nevertheless organically—in response to having been overtaken, increasing at such an extreme rate that at a brief glance it appeared to be another automatic jump. PewDiePie's subscriber count thus surpassed that of T-Series not at once, but apparently after several minutes. I would consider this a legitimate change in subscriber rank, but most likely one too minor to make note of. I will repeat that the lack of any reliable sources documenting this occurrence precludes us from doing so as well. LifeofTau 00:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, T-Series legitimately passed PewDiePie for a few minutes. I've added a note to acknowledge this, and I agree that it's too short to make an appearance on the list. I'm not sure what you mean by lack of reliable sources, though.. all of the "sub gap" streams use YouTube's API to track subscriber count. Surely YouTube is a reliable source of their own metrics? Ioaxxere (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

One way of looking at this situation is that at the end of the day, in that 8-minute stretch of time, T-Series almost certainly had more 'real' subscribers than PewDiePie. Since an audit is essentially a synchronization of the subscriber count with the 'legitimate' number, it can also be implied that T-Series had had more 'real' subs for quite a while before those eight minutes. Somebody500 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with many of you here. The chart says, and I quote, “The following table lists the sixteen YouTube channels that have most recently been the most-subscribed on the website, since May 2006.” This clearly shows the intent of the chart is to list any channel that has been the most subscribed since May 2006, NOT any channel that has been the most subscribed for over a day. We either need to add T-Series with 0 days, and restart PewDiePie’s streak, with a not saying the exact amount of time, or change the description of the chart, which I highly suggest not doing, considering it changes the original intent of the chart and the section as a whole. 173.54.199.86 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This talk section has become irrelevant to the subject and we should move our attention else where. BMO4744 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie Vs T-Series handing off

It has already occured once, today, Feb 22. These two channels will likely switch between top channel multiple times. For the sake of simplicity, I would like to propose only recording on both charts within Historical progression of most-subscribed channels, periods in which either channel was the top position for greater than a day. Any other periods should be recorded within notes --Rcmaehl (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It definetly could become a lot, but it 100% should be noted that T-Series very briefly passed PewDiePie meaning he was only the top channel for 1889 consecutive days, no more. Listing him as having the title for 1890+ days would simply be inaccurate. MARIO 02:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I reluctantly will accept this first pass as acceptable. Future entries need to stay clean or we need some other way with, at least the first chart, to more cleanly display the data so we don't have 100+ entries for both channels come next year--Rcmaehl (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The streak itself is measured in days, therefore as long as PewDiePie still holds the higher daily average the streak has not ended. A 10-match streak in football doesn't end at halftime. The measure is days (not minutes, nor months). Therefore the recent changes should be reverted. And I'm really not a PewDiePie fan. (I couldn't ccare less.) It's just that logic prescribes that a streak measured in days cannot end before the other "team" win an actual day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.151.145 (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that we should start to count when 1 side holds the title for 1 whole dayBMO4744 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC) I agree with what others have been saying: Passes should only count if they last for one day (or at the very least the greater potion of a day) on the chart, though small passes should be referenced in notes or possibly in a separate paragraph outside the chart if they become too numerous. Pewdie's "9-year-old army" will do everything in their power to keep T behind, at least until 100,000,000 subs, and likely later as well. AppMaster1000 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if T-Series surpassed PewDiePie, then T-Series stopped the streak. Just because it was a short surpassing that wasn’t enough to register on the chart, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A channel has never been (except maybe in the first days of YT) #1 for less than a day, so days are just the measurements we’ve used. That doesn’t mean that measurement can’t change, and that doesn’t mean that is or definition of a streak... we just haven’t needed anything smaller. If we really dont want to change the chart to something more specific, which I can understand, that would be difficult, I suggest putting in T-Series for 0 days, and then PewDiePie’s streak restarting. He technically did lose... briefly... but he has not continuously been the most subcribed youtuber for 1890+ days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.199.86 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

