Talk:YouTube Rewind

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the YouTube Rewind article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

YouTube High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. 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

High This article has been rated as High-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:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 27–30, 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

YouTube Rewind: What Does 2013 Say? was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 February 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into YouTube Rewind. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Text and/or other creative content from YouTube Rewind was copied or moved into YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Remix#Electronic music|remix]] Anchor Remix#Electronic music links to a specific web page: Electronic music. The anchor (#Electronic music) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Help solve the schedule

Help to solve the schedule because I wrote before but there is a problem.

everyone try zoom my schedule from this photo

Why is this Wikipedia info article now locked?

If it's permanent, could i request to join to edit? Jimmy Fung Chin Fai (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't locked; it's semi-protected. This is in effect until Dec 16. You can request access with Template:Edit_semi-protected. Vulpez (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: You can request a change to the article using that template. Click the normal edit button, and you should see a button explaining how to request a change. If you want something changed, say something like "Please change 'original words' to 'new words'." If necessary, provide a reliable source to support the text that you would like to see changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

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

Add a part talking about animators. "Sneaking in Pewdiepie references and being a brand new addition to Rewind" Durand The Philosopher (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that cites this. According to Metro, Jaiden Animations not only featured a Gaming Chair similar to Pewdiepie’s, but also placed three figurines in the background: A submarine, a photograph of a hand holding up two fingers, and Pewdiepie’s logo. This most likely meant “Sub to Pewdiepie”. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split 2018 section into "YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split 2018 section into "YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind"– BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right people, what are we thinking? Spin it off or keep it here? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling this over a bit, but I'm a bit divided. On one hand, we have enough content to write a pretty strong article: we can write a background section describing YouTube Rewind and the lead-up to 2018, a summary of the video, and a reception section (including analysis of its unpopularity, what went wrong, its dislike milestones, YouTube's reaction to the dislike and how this reflects on the greater community/corporation divide on YouTube). Splitting off would also remove a lot of bloat from this article, and allow us to arrange the information in a more logical and readable fashion. On the other hand, I'm a bit worried about the lasting coverage of Rewind 2018. I think it can reasonably be argued that such an unpopular video will continue to receive coverage in articles discussing disliked videos and in articles discussing the future 2019 rewind. However, this argument would fall in a grey zone between WP:RAPID and WP:CRYSTAL. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I support splitting the article. The YouTube rewind debacle has gone through a lot of development in the few weeks its relieved media coverage, and its currently bloating the present page. While we could potentially wait, I'm a bit worried we'll lose some of the better sources if this occurs. This is still going to be borderline and I think its likely the article will be nominated for deletion, but I think a strong argument can be made for keeping. By the way, I found this Buzzfeed News article that discusses the deliberate campaign to dislike which I think should be included. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article is due just for being the most disliked Youtube video ever, the discussion will obviously come back around next year when 2019's Rewind is released. There's articles about it on all sorts of RS and it relates to a lot of notable people (Will Smith, Ninja, PewDiePie, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, etc.). It got talked about for two weeks so it's not really recentism bias, it will probably continue to be talked about all month long --Loganmac (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about time for this split to occur. The topic has gotten enough coverage and will likely continue to get even more coverage this month and in the months following. 344917661X (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the article would help a lot of things. We could add a chart of all the people in it. We could have a section of all the backlash. And we could also have a plot of what actually happened. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, split it. --46.39.231.39 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The video is significant enough for it's own article. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support splitting it, there's tons of information worthy for a separate article and the fact that it has become the most disliked video of all time is notable in itself. Split. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 06:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I feel there's not enough to explain in just a section of an article. It's definitely more than appropriate that it gets split out into another article, especially if it's the most disliked video on YouTube. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 11:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support it as well. There are enough reliable sources found to keep it afloat, and it is very notable. like VibeScepter said, it is the most disliked video on one of the most popular internet platforms. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really almost an obvious support on this one. There's no way in hell the most-liked video, most-subscribed user, most-viewed channel don't have their own articles, so similarly there's no way in hell the most-disliked video shouldn't have one either. And on a more tangible basis, it'd be very easy to have sections discussing the background of the video (i.e. previous years of Rewind being an established thing + the declining like%/increasing dislike% that can be observed), the guests of the video, the reception of YouTubers and viewers (i.e. some users criticizing the lack of creators like PewDiePie, Logan Paul/KSI, Shane Dawson in the video + the topic of a coordinated effort to dislike the video) and of course the reception from online media outlets. Soulbust (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. SleepForever talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @NowIsntItTime: There's enough support for the section to be split. Did you want to do it? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @BrandonXLF: I really only started this section to talk about it being branched out, though I was considering it. I'm not a very experienced editor yet, so if were to do it I'd need all the help I could get. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edit the Guests table to reflect Rewind 2019

Heading explains it all. As YouTube Rewind 2019 has been released, it would be ideal to update the Guests table soon to reflect the new Rewind this year. The link that follows has a list of all channels whose footage has been included in Rewind 2019, including those who were not on any of the lists mentioned in the video: https://rewind.youtube/about/ (note: scroll to the bottom for full list).

Thanks to anyone in advance! RayDeeUx (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTS

BTS was included in the YouTube Rewinds, why aren't they on here? Small Potato ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Please note WP:USERGENERATED MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:RS. IMDB is not a reliable source, and user voted web polls are not normally allowed. The IMDB rating should probably be removed from the table in the "Series videos" section. -- 109.76.202.181 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]