Jump to content

Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.39.248.31 (talk) at 08:30, 28 March 2019 (→Discussion about this topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@KasraIDK: The cited source is this DBase page, which lists PewDiePie as an American channel. This is presumably because Kjellberg has manually set the location of his channel as the United States. Until this month, DBase listed it as Swedish. I have begun a discussion and made a proposal regarding this issue two sections below, and I invite any interested editors to respond with their thoughts, opinions, suggestions, or arguments. LifeofTau 00:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Twelve People: The list is limited to channels with at least five million subscribers, and according to DBase, the most-subscribed Maltan channel is grande1899 (the other of Grandayy's primary channels), with slightly fewer than 600 thousand subscribers as of this writing. As it happens, I have recently begun a discussion and made a proposal regarding the "by country and territory" table in the section below, and I invite any interested editors to respond with their thoughts, opinions, suggestions, or arguments. LifeofTau 00:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 (edit: replaced the URL in the second link with the one that was intended), 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); edited 22:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We are already including the language of the youtube channels in the main table so there is no real need to include most subscribed by country. I assume its also an extra burden to update. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As more than a week has passed without any objections made, I have implemented the proposed change. LifeofTau 23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MARIOFan78 02:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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/wiki/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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

 Not done: The section is about "channel[s] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done: The section is about "channel[s] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Thank you. LifeofTau 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

 Not done: The section is about "channel[s] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@TheDFPL: The cited source is this DBase page, which lists PewDiePie as an American channel. This is presumably because Kjellberg has manually set the location of his channel as the United States. Until this month, DBase listed it as Swedish. I began a discussion and made a proposal regarding the table several days ago, and I invite any interested editors to respond with their thoughts, opinions, suggestions, or arguments. LifeofTau 00:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Movies Time: Considering the recent stats from socialblade.T series passes pewdiepie atleast once a day for about a week now. Based on the 24 hour logic, pewdiepie can't keep a continuous 24 hour reign at the top now. And Audits remove illegitimate subs or add legit subs, why can't audits be considered? Daiyusha (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Just a note, to avoid confusion from this comment: The article doesn't currently "ignore" the information, and from what I can tell, no one is advocating for the omissionof the content. The info is presently included, in the form of footnotes. The question is whether an overtake that lasts for only a few minutes should go in the list as a "0 day streak". The relevant policy consideration is WP:DUE. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Per the reasons already mentioned. The length of time doesn't matter. For the longest time nobody thought PewDiePie's streak would ever end, but it did. For a very brief period of time T-Series was the #1 most-subscribed to channel on YouTube. It is simply not accurate to keep adding to his streak when it was very evidently broken. MARIOFan78 00:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (originally Comment). While we have this discussion, I think it's important to weigh in the other voices that have already been made prior to (and after) the creation of this megathread/discussion section. As Spirit of Eagle has said in this discussion (and LifeOfTau in an eariler section in this talk page), T-Series's brief takeover was most likely caused by intervention from YouTube, not from a surge of accounts subscribing to T-Series. Some others have argued that a takeover, no matter how long, is still a takeover and must be noted. As such, I suggest keeping the streak, but adding a note to acknowledge the takeover. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RayDeeUx: A point of correction—there already are two notes in the article denoting the takeover: one in the lede and the other in the final row of the historical progression table. LifeofTau 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, @Life of Tau:, I change my choice to Oppose. RayDeeUx (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose and Comment There's no sources regarding that T-Series surpasses PewDiePie. As per notice, there's no mention about T-Series became the most-subscribed channel on YouTube and clearly it was an "audit", but it doesn't count as the streak was over. So let's clarify that if you saw some sources about it, then discuss it here; and it clarifies that some sources actually don't true. The real sources are gonna be from YouTube and Social Blade. Since it is not yet official, then the streak continues until now. So, be patient as it needs to check if this is true or not. But Social Blade clarifies that it's not considered as T-Series is the most-subscribed channel on YouTube; and YouTube doesn't have answers. My decision is Strong Oppose and even thought I make two decisions but just ignored about it, but only my comment. Movies Time (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that Wikipedia is NOT built on one source. I've seen a few people saying something to the effect of "But Social Blade says it didn't happen, so end of discussion", but that is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not built on a single source, but many different ones from various websites. We have Reliable Sources that clearly state that T-Series briefly the #1 most-subscribed on YouTube. Even PewDiePie himself has made videos saying as much. There is no rules saying "____ must have the spot for X amount of time for it to count". It's a proven fact that T-Series had the #1 spot and broke the streak at 1889 days. No more, no less. MARIOFan78 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though reliable sources and PewDiePie have acknowledged the brief takeover, it's unclear if it was caused by legitimate means (people subscribing to T-Series) or by intervention (after all, some have argued that the takeover was caused by a YouTube audit that removed spam subscribers). Just pointing that out too... RayDeeUx (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a routinely schedule audit to eliminate fake accounts, that is 100% legitimate means. This isn't someone hacking PewDiePie to help T-Series out. The same thing happened previously with PewDiePie losing 40k and T-Series 200k subscribers. (source). That doesn't negate that fact that T-Series was briefly number 1. Even if you exclude the 8 minutes because of the audit, they later that same day gained the lead for 1 second lol. I'm not suggesting we add every minor fluctuation like that, but it's a proven fact that T-Series was the number 1 on that day and ended PewDiePie's streak. This should be reflected in the article.
I suggest listing PewDiePie at 1889, T-Series at 0, and then PewDiePie after that with however many days it's been since. MARIOFan78 22:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend listing T-Series at <1 instead of zero since T-Series did in fact have the lead for a nominal fraction of a day (or to be more exact 1/180th of a day), meaning the less than one sign is closer to the real value. Beyond this, I agree with everything you've said. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be down for that. That's probably better than listing it at 0 anyways. MARIOFan78 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with User:MarioFan78's suggestion of having a 0 count for T-series. Regarding the 24 hour thing, lets look at it this way, Pewdiepie can't keep his #1 spot for 24 continuous hours, T series is passing him atleast once everyday since the last one week. socialblade has the stats, not sure if its considered reliable. And I believe this will keep happening for quite a while, audits and sometimes "Plan U(an organized manual subscription event)" push T series to #1 for a few minutes every day . Also there is an 18 minute crossover that happened as well, I would need to find a reliable source for that now. Daiyusha (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Slightly Support, I have two different options we can do.
1) ""Oppose"", keep it the way it has worked since the beginning of YouTube: In the past years, we have only counted a full takeover when it has been a full day (either 24 hours—preferred; or a majority of a calendar day, UTC). This would mean that PewDiePie would keep his streak going until T-Series has passed him for a full day, which hasn't happened yet. And even though there has been times where Felix has not kept his streak for a full day after he was taken over for <90 minutes, it would still count since he was the main streak-holder.
2) ""Slightly Support"", make a new rule starting with PewDiePie/T-Series: it would work slightly more complicated than option 1. The rule is, whenever there is two channels both taking over the spot of #1 with neither keeping the title for more than a full day, then we can keep a "neutral" placeholder until someone does. For example, since neither PewDiePie nor T-Series has kept the spot of #1 for a full day on 18 March, then PewDiePie's streak shall be broken, and the "neutral" placeholder would have a streak of 1, until someone gets top-subscribed for a full day. Hopefully people will get this rule? I'm not even sure if it makes sense, but I'll post it anyway.
This is a very complicated topic, since so many people have different opinions; but I think option 1 would be the best because it has always worked out like this. If we add a "0" or "<1" counter for T-Series (or even if we do option 2), then we would have to do this with every takeover, which would be too complicated and would take up useless space on the table. Let me know what you guys think. Matthewl6500 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
Nice, it's a start. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • The intent of the section does not appear to be nationality. The current info is directly supported by the source. ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what Swarm was led to believe (I have since reworded the prose to better explain the table), the intent of the table is to display assigned nationality. The cited source for the United States row is this DBase page, which lists PewDiePie as an American channel. This is presumably because Kjellberg has manually set the location of his channel as the United States. Until this month, DBase listed it as Swedish. I began a discussion and made a proposal regarding the "by country and territory table" table several days ago, and I invite any interested editors to respond with their thoughts, opinions, suggestions, or arguments. LifeofTau 01:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On 21st March 2019 and 25 March 2019 T-Series remained on the top and dominated the day by taking the lead for 12hr23min and 17hr18min respectively. By this PewDiePie’s streak is broken twice as on these two days T-Series dominated. So kindly update this on historic progression of most subscribed channel. You can check this on social blade (Sources) Idlisambhar45389 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