T Series passed PewDiePie so they should have -1 days then put PewDiePie as 1+days idk y you blocked editing until March u clearly know PewDiePie was pass for 8 minutes it’s like when John Cena and The Miz won the Tag Team titles for 2 minutes and that is the same situation but PewDiePie passe for 8 minutes TSeries is recognize in the records as the most subbed channel for 8 minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanReignsHEEL (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What's the source on this information ? By the way YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Socialblade's comparison tool does not corroborate this assertion. Rollsmootmedia (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. 8 minutes is not relevant enough, a 24 hour period should be allowed so such "audits" won't affect it. At the limit, a note can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.96.110 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Might I add that YouTube's audits, especially in cases this close, don't seem to be a reliable way to decide when a streak has ended. Plenty of times it has occured that audits have removed subscribers, only for many of these subscribers to be re-added back at a later date (I've heard the founder of SocialBlade talk about this on his PewDiePie vs T-Series livestream, but I have no actual source, so dismiss this if you wish). Also, the times at which these audits take place seem to be arbitrary. Had it been done 15 minutes later, T-Series might have never overtaken PewDiePie. Had a different audit occurred earlier, PewDiePie could have been surpassed much earlier. We should need more information and reliable sources about how these audits take place before making a change. AArvidius (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Wars Episode I

We need to come to a quick consensus or a compromise because their is edit warring happening in the edit history. We have the one day side and the add now side. Both of these sides have reasons for choices. Please talk about it before I have to call Uncle Billy The Admin BMO4744 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A compromise proposal I came up with is that T-Series can still be on the history as 0 days, but PewDiePie's streak of 1888+ can still be kept as 'ongoing'. Somebody500 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that could be good. Too bad the edit warring is has killed the pageBMO4744 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protected/advice for going forward

  • I have protected the page in response to the edit warring. While it's a legitimate dispute and no party is objectively "right", edit warring over a contentious topic is unacceptable. The current consensus of talk page comments appears to rather clearly be in favor of omitting the 8 minute overtake from the list, and based on that, it's not even clear that a compromise solution is urgently necessary, much less an aggressive change of stance within the article itself. Now, of course, consensus can change, but changes should not be pushed through via edit warring or other aggressive conduct. I recommend starting a new section, that can serve as the dedicated, single discussion on this topic, and seeing where the local editors views are at. If there's clearly a lack of consensus one way or the other, then we need to start discussing compromises. If no satisfactory compromise can be agreed upon, then we need to employ dispute resolution, most likely in the form of an RfC. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Protection has been reduced to extended confirmed. I am not yet comfortable fully reducing to semi due to the continued presence of SPAs, but if things continue calming down, I will reduce the protection further. Continued edit warring will, of course, result in a return to full protection. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of 'Current record' at Section: Historical progression of most-subscribed channels

The Section of 'Historical progression of most-subscribed channels' outlines the timeframe of which channels hold the number 1 spot of 'most subscribed YouTube channel'. Therefore, it would not make sense for the former records of 'days held' to be 26 -> 45 -> 221 -> 517 -> 677 -> 1888, and the 'current record' be 1 day.

If the 'current record' simply means the timeframe of the current most subscribed channel, then by that logic every past addition should be a 'former record', which should not be what is displayed in this section.

Therefore, I propose adding a separate row in the legend to indicate the 'current most subscribed channel', and clarify the meaning of 'former record' and 'current record' in terms of the duration of the title held.

Feel free to discuss further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.169.238 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This should be the idea of how records are perceived in this section. It is basically the same logic as in the the page List of most-viewed YouTube channels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokidokis (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We can not use this system because of the fluidity of the record. A compromise proposal I came up with is that T-Series can still be on the history as 0 days, but PewDiePie's streak of 1888+ can still be kept as 'ongoing'. BMO4744 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered edit requests (read before submitting new ones!)

information Administrator note This article is seeing a high degree of protected edit requests, including excessive numbers of redundant requests that are not going to be approved. For reference, readability, and organizational purposes, and to avoid drowning out legitimate requests, I have condensed the requests that have already been answered into this single section. Reminder: edit requests are for uncontentious edits unrelated to the content dispute. If and how to include the T-Series overtake is under discussion, and will not be unilaterally added via edit request. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The table within the section 'Historical progression of most-subscribed channels' specifies the timeframe of each channel being #1. The 'current record' should be the one that currently holds the longest duration.

