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 HermitCurator (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 3 April 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

I think that it would be unfair for Pewdiepie to have his 1420 day streak broken by like 2 days so we should just leave it be unless it’s over a week Tstrasavich (talk) 20:56, 1 April 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]

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]

Discussion: Assigning days and delineating streaks

At what point did PewDiePie's streak as #1 YouTuber end? ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a placeholder question for the RfC transclusion. The comment below was the original post. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few weeks, T-Series has repeatedly surpassed PewDiePie in subscriber count and in the past several days has held the most-subscribed position for increasingly lengthy periods of time. Although the images, lede, and list of rankings have been altered to reflect these changes with minimal dispute, the fact that a channel's ascent to the number one position has proven to not be a singular event has resulted in protracted disagreement regarding how this matter should be treated in the historical progression table and timeline.

A large number of users have offered their own suggestions on this page for delineating different streaks. Although these have varied considerably, there has nevertheless been an overwhelming, near-universal desire among editors to formally establish a set of criteria specifying how dates in the table are to be assigned and when exactly streaks are to begin and end. In the interest of fulfilling this, I have combed this entire talk page for common suggestions and am now presenting them together in a straightforward manner in order to facilitate discussion. Most of them have been modified to be more precisely defined and reasonably implementable. The intent is to ultimately determine a consensus on this issue.


The first option does not take dates into account. It instead sets a requirement that can be met at any time.

Option A: A channel must be the most-subscribed for a continuous (uninterrupted) period in order to begin a streak. The streak begins on the same calendar date as that period.
  • A1: The continuous period must last at least 12 hours.
  • A2: The continuous period must last at least 24 hours.

The next two options involve assigning the position on a day-by-day basis.

Option B: Each date is assigned to a single channel. In order to claim a given calendar date, a channel must hold the most-subscribed position for the majority of that date (00:00 to 23:59 UTC).
A practical way to determine whether this has been achieved would be to compare the hourly subscriber counts for each channel—these are published by Social Blade. The channel that has the higher subscriber count for at least 13 of the 24 hourly intervals in a calendar date (01:00 to 24:00 UTC) would be recognized as the most-subscribed channel for that date.
Option C: Each date is assigned to a single channel. In order to claim its first calendar date, a channel must hold the most-subscribed position for the entirety of that date (00:00 to 23:59 UTC).
If Social Blade is used, the channel must have the higher subscriber count at all 24 hourly intervals in a calendar date (01:00 to 24:00 UTC) in order to begin its streak.
Option D: Calendar dates on which more than one channel held the most-subscribed position are designated to neither channel; they do not continue or begin streaks. Instead, they must be labeled in a manner denoting the situation, such with the word "Contested" in the channel cell.
  • D1: This must be done only for days on which at least two channels have held the most-subscribed position for a not-insignificant portion of the date.
  • D2: This must be done for any date on which more than one channel held the most-subscribed position.
Other options: Alternative suggestions are welcome. They will be considered if they garner substantial support.