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

  • 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)[reply]
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

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

Yeah, that needs to be changedBMO4744 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([4][5]), but not the latter. No mention is made of multi-channel networks in the linked video, and in almost all circumstances, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Smosh has been acquired by Mythical Entertainment (https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/smosh-acquired-rhett-link-mythical-entertainment-1203146114/). The N/A in the network column should be changed. 147.4.36.77 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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 also operates as 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 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Please update PewDiePie's subscriber streak to 1893 to match today's date BMO4744 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (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. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (responding to reactivated and rewritten request): There is no need to manually update the figure for PewDiePie's current streak; the template being used automatically calculates and displays the number of days that have elapsed since December 22, 2013. LifeofTau 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of YouTube Spotlight

Since "YouTube Spotlight" is a psuedo-channel, I believe we should remove it from the history of most-subscribed channels, same reason why we don't include "YouTube Gaming", "YouTube Sports", and the such. Nice4What (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But YouTube Spotlight actually uploads orignal content and the worst videos online. BMO4744 (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What: YouTube Spotlight is a legitimate channel, distinct from the auto-generated category channels that have been excluded from every list in the article. Unlike Music, Movies & Shows, News, Sports, and other such channels, YouTube Spotlight:
  • does not correspond to one of website's predefined content categories
  • does not have an about tab containing the statement "This channel was generated automatically by YouTube's video discovery system."
  • does not serve as an aggregator of content belonging to other channels
  • contains videos (in the hundreds) uploaded by the channel itself
  • does not have a total view count of zero
  • never artificially gained millions of subscribers within a single day
It is for these reasons that the category channels are excluded from the lists while YouTube Spotlight is not. LifeofTau 23:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T Series most subscribed for 8 minutes

T Series has recently (and rather unfortunately) surpassed PewDiePie by a negligible amount of subscribers for about 8 minutes as shown in multiple YouTube videos. I'm not sure if this necessitates an edit to the page, but it did happen. 174.110.24.216 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a discussion about this that's currently ongoing. Do a Ctrl/Commmand+F and type in "further discussion". It should be the 2nd result. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

most subscribed channel for the UK should be PewDiePie

The most subscribed channel originating from the UK is currently PewDiePie. Although it began in Sweden, it now originates from the UK.

The most subscribed channel originating from the USA is Justin Bieber, which I am sure the USA are very proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.60.20 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is this DBase page, which lists PewDiePie as an American channel. This is presumably because Kjellberg has manually set the location of his channel as the United States. Until this month, DBase listed it as Swedish. I began a discussion and made a proposal regarding the "by country and territory table" table several days ago, and I invite any interested editors to respond with their thoughts, opinions, suggestions, or arguments. LifeofTau 01:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Update Marshmello's subscriber count from 29 to 30 million. Muffington (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent list update, per the cited Social Blade list. LifeofTau 18:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration on Muffington's edit request

Quick refresher on what Muffington wished to change, as per the policy of "Change X to Y" format: Muffington wants the subscriber count for Marshmello to be changed from 29M to 30M.

Originally, I wanted to reopen Muffington's edit request, since the SocialBlade link that's already cited there is enough of a reliable source. However, as I myself am not Muffington, I have decided to leave the edit request parameter for that request untouched, and added this new section.

With that cleared up, here is the source: [1].

RayDeeUx (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: EDIT HAS BEEN MADE, PLEASE IGNORE. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "UCEdvpU2pFRCVqU6yIPyTpMQ YouTube Stats, Channel Statistics - Socialblade.com". socialblade.com. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Sources: [6][7][8][9]
T-Series did in fact briefly beat Pewdiepie in subscriber count. In a change to X to Y format, I believe an addition to the "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" should have T-Series included, even if it was just for 10 minutes. Maybe put a <1 if you have to. And if you really do not believe the following sources are unreliable, then you can literally look up Pewdiepie vs T-Series on Google and find articles on this. Also, if this is not accepted because it's not clear enough, then I have nothing else to say. WikiBrainHead (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Although sources are appreciated, this issue is highly contentious and under discussion; no decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 01:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Move COCOMELON to 9 and HOLASOYGERMAN to 10 please and thank you 24.123.86.5 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The cited Social Blade list has not yet been updated to reflect Cocomelon's surpassing of HolaSoyGerman. LifeofTau 16:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent list update (the Social Blade page now reflects the change in rank). LifeofTau 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

In the section Historical progression of most-subscribed channels it's missing how T-Series surpassed PewDiePie for 8 minutes on February 22 92.17.190.251 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done: The historical progression table has contained a note indicating and explaining the February 22 takeover for the past five days. If you are requesting that one or more additional rows be added to the table to represent the takeover, please know that the issue of whether to do so (and if so, how) is contentious and under discussion; no decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 16:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant add it as a column in the "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" section of the article. 92.17.190.251 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: No consensus has yet been established for this change. If you gain consensus for it in the future (see WP:CONACHIEVE for ways this can be accomplished), but it is not implemented within a reasonable timeframe, you are then welcome to submit another edit request for this change. LifeofTau 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Pls i need to edit a little information on this article The man of greatness (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

Add T-Series to the most subscribed list. For 10 minutes during PewDiePie's reign, a Google Proxy scan which removed 20k of PewDiePie's subs caused T-series to lead. 173.76.181.210 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No consensus has yet been established for this change. If you gain consensus for it in the future (see WP:CONACHIEVE for ways this can be accomplished), but it is not implemented within a reasonable timeframe, you are then welcome to submit another edit request for this change. This issue is highly contentious and under discussion; no decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 03:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective takeover: preparing for future updates

Recent trends strongly suggest that T-Series will surpass PewDiePie in subscriber count within the next week. If/when this occurs, it will likely be an event that receives extensive media coverage. Given that pageviews for this article more than tripled on the day of the eight-minute takeover, I expect views to grow by a factor of at least twenty on the day that sources report there being a new most-subscribed YouTube channel.