As stated in the talk page: "The Section of 'Historical progression of most-subscribed channels' outlines the timeframe of which channels hold the number 1 spot of 'most subscribed YouTube channel'. Therefore, it would not make sense for the former records of 'days held' to be 26 -> 45 -> 221 -> 517 -> 677 -> 1888, and the 'current record' be 1 day.

If the 'current record' simply means the timeframe of the current most subscribed channel, then by that logic every past addition should be a 'former record', which should not be what is displayed in this section.

Therefore, I propose adding a separate row in the legend to indicate the 'current most subscribed channel', and clarify the meaning of 'former record' and 'current record' in terms of the duration of the title held." Dokidokis (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I belive that this will be very clunky and unessasary because this record will change hands many times over the coming months. 8 minutes is nothing now.BMO4744 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If that would be 'clunky', then at least a clarification of the meaning of 'former record' and 'current record should align with the intention of the section. This is the same logic as the similar section in the page List of most-viewed YouTube channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokidokis (talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Under Note O (where it details that T-Series overtook PewDiePie for 8 minutes), I believe that the time listed is wrong, based on multiple screenshots of when the audit occurred. The time should be changed from 6:04 EST to 4:04 EST. TB9877 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Does 8 minutes really matter for a full protection?BMO4744 (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like the T-Series-PewDiePie war has spilled into Misplaced Pages. But you're right, the time is incorrect, maybe an admin will fix it. Ioaxxere (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We need an admin who has lived under a rock for more than 7 months to not have any WP:BIAS in this pageBMO4744 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Note O (describing T-Series brief overtaking) does not specify the date, only the time. It should be updated to "On 22 February 2019 at 6:04 PM EST, T-Series became ..." from "On 6:04 EST, T-Series became ...". AppMaster1000 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to change historical progressions of the most subbed channels because on February 22 6:04 EST T Series passed PewDiePie then PewDiePie passed t series so I don’t understand why T Series is not on there RomanReignsHEEL (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

T Series passed PewDiePie RomanReignsHEEL (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That was earlier, it took 2 minutes for it to go along so that means it won't be concluded as the most-subscribed yet. Also, it won't be added on the day held part. Thank you for this suggestion, but it won't be accepted. 119.92.14.79 (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Under “Most-subscribed channels” under “By country and territory” under “PewDiePie” change nation from “United States” to Sweden 75.27.56.223 (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to request a change in the most subscribed Youtuber. T-series, on February 22nd, surpassed Pewdiepie, for a very short amount of time, ending his 6 years streak, however, Pewdiepie quickly passed T-Series. My Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZ25E9vUc0 JadenStar10 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the 8 minute tseries lead should be recorded Kehlery (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Add a row for when T-Series passed Pewdiepie for a split second, and another row for Pewdiepie reclaiming the top spot. 2600:1:C690:A6AC:C17A:8D61:916D:70E2 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, we have not have any consensus on this!!!! Stop trying to ask for edits when no consensus has been reached!!BMO4744 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see #Page protected/advice for going forward — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Recently, T-Series did pass PewDiePie for 8 minutes making PewDiePie's streak over after a YT purge happened. He did catch up again though. 69pop69 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We already know and have that in the article. BMO4744 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above ~Swarm~ {talk} 10:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that T-Series overtook PewDiePie for about 10 minutes last night, so should we change it so that T-Series is in there and then change it back to PewDiePie

Basically what i am talking about is i want to add T-Series in to the list and i have an example of what it would look like with T-Series included:

PewDiePie: Dec 22 2013 - Feb 22 2019: 1888 days T-Series: Feb 22 2019 - Feb 22 2019: 1 day PewDiePie: Feb 22 2019 - now: 1 day That is how i would like it to go here comes dat boi (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I want the record to be continuous for the time because over the next month this record will change hands many times!!! I think the 1 day proposal would be better than cutting 5,000 times. BMO4744 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above ~Swarm~ {talk} 10:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

T series surpassed PewDiePie YouTube channel on 23 Feb for 8 min . So I think this should be updated on your page. The streak of PewDiePie is broke.though it is regained again but still ....

