Talk:FBE (Fine Brothers Entertainment)

Censorship of Article by Wikipedia Editors regarding Fine Bros copyright scandal

There seems to be an ongoing attempt to whitewash the blatant copyright infringement attacks that Fine Bros are currently doing through extensive take downs of specific types of Youtube videos. I've noticed lots of edit wars going on by various editors that seem to be defending Fine Bros and deleting negative changes made to the article. It's important that we follow WP:NPOV when covering this. Ergzay (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Subscription loss

In the light of this most recent controversy, the Fine Bros have been loosing subscribers at a rate of at least one per second in the last few days. It was at 14,500,000 earlier today and now it's almost hit the 13,940,000 mark. Would noting this be considered search (and thus again policy) or would it be fine?

Site: https://akshatmittal.com/youtube-realtime/#!/TheFineBros OttselSpy25 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They were never at 14,500,000, the peak was ~14,080,000 on January 27th.

https://tfbsubscribers.github.io/

Unless it was picked up by reliable sources, there is no need to mention it right now. Wikipedia is not a news site. -- ChamithN (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This was the only reliable source I could find, and it has already been included. -- ChamithN (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I love when people post articles from their friends. It gives me such a warm feeling in my belly. --151.252.231.100 (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This event passes as notable considering the recent news coverage. Fine Brothers even created a video response to this, which hasn't stopped the unsubsubscribers, for multiple reasons. I've updated the figure from -200,000 subscribers, to -300,000 per the source. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor Source Material in Controversy Section, et al.

I recently updated a troublesome line in the new Controversy section of this article, to reflect the uncertain nature of the statement made (permalink to the revision here).

However, my hope in doing so was more to get the publicly-available version of the article as accurate as possible and avoid having this (needed) change summarily reversed. The source is derived from a statement issued by the Fine Bros. themselves (see here ) and is not supported by any other material. At present, it serves a critical role in the final tone of the section –– considering this and the heavy use of self-published source material through the piece, I am concerned that it should be immediately removed or updated per WP:SELFSOURCE. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are no substantive comments on this in the near-term, I'd even suggest elevating it to a GAR (considering the consistent use of self-published material in the article). UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been a non self-published source regarding their Medium post added to that final section of the article.Soulbust (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Saw that –– thanks for adding it! While I am admittedly still a little unnerved by the nature of many sources used throughout, this Eurogamer piece looks like solid unbiased reporting and certainly strengthens the article. Thanks again. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fine Brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120701001324/http://au.ibtimes.com:80/articles/357249/20120628/viral-video-kids-react-fine-brothers.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/357249/20120628/viral-video-kids-react-fine-brothers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New or merged channel

Their channel is now called FBE. Some videos carry a special kind of tag "React" which show up next to the title. I'm guessing they merged channels? Or they link the react channel videos on their main channel. The react channel still works, but going to youtube.com/thefinebros redirects to the /fbe channel. Someone please figure out what this redirecting/forwarding/linking of channels is called on youtube and update the names of their channels. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Fine Brothers

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Consensus here that it currently fails 3a, 1a and possible 1b. FWIW consistent source formatting is not required as part of the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the article fails on a manual of style basis. The sourcing isn't standardized and so it looks a little off-putting there. I also don't believe the prose is written up to GA standards. That being said, as the creator of the article, I would just like to have a community reassessment process done. Thank you. Soulbust (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article fails criterion 3a because it doesn't have anything about Sing It! other than a passing mention in the lead and an empty sub-section. I don't see anything egregious. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)