If/when T-Series legitimately claims the number-one position, a number of changes to the article will be necessary. The main table is the simplest to modify, but I caution editors to not update it until the cited Social Blade list, which is what the table and its rankings are officially based on, also updates to reflect the change in rank. There will likely be rapid fluctuations between the two channels' subscriber counts, but this list should not experience the same volatility—Wikipedia articles do not need to reflect real-time changes taken from a livestream, nor should they. Please note that the Social Blade list, in my experience, typically updates only once every 45 minutes to an hour.

The next element is the historical progression table. Per policy, this should not be updated until a reliable source can be cited verifying that the takeover has occurred. If nothing else, Social Blade's hourly subscriber counts for both channels can be used for this purpose once the next hour begins. When a new row is added for T-Series, the "days held" cell for PewDiePie should retain its green background as it will continue to be the current record; T-Series' cell should have no background. The "sixteen distinct runs" in the prose above the table should be changed to "seventeen".

The final elements are the captioned images and the lede. I would say that PewDiePie's run as the most-subscribed channel for a total of five years is worthy of mention, and I suggest the following be added at the end of the second paragraph once it can be sourced: "PewDiePie was the most-subscribed channel for a total of five years and five months from 2013 to 2019, the longest overall span of any YouTube channel." The sentence regarding the current most-subscribed channel and the list of channels known to have held the position are simple to update; they should be changed at the same time as the main table. I propose one of the following for the uppermost image:

The Indian music video channel T-Series is the most-subscribed channel on YouTube, with over 87 million subscribers as of March 2019.[1]
The Indian music video channel T-Series (company directors Krishan and Bhushan Kumar pictured) is the most-subscribed channel on YouTube, with over 87 million subscribers as of March 2019.[1]

I am currently leaning toward using the T-Series logo image rather than the profiles of the Kumars, but I am receptive to arguments in support of the latter. For the same reason given above, I would argue that PewDiePie's image should remain, albeit located beneath T-Series' and modified as follows:

Swedish Let's Player and vlogger PewDiePie was the most-subscribed user on YouTube for a total of five years and five months from 2013 to 2019, the longest overall span of any channel.[2][3] He remains the website's most-subscribed individual user, with over 87 million subscribers as of March 2019.[4]

PewDiePie's image and caption should be at first replaced with those of T-Series but later reinstated once one or both of these sentences can be sourced (with only whatever this applies to being included).

This should be enough guidance and proposition for the time being. I invite any interested users to reply with their own thoughts and suggestions regarding how the article should be updated. LifeofTau 03:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with most of what you have described here. I think this is probably the most satisfactory way with going about this in case T-Series passes PewDiePie. However, there is a possibility that there could be a table with both images of the logo of T-Series and of the Kumars could both be displayed, with the images shrunk slightly, and one caption. PewDiePie would be displayed below that, a kin to what you have described. The nearest example I could find off the top of my head would be the table displaying Kersti Kaljulaid and Jüri Ratas on Estonia's page here, albeit, like I said, with one caption. Beyond that, though, I think this is satisfactory to the situation at hand. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. Displaying two adjacent images for T-Series would place undue emphasis on a single channel. LifeofTau 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying to keep them at the size they are now, as that would be too much space taken up. If anything, maybe adjust it to be ~220-240px. Both Bhushan and Krishan are the owners of T-Series as a company, so I think it would be apt to show that along with the company logo, as they were the ones to make the decision driving YouTube content. PewDiePie and Ariana Grande are independent creators in their own right, but T-Series is a whole company with multiple channels on YouTube and operations in other forms of media. It would also give readers a rounded and succinct explanation of both the company and the people behind the world's largest YouTube channel, rather than just showing the logo. --PootisHeavy (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your first comment when I made my reply, so allow me to clarify: I am opposed to displaying two adjacent images for T-Series, even if they are both reduced in size, for the reason I previously gave. I do not find your arguments compelling enough to justify including twice as many images for T-Series as either Kjellberg or Grande. LifeofTau 02:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

Please edit PewDiePie's subscribers to 88 million to reflect recent changes QuickyGaming (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)QuickyGaming[reply]

 Done as part of the most recent list update. LifeofTau 06:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

There's a small typo in note A. The word "audite" should be replaced with "audit". Chandra.sarthak (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. LifeofTau 21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Demotion Request

The controversy about the passing and the editing has died down now and I believe it's time that we bring down the extended confirmed protection back down to semi protected lock. Even though the gap is still low I believe that with the action happening we will not have another 8 minute pass. BMO4744 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this to be the case. I believe there'll be repeated edits every time Pewdiepie and T-Series swap positions. I believe the article should be under protection until all this blows over--Rcmaehl (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surpassed again, this time for real,without audits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxmrW4Xx3lU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the relevant notes in the lede and historical progression table, citing this Zee News article, to make note of tody's brief overtake. Because PewDiePie quickly regained the lead, no update is necessary for its ranking in the main table, Kjellberg's image caption, or elsewhere in the article where his channel is said to be the most-subscribed; all of these remain accurate. Whether these overtakes justify listing T-Series as one of the channels to hold the most-subscribed position in the lede and in the progression table is a subject of contention, as demonstrated by some of the above discussions on this talk page. No changes should be made to either of these until a consensus is reached. LifeofTau 20:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been decided the info about the streak will be updated only if the takeover last for atleast 24 hours. So it doesn't matter wheather its an audit or not. Hermit Curator 02:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is the case, can we add a note to state that only full days are taken into account as I agree that T-Series should either be included for their 5/8 minutes or it should be stipulated that they are not because it's not been 24 hours JorjLim (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (I don't know how the talk section works so bare with me)[reply]
This is not true. No decision has yet been arrived at regarding the requirements for holding part or all of a day as the most-subscribed channel or for ending and beginning streaks. LifeofTau 02:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Passing Note

I like that Life of Tau added it on to the note but I would like to add that this was a mini audit. A mini audit is when YouTube slows or shrinks subscriber growth to confirm subscribers to a channel. This is different from the 1 second audits where large amounts of subscribers suddenly get moved at once.This was at play today as on the Social Blade stream PewDiePie was earning -27 confirmed subscribers while T-Series was growing at 217 confirmed subscribers at the time of the 3 minute pass. This might not be as sudden or as common but many times you can see that both channels sometimes randomly start losing or gaining subscribers really fast or slow as YouTube confirms subscribers. BMO4744 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a mini audit. As T-Series supporters call it, “Plan U”. It is pretty much where people unsub to Pewds and sub to T-Series. (That also occurs at around 30 minute intervals when India is awake.) Sorry for the bad explanation, but hope this helps.
Edit: here is a video that explains it and here is a filter for more videos about the topic. Thanks, SportGuy002 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Plan U did not cause the crossover, though it was the cause of the gap becoming so close in the first place. Maximillianmus was the one who caused T-Series to cross over for a few minutes when he started livestreaming after the gap dropped below 1,000, telling his subscribers to unsubscribe from PewDiePie and subscribe to T-Series. Here's a reupload of the livestream (the original was deleted): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYn1xVmSoko You can clearly see how fast the sub gap drops after he starts livestreaming, though the effect is short lived. TB9877 (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todays Passing

Another day, another audit, another pass. Another edit to the note I guess. This is probably going to end soon. Although I just can't see Pewdiepie's fans letting go if the record though. (Although the pass was less than 4 minutes.)