Link :: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/PewDiePie_vs_T-Series In 3rd paragraph it is mentioned if u need the proof as this site is trusted. 106.207.216.62 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop asking for requests for subjects with controversy still under them dammit!!!!BMO4744 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See the numerous similar requests above ~Swarm~ {talk} 16:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Change the United State's most subscribed from Pewdiepie to Dude Perfect, as Pewdiepie is Swedish, not American. 69.140.86.75 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See similar request above ~Swarm~ {talk} 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, on the 21st of February 2019, T-Series passed Pewdiepie in subscribers for about 5 minutes before the spot was taken back by Pewdiepie. I think the list of historical most popular youtubers should be updated to represent this 2A02:C7F:5E58:CF00:4CDE:AF33:A1C1:2EFF (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. This topic is under debate. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie lost his 1889 days streak. At 22Feb 2019 16:00 ET, during an audit, Pewdiepie lost subscribers and T series gained subscribers resulting in T series briefly surpassing Pewdiepie by 2.1k for 8 minutes. But after that PewDiePie regained the #1 spot. Debabrat Rath​carrymi 49.206.216.118 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. This topic is under debate. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For about 9 minutes, T-Series did indeed surpass PewDiePie. I suggest continuing the streak, but adding T-Series to the list with 1 day as their streak. Both PewDiePie and T-Series led for part of the day, therefore PewDiePie's streak should continue and T-Series should get credit for 1 day. Almy (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


No, their is no consensus on this issue yet and nobody has ever said that they should be accredited with 1 day streak. 8 minutes ≠ 24 hours of passing pewdiepie BMO4744 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said there was a consenus. I said I suggest that should be done. It's merely a suggestion. The administrators can say no if they want. I put this here because I felt it was a good solution. I agree that this might not have been best to post as an edit request, but I would like to see what an administrator thinks of this proposal. Almy (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If it is a suggestion please say so in the title. Sorry if I sounded gritty in my response but their was a lot of spam and flame about this issue. BMO4744 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. See above. This topic is under discussion. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In #Historical progression of most-subscribed channels, please disambiguate T-Series by replacing ] with ]. Certes (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done (possibly in response to this request) Certes (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is not related to my first one. I have noticed that the historical progression chart states that it is "as of December 22, 2013." This should be updated to read February 23, 2019. Almy (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


No, their is no consensus on this issue. BMO4744 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

there*

This is not a matter of consensus, nor does it involve what the article was protected for. In no way, shape, or form is this a controversial edit. The chart was clearly updated recently, so I requested that the date be updated to reflect that. This has nothing to do with PewDiePie vs T-Series. This is not something that needs consensus, it is a very clearly incorrect date. In addition, you are not an administrator. This edit request is very clearly meant for an administrator who can edit the page. Your opinion of my edit request is not necessary in this situation. Almy (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Almy, the last updated date is set to the date that Pewdiepie took first from YT Spotlight, it should be today with the count of how many days he has been first (excluding the "8-Minute Series" incident yesterday, per consensus). I think BMO4744 missed the issue here. AppMaster1000 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is PewDiePie listed next to "United States" in the "By country and territory" section of the article? Doesn't he live in England?

RayDeeUx (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


Edit: Never mind! I can't delete this section now, but I've found the answer...

RayDeeUx (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

May I delete this for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMO4744 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In the top countries part... Pewdiepie is in the USA category, when he is Swedish and lives in England so it makes no sense... I think it should say Sweden. 2001:8A0:6599:F601:2588:F719:D1DB:B29B (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