I have halted the historical progression table and timeline at March 20, 2019 because March 21 is the earliest date that T-Series could claim under any of the first three options. All days after March 20 are the subject of this discussion. The result of this discussion would only apply to situations such as this, wherein the overtaking of one channel by another at the number one position is not a singular event occurring within one date. It would otherwise be inconsistent with the methodology used for the previous entries. LifeofTau 17:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have reinstated the T-Series row in the historical progression table, with the date achieved cell set to March 2019 and no defined value for the days held cell. I intend for the specific date to be determined by the result of this discussion. LifeofTau 04:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A2, B or D1 (I will update my decision later if I think of a better one): As for the references listed for other #1 channels, they are generally not reliable since there are no starting or ending time stamps (accurate to minutes) for their streaks. There is no way to know when exactly the channels are the most subscribed back in the late 2000s. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Wei4Green and Life of Tau: The only point of contention was whether overtakes less than one day should be considered as breaking a streak. This was never resolved, but now that T-Series has carried a 24 hour period starting on 3/27, it should not be contentious to list them now. In fact, continuing to exclude them would seem to be more contentious, because they've satisfied the status quo threshold that we were supposedly enforcing before, and this feels like moving the goal posts based on a technicality. We can, of course, continue to hammer out the subtleties, and we may decide to tweak the formatting and dates of the list, but based on the current situation, I can't see any reason to continue to exclude T-Series. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Good point. Let's add T-Series back to the "Historical progression of most-subscribed channel" section and then discuss when the streak did begin. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have since restored the T-Series row in the historical progression table, with the exact date unspecified and no defined value for the days held cell, as these will be determined by the result of this discussion. LifeofTau 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or D1: I would prefer these options because if we are going by day, we should stick to this base unit and not subdivide it further. Therefore, whoever gets the most of the day gets the day. I would say if nobody got a majority of the day, use D1. I would also be happy with D1, as it makes sense to only award complete days. Walkyo (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • D2: Simple as that.
"Days" literally mean 24-hour periods. If more than one channel is proven to be the most subscribed, neither gets the day to start or continue a streak. Eligio Budde (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Life of Tau: Is PewDiePie streak continues until now or not? Also, I'm gonna decide later about the options because I need to review each of them one by one so that I can made my decision whether what should I choose from. P.S. This is a temporary... Movies Time (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Movies Time: I am unsure of what exactly you are asking. PewDiePie's subscriber count has not exceeded that of T-Series for any period of time since the beginning of March 27 (UTC). The displayed streak of 1,913 days is the minimum possible under any of the first three listed options. LifeofTau 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Life of Tau: OK, it's fine with me so I appreciate it and thank you for that. Movies Time (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While we're deciding what constitutes a streak, I have temporarily added back T-Series' streak on the historical progression table and timeline. Because just as PewDiePie’s streak was halted at March 20 (since March 21 was the earliest date that T-Series could've claimed the lead), T-Series' streak should begin at March 27 (for now) since that is the latest possible date that they could've claimed the lead. It is unfair to show that T-Series does not currently have a streak when they have led for over 2 consecutive days without being surpassed. The date of March 27 may change as we come to a consensus, but for now T-Series' 2 day streak should remain on the chart since it is the absolute lower limit of their streak, just like 1913 is the lower limit of PewDiePie's streak. -MattStan10 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • D2: I suggest a modified version of D2 where the entire period from February 22nd (first brief overtake by T-Series) to March 27th is marked as "contested". Future readers probably do not need a day by day detailing of who was ahead, so I believe that this would succinctly summarize the overtakes by T-Series. Obviously, if Pewdiepie retakes the most-subscribed position in the near future, the "contested" period can be adjusted accordingly. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On a side note, this discussion seems to be buried among many other discussions on this talk page, many of which are obsolete. I suggest that someone should archive these old discussions or make this one more visible in order to get more opinions on this matter. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I always thought that E the subscriber counts were sampled once a day and those samples were then converted into streaks. That is, until I heard someone mention that 24-hour rule after that brief 8-minute surpass happened. But I have no opinion as to what algorithm should be used to convert a pattern of the most subscribed user onto day streaks. 112.72.238.174 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2, C or D2: It is due to the following reasons of my decisions:
A2− It must be at least 24 hours to begin the streak and must follow the 24-hour rule. If under 24 hours, it doesn't considered as it;
C− Just like my decision in A2, it must be in entire one day or 24 hours to make it start the streak. Seconds, minutes, and under 24 hours doesn't count; and
D2− Must be one day or 24 hours to complete its task and also must be 24 hours≈1 day is needed for this kind of task and I like it to be contested.
Comment: Even if this is my three decisions I've finalized, I don't really know about the other options because some of it doesn't need it for the decisions and I've been research, review, investigate, etc. it each one. The rule will be same—24 hours≈1day—and that it is only thing the way to arranged with it. So, but for others, it's up to them to decided here in this discussion whether what they choose from. These three options I've decided is gonna be my final decisions.
P.S. This is a temporary... Movies Time (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • D2. I agree with A2 that to begin a streak there must be a minimum of 24 hour continous period in which the channel is most subscribed. I dont think we should consider a 5 or 8 minute period of being the most subscribed channel as the beginning of the streak, there should be a minimum criteria (24 hours seems good). Similarly we should not consider the days in which the channel was not the most subscribed for complete 24 hours as part of any streak (even if the duration of not being the most subscribed was of 5 or 8 minutes). A streak should end if the channel loses the most subscribed position (even for a second) and to begin a new streak 24 hour rule should follow. In case no channel remains as most subcribed continously for 24 hours, the time period should be marked as contested. Pratyush (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 - It makes more sense to count a day as a full day, rather than all the hours left on a certain date after a shift was made. I also feel that this point won't be needed as much as some people believe, as it seems that T-Series is going to break away from the dead-heat soon and instances of this happening again will be rather rare. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 - In my opinion A2 is the most fair choice of defining a "day" to "break" a streak because not everyone is from UTC. Then you need to decide what date the streak was broken in; it seems fair to put it as whatever UTC date the first hour of the 24 hour "streak break" began, in this case that would be the 27th of March 2019. I think we have a pretty good consensus that A2 is the best option for starting a streak, now we need to have a discussion about D2 - 'do we add "contested" days' - in my opinion; that would be nice if we could have done it from the start, but no, we do not have reliable information for the other "contested" periods in the late 2000s so in my opinion "No, we shouldn't add D2 at this point" Benjamin Machine (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is the best option since we have all the data available from the link Tau uploaded. Since the 1st 10 most subscribed didnt had contested periods recorded, it would disadvantage Pewd and T to take aways days from their legit streaks and mark them as contested. Whoever leads 13 of the 24 recorded hours in an UTC day from that link, gets the day. Thus, Pewd streak officially lasted till 20th March, according all the other days from Feb 22 to Pewd, since he won atleast 13 of the 24 periods on record till then. 21st March thus goes to T. Pewd gets 22, 23 and 24; while T gets the period after 25. If we look at the chart, other channels also have multiple reigns, including Pewd and I assume this method must have been followed then as well. Else all those other perioda would have been marked contested too.