Another audit happened a few minutes later and caused Pewdiepie to be at -13 thousand subscribers, again he is probably going to pass them again but that's 2 passes today.

Another edit, passing was less than 12 minutes. WelcHome Homie (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Home Homie (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s more now that Pewds got a -13k audit. At this rate, we will have passes like this galore, so I suggest we do something about it but idk what.(And then again we need a source confirming this.) SportGuy002 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the note every single audit, in my opinion, is not the best solution. The gap is so low that PewDiePie and T-Series will continue surpassing each other several times before having a "real winner". My suggestion is to create a single note in which we inform readers about this gap and that many audits can happen in the future. If T-Series don't surpass PewDiePie for more than 24 hours, PewDiePie will continue to be the most subscribed channel according to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.70.149 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally prefer creating a "contested" entry to summarize the current period of time in which PewDiePie generally holds the lead but T-Series routinely passes PewDiePie. Its a bit weird claiming PewDiePie has a continued streak given the large number of gaps, so I think a contested listing would be the most accurate reflection of the current period. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the relevant notes, citing this CNET article, to acknowledge the most recent overtake. I intended to streamline and generalize them so that only minimal changes are necessary for any future overtakes, but this was prevented by the fact that none of the reliable sources I found have specified the duration of the event. Once Social Blade's hourly lists update to include the entirety of March 11 in UTC, this issue will be resolved. Because every new overtake reduces the significance of each occurrence, I expect fewer publications to take notice as they accumulate, at least until T-Series holds the position for more than a few minutes at a time. LifeofTau 02:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding

Is the number of subscribers is meant to be rounded to the nearest million or the most recent million passed? The top two are both on 88,9xx,xxx so this should be shown as 89 million, right? Banak (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Banak: Each subscriber figure is rounded down to the nearest million. A channel that has amassed 40 million subscribers, for instance, will not have "41" listed as its corresponding figure until it attains its 41 millionth subscriber. LifeofTau 23:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Life of Tau: I've only ever seen the convention of assuming unspecified rounding is rounded to nearest inveral, with halfway points rounded up. If figures are rounded down may be worth mentioning this somewhere in the article, as without that context these figures otherwise this seem misleading. Banak (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Banak: The fact that the numbers are rounded down is already stated in the article. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Banak: As the user prior to me pointed out, the rounding behavior is indeed specified in the article, and has been for years. Although rounding to the nearest interval is generally the only correct approach in mathematical and scientific applications, in general contexts readers tend to find it most intuitive when the digits being displayed exactly match the beginning of the number being rounded. This is especially true when competition and prestige is involved, because it is expected that all totals have been attained in their entirety. You will find that most people would consider it highly misleading if a channel with 28.6 million subscribers was listed as having 29 million. LifeofTau 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how I missed that having skimmed through twice for any reference. Guess I should have ctrl+f ed. Banak (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Idea for this period of back and forth

Here are the facts in the case: T-Series has surpassed PewDiePie four, or possibly five times (If what I’ve heard is correct, there was a 6 second passing today, but due to a YouTube glitch where the audit happened on Pewdiepie before T-Series). This will most likely happen many more times throughout the coming weeks. An audit IS a valid form of overtaking. An audit is used as a correction to the sub count, so the count is the MOST correct after an audit.

The solutions proposed both have issues. If added as a note, it will get clogged and cluttered quickly. Omitting it entirely would break Wikipedia rules. But, adding every switch in the chart would also make it cluttered. I also believe that it is not the place of us to decide what counts as a “distinct run”.

With that being said, here’s a solution I have thought of: During this period in which PewDiePie is not consistently holding the #1 spot for more than a few days, or recently, more than a day, there should be a box in the chart called “contentious”. This box could then be expanded, where it would list, in detail, all of the surpassings. This would make the chart still neat and compact, but, when needed, precise and detailed.

Thoughts? I’m open to criticism. This might be a horrible idea. I’m quite new to this so I’m really not sure. Just thought that I would pitch in. Walkyo (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. I think it is a good way to display information regarding passings without cluttering up the table too much. I would however suggest listing the entire period from February 22 (the date of the first audit surpass) to the present as "contentious" since this period has seen frequent passes by T-Series. We can always change this after everything has settled, but for the time being I think my suggested change to your proposal will help avoid a ton of repetitive discussions. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. There'll be at LEAST a dozen hand offs if not, several dozen. Can you make an example of this somewhere? --Rcmaehl (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not good with editing wikipedia, I'm very new. But, I will try my best in my sandbox. I'll update soon. Walkyo (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Here is what I was able to do. If anyone knows how, please try to refine it, as I know it’s very rough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walkyo/sandbox#Historical_progression_of_most-subscribed_channels Walkyo (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t forget to add the pass today thou. SportGuy002 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks really good. I would recommend collapsing the table showing T-Series passes and of course citing the times. Beyond these suggestions, I think this is the best proposal so far on how to display the information in chart form. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to remain an impartial adjudicator as much as possible in these discussions, so I will speak from a perspective of policy and practicality. As far as I know, the only overtakes that have been confirmed by reliable sources are the three noted in the article. All of the others, at this point, cannot be listed in the table regardless of consensus. Additionally, I think it is fair to say that the date and duration of each and every overtake, no matter how brief, is the type of excessive detail that would likely violate WP:IINFO, which maintains that Wikipedia "is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This will only become more true as the number of overtakes grows.
Speaking as the editor most heavily involved in handling updates following new overtakes, my solution to prevent the notes from becoming "clogged and cluttered" is to not list the overtakes separately, but instead employ general phrasing in order to describe all of them simultaneously. I think the format being used at the time of this writing is more or less a manifestation of this; the three overtakes are all referred to in the same sentence, and relevant information about the circumstances of the first event is provided in the following sentence. Future updates are accomplished by changing one or more of the following as needed: the number or quantity of the overtakes, the range of duration, and the number attributable to audits, along with adding new references. I believe this is the best option going forward until more significant overtakes are recorded. Life of Tau 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think policy wise you've raised many good points and that listing every single overtake will probably get a bit excessive. I do however still support Walkyo's contested period suggestion. PewDiePie is getting surpassed very frequently (if temporarily) and it just feels weird to claim he has a continuous streak since 2013. DO you have any objections to listing the top spot as contested from the February 22 audit onwards? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own thoughts on this matter, but have chosen to assume the role of an impartial mediator (to the extent at which it is reasonably possible) in these discussions. I think that acting in this capacity has been and will continue to be helpful given the level of dispute seen on this page in the past month. This is also the reason why I abstained from voting in the "PewDiePie's most-subscribed streak" discussion. LifeofTau 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it wasn't really "contested" until March 9, where there seems to be a much more rapid back and forth between PDP and T-Series. Aside from 8 minutes on February 22, 2019 due to an audit, PewDiePie held the top spot from December 22, 2013 through March 9, 2019. Also I think perhaps a criteria could be that if a channel begins and ends a day as the most-subscribed, that would mean its streak continues. I'm suggesting that because, as of now, T-Series has only been the most-subscribed for a maximum of 18 minutes (and under an hour total if you add all the overtakes up). Soulbust (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a note on the table.