IDKY they have not done this yetBMO4744 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The section is about "channel in each country", not "channels from each country", and the current information is directly supported by the source. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In the countries must subscribed youtubers part, pewdiepie is in the USA category when he is Swedish and lives in England so he has nothing to do with America... I think it should say Sweden. Miana555 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Miana555 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The section is about "channel in each country", not "channels from each country", and the current information is supported by the source. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In the list, there is a grave accent mark after Ariana Grande. Please remove it. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove the note in the leftmost cell of the final row of the "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" table. This is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of adhering to policy, specifically WP:NOR. Unless a reliable source verifies that PewDiePie was briefly surpassed (the YouTube video on an insignificant channel being cited is decidedly not reliable), we cannot make note of it in the article. WP:NOR states that original research is defined as material "for which no reliable, published sources exist", which is the case for what occurred yesterday. LifeofTau 17:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've reexamined the relevant policy considerations, particularly WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTRS, and I do not think that youtube video constitutes a "reliable source". While Social Blade statistics are reliable, and while that stream is probably accurate, a random person's youtube video is objectively not a reliable source for that information, according to policy requirements for what constitutes a reliable source. I searched for a reliable source for this content, and I could find absolutely nothing. So, I think this is a legitimate challenge, and per WP:V, such challenged material requires a reliable source in order to be reinstated. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. LifeofTau 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Under the historical progressions I would like to edit is that t Series became the most subbed channel for 8 minutes then PewDiePie regained and I think you should count t series as one of the most subbed channel RomanReignsHEEL (talk) 20:21 , 23 February 2019 (EST)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The most subscribed countries has pewdiepie listed as the United States instead of Sweden. 90.254.9.15 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

He lives in the UK and should be listed thereBMO4744 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The section is about "channel in each country", not "channels from each country", and the current information is directly supported by the source. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, T-Series surpassed PewDiePie in subscribers for 8 minutes. I'd like for the table labeled "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" to add two more rows. One row indicating that T-Series passed PewDiePie for 8 minutes and another row indicating that PewDiePie is in his 4th reign as the most subscribed YouTube channel. Also. the length of PewDiePie's third reign should be left at 1,888 days (as 365 * 5 + 1 + 31 + 31 = 1,888). Also, note that T-Series passed PewDiePie because of a YouTube audit. AggieMav21 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. The topic is disputed and is currently under discussion. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie is listed as "a channel that originated from United States"

I don't think that's true, as PewDiePie is from Sweden and currently lives in UK.

--TheDFPL (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The channel is listed as being from the United States, despite him not living there, as seen on his channels about page. I believe he has previously stated their are some algorithm benefits by doing this.FeWorld (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie's most-subscribed streak - further discussion

Per Swarm's request above, a section for people to put their views forward so that we might reach consensus on the PewDiePie most-subscribed streak issue.

The streak of PewDiePie as most-subscribed Youtuber appears to have been ended by T-Series passing the PewDiePie channel for ~8 minutes yesterday through legitimate means.

I lend my support to the solution of T-Series being listed as most-subscribed for 0 days, PewDiePie's streak of 1,888 days ending and a new streak beginning. PewDiePie's streak continuing seems wholly unsatisfactory when his streak evidently has been broken, if only for 8 minutes. There is no prior consensus that a 'passing of the torch' moment need last for any arbitrary length of time, or occur at any specific point in a day, for it to constitute a breaking of a streak.

Additionally, the purpose of the historical most-subscribed table is to list the channels that have most recently been the most-subscribed channels on YouTube; omitting T-Series, or including them only in a note on PewDiePie's streak, is therefore contradictory with the intention of the table.