Else remove the table altogether for good, or till a time a resolution is reached. Since the table in its current form, hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6296:6E48:0:0:1D6C:10A4 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • D2 − Combination of D2 & D1 (and maybe B), favoring D2. Distinctions should then be made between significant contestation, and short flashes like the audit on February 22nd and the many short back-and-forths throughout March (if sources for these occasions can be found). Also, parts from option B could be included: For instance, indicating for contested days which channel held the number one spot for the majority of that day. Arvidiuz (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B – I agree with the IP user above me. If Life of Tau's statement is correct that PewDiePie had semi-complete control before March 21, then we can easily compare sub counts from each day from the 21st and assign days based on majority reign. If a day somehow splits 50-50, we can use D2 to settle the day. Dannyyankee12let's talk 22:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • D2: Any days where a streak is broken (even if momentarily) should simply be listed as a contested day. Also, any streak that is less than 24h long will not be tracked in any capacity, as it is not noteworthy. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 or A2 - Once a channel becomes most subscribed, and stays most subscribed for an extended period of time, people will want to see the exact day in which the extended period began. Option A does this the best. Listing a streak as being broken simply because another channel overtook the leader for less than half a day is hardly meaningful. The details of those can be accomplished by footnotes. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 + B - Having created this list back in 2013, I don't know how much my original thought process when creating it affects my opinion here, but I think A2 is the most sensible for beginning a streak. Once that 24 hours is set, then the previous day can be counted as the beginning of a channel's streak can be counted. (For example let's say T-Series passes PewDiePie on April 10. Once that hits 24 hours on the 11th, then T-Series' streak would begin April 10.) Additionally, I believe B is the best out of the B-C-D options. I don't like the idea of D, as I think every calendar date should be assigned to a channel. I like B over C, because I think needing the majority of a date to hold the spot is asking way too much. (Like in my example, if T-Series passes PewDiePie midway through April 10 + locks up 24 consecutive hours on April 11, then we should still assign April 10 to T-Series.) For a little more context on why I'm thinking this way, I feel like I should mention that when I initially created/worked on this list, I did include two columns: one for the date reached and one for the date surpassed at the #1 spot]. This format is no longer in place on the list, but if it was then I might warm up to the idea of the D option, as it would make it more apt in that scenario to allow for calendar dates to not be claimed by any channel. Kinda crazy, messy, and fascinating to see how complex the mechanics of this list have become. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 - Considering the table uses days as its unit of measurement, I find it entirely appropriate that a streak can only begin once a channel has held the lead for an uninterrupted 24 hours. I also find it appropriate that a streak can continue providing the incumbent channel doesn't lose the lead for an entire 24 hours, as it did hold the lead at some point and therefore continues its streak as it was never beaten. This view seems to have consensus outside wikipedia (as Pewdiepie's streak was widely not considered over on February 22) and an A2 public interpretation seems to have driven real life behavior in the sub count. It provides a much cleaner and intuitive narrative as there is always a number one channel, while also providing a clear, objective standard as it makes incumbency its emphasis. Maranello10 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B - This option just makes the most sense to me. 3ommy25 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A2 - Readers should find it simple to know when streaks stopped and when T-Series started taking over completely (24h mark which happened on the 27th of March) and we all know PewDiePie will be overtaken and then the fans will let go (for example, when he reaches 100 million subscribers). I don't think these events will happen anymore with other youtubers, so why complicate things.. – OussDB (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 - In my opinion, this is the most reasonable option. Channels and creators are from different timezones, so defining day as 24 hours, no matter the UTC time, feels fair to me, and streaks are counted by days, not half-days. This option also eliminates the need for "contested" days, which I think would be confusing as they don't continue streaks, so a streak wouldn't really be a streak because it would have some days left out. -Stormeair (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Mythical Entertainment As The Network For Smosh edit request on March 30th 2019

Mythical Entertainment has acquired Smosh.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/masonsands/2019/02/23/a-new-hope-mythicals-acquisition-of-smosh-as-a-model-for-creators-on-youtube/#6aa839f462f2