Considering how many times T-Series has managed to pass PewDiePie for short moments (ranging from < 1 minute to 60 minutes), a detail should be written above the table that only periods of more than 24 hours will be counted in the table. This should help eliminate confusion, as not everyone clicks on notes.

Kevindongyt (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No criteria for claiming part or all of a day as the most-subscribed channel or for beginning and ending streaks have yet been decided upon. I intend to begin a new discussion to determine consensus on these issues and more within the next day or two. Life of Tau 04:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie's streak has ended

It seems people have agreed that someone needs to hold the #1 for 24 hrs to be the most subscribed. PewDiePie is being surpassed every day, and not holding the #1 for more than 24 hours. If you go by this metric, his streak has now ended. Walkyo (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No criteria for claiming part or all of a day as the most-subscribed channel or for beginning and ending streaks have yet been decided upon. I intend to begin a new discussion to determine consensus on these issues and more within the next day or two. Life of Tau 04:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. What I was saying was, and I may have phrased this badly, that if we were to use that metric nobody would be the most subscribed. Therefore, it isn't a good rule to go by. Walkyo (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T series is now the most subbed channel

Sadly, this afternoon, T-Series took the first position as the most subscribed channel, putting PewDiePie at the second position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.68.105 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For less than ten minutes... PewDiePie quickly regained. This has happened before. 173.54.199.86 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I don't understand why the page is limited to extended confirmed users and above. It appears that most of the unhelpful edit requests have been by users that are not yet (auto)confirmed or just IP addresses. Why aren't autoconfirmed users allowed to edit it? Thanks in advance, Muffington (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the long length of the Talk page, it does provide insight into the why the page is protected. Until the Pewdiepie vs T-Series mess dies down, the page will continue to be extended protected. --192.84.63.228 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting admin here. This is exactly right. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions for Expandable Table Solution

Hello all. A few days ago I had an idea for a general compromise and a way to display the multiple passings. You can read my idea in full above, just scroll up a little. You can also see what I've been able to implement in my Sandbox. Please keep in mind that this is very rough. Obviously if implemented improvements would need to be made.

I created this as a thread to discuss the implementation of this, as on the original thread many seemed to like the idea. If we do implement it we should refine it completely before putting it in, so this is the place to do that. Please make suggestions on how to improve the table, or, if you do not agree with the idea at all, please respond with why. Thanks, Walkyo (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. PewDiePie is temporarily surpassed by T-Series every couple of days (a fact which has gotten significant media attention); it’s becoming increasingly ridiculous to claim he’s on a continuous streak from December of 2013. However, I would make two changes to your proposal. First, I would change the title to “Contested between PewdiePie and T-Series” since this is more descriptive than merely listing “contested.” Second, I recommend removing the table showing every single passing. I would instead replace the table with a footnote describing the state of the competition and particularly significant passing. The media is simply not covering most of the individual passing, and listing all of them would require us to use some very non-reliable sources or engage in original research. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with most subscribers timeline

I was looking through the most subscribed list, and I found a lot of issues:

  • First, the most subscribed listing for Smosh, Judson Laippely, and Brookers are all based on the Internet’s Archive’s copy of YouTube’s most subscribed page. For these three individuals, the date they are listed as becoming the most subscribed is the date the “most subscribed page” was saved in the Internet Archive. This record is fragmentary, and likely excludes a number of YouTubers who held the most subscribed rank for a few days.
  • Second, a lot of the earlier listing after this are approximate or suffer from other flaws. For example Geriatric1927’s source only supports the claim that the became the most subscribed YouTuber about a week after posting his first video (a claim too approximate to definitively state that he achieved his rank on the precise date of August 17, 2006) while the source for Smosh’s April 29, 2007 bases this date entirely on a blog post.
  • Third, the We the Unicorn Post and “The History Of YouTube’s Most-Subscribed Channels Is A Fun Nostalgia Trip” source both report on a Reddit post outlining the history of the most subscribed YouTubers (neither of these sources evaluate the Reddit post in any meaningful way).

I think most of the list is salvageable, but it needs to better reflect the fact that a lot of the information is incomplete and approximate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one who has taken issue with the historical progression table. As it happens, I have been working on-and-off on an overhaul of that table for the past six months. I have succeeded in finding a number of pertinent, reliable sources related to YouTube history from more than a decade ago. Although in most cases they do not confirm exact dates, they nevertheless greatly narrow down the range of possible days. My new table, which remains a work in progress, is found here. At this point, the first six rows and the final row have been redone to my satisfaction. LifeofTau 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your new table looks a lot better, and much more compliant with policy. If I ever find any good sources, I'll let you know so you can add them into the table. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Change the order.T SERIES is now the most subscribed channel. 117.204.243.159 (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t be offended, but I honestly think that you users are not really neutral. PewDiePie was surpassed at least ten times, but the note only says “three times due to audits”, which is not true anymore. I suggest you to edit the note or take other decisions in order to inform properly users that PewDiePie was surpassed more than three times. I also think that Pewdiepie’s streak is not valid anymore, due to several passings. Have a nice day!

87.6.7.238 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to SocialBlade it was 15 times, but should we list all 15 takeovers? SportGuy002 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: This may have been true when your request was made, but it is no longer the case as of this writing. The list in its current form remains faithful to the cited Social Blade page with regard to the top two places. LifeofTau 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor spelling correction

Under the category "Most-subscribed channels," in the second sentence, the word 'Automatically-generated' is mistakenly spelled 'Automatically-genetated.' I don't have authorisation to fix this though, so whomever is able is free to do so. HylianScientist (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Thank you for making note of this issue. LifeofTau 17:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

207.166.26.68 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC) pewdiepie is at 90 mil[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent table update, per the cited Social Blade list. LifeofTau 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-Series takeovers as of March 18, 2019

Note A and P still say that there has only been three takeovers when there has actually been seven as of March 18, 2019. Can someone fix this real quick? I would, but the article is extended-confirmed protected (check the PewDiePie vs. T-Series article for sources and time of events) Matthewl6500 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the relevant notes, citing this Business Insider article, to acknowledge the March 18 overtake. Apart from this, the February 22, March 9, and March 11 overtakes are the only ones that I have yet seen be confirmed by reliable publications (I have perused probably two hundred articles related to the two channels in the past ten days), and as such these are the only ones referred to in the notes. The "PewDiePie subgap bot" Twitter account being cited in the PewDiePie vs T-Series article is not a reliable source and should not be used to verify any overtake. LifeofTau 04:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot uses youtube API. How is that not reliable? It's literally youtube itself. Walkyo (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that utilize API data are only reliable if they are regarded as reputable (Social Blade, for instance, is a certified YouTube partner). There is no reason to expect a fan-run social media account to be dependable in its accuracy and timeliness. LifeofTau 02:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including the March 18th one. There's also been multiple March 19th takeovers (which happened on four different occasions today). Is there any reliable source on that? Matthewl6500 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet seen any publication mention a March 19 overtake. LifeofTau 02:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Life of Tau: see this Daiyusha . Personally I trust socialblade which says the overtake was for a bit more than 30 mins, but the article says atleast 2 hrs. (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also as I am writing This, T series has just passed pewdiepie on 20th as well Daiyusha (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Life of Tau: It seems that these brief overtakes are now happening faster than can be individually covered in reliable sources. Perhaps now is a good time to convert the notes to generalized text. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked describes an overtake that occurred on Monday, which corresponds to March 18, not 19. Regardless, I have since generalized the wording of the note so that it does not require updating after every new overtake. LifeofTau 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maker Studios vs. Disney Digital Network