In any case, consensus on what constitutes a streak break will clearly need to be reached so that we can proceed with consistency on this issue and future issues that are likely to arise. Saldeti (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. The intention of the table is simply to list all channels that have been the most subscribed. Not listing T-Series would simply be inaccurate. If there is a race and car A is ahead, and then car B passes them for a little, but not a full lap, it would just be inaccurate to not include car B in a list of cars that were in first place during the course of the race. My suggestion is to add T-Series with either 0 or <1 days. Also, the sub count trackers use Youtube API. As another user has said, surely youtube itself is a reliable source for its users subscriber counts? 173.54.199.86 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wumbolo. Also, a big reason why T-Series overtook PewDiePie was due to a subscriber audit, removing around 20,000 subs from Felix and verifying around 5,000 subs for T-Series. I believe this was not a legitimate passing for now. Zoom (talk page) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Points have been made by editors and held up by administratiors clearly be in favor of omitting the 8 minute overtake from the list. These reasons include: illegitimate citations & lack of true sources, and the time frame which T-Series held the spot. Seeing the facts stated here I beleive that we have came to a consensus on the issue and that we should move twards that and file for a protection downgrade. BMO4744 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There are many YouTube Videos and sub count trackers showing this evidence. Even though they aren't the most reliable sources, there's still a lot of evidence. I think the streak should be reset. However, if you define being the most subscribed as having the highest subscriber count at any point of time in the past or present, PewDiePie wouldn't have lost the streak, because of the subscriber audit.Zyxok (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not believe this to be a legitimate surpassing. Let's define legitimate as "holding most subscribed for the full duration between two audits." Any subscribers during this period can not be accurately counted, as is the reason the audit exists. --Rcmaehl (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the source: first, T-Series became a most-subscribed channel on YouTube if they will remain No.#1 within 24 hours or 1 day but since their reign is ~8 minutes short, it's not considered them as the most subscribed channel on YouTube; and lastly, because of the "audit" where PewDiePie lost thousands of subscribers, it's not considered T-Series as the most-subscribed channel and the only way to do that is there will be no "sub purge" or "audit" happening. So meaning, PewDiePie's streak continues from December 23, 2013 to the present; and T-Series doesn't count as the most-subscribed channel on YouTube and it didn't broke the streak. P.S. This is a temporary... Movies Time (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we have a large amount of evidence from different sites which monitor subscribers so reliable sources is not the issue. PewDiePie himself stated he was passed in his latest video. I agree with either a 0 day or <1 day label and restarting PewDiePie's streak if it was decided to include T-Series. I do not think we should introduce arbitrary rules like 'users must have held the record for 1 day' if this was not the case in the past. A case for not including T-Series would be if previous passings were not monitored to the same extent as the current situation which has multiple livestreams with thousands of viewers. For example, it may have been the case that Smosh were passed for small intervals when they were in the lead before ultimately being clearly surpassed; these small passings may have not been noticed due to a smaller amount of interest in monitoring compared to today. I feel we need to look at how this list was created in the first place to make sure we are measuring subscribers in the same way (e.g. interval or source). FeWorld (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Support (Changed from comment, see below comment) T-series did briefly pass PewDiePie, but this was entirely because of action on the part of YouTube rather than the subscribers (who quickly pushed PewDiePie back into the lead). But for YouTube’s interference, PewDiePie’s streak would not have been broken. Normally, I would argue we should check if the secondary sources are treating this as a true break or as a technical footnote. However, the Mashable article was the only source covering this. Waiting things out is also not an option, since that effectively be a decision in favor of maintaining PewDIePie’s streak. After giving this a ton of though, I’m unable to support one over another since either decision would be a controversial declaration based more on the judgement of Wikipedians than the secondary sources. I'll update this comment if I can come up with a solution.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The Mashable article, as well as The Independent and Zee News have all reported that T-Series surpassed PewDiePie, albeit briefly. At this point, I think that the secondary sources show PewDiePie's PewDiePie's five-year streak was broken on February 22, 2019 and that a new streak began the same day. Personally, I think this was a really cheap way to end PewDiePie's streak and that YouTube should have taken more care to audit PewDiePie and T-Series at the same time given the ongoing competition. However, its not our place to right great wrongs; we need to follow what the secondary sources say. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposition

I have zero clue what has transpired over the past several hours, but what I have gathered is that we can't decide if 8 minutes counts as a whole day. *sigh* If this is happening after the first back and forth switch, I can't even fathom what can transpire over the next year. We need a solution, but first, let's get something straight: 8 minutes is NOT a day. Nowhere even close. With that said, I do recognize the legitimacy of the take-over. My solution is that we add on to the current note on the "historical progression" table, saying something like: "Albeit the takeover was legitimate, it wasn't long enough to break PewDiePie's current record streak as most subscribed." That way, we recognize the legitimacy of the takeover and how PewDiePie's sub streak continues. This proposition isn't perfect, nor will it immediately end the edit war, but at least it's something that can potentially solve this mess.