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/smosh-acquired-rhett-link-mythical-entertainment-1203146114/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.173.19 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube channel's parent or production company is not necessarily its network. Mythical Entertainment appears to serve 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. I have yet to see any indication that Mythical Entertainment also operates as a multi-channel network. LifeofTau 05:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

change #1 subscriber to hacksmith, as he gained 96 million subscribers last night. Source: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/mstrjames 194.239.215.58 (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It must be an April Fools joke. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, it is. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not possible: While the Hacksmith's subscriber count of two billion is undeniable, the last thing we would want to do is offend the sensibilities of PewDiePie or T-Series by reporting the truth of the matter. We have no choice but to keep news of the actual reigning YouTube champion under wraps, lest we be beset by hordes of nine-year-olds and Bollywood fans. LifeofTau 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[April Fools!][reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Switch PewDiePie and T-Series. PewDiePie won again. TypicallyTrue (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 April 2019 events thread

Might as well start a thread because people are going to come with the news that pewdiepie passed again. So this will be the thread. I recommend all discussion on the topic happen here. BMO4744 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, thanks. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God this is actually annoying. Is this going to happen every time? It's been months now, can we put this to rest Rmehtany (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we have to deal with this shit for 2 more months.BMO4744 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

99.228.153.99 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sub to Pewdiepie he is the best

 Not done: You have not requested a change to the article. LifeofTau 03:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

PewDiePie was most subscribed for 1919 days, then T-Series overtook him on March 26 which lasted until March 31, giving T-Series a lead for 5 days. This should be reflected in the page because since there were takeovers lasting over a day for each, they shouldn't be "TBD" anymore. Jacobmask2015 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed the number of discussions over how to count the days of leadership? There's still a lot to work out, so I don't think you should expect any changes for some time. Rmehtany (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Edit requests should only be made for non-controversial changes; this issue is contentious and consensus regarding the delineation of streaks is pending. No decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 03:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Streak

It is very clear that T-Series completed 24 hours as no.1 for the first time on 28th May (though they surpassed on 27th May). Reference: Social Blade Sub-Gap graph on YouTube.

PewDiePie regained his crown back and successfully retained it for 1 day as of April 2.

I request the mods to edit the info based this information. Hermit Curator 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See the discussion above, namely Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels#Assigning days and delineating streaks. This edit is controversial as no consensus has been reached on that discussion. --KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 05:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific end to PewDiePie's streak

I don't understand: Why is there no specific date for when T-Series broke PewDiePie's 1920 days streak? I heard there is a discussion if the time T-Series passed PewDiePie for 12 hours count, and I don't see how is that discussion valid. The 24 hours rule fits way more than the 12 hours one. It's not like in the Historical Progression section there is someone who was number 1 for 7 days and a half. It's always full days, which means it's always full 24 hours.

I also heard that there's no real proof to when T-Series passed. How? Many people who followed the sub-count can testify that T-Series passed on 27 March 2019, and PewDiePie took back the lead on 1 April 2019. There are also videos showing the sub count during that time, and you can even see it on Social Blade. איתמראלון (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please see the discussion above, namely Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels#Assigning days and delineating streaks. It is still under further discussion. Movies Time (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The social Blade live count on YouTube has subgap graph. The gap passes zero on 27 March and stays below for 24 hours fully for the first time on 28 March. The streak ends on April 1. PewDiePie's streak begins on April 2. Hermit Curator 02:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

PewDiePie has achieved all four major options for streak delineation. As such, a row should be added on the streak table for him even if the length of the streak itself is still contested. Hi529 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The most restrictive of the options being considered (C and D) require a channel to hold the position of most-subscribed for the entirety of a calendar date in order to claim that date. Social Blade's hourly statistics verify that T-Series' subscriber count continued to exceed that of PewDiePie for the first eight hours of April 1 (UTC). April 2, the current date in UTC, will end in six hours. At that point, assuming that Kjellberg continues to retain the position for the entirety of that time, PewDiePie's latest streak will be added to the table and timeline. LifeofTau 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: PewDiePie was the most-subscribed channel for the entirety of April 2, 2019 (UTC). LifeofTau 01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made known that after some consideration, I have shifted my position on this issue, and I would not have initially declined the request if I could alter my past actions. Put simply, the circumstances surrounding this latest overtake are entirely different (in that it was not preceded by many shorter incidences lasting less than 24 hours) that those of the one being discussed in the RfC. It should have therefore been treated in the same way as all of the other streaks prior to 2019, which are assumed to also be singular events, were: the date the streak began is the date on which the overtake occurred. I had said as much in my discussion comments, where I noted how the T-Series event was distinguished from the ones that had come before. I regret applying the same approach taken for that overtake to this one without first considering the reason why that approach was being taken. LifeofTau 01:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels&oldid=890714799"