Number 44 and 46 (Markiplier and Você Sabia?) on the table are still listed as being part of Maker Studios. Shouldn't this be changed into Disney Digital Network as a result of the merge? Matthewl6500 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maker was indeed absorbed into the Disney Digital Network in May 2017. However, the cited Social Blade pages for both of those channels' networks (along with that of Felipe Neto) each date to February 2017, three months earlier. It is not uncommon for channels to depart from and join new networks; listing DDN as the network for any of these channels implies that they remained with Maker past May, which is not corroborated by any source in the article. If any reliable sources can be found verifying the continued affiliation of any of the three channels with Maker/DDN through May 2017 or later, I will update their network cells where appropriate. LifeofTau 03:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New note for Badabun

Badabun ceased making its subscriber count publicly visible earlier this month, and the total on Social Blade has remained static at 37,292,948 ever since. I have added a note to the Badabun cell explaining this situation. Unless the channel reverses its decision, we will have no choice but to use the 37.2 million figure for Badabun in all future revisions of the list. LifeofTau 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

T Series is the most Subscribed to Channel now as of the 21st of March 2019 MrMidnight1 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by both myself and another user, per the cited Social Blade list. LifeofTau 10:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-Series surpassed PewDiePie

T-Series is most subscribed after over 90 million subscribers as of 21 March 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.241 (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T Series has overtaken Pewdiepie, please update the page

T Series have overtaken pewdiepie for atleast 3 hours now, the lead of T Series subscriber difference over pewdiepie is 25,555 as of 08:45 GMT. Please update the most subscribed channel page, wikipedia as well as pewdiepie vs T Series, which you are not allowing users to edit, as it is supposedly preventing vandalism. Thus I urge you to update your data immediately and not keep outdated info about topics. Kindly change the most subscribed channel page to say it is T Series that is on top now Stud2608 (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by both myself and another user, per the cited Social Blade list. LifeofTau 10:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, first time I got such good response from another user Stud2608 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly update the "progression of most subscribed channel" section, if you can as well Stud2608 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought we weren't updating the Wikipedia page until 24 hours into T-Series being #1? Because the subgap is dropping again and you're gonna have to keep editing it back and forth. 16k and dropping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.11.51 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not updating the timeline to reflect the multiple short-term overtakes. That said, the ranked list itself will, of course, be kept updated to reflect the reality of the situation as needed. ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
T-Series handling leadership in over 10 hours, but i don't think it is needed until that channel will keep it's leadership al least in a full day. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande and Pewdiepie images

The two images that have Pewdiepie and Ariana Grande overlap on the ranking table now that the T-series image has been added. i don't have perms to change and i wouldn't know how to anyway. Someone please fix. Wrickerish (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Wrickerish[reply]

@Wrickerish: Could you please elaborate? I have viewed the article in both desktop and mobile format and have not observed the overlapping behavior you describe. LifeofTau 12:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pewds' streak hasn't technically ended yet

IIRC the streak only counts as being over if he's below T Series at midnight Eastern time. Since T series passed him after that, we should wait until midnight before changing it.108.49.122.101 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure where you're getting that. There is no such specific rule on where exactly one streak ends and another begins. There's a general consensus against updating the timeline to include the multiple, short-term overtakes, and this has not changed. That does not mean that the ranked list itself will not be kept updated to reflect reality. ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a neutral point of view, Pewdiepie's streak has technically ended

T-series has now held the number one position for over 12 hours in the past 1 day (first 48 minutes and then over 11 hours and 20 minutes), meaning that pewdiepie has held a lesser part of the day than T-series. For the streak to continue would be hypocrisy. The day should be granted to T-series as they have held majority of the day. Hence if Pewdiepie passes them again, he would have to hold it 12 hours and one second atleast to get back the streak, as he needs the majority of a day. I'm really hoping to discuss with others why this doesn't work, but I'm being really technical and neutral here. Sources : [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak5 5 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSQIX_G3TjU

Comment by BMO4744

@LifeofTau: The discussion of the past 2 sections has been so minimal. Why did you do such a complete over haul while English Wikipedia was asleep? Also did we not come to a consensus of 24 hours for a streak to be lost. Come on man. I will be asking an admin to intervene if discussion is not an option.BMO4744 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BMO4744: The main table has always been adherent to the cited Social Blade list, which both then and at the time of this writing displays a higher subscriber count for T-Series than PewDiePie. Please be more specific regarding what changes you object to; no consensus has yet been arrived at regarding streaks. You may be interested in reading the section I created two weeks ago in which I outline my expected course of action in the event of a significant overtake. LifeofTau 16:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great reply life of tau, people should be more responsible while making such objections 

Stud2608 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BMO4744: This is a completely inappropriate comment, and if you have another outburst like this on this talk page you're going to be blocked indefinitely per WP:CIR. The article was not "overhauled", nor did anyone make a unilateral changes related to the "streak" dispute. T-Series occupied the #1 spot, and the rankings were updated to reflect the objective reality of the situation. That is not a contentious issue in need of discussion. We are not going to refrain from keeping the rankings updated, just because there is a separate dispute on when and how a new "streak" should be established in the timeline section. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria needed

There is no criteria for streaks of leadership by subscribers. #1 for subscribers is disputed since 19 March. Can we add some criteria for "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels"? --46.39.248.31 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most would consider this a necessity. I think that the agreeable time is 24 hours of holding a lead.BMO4744 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solution for the criteria for the streak problem.

I find the best solution to give the day to one who holds majority of the day, since this doesn't wholly ignore the other. Letting one keep their streak because the other couldn't keep their streak for 24 hrs straight is hypocritical as even the current streak channel would be required to hold it 24 hours non-stop all the time, which is not possible even with a tiny overtake. I'm free to opinions on this system but I think it is fair to both sides and not hard to incorporate, socialblade being the source for the data listed for it. I'm open for more discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak5 5 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if PewDiePie will lead in less of 50% of a daily time, he will be still number one for our site?--46.39.248.31 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T Series has passed Pewdiepie again