Anyways, I hope this is resolved soon. Have a good day. Dannyyankee12let's talk 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Just a quick note, the note has been challenged on the basis that it was only supported by a single unreliable source (self-published, original research, no editorial oversight, no guarantee of accuracy), and, per WP:V, a reliable source will be needed to reinstate the information. It does not look like mainstream sources are even reporting this incident. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Check

Points have been made by editors and held up by administratiors clearly be in favor of omitting the 8 minute overtake from the list. These reasons include: illegitimate citations & lack of true sources, and the time frame which T-Series held the spot. Seeing the facts stated here I beleive that we have came to a consensus on the issue and that we should move twards that and file for a protection downgrade. BMO4744 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This is premature. Discussion has not even been going for 24 hours, and SPAs are still flooding in. We cannot begin to consider the issue resolved yet. I am 100% willing to unprotect once things calm down and the chance of continued conflict/disruption is low, but we're not there yet. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While this matter isn't resolved, things appear to be calming down somewhat. As noted above, I have reduced the protection to extended confirmed. If you have a legitimate reason to edit the article, other than continuing the edit war, come talk to me on my talk page and I will grant you extended confirmed status. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources and a possible compromise

There are now several sources from somewhat significant YouTubers on this. Here is a video from a channel with 50,000 subscribers explaining what happened, along with this video from a channel with 180,000 subscribers. There are also dozens of other videos that can confirm T-Series briefly passed them. Also, I propose a compromise. PewDiePie's streak continues, however, T-Series gets credit for one day. T-Series and PewDiePie both led for part of the day, so they should both get credit. If you are set on excluding T-Series, a note should at least be made about this. In that case, I propose a different compromise. PewDiePie's streak continues, but he does not get credit for the day, as he was not the sub leader for the entire day. Almy (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I would accept the second compromise if that would end the FP shutdown. Although a real source would be any news outlet, I would still go with this compromise if the admins would approve. BMO4744 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Almy: Just to be clear, the fact that it happened is not an issue. Unfortunately, however, that's not enough to include content from a policy perspective. Per WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Including the information at all is contested, and as long as there are no reliable sources (no, youtuber commentators are not reliable sources), anyone opposing the inclusion, even if they are in the minority, can continue to flatly block the inclusion of the content without needing to compromise: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." WP:V is an overarching consensus here, so first and foremost, you seriously need to find and present reliable sources to even begin to compose a policy-based counterargument to push for a compromise. Without having even a basic core content foundation for your argument, I don't think you're going to convince the opposers to flip. The consensus has been to omit the 8 minute overtake, and we're 24 hours into the dispute and no one has even presented any reliable sources. If this state of affairs continues for much longer, the article will be unprotected, as those in favor of including the content will have presented no policy-based counter to the policy-based opposition. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Swarm: I just found this article that mentions it in passing. It states "The Musk cameo pushed Pew’s channel back to #1, overtaking the Indian record label T-Series that had previously inched out the popular gamer-turned-pop culture phenomenon." I figured this was worth noting. Almy (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice, it's a start. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The story does not cover the issue very well and the part that talks about it is not very creditable in my eyes.BMO4744 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pewdiepie just made a video about this, so we got a ton of sources now :) Ioaxxere (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong nationality

If you go to the «Most subscribed channel by nation», you see that PewDiePie is from United States. This is wrong nationality! He is from Sweden. Can someone change it, since i’m not an extended sutoconfirmed user.PaskaSemmen113 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tseries name needs to be included in Most subscribed Youtubers list as on 22nd feb 2019 16:00 ET T series briefly surpassed pewdiepie for 8 minutes. Pewdiepie Streak was broken as for 8 mins of 22nd Feb 2018 pewdiepie was not no. 1 .After that Pewdiepie regained spot of no. 1 Pramodbhar (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~Swarm~ {talk} 10:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Why was the note removed?

Sources including Socialblade and RT have covered this, both of which are accepted as reliable. And even then, the list is called "Most-subscribed YouTube channels", not "Most-subscribed YouTube channels who've been covered by the mainstream media" Ioaxxere (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We have been discussing this, social blade is not a stable source. If they made an article on that then it might be good enough to re add the note. Also I challenge how creditable the RT article is because it only covers the 8 minutes pass for a small paragraph then the article goes on to cover all the Elon Musk memes. BMO4744 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

How is the size of RT's paragraph relevant? Does it make them less reliable? Ioaxxere (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I sort of said that bad, the article does not fully cover the issue is what I meant to say and I will correct that in my former comments about the articles credibility. BMO4744 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Slight edit *Required*

"Since December 23, 2013, the most-subscribed channel has been PewDiePie, with over 87 million as of February 2019."