Clearly, the most subscribed channel has to be updated to t series again as the sub gap is 8k in favour of T Series again. Also, I guess this overtake solves the problem of the streak, as after this T Series will be in 1st position in the majority of day, irrespective of wherever we are in the world... However, I am open to discussion on this.... The only think I ask is to update the most subscribed channel to T Series, as the overtake has happened once more, atleast for now, as I cannot edit it due to supposed vandalism Stud2608 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true... for example, in Pacific Time (PT) T-Series has only been on top for about 9 1/2 hours today, which is not the majority of the day. Personally I don't see the "majority of day" system working considering how often T-Series and PewDiePie are crossing over right now. The only solution I could see is measuring the majority of the day in GMT or updating the streak at 12:00 AM GMT, but even that could cause some disagreement... if anyone else has a better idea, let me know. TB9877 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fan biases aside, the issue is primarily pragmatic. There is a general consensus against including every overlap a new streak for practical reasons. We have no way of knowing whether adopting a 1/2 day rule will be just as impractical due to numerous back-and-forth occurrences, or if an overtake of such length will actually prove to be significant. We simply have no way of preemptively judging whether a >1/2 day period of time should be seen as a significant benchmark in establishing a new streak. If T-Series starts to consistently carry the majority of a day, for consecutive days, then it does seem like this would be a reasonable option. But I don't think we'll be able to tell whether it makes sense until we see what types of scenarios actually happen, and I don't think there will be a clear resolution until we can retroactively decide where the "turning point" was (or if an overtake lasts long enough for it to be uncontentiously considered to be a "one-day streak"). ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table is set up for day intervals, so even though a 24 hour pass could be reversed, it would still be a good Agreeable bench mark for the graph to change. We have one more month of this s**t then the graph will most likely change permanently until another challenger comes along in a year.BMO4744 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the most reasonable and fair approach is to choose a definitive time zone, such as GMT, and award the "day" to whichever channel holds the #1 spot for the majority of that 24 hour period. This way, there are clear rules, a clear "winner" of the spot for the day, and a reduction of the trade-off that would result in measuring less time (minutes/hours). The benefit of having a "winner" is that saying that a channel had a streak of 1 day is more useful than saying either that they had a streak of 0 days or just ending the streak of the previous record holder and beginning it again while omitting the brief accomplishment of the streak breaker. As @Swarm: pointed out, we have no way of knowing if this will lead to a mass of entries of 1 day victories for T-Series and PewDiePie, but I think this would be preferable to the current contention we are experiencing. Conker The King (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freak5_5 here, completely agree with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak5 5 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for potential change to image and caption

It appears that PewDiePie and T-Series will likely continue to surpass each other in subscriber count for hours at a time over the next several days. In light of this, I am considering whether to replace the single image for the most-subscribed channel with an image for each channel, positioned side-by-side and accompanied by a single caption. It would appear as follows:

Swedish Let's Player and vlogger PewDiePie (left) and Indian record label T-Series (right) operate the two most-subscribed channels on YouTube. Each has accumulated 90 million subscribers as of March 2019.[1]

The reason I am considering this is because switching between different images at the top of an article is, in my view, a relatively major change that not should be performed on a regular basis. If adopted, the above setup could remain without needing to be altered after every significant overtake. I invite users to reply with their thoughts below. I am also open to suggestions to modify the images and caption in terms of formatting, placement, order, or phrasing. LifeofTau 20:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot better than flipping the whole table. I agree with this approach.BMO4744 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the T-Series logo copyrighted? Using it in their wiki page is fair use but is it legal to use it here? Hermit Curator 07:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The T-Series logo itself is considered by Commons to be in the public domain, for "threshold of originality" reasons. ~Swarm~ {talk} 11:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The two channels are flipping on a daily basis, and its silly to keep changing the top image every time one passes over the other. I'd reccomend noting the competition within the text description of the two images. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
100% support this, channels will continue to flip for a least another few weeks. The less often we have to update major sections during this the better --Rcmaehl (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but why hasn't it been done yet, I cannot see the changes, please do it, whoever is allowed to Stud2608 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. After receiving unanimous support, I have implemented the proposed change. LifeofTau 01:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Milestone

Pewdiepie has now passed the 91 million mark, with T-series not far behind, would one be advised to wait a couple of hours or so to update the page?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

I follow the list of most subscribed Youtubers at the moment everyday, I'd like to be able to edit to keep the top of all Youtubers sufficient and acccurate. Zayd Maes (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ~Swarm~ {talk} 17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie's streak has ended

The most subscriber streak of PewDiePie has ended, and t series has a total lead for about 18 hours.. Bodi123 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone take note: T series overtook pewds for a total time of 24 hours. Streak finally broken Bodi123 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie and T-Series as "co-most subscribed YouTube channels" — further discussion

I'm proposing the discussion that instead making both "PewDiePie" and "T-Series" as the "co-Most Subscribed YouTube Channel" so that I'm gonna end about the current further discussion that is currently tackled on. I'm just making my proposal so that we're gonna end this debate/fight. Whether you support my proposal or not, it's up to you to decide.

On "Most-subscribed channels" link, I'm proposing this sample table for both PewDiePie and T-Series only:

Rank Channel
1. T-Series
PewDiePie

On "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" link, just remained the name "PewDiePie" because it's not included in my proposal and don't mind about the streak. But it up to you.

If you have any suggestions, you may leave it here; but as I always said, it's up to all for you. I hope you support it or not.

P.S. This is a temporary... Movies Time (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal, but I am afraid I must oppose this. I made the image and caption suggestion several days ago because large, prominent features at the top of an article should not be changed on a regular basis. In contrast, the main list can be expected to undergo relatively frequent updates in order to reflect real-world changes in rank and subscriber count. The fact that this can be done relatively quickly and that even small differences can be taken into account is, in my view, one of the list's greatest strengths. Stating that PewDiePie and T-Series are the two most-subscribed channels is very different from stating that they are both the most-subscribed channel. Bestowing the number one ranking to both channels falsely implies that they are "tied" in subscriber count. I trust that we as editors will be able to update the table as necessary whenever these two channels surpass each other in the future. LifeofTau 15:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

I request that a current event banner is added to the top of the page. This change would be positive because of the volatile nature of the current top 2 subscribed and the fact that the numbers and ranks change every day, and hour. The PewDiePie vs T-Series page has this banner and I think that this related event would be good for the page and the reader. BMO4744 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Edit requests should only be made for non-controversial changes, and it is not uncommon for editors to disagree about whether the placement of a tag is warranted. You are welcome to create a new section, absent of the edit request header, in which to propose this change. LifeofTau 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Switch T-Series and PewDiePie in the rankings, PewDiePie just passed T-Series again SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The cited Social Blade list has not yet been updated to reflect PewDiePie's surpassing of T-Series. LifeofTau 23:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent table update (the Social Blade page now reflects the change in rank). LifeofTau 00:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

PEWDEPIE IS FIRST!!!! YAY!!! 96.242.53.216 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The cited Social Blade list has not yet been updated to reflect PewDiePie's surpassing of T-Series. LifeofTau 23:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent table update (the Social Blade page now reflects the change in rank). LifeofTau 00:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Pewdiepie is once again on top of T-series as of now 73.248.86.167 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The cited Social Blade list has not yet been updated to reflect PewDiePie's surpassing of T-Series. LifeofTau 23:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent table update (the Social Blade page now reflects the change in rank). LifeofTau 00:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

I would like to inform you that PewDiePie has regained the number one spot. I would appreciate if you'd edit the page so it can match. UltimateHarbringer (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The cited Social Blade list has not yet been updated to reflect PewDiePie's surpassing of T-Series. LifeofTau 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as part of the most recent table update (the Social Blade page now reflects the change in rank). LifeofTau 00:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Informing

I'm informing you about T-Series was leaded yesterday for 15 hours in a day, and T-Series again leading. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live sub counts

As this is relevant now, more than ever, it should be noted that the sub counts (and the 1st vs 2nd positions) are fluctuating wildly, far more rapidly than the static list that is currently used as a source is being updated. At this point, it seems necessary to factor in live sub counts, which are being streamed by Social Blade in an official capacity here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-series should be given one day, Pewdiepie's streak is over

I had recently told about the majority of the day rule on this very page, and one moderator told that it would have to be something like days according to GMT to keep it standard. Yesterday( 25th March GMT) T-series was first for 15 hours, hence I need moderation to either completely scrap this proposal or atleast discuss upon it, as we still don't have a clear criteria. Should this criteria be passed, T-series would be given 1 day and Pewdiepie has to hold more than 12 hours of 26th march (GMT) to break T-series's streak. Again, I need an explanation as to why this wouldn't work, or atleast propose another criteria, because the streak section has been very controversial and it's about time there's an explanation. I hope the moderation will show some consideration. Note that GMT(or UTC) is considered standard universal time, and is also used by Wikipedia pages. Freak5 5 (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No such rule exists. Such a rule may be established in the near future if, in hindsight, "majority-days" are proven to be a practical benchmark in terms of sub count leadership. But no period short of one day has been decided upon to be classified as a "new streak". ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware no such rule exists, was proposing a criteria. So the current criteria has been decided upon to be 24 straight hours? I don't see this as logical, looking at the fact that Pewdiepie was number 1 for only 9 hours on the 25th, but get's to hold is streak. Again why aren't "majority-days" considered practical? It certainly seems more logical than 24 straight hours. If the 24 hour rule has been decided upon, can their be a note added at the bottom of the section stating "T-series passed Pewdiepie several times, short of 24 hours, which was not considered practical to edit into the streak and has hence been disregarded". Because if there is a criteria, it should have an explanation given on the main page as a note. Freak5 5 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 24-hour rule is the current rule. In other words, it is quite literally the only unit of measurement that exists for establishing a "streak". There is no precedent for considering an overtake that lasts for less than 24 hours to be a 'new streak'. If there is a good reason for establishing such a benchmark, it can be considered by other editors in an attempt to form a new consensus. But, you do not get to demand that you "need an explanation" in order for your demand to not take effect. It will not take effect by default, and needs an affirmative consensus in order to be implemented. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How will a consensus arrive without any discussion? Ok , no explanation, but atleast a mentioning of the current 24 hour rule below the current streak table along with a note mentioning T-series overtakes have been disregarded due to the rule? There is currently no way for one to know T-series was ever in the top from that section, completely disregarding all of their passings. And I did not ask for an explanation for why my demand should not take place above, I asked for one to be displayed in the streak section stating the 24 hour rule.Freak5 5 (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most subscribed YouTube channel

Most subscribed channel is now Pewdipie again Lynxilie (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-series overtook him again

FYI at 9:22 PM Washington state time today T-series took the lead again.

Thanks for informing about it. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to even understand PewDiePie's unbreakable streak?

I thing i'll start making the point of battle about PewDiePie versus T-Series there.

History

It is all started of Late-2018, and T-Series did a first try in the #1 on February 2019. T-Series was a leader for 11 hours in 21 March. For some reason we did only changed in leaderboard. Once in 25 March T-Series helded it's leadership in more than 12 hours, we ignored this fact and prefered PewDiePie's streak unbreaked, despite sever people awaiting it. What even livestreams didn't think PewDiePie have enough leadership to be there for 12+ hours per day. That did happend also in March 26, and obviously March 27.

List of 12+ hours leadership to T-Series

As Wikipedia itself noted, that is 25 March and 26 March, 2019. Is that ok to the fact Pewds had only 9 hours to take a lead, and T-Series had 14-15 hours for it?

This is happend:

Probably we're should to get further into this fact, why we're still allowing the 24-hours rule, and not constanting the fact the one channel taking a leadership in 12 hours and more, rather a second channel. I mean PewDiePie have only did a 6 hours of leadership in night to March 27. There was more discussion about it, and the PewDiePie vs T-Series topic before me, so i did only just a overail analysis of T-Series being #1 for 12+ hours. So, what's the point of making PewDiePie to be an unbreakable in a subscriber war, rather of making the modern rule of leader streaking? Are we waiting for someone get a 100 million subscribers, or we finally can edit a history, adding a current event?

Result

This is very dissapointing to watch PewDiePie currently leading in a history, just like there is nobody a competitor of PewDiePie, and he is a "eternal" leader, but maybe there is something that i, and probably everyone else, don't understand. I don't see a "24-hours criteria" making any sense right now. It is losing since 25 March. Any ideas how to make a history of leadership some sense?

Discuss below this text. Awaiting - 46.39.248.31 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about this topic

Agreed. In fact now is the best time for the editors to take a firm decision, as Pewdiepie has lead for the lesser part of the day for 3 consecutive days.Freak5 5 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. We are probably going to be omitting a lot of days if we were to wait for T-Series to have a 24 hour streak. If the channel cannot be considered #1 for these three consecutive days even after being in the lead for 15 hours each day, neither can PewDiePie. It is simply not a streak. Also, T-Series' growth generally dips after IST 12, but this is because the Indian subcontinent is sleeping at the time. 2.51.19.121 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless T-Series leads for a full 24 hours, it should not replace the current leader. --Haljackey (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can the editors confirm this? Also I hope the rules will not suddenly change for Pewdiepie after T-series gets 24 hours, as we have a precedent of T-series where short overtakes were not listed to historic progression, and I expect the same to follow for Pewdiepie.Freak5 5 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
T-Series has been ahead for 25 hours now. The streak has ended by all accounts. 2001:1C05:1800:7300:1842:EA89:7583:B4B7 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see many people agrees that PewDiePie's streak is ended like since 4 hours of 27 March. We had a nice day in a plan of discussion. We need more research and times to see the aftermath of current situation of the subscriber "war". --46.39.248.31 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

what about: pewdiepie streak is broken but T series can't be named the most subscribed channel yet...? It's not like we can't let be three days with no youtuber being #1. Eligio Budde (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its Over

In about a 1-2 hours T-Series will have been the #1 channel for 24 hours. Its 12k subs ahead and its midnight in US. The discussion about this can now end. Daiyusha (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians finally confirm only today. But still i hope they create a rule for it. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand... it takes back to the older version. See? Allright, it is seems like this is not over yet. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

Add t series in the 'Number of days held' part of the table Anujya.aashwat (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this note says: "PewDiePie has been surpassed in subscriber count by T-Series on numerous occasions in February and March 2019, ranging in duration from several minutes to the majority of a day, but T-Series has not held the position for a 24 hour period." I will not add it for now as this edit request was not made in the form of "Please change X to Y". However, other readers may see this message and wish to comment on how this information should be presented or implement it themselves. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was...? It just shows 0 days tho Eligio Budde (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-series has held the lead for 24 hours.

T-series has now held the lead for 24 hours, from 00:25 ET 27th March to 00:25 ET 28th March and still counting. Requesting the editors to make according changes in historic progression section.Freak5 5 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MattStan10 did it, but Movies Time brings back to an older version. Let's just do like Freak5 5 said. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, please update the table and warn vandals. T-Series has been the most subscribed for the past 24 hours. Thewolfkid1 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T series has been #1 for 24 hours I believe

Have they? Prestothelegend (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels&oldid=889836982"