The above is the first paragraph on this page. However, it's no longer correct. Whether or not you think it's required to add T-Series to the table, I don't mind. However, Misplaced Pages is meant to be factual and the above is no longer factual.

I suggest editing it to: "From December 23, 2013, to February 23, 2019, the most-subscribed channel was PewDiePie, having over 86.5 million when he was briefly overtaken. For a very short period of time, T-Series was the most-subscribed channel, though it quickly lost the title. PewDiePie is, yet again, as of February 23, 2019, the most-subscribed channel." YourWorstThought (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that and fully understand your reasoning behind doing so. I'd agree, I believe it is sufficient for the time being. Thanks! YourWorstThought (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Tseries surpassed Pewdiepie

Tseries crossed pewdiepie for 8 mins, i dont understand why his streak is kept intact..clearly tseries crossed him after the youtube audit held 2 days back in which pewdiepie lost 20k subs..is there any rule for a minimum amount of time to stay number 1 to get enlisted in that list of highest subbed channels? Cmpunk13 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

youtube even showed the number of subs for tseries greater than pewdiepie officially on their respective channels Cmpunk13 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this might be one of YouTube's automated "audits" where YouTube adjusts the subscriber count. Anyways, I don't believe that such a short amount of time (8 minutes, accordingly to Mashable) is worth mentioning. Perhaps we should implement some sort of "rule" where, say, T-Series passes PewDiePie for more than 24 hours in order for it to count, since an even number is required for the table mentioning how many days a channel has been most subscribed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.96.110 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Tseries passing pewdiepie

Can someone add Tseries to the list of most subbed yter because for like 4 minutes they passed pewds. Thanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBfb27yWjeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8700:3B96:9577:9838:4671:88D1 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

They didn't take over, the animation just briefly showed a 9 before rolling over to the 0. He was 4 ahead at that time. But they were ahead at a different time, apparently for 10 minutes: https://youtube.com/watch?v=F882_Ih61Sc&t=616
Also, the official statistic, without caching or anything else, only comes out daily, so it's not fully sure whether they actually took over for a short time or not. Fabian42 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A reliable source?

Can the note be added back in? A larger news source has covered it now. https://mashable.com/article/t-series-surpassed-pewdiepie-youtube-most-subscribed Ioaxxere (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a pretty good source. I support re-adding the note with this source BMO4744 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Pewdiepie's country to sweden. LeonGunnarsson777 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • As much as I hate to break the news to you, that cannot happen. I may not be an admin, but this same issue has been brought up in this same talk page multiple times (me included). PewDiePie is a Swedish man who lives in England and sets the location of his YouTube channel to the United States in order to manipulate YouTube algorithims, as many have speculated. As such, this change cannot occur. RayDeeUx (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The network column for Smosh should be changed from N/A to Mythical Entertainment, per the Smosh Misplaced Pages page and a video on the Smosh youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT4Pt8QWF5k Timothyf123 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC):

Yeah, that needs to be changedBMO4744 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Not done for now: A YouTube channel's parent or production company is not necessarily its network. The results of my limited research indicate that Mythical Entertainment serves an example of the former (), but not the latter. No mention is made of multi-channel networks in the linked video, and in almost all circumstances, Misplaced Pages articles are unreliable and prohibited as sources (see WP:TERTIARY and WP:CIRC). Smosh most likely either remains unaffiliated or has joined Rhett & Link's network Studio71 as part of the acquisition, but as far as I can tell, neither of these outcomes have been confirmed. If you find or are otherwise aware of a reliable source verifying that Mythical Entertainment is also a multi-channel network, please share it on this page—either by reactivating this request or by creating a new section—and I will amend Smosh's network cell accordingly. LifeofTau 10:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories: