Talk:Sidemen/Archive 1

Archive 1

"The Sidemen (YouTube group)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Sidemen (YouTube group). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wroetoshaw (YouTuber)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wroetoshaw (YouTuber). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Individual channels should be linked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sidemen was started as a gaming group in 2013 & made thousands of Sidemen GTA videos on their individual channels. But one editor "Formulaonewiki" wants to only show their two current shared channels (Sidemen and MoreSidemen) because I assume he's not much familiar with the group.

In my opinion, all their individual channels should be linked because 1. The group has been existing way before Sidemen and MoreSidemen channels were made. 2. Sidemen and MoreSidemen channel itself aren't the group, those are just the channels used to upload their series Sidemen Sunday. 3. Most importantly, the Sidemen gaming videos (mainly GTA) found on their individual channels where they play GTA as Sidemen heavily outweigh the content on their shared channels in quantity by a long shot so it makes no sense to only show their shared channels which were started just a couple of years ago. Its just portraying a wrong picture in my opinion.

I want opinions from editors. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, may you please stop with the inflammatory and uncivil comments such as "Stop the stubbornness and understand the facts" as well as bad faith assumptions about other editors such as "he's not much familiar with the group". I have already made a clear argument in my edit summaries as to why it is unnecessary to list all seventeen (yes, 17) individual channels (many some of which are completely inactive), but for the sake of this talk page discussion, I'll outline the reasons once more:

This article is about the Sidemen as a group and is certainly not a general article about each individual member (only one of whom – KSI – is notable enough to have their own article). Since around 2015, from whence the group has gained the most notability—and certainly since they have gained enough to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia—it has existed (on YouTube) solely on the two dedicated channels 'Sidemen' and 'MoreSidemen'; none of their individual channels have uploaded 'Sidemen' specific videos in this time (NB, just because on one of their respective channels features one or more of the members does not, in my view, made it inherently a 'Sidemen' production).

While, yes (as I have already acknowledged), from 2013–2015 the group produced content across their individual channels (as I explained appropriately through a wikinote in the 'years active' field), that does not provide any basis for the inclusion of each and every one of the individual members' channels (some of which do not even contain those uploads) in the infobox. All groups similar to this one, be it bands or online groups, often have varied beginnings; but this article is about the group as it operates today. As such, the infobox should reflect the current (and most enduring) arrangement which, since 2015, has seen the group upload exclusively to their main Sidemen and MoreSidemen channels. Interested to see contributions from other editors (especially those with less personal investment in this article). —Formulaonewiki 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@ArbaazAli15: Hi. I'm not a gamer and I don't watch football, but I do have a particular interest in this article. Back in 2017, an earlier version of it had been created, but it was nominated for deletion. I was a pretty new Wikipedia editor at the time, and I did my best to argue that it should be kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidemen (YouTube group). Ultimately, my arguments were not accepted by the others in the discussion and it was deleted. So I hope you'll accept my contribution to this discussion as being from someone at least neutral on the subject.

As a result of that deletion and the one about ChrisMD I started to look into what the guidelines on notability said about YouTubers. I ended up writing this essay about it. You'll see that the consensus is that having a lot of subscribers isn't enough in itself to guarantee that a Wikipedia article about a popular YouTuber will be kept. The community of Wikipedia editors don't put much emphasis on a WP:BIGNUMBER. Instead, it is all about what reliable, independent publications have written about the subject.

I agree with Formulaonewiki that this article is about the group and not about its individual members. If you take a look at the article about the band The Doors, you'll see that while there's a section on its members it is very short and just links to the articles about the individual band members. There is information in other sections about how the band formed, how each member joined or left and what contribution they've made to the group. They had musical careers before they joined, and after they left, but the article stays focused on what they did together. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On the flip side, since the list of individual channels is collapsed by default I don't think it does any harm having it there. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You started with the bad faith assumptions by categorising people as "fans" that disagree with you. Back to the topic, no ones saying this article is about "individual members", no ones writing big summaries or adding major content about each of their members, just linking all their channels (& that too collapsed) BECAUSE the Sidemen content (mainly Sidemen gaming) found on their individual channels (especially on each of their second channels) where they play GTA as Sidemen heavily outweigh the content on their shared channels in quantity by a long shot. Sidemen shared channel has only 136 videos in total. Prior to starting the Sidemen channel, the group has made thousands of GTA videos combined across their individual channels AS A GROUP and by a group, I mean all the members (not just two members), they were making GTA content even before Harry(wroetoshaw) joined. Majority of the "Sidemen content" is still their gaming videos found on their individual channels because they originally were a gaming group so I don't know why you want to hide that & show only the shared channel that was started a couple of years ago even though the group was originally made and was actively and successfully running prior way before starting the shared channel.

Your point of "many" of those 17 channels being inactive is also wrong because 15 of them are literally active.

As @Curb Safe Charmer said, the list of individual channels is collapsed by default, it does no harm being there. And also justifies "2013-present" in years active. —ArbaazAli15 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: Thank you for your comments. I thought your example of the The Doors article really nicely illustrated the point I was making earlier about focusing the article content which still giving some acknowledgement to their work before and after formal collaboration. However, while I respect your view that the list of all the individual channels does no harm, I do believe that their inclusion is not warranted for two main reasons:

1. It suggests all the channels upload 'Sidemen' content, which they evidently do not. Additionally, as mentioned, some of the channels are largely inactive. While ArbaazAli15 has pointed out that 15 of the 17 channels are active, that misses the point that some of those channels do not include any of the 'Sidemen' content from 2013–2015 (such as the GTA V/mini-golf sessions etc.), and so what possible justification do those channels have for being included? Perhaps I could hear an argument for the inclusion of the channels within those seventeen which actually hosted such content, but there is no justification to have all of them included just by their mere association with the members. To me, the most simple and sensible solution is to include none of them.
2. While, clearly, the success and popularity of the group, and its individual members, is not in dispute, I believe it is a particularly misleading consequence of including all of the individual channels that the total (combined) subscriber and view count figures end up hugely inflated. The subscriber counts of the active 'Sidemen' channels are impressive enough on their own without being grossly bloated by aggregating each individual channel's subscriber count, many of which likely overlap with one another. Again, I believe not including all the channels, and thus totalling the subscriber count of the dedicated channels, is a more accurate and sensible arrangement.

For the above reasons, I really do believe the inclusion of the individual channels is at best futile, and at worst, misleading.

@ArbaazAli15: I'm disappointed this has so quickly gone to 'he/she started it' accusations. Let me make it clear, my only comments which included references to anyone being a 'fan' was in my edit summary where I removed an unsourced/insignificant award added to an article on one of the members, saying that it constituted fancruft. You quickly defended yourself on your talk page against an accusation I never even made, saying that you were not a fan. Indeed, I didn't even bother to check which user's edit I changed; my comment about fancruft was aimed solely at the content of the removed edit, not any user in particular. This is not personal, please do not make it so. —Formulaonewiki 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: I'll keep it short and to the point.

1. No one said "all the channels" upload Sidemen content, I said they have uploaded in the past and if you combine the Sidemen content across those channels, it heavily outweighs the content on the shared channel in quantity.

2. One of your major point is "all groups similar to this one, be it bands or online groups, often have varied beginnings", the major difference here is that we're not talking about 'beginnings' here, we're talking about 'majority' that you're trying to hide. By showing only their shared channel, you're trying to hide majority of their history as a group because the group has been successful and actively working even before the shared channel was made. The shared channel is merely for their series "Sidemen Sunday" (which started in 2018), its not the group in itself. In simple words, you're trying to hide the group's 90% and only show the 10% and pretend that 10% is the whole thing which in my opinion, is extremely misleading.

3. As for "combined sub count", most of the YouTubers' wiki pages that have multiple article, their sub count of their multiple channels have been added & shown like that, so again, why is that a problem here ? KSI's main channel has around 21 million subscribes & his second channel has around 8 million subscribers, yet we show "30 million (combined)" as his subscribers and have been showing like that for a long time. Same for Logan Paul. Same for MrBeast. Same for Etika. Same for Lazarbeam. Same for Smosh etc etc etc. We're showing the "combined sub count" in all those pages. And there's nothing wrong with that, it says "subscribers" not "unique subscribers". There's going to be an overlap in everything. Even when a YouTuber has one channel, there could be a person subscribed to them with multiple channels. We still show their entire sub count. And if there's no problem showing the "combined sub count" in all the above pages that I just mentioned and more, then it shouldn't be a problem here either.

So far, only you seem to be against the idea of their individual channels being listed whereas 3 people so far including me have no problem with their individual channels being there in a list which is collapsed by default and also justifies 2013-present in years active.

As for "he/she started it', I don't want to continue arguing on things that are not relevant to this discussion, you can reach out to me on my talk page if you feel the need to otherwise there's no point still going on about it. —ArbaazAli15 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@ArbaazAli15: Far from "keeping it to the point", you are spectacularly missing the points made, misrepresenting the arguments made above and misunderstanding the entire purpose of discussions on Wikipedia. I'll address them in turn:

1. I never accused anyone of saying all the channels uploaded Sidemen content; I said that the inclusion of every channel in the infobox implies that that is the case. Additionally, you are completely misunderstanding the argument raised. Nobody is disputing the quantity of Sidemen content created before the two dedicated channels, only arguing that the infobox should focus on the output of the content at present, as the article should accurately represent how the group currently functions. The fact they uploaded a vast amount before the channels is not ignored either, it can be/is explained in both a refnote and in the body of text.
2. I'm not trying to 'hide' any of the group's history. What a strange accusation to make. In my previous edits and above I have clearly explained the importance of preserving that history, but in the appropriate place, which is in the body (and supplemented with an explanatory refnote). Next, again, you are responding to a point that was never made in saying that the channel(s) 'is[/are] not the group itself' — of course they are not, nobody is saying that, but they are the primary channels and platforms to which the group currently uploads its videos.
3. Again, you are responding to a point never made. My issue was never with combining sub-counts; doing so is common practice where YouTubers produce content across multiple channels. My issue was with the extent to which that number was inflated, to the point where it misrepresents the following. My suggestion—that we should only include the Sidemen and MoreSidemen channels—still uses the 'combined' format, but in a way which more accurately represents the group's following.

The purpose of discussions is to achieve consensus; disputes are not settled by voting. To begin to build that we must be willing to read, and to understand—correctly—what arguments are being made and what opinions are being put forward, whether they have merit, and co-operate to move forward and settle a dispute. Please read the five pillars, and the previously linked guidelines on consensus, and engage with the arguments provided and don't attack a straw man. —Formulaonewiki 19:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: I think you're the one missing the point massively and also stating things that are just simply false like most of their individual channels not being active. To respond to your points -

1. We can't focus on the output at present & ignore majority of their output from the past because the output at present on their shared channel is extremely low in comparison to the said output from the past which is still the majority. Including the individual channels is still the best idea.

2. Even the major sources that are used on this article & even used to prove this article's notability, all of them very clearly state their "combined sub count" at the time across ALL THEIR CHANNELS not just their shared channel.

https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/insomnia-dubai-youtube-stars-sidemen-coming-to-gaming-convention-1.909130 ("a combined 53 million followers collectively")

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/family-kids-news/youtube-sensations-sidemen-heading-newcastle-11921405 ("Together they have a combined total of 33.6 million YouTube subscribers")

https://gulfnews.com/going-out/events/youtube-stars-the-sidemen-at-insomnia-dubai-gaming-festival-1.66332042 ("a combined 53 million followers")

https://www.dubailad.com/the-sidemen-announced-as-headlining-insomnia-festival-in-dubai-this-october/ ("their subscriber count accumulates to more than a whopping 61 million")

3. There's no specific number defined on any guidelines on wikipedia that states crossing that specific number is violation. If we're showing combined sub counts on most YouTuber pages then it shouldn't be a problem here either.

Showing their individual channels in list that is collapsed by default is the best option. —ArbaazAli15 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I have already corrected that statement from 'many' to 'some'. Again, that does not change the fact that my main point was the not all the channels even contain any Sidemen related content, and therefore should not be there. Some of them are one of if not jointly inactive or entirely free from 'Sidemen' content. Your reluctance to actually read what has been said is getting really tiresome now.

To your first point, I'm just going to copy exactly what I said above, because you evidently haven't read it properly: "I have clearly explained the importance of preserving that history, but in the appropriate place, which is in the body (and supplemented with an explanatory refnote)." I'm not 'ignoring' anything as you keep insisting, I'm saying explicitly that it should be included, just in a more appropriate place.

To your second and third points, ALL of those sources there come up with totals nowhere even close to the 90+ million claimed in the infobox (nevermind the question over the reliability of those sources). I also never stated that there were any specific guidelines or any specific number; this is obviously a matter which requires subjective assessment, and that is what I have provided above. —Formulaonewiki 20:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki:

1. Correcting it doesn't change the fact that you still stated things that are not even close to true. Saying "many" of 17 channels are inactive is a blatant lie when 15 of them are clearly active. Even the word "some" shouldn't be used, more like "few".

2. If your point remains the same then my rebuttal to your point still remains the same as well. Majority of their Sidemen content is still across their individual channels not the shared channel.

3. That makes no sense at all. Why would all those source say 90+ million ? 90 million+ is their current sub count as of RIGHT NOW. Those sources were written in the past and showed their combined sub count at the time they were written. The point was that even the sources that have been used on this article show their combined subscriber count across all their individual channels not just their shared channel.

To sum up my first and third point, at this point you're just stating things that are either false or don't even make any sense. Your reluctance to not wanting to include the individual channels in the infobox (even though they rightfully should be there, also are in a default collapsed list, justify their '2013-present' active period, the sources used in this article also show their combined across all their individual channels not just their shared channel, and also majority on this thread agree that putting them in a collapsed list doesn't do any harm either) is getting really tiresome now. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@ArbaazAli15: Why does the 'majority' of their content being published individually out-weigh the fact that for the 'majority' of the time they have been together they have uploaded to the Sidemen and MoreSidemen channels (four years since 2016; not 2015 as corrected by Timwikisidemen)? 90 million is not their sub-count by any reliable metric other than the aggregate currently stated in the infobox, and certainly not by any reliable sources. Unless you actually contribute anything more to this discussion than attacking a straw man, continuing to misunderstand that discussion is building consensus (and not finding a majority vote), or petulantly repeating what I say ('tiresome'), then I'm done here. —Formulaonewiki 21:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

1. That is again false. The videos on the shared Sidemen channel is only 136. Whereas the total amount of Sidemen Gaming videos across their individual channels where they have been together is way more than that.

2. 90 million is their combined sub count just like combined sub counts exists on YouTuber's wikis that have multiple channels. Same thing here. If there's no problem having combined sub counts on all the wiki pages that I mentioned above and you admitted is a common practice, then it shouldn't be a problem here either.

3. If you think me using one word that you used is me trying to "petulantly repeat" what you said then you're wrong. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? —Formulaonewiki 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you're the one who doesn't get it if I'm being honest. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with ArbaazAli15. The individual channels contribute massively to the group's past/beginnings and heavily feature a lot of Sidemen group content. Also, Formulaeonewiki, please stop saying that the group started to upload to the group channels in 2015. Yes, the sidemen channel was created in 2015, but the channel was private and was not publically officially launched until May 2016. Also the Sidemen didn't regularly upload to the sidemen channel until the start of 2018, like ArbaazAli15 says, when they started their Sidemen Sunday series. There were few rare uploads to the sidemen channel in 2016-17 purely to promote events such as the charity football matches and the book and tour. This doesn't mean the channel was properly active in those years, and therefore the channel didn't start to experience active usage until 2018. Also, the moresidemen channel wasn't even created until 2018. So the statement "since 2015 the group has produced videos for two youtube channels..." needs correcting. I would like to also clarify that I am not just some "fan" trying to add biased info to the page. Yes, I am a follower of their work (I have followed their work for around 4-5 years), but my contributions to this article are simply to help provide fundamental information about the group. I try to provide citations for all my contributions (although this is sometimes difficult for info centred around older events, since youtube has only just started to be recorded in the mainstream in recent years, and therefore it's difficult to find "credible sources like news articles" to back up info), and, just because I am a follower of their work, it does not mean that my contributions are biased. I try to completely removed all bias outlook and contributions and make them as unbiased as possible. This article definitely needs someone like me to continue overlooking it since a lot of contributions being made by editors who are unfamiliar with their work are quite false. Some expert knowledge is definitely required, and it doesn't mean that this knowledge has to be biased. Another thing to mention as well, when initially listing the members of the group, they should be primarily referred to by their actual names. Formulaonewiki, recently you have stated that they should be referred to by their youtube channel names, as this is how they are commonly known. But this is completly untrue. The members of the group nowadays are commonly referred to by their actual names, particularly when it comes to Sidemen content, for example, "Josh from the Sidemen" not "Zerkaa", and "Tobi from the Sidemen" not "Tobjizzle" etc... The only exception would be KSI. Although when it comes to Sidemen content he is often referred to by his name "JJ" (like the other members), he is commonly referred to as "KSI" however when it comes to mainstream media (I would not expect you to know any of this though as you clearly have no knowledge of the group and therefore makes it unnecessary for you to persistently keep editing this specific article and reverting edits made by users who contribute this kind of knowledge). I would therefore advise that they should be referred to as: Simon Minter (known online as Miniminter), Josh Bradley (known online as Zerkaa) etc... not just by their channel names. Timwikisidemen 15:40, 7 March 2020 (GMT)

A lot to unpack here... I'll begin by repeating sentiments I have already expressed on your talk page. Statements such as "I try to provide citations for all my contributions ... although this is sometimes difficult", "you clearly have no knowledge of the group [which] therefore makes it unnecessary for you to [edit] this specific article", and "this article definitely needs someone like me to continue overlooking it" demonstrate that you are failing to grasp and respect Wikipedia's policies on original research, reliable resources and ownership of content (look specifically at the 'Statements' section). While I do not wish to band the term about lightly, fancruft is, unfortunately, a very appropriate term to describe a number of your contributions on this site, so much so that you were the subject of a COI discussion. You have been allowed much patience by a number of editors, just see the multitude of notes, warnings and advice given on your talk page, yet you brazenly continue to do so without any acknowledgement for Wikipedia policy.

Much of what you've brought up here is frankly not relevant to the discussion, so I won't respond to much of it, but I will not let uncivil and aloof comments such as "I would not expect you to know any of this though as you clearly have no knowledge of the group" be used as justification for why another editor should, in your view, not be permitted to make contributions to an article. I was, in fact, involved in the discussion about which name should be used in the KSI article, and I think it's fairly evident from a quick google search that the others are far better known by their online aliases than their real names. Just because a portion of their own following might be aux fais with their full names does not mean that is how they are best known to the rest of the world. Anyway, can we please try to keep this discussion on topic. —Formulaonewiki 17:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(NB: I have left a comment on your talk page following up your comments here). —Formulaonewiki 18:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward

Clearly, due to whatever reasons, the above discussion has broken down. In this edit, I have attempted to co-ordinate the conflicting views above to come to a (hopefully) satisfactory result. I have kept, as so ardently desired by the two users above, the list of individual channels (minus the 'clip' channels created recently which don't include any Sidemen content) and provided a more accurate description of the transition from individual channel uploads to primarily (not exclusively) posting on the joint channels. For the combined subscriber count, instead of relying on original research, I have found a fairly recent figure supported by three reliable sources, and until an equivalent can be found for the view count, I have removed that. Let's try to be productive here. —Formulaonewiki 21:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue how you think you need a reliable source to show their current combined sub count when its literally done in most wikipedia pages of YouTuber that have multiple channels without providing any source at all I pointed out above. You don't need a source for that, you just add the sub count of all their channels which is exactly what those sources did as well, its just that they were true at the time they were written which means they are not correct as of right now. We will show their current combined subscriber not their outdated combined sub count. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"I have no clue" says it all doesn't it. You do need reliable sources for all information relating to BLP on Wikipedia. Just because something "is literally done in most pages of youtuber (sic)" does not make it correct practice. You categorically do need a source for it. If you feel it is outdated, add a tag for now until a more recent reliable source can be found. You do not get to decide what the rules are here. —Formulaonewiki 11:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, here is the lead paragraph I wrote, which I think is fairly accurate based on the information you both (@Timwikisidemen: and @ArbaazAli15:) have given in the discussion above:

Founded on 19 October 2013 as an informal gaming group, the group recorded gameplays and challenges together which the members would upload to their respective channels. In 2016, the group began producing a wider variety of videos and publishing primarily on their combined channel, Sidemen, and later, MoreSidemen. Since 2014, they have sold and distributed exclusive merchandise.

I think it reflects the move to combined channel content well without implying it was a 'hard' changeover (note the word 'primarily', not 'exclusively'). Instead of diving straight into editing the article and potentially warring, are there any changes you two (or anyone else) would wish to make to that? —Formulaonewiki 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• It should say "In 2018, the group began..." not "2016". The Sidemen Sunday video series officially started on 7 January 2018. - Timwikisidemen 22:09, 7 March 2020 (GMT)

• What about "In 2016, the group first posted on their combined channel, Sidemen, which would eventually become their primary channel and feature a wider variety of videos. They later began posting on the MoreSidemen channel as well."? —Formulaonewiki 22:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, having looked at the uploads, I think changing the original proposal to just say "In 2017", not 2018, would be more appropriate. —Formulaonewiki 22:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be 2018 as well. The group only made 10 videos on the Sidemen channel in 2017, 2 of which were their football match broadcast and highlights. And MoreSidemen channel didn't even exist. 2018 was the year where they actually started uploading on Sidemen and Moresidemen regularly as they uploaded 160+ videos in 2018 across Sidemen and MoreSidemen. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NB, a significant contributor to the above discussion, ArbaazAli15, has been blocked as a sock puppet of Zaydx, who was blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. —Formulaonewiki 11:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subscribers and video views number

@Formulaonewiki: I don't get what's wrong with this to correctly display the group's subscribers and video views, instead of using a number that's so clearly wrong and outdated? It's pretty standard to use Social Blade to cite a YouTuber's subscribers and video views; we already use it on this article for the Sidemen and MoreSidemen stats. And routine calculations such as this do not count as original research per WP:CALC. - Brojam (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: Providing it’s sourced, I have no issue with that. I missed that citations had been added, I thought it was just the same unsourced addition which has been repeatedly added before. Hope this is posting well, never done this from a mobile before... —Formulaonewiki 09:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, then I'll re-add my edit. - Brojam (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

About the name of the Members.

Some of the name are incorrect Josh's Full name-Joshua Bradley. Simon's Full name-Simon Edward Minter. Harry's Full name-Harry Christopher George Lewis. Vikk's Full name-Vikram Singh Barn. Tobi's Full name-Tobit Brown. S.AbdulBasit20 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NICKNAME, The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used ..., even if it is not the person's "real" name. - Brojam (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Add TommyInnit he just joined after the MC Championship. 81.92.249.135 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Josh's name is Josh Zerker not Josh Bradley. Please fix it or let me do it. Username0312 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 19:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be articles for the rest of the other Sidemen members, not just KSI

There should be articles for the rest of the Sidemen, like example, W2S needs an article because there are people like Ricegum who have less subscribers and less popularity then him but they still have an article for Wikipedia. Intellectual32 (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Intellectual32: If someone created draft articles for the other individual members they would be considered on their merits. Each would be assessed against the notability guidelines. The popularity of a person on YouTube isn't one of the criteria that is used to assess whether there should be an article about them though. See WP:NYOUTUBE. Instead we look to see whether they've been written about in depth by reliable, independent publications such as national newspapers, books or journals. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess 15 mil subs isn't enough for an article. Intellectual32 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Intellectual32: Let me explain it in a different way. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. What this means is that Wikipedia won't be the first publication to have an article about something new. We will wait and see whether other publications, such as national newspapers, scientific journals, etc. write about the subject. If they do, and it isn't just trivial coverage like announcing the tour dates of a band, then Wikipedia might have an article about it. So, 'all' someone has to do is draft an article about a member of the group and be able to show, through the references, that they've been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent, secondary publications. A reviewer will check that the coverage meets those criteria and if it does it will get accepted and become part of the encyclopedia. If someone has fifteen million subscribers one would expect there to be such coverage, but it is up for the person submitting the draft to go looking for it, not the reviewer. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right some people deserve to be here but according to the rules he won’t get one. Mm696mm (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Vikkstar's name

Vikkstar's real name is Vikram Barn, not Vikk Barn. That would be good to get changed. Maggotter (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Miniminter currently awaiting review

Hello friends, I have submitted the draft Miniminter for review which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miniminter In my opinion, Miniminter deserves a page on Wikipedia (W2S also). The problem is, (as also said by AngusWOOF on the draft) that the live article for Miniminter has been deleted a lot for not being notable and it has been create protected. Please, have a discussion here on your thoughts about this and what we can do. I have tried my best on making the draft as perfect as possible (with the help from other Wikipedians). Until then, I hope the reviewers will accept the draft as a live Wikipedia article. Help will be very appreciated if you can come by and edit the draft for more reliable sources and info that you can find. Thank you for your understanding. Andrew012p (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing channels

Simon (miniminter) has a 3rd channel on youtube, "MiniminterClips" OwenPF (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right. It needs to be updated. Andrew012p (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Only individual channels that were created before the group moved to their collective group channels are listed. - Brojam (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's a strong consensus to move the page away from its current title. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, the most supported name seems to be Sidemen (YouTube group). Therefore I am closing to move to that title. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Sidemen → The Sidemen – WP:RS refer to them with the "the", such as in this article. It would also be a WP:NATURAL disambiguator because the current title is too easily confused with Sideman (which is a legitimate search for someone typing in "sidemen"). "The" shows more clearly that they are a group. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. qedk (t 愛 c) 09:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support any move "sideman are" test in Gbooks shows that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of sideman is sideman, not surprisingly. What the correct title for this article is less clear, Sidemen (video bloggers) or Sidemen (YouTubers) seems to be the most common descriptor. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

At the very least sidemen should go to Sideman (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support the group is probably primary by usage but the role in general is by long-term significance, redirect to DAB per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "The Sidemen". The group does not use the definite article [1] [2] [3] so per WP:THE we should default to the form of the name that is actually used by the [group] themselves, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. Also, there's a hatnote to avoid the confusion with "Sideman". - Brojam (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "The Sidemen" per Brojam's reasoning, since the group's formal name indeed does not use the definite article. They should have a disambiguation, but "video bloggers" should not be it as the group have a decent variety of content besides vlogs, including Let's Plays and comedic skit videos, neither of which fit the definition of "video blog(s)". I propose that the article title should be Sidemen (YouTube group), which is more proper and specific than just the more general "YouTubers". –WPA (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "The Sidemen", but support WikiPediaAid's suggestion I support WPA's suggestion in saying that the page should be entitled Sidemen (YouTube group). It would provide more clarity as to who the group is and what they do as opposed to what is now (Sidemen) which could make people infer that this the group is a band, etc., which it is not. Balacachini (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

The sidemen are NOT a musical group. (As shown when you search “Sidemen”) 94.187.8.103 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The article does not claim they are a musical group. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Imcooooming (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Babatunde is king and he likes Whotar

 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. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

Can you change the line KSI, Minter, Bradley, and Barn moved into a house together to Olatunji, Minter, Bradley ..... It bothers me that there is no surname for JJ in this line. Thank You. Abdullahseptiplier (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Can’t find sources for new members

Opening section mentions the addition of 10 new members in 2021. It was recently added by an IP user, and I can’t find any sources for this. Also, it isn’t mentioned in the rest of the article. It seems like this should be removed. M2r1k5 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly not true (especially Logan Paul and RiceGum). Bergeronpp (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Give Miniminter & W2S Articles

Sometime ago someone requested that there should be articles for each Sidemen member instead of JJ (KSI) only. So far this request has come true with Josh (Zerkaa), Vik (Vikkstar123), Ethan (Behzinga) & Tobi (TBJZL). It's unclear why Simon (Miniminter) has no article, but Harry (W2S) said in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyN0aiirTzc that he doesn't want to be a main stream celebrity, and said "Please no Wikipedia page", which is stupid. Is being mainstream required to have a Wikipedia page? Cause I'm sure Josh (Zerkaa) hasn't appeared on mainstream TV and he has an article. The rules should be if your famous enough online, then you could get a Wikipedia page. Let's hope Simon (Miniminter) & Harry (W2S) get the same treatment as the rest of the Sidemen. It would be great to have a complete collection weather there mainstream or not, they deserve one, some YouTubers less popular than the whole group have articles on here, so why not Simon & Harry? Thnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicRetro9001 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@MusicRetro9001: Please see WP:GNG SK2242 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK2242 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SK2242: Ah ok, sorry about that. I was just concerned about this, it won't happen again. MusicRetro9001 21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that this group is not the primary topic for Sidemen. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Sidemen (YouTube group) → Sidemen – I know that this has already been discussed. “Sideman” is used a lot. But “Sidemen” is used more for the “Sidemen”. If someone was searching “Sidemen” they would most likely be looking for the “Sidemen”. If someone was searching for “Sideman” then they would search “Sideman” not “Sidemen”.

Sidemen (YouTube group) should be moved to Sidemen. There should be a notice for Sideman and for the disambiguation page.

Like I mentioned if someone was looking for the Sideman wikipedia page they would search Sideman not Sidemen.

The Sidemen are the main topic for the word “Sidemen”.

I know a lot of people are going to mention the fact that Sideman is more historical. I agree that Sideman is more notable than the Sidemen (despite the Sidemen page being more sourced than the Sideman page). But I don’t think it is vastly more notable to merit having the term of Sidemen.

Also the previous discussion was not a very strong consensus.

So in conclusion:

• Main Topic of “Sideman”

1) Sideman
2) Sidemen (YouTube group)
3) Sideman (disambiguation)

• Main Topic of “Sidemen”

1) Sidemen (YouTube group)
2) Sideman (disambiguation)
3) Sideman

See Also (the vastly superior page views): Sidemen_(YouTube_group)
Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The close on the last move request was that there was strong consensus to move it away from 'sidemen' and i don't think anything has changed. Further, per WP:PLURALPT sideman is still very much the wp:primarytopic for both the singular and the plural considering it's kinda weird to refer to sidemen in the singularly—blindlynx (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, not a primary topic due to the greater long-term significance of Sideman. The current redirect to the dab page remains the best solution. 162 etc. (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY states “While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative.” Sahaib3005 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My opposition has nothing to do with the historical age of these topics. 162 etc. (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for all previous reasons raised. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Sidemen" is a plural primary topic for Sideman._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as an ambiguous plural. BD2412 T 00:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Some brief information about Harry Lewis:

On September 1st, 2014, the Sidemen recruited Harry to join them after he dropped out of Guernsey Grammar School to pursue his YouTube career (making him the last person to join the Sidemen so far). Even though he was dedicated to being a full-time YouTuber, his efforts mostly went towards supporting the Sidemen.

You could probably benefit from adding this line since he is the last YouTuber to join the Sidemen to date (and joined at a different time to the rest of the group) 58.110.33.118 (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Miniminter Discussion

So in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Miniminter three months ago, Miniminter’s article was not only deleted and SALTED, but the draft for Miniminter which had coexisted with the Mainspace article had also been deleted as well. However, in my response I proposed three sources that significantly covered Miniminter, which at the time I thought wouldn’t prove his notability because I felt they didn’t cover his career enough outside of his affiliation with the Sidemen.

Reading through the responses of the AfD, I hadn’t seen anyone actually address these sources I proposed and whether or not these sources would be enough to justify him having a Wikipedia article. This is why I’m creating this discussion today. In retrospect and after rereading them, I’m starting to reconsider my position on these sources, and I think they’re enough to establish bare notability according to WP:BASIC.

While Twin Galaxies is considered situationally reliable according to WP:VG/RS and Comicbook hasn’t been thoroughly discussed, I believe that in context they could work for basic details on his YouTube career. Comicbook is an outlet I’ve used in the past for my TeamFourStar article, and has been used in over 3,400 Wikipedia pages, some of which are Good Articles and including a Featured Article. This suggests to me that Comicbook is implied to be a reliable source. GiveMeSport has an editorial team and has also been used in Good Articles, but I’m not entirely sure about its reliability. Maybe it could work?

Finally, here are some other sources which Miniminter has been featured in, just in case the sources I provided aren’t convincing enough.

1. The Times Sidemen Article: https://archive.ph/PcJEF

• Notes: The article explains how Miniminter and KSI met, his personality in the Sidemen and other parts of his personal life (dropped out of university, moved to Sidemen house, relationship with Talia Mar).

1. The Daily Telegraph (Sydney): https://archive.ph/276cL

• Notes: This article is a brief, yet decently substantial overview of Miniminter as a YouTuber, mainly his video content across his multiple channels. Perhaps it’s usable for a subsection on his video content in the article.

1. Insider: https://archive.ph/Pe0wi

• Notes: This article listed him as the 17th most popular content creator on YouTube in 2016; that seems like a solid credible claim of importance.

Anyway, I would like to ask if these sources are decent enough to justify him having a Wikipedia article once more. If so, I could write up an outline for it and other editors may use it. I’m also working on finding sources for Wroetoshaw as well.

Pinging AfD participants and active Sidemen editors @Sahaib3005, WikiPediaAid, Bearcat, Edl-irishboy, TheAafi, JBW, Ave, and SK2242: Any thoughts on the sources?

PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance:, You should also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Minter (miniminter), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Miniminter. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sahaib3005: ...Okay? Not to be rude or anything but I don't see how those previous AfD discussions are relevant to my post, considering that

• A: None of those discussions even mentioned the sources I brought up.
• B: Two of the AfDs predate some of my aforementioned sources.
• and C: The one AfD that actually tried to cite sources merely cobbled up a bunch of trivial mentions which focused on the Sidemen rather than himself.

What I'm asking for is if these sources I brought up here are sufficient enough to at least write a Start-class article for him. They focus on his activities outside of the Sidemen, such as his individual success as a popular YouTuber who makes FIFA videos alongside various challenges, his challenge to visit every Premier League stadium in under 24 hours, his collaboration with MrBeast to donate $70,000 to Fortnite streamer CouRage, and his purchase of a gold-plated PS5 which received coverage from a few outlets. I think in this particular case, we have to look at it from a “glass half-full” perspective. While some of the information may not be wholly encyclopedic in the eyes of the most astute academics, clearly several media outlets recognize him as a popular YouTuber worthy of notice for his activities.*

*Note: this isn’t the same as him inherently deserving a WP article solely because he has millions of subscribers. Ignoring replies from Ave and AngusWOOF at the moment because I made this response a while back before you guys did, but didn't get a chance to post it before now. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging—I'm afraid I don't have time right now to look over those sources in detail, but based on your descriptions there might perhaps be a worthwhile discussion to be had regarding notability.

However, I can't help but be concerned that, should an article be created, it will likely be heavily expanded and edited by inexperienced Wikipedia editors and littered with fancruft, original research, and non-reliable sources. I do not intend for that to sound scornful—we were all novice editors once—but these sorts of internet-famous figures invariably attract younger editors less capable of engaging with other editors and, as a consequence, those subjects' articles often end up a mess. You only need to look at the amount of cleaning up that numerous Wikipedia editors (including those you've pinged above) have had to and continue to need to do on articles such as KSI (entertainer) and the Sidemen page—both of which have multiple times more reliable sources to draw from than Miniminter—to keep these articles from descending into an unencyclopedic mess, as an example of this likely outcome. A cursory glance at the editing histories of many other YouTube creator pages will tell you the same story.

With that in mind, I would suggest that, should the notability threshold be met based on the sources available currently, it comes down to a choice between two options. The first, a separate and likely quite short article (reflecting the still quite limited set of reliable sources available—especially when thinking in terms of which contain content actually relevant to a Wikipedia BPL) which will need constant supervision (or protection). Alternatively, we use the limited sources available to include a more concise, but better quality, summary of Miniminter within the Sidemen article itself. Should a sufficient number of reliable sources that are broader in their coverage of Miniminter become available, these sections can be improved until (as was suggested by AngusWOOF) it becomes appropriate to instigate a proposal to split Miniminter out from the Sidemen article (with a short summary retained in the latter) into a fuller, more extensive, and better-written article.

I think the second of these options will result in better encyclopedic writing on Miniminter, easier quality control by other editors, and it also works nicely for coverage of all the other members who do not currently have their own pages (moreover, there may also be an argument to say that some of those should be condensed into the Sidemen page for now, but that's for another discussion). I would therefore propose following that route instead. —Ave (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To Ave: Thanks for your reply. I just want to add a couple more thoughts to your response as well. As much as I think that it would be a good idea to add info about Miniminter to the Sidemen parent article, the problem is that the sources about Miniminter (at least the ones I found) don’t directly relate to his activities with the Sidemen, meaning that adding information about him would potentially be too out of scope for the article. Besides The Times source, there isn’t much you could write about Miniminter’s involvement in the article without either citing YouTube videos under WP:SELFPUB, or using The Sidemen book; I’ll talk about the latter book in a bit.

Also, looking at the other Sidemen articles and their lengths, specifically Zerkaa and Vikkstar123, these articles aren’t exactly of The Iliad length as well. However, there’s enough sources to establish both notability and verifiability of them, which is what I intended with Miniminter’s article. The way I foresee it, Miniminter’s article would at least be longer than a Stub, especially if we combine the sources to create a large “Life and career” section for him. There should be enough info from these sources for his article, as we can easily extract more than a couple of sentences from them - not only to explain that he did X on Y date, but to provide context for these activities in order to elaborate on why this activity is notable (ex. visiting every Premier League stadium in 24 hours when ESPN had attempted but failed to do the challenge; also add specific stadiums he visited as well). And yes, while the article may have to rely on sources not necessarily pertaining to WP:RS in order to expand past a Start-class article, I think there’s also two factors we should consider when it comes to fleshing out Miniminter’s article.

One is the use of WP:PRIMARYCARE, in which primary and self-published sources may be used in a Wikipedia BLP article so long as those primary sources come solely from the subject of the article. While it doesn’t translate to notability, the primary sources may be used to expand on his personal life and other videos he did. One quote from WP:Interviews comes to mind: “Non-independent sources can be the most reliable source possible, depending upon the material to be supported. An artist stating their motivation is more reliable than an independent person speculating upon it.” Just like an artist explaining the ideas surrounding their own work may be more useful than a secondary/independent analyst postulating on it, a YouTuber explaining themselves on video may also be more accurate, so long as the article isn’t bombarded with references to it.

The second is The Sidemen book which dedicates several sections to Miniminter himself. Just like The Times article, this book explains Miniminter’s role in the group along with background on himself as a person. It’s a source that should’ve been brought up in the AfD discussions but surprisingly no one did, even though it has extremely useful information that would be at home in his own solo article.

Finally, I think we can easily keep the article from “descending into an unencyclopedic mess” by just simply adding a “Create-protected” lock from the beginning. Or at least, like this article we can add some “all edits are subject to review prior to becoming visible to readers” lock on editing the article as well.

Also I apologize if my comment seemed a bit rude. I was peeved that when I submitted my initial response to Sahaib, there was an edit conflict that prevented me from replying to him first even though I had the response ready several hours before (I was in the process of Wikilinking and fixing up the formatting). PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with Ave on those two options (second then first)

Discuss the notability here, and let's see if we can find WP:THREE that wiould enable his article to meet WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. Once those three sources are reviewed and approved, then a split request can be proposed and gain consensus for the salt to be removed.

A short article at the stub level with those WP:GNG sources would then suffice for it to survive the New Pages feed. The short stub should be a complete rewrite so it doesn't have the problems of what was in the draftspace before. I really don't want to deal with this in AFC anymore since that's been abused to the point of needing the salt.

The split request was what eventually worked for Manjappada, which was really painful to deal with in AFC because of the tendentious editing and moving to mainspace and deleting/salting.

The references should focus mainly on Minter and not as a small paragraph among the larger Sidemen project. The goal is to show notability independent of Sidemen.

Hope this helps! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed three sources is not significant coverage of his career. They just highlight some activity he did as with passing mention-like routine news coverage. The three additional separate sources are much like the short paragraphs that summarize the person but not much in-depth beyond that. While some of the sources are coming from reliable sources (newspapers), some of the video game ones need to be scrubbed through WP:VG/RS. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping to see news coverage more like with Parker Coppins (Parker Plays): [4] [5] [6] [7] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous amount of draft articles for W2S

There are a ridiculous 6 draft articles for W2S. Here's the list:

• Draft:W2S
• Draft:W2s
• Draft:Harry Lewis
• Draft:Harry Lewis (Youtuber)
• Draft:Harry Lewis (W2S)
• Draft:Wroetoshaw

Surely all these drafts except one should be kept, and the rest speedily deleted?... Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected them all to Draft:W2S so you can work on merging and cleaning up the conent from there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 12:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest a complete rewrite of his biography so it isn't a copy-paste of material from Fandom wikias and other weakly sourced material. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

66.42.16.238 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Just put JJ instead of olatunji

 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. - First, you need to specify where exactly you want that change made in the article. But also - why? PianoDan (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

Change Tobit to Tobi and add Harry "W2S" Lewis SaucyLingard (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts

What does "Associated acts" actually refer to. Would that be any Youtuber that collaborates with them such as Calfreezy, Callux, Randolph and JME. Or is it to with music. Because currently only Jme (musician) is there. I see a few editors had different views on this was wondering whether a discussion was needed. Paulpat99 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Vikkstar better image

This Gymshark video is CC licensed. Anyone is welcome to upload a screenshot to Commons from it of Vikkstar. SK2242 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SK2242: I have uploaded some here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vikkstar123. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

W2S And Miniminter's page

Hi,

I know that this is a group page but i noticed that harry and Simon haven't got their own page despite being more popular than some others, and considering they are popular enough to get their own page, would that be possible? 193.114.122.175 (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@193.114.122.175:, this was already discussed here and here. Sahaib (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

For one of the creators of sidemen JME the English grime artist needs to be added although he isn’t part of the sidemen he was one of the creators and still has some involvement in their videos. 86.12.116.10 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

W2S drug addiction

I think this needs addressing on the page 213.205.194.116 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources or proof of such an addiction? Paulpat99 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

Harrygrange (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Change Associated Groups to JME, Konstantin

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Miniminter and w2s addition

There are many articles surrounding these two people especially in depth about M7Education (miniminter’s charity) would be good to see them also have a Wikipedia page to recognise them. 82.6.1.144 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

GurkeyDom0990 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I want to edit the page

 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. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

changes Y to move GurkeyDom0990 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I am satisfied that the YouTube group are clearly the primary topic for the title "Sidemen". Not only do they constitute 98% of the page views as opposed to other articles in the disambiguation page, WikiNav also indicates that most visits to the disambiguation page go straight to the article about the YouTube group.

In comparison, "per long term significance" effectively looks like a WP:IDONTKNOWIT argument. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Sidemen (YouTube group) → Sidemen – It has been over 2 years since I last proposed this. The reasons why I believe the page should be moved include:

• The pageviews show that on average Sidemen (YouTube group) gets about 47 times the amount of pageviews that Sideman [occupation] gets every day.
• "sidemen youtube" has about 9 times the amount of Google search results than "sideman musician". Also note that when googling "sidemen musician" it shows results for both the YouTube group and occupation due to the group also being musicians releasing songs such as Christmas Drillings.
• Sideman [occupation] is also not the primary topic for "Sideman" as on Google it shows results for the YouTube group first with the occupation being the 9th result.
• Currently Sideman [occupation] is poorly sourced with the references including a couple of dictionary definitions and mentions in articles about musicians. There are no sources present in Sideman [occupation] that cover it in-depth or discuss the history of the occupation, so it is clear that the occupation has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.
• The main argument last time was long-term significance but it is clear that Sidemen (YouTube group) do have long-term significance which they have WP:SUSTAINED over the past decade per WP:10YEARTEST. Excluding musicians, they are the biggest YouTube group in the United Kingdom and one of the biggest YouTube groups in the world.
• Per WP:WORLDVIEW. Sideman [occupation] is a very US/UK specific term whereas the YouTube group are known globally with over 138.7 million subscribers (combined) and 37.9 billion views (combined). Their aforementioned song Christmas Drillings charted in four countries. Not to mention their clothing company, restaurant chain, book, vodka brand, subscription service and charity football matches.

Sahaib (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Youtube group is clear WP:PTOPIC for the plural form. WPscatter ^t/_c 14:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Longterm significance has not changed since the previous discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I still don't think the WP:10YEARTEST is met. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: the group was formed ten years ago with the members creating their YouTube channels several years before that as early as 2009. Socialblade's future projections states that they are gaining popularity and will surpass thirty million subscribers in five years. Sahaib (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, long-term significance. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the plural form of "Sideman". Many popular YouTube groups come and go over time, often losing whatever popularity they had before disbanding. In the (technically three months short of) ten years since the group's formation, they've become popular and recognizable enough that they're an outright global brand, which only a few other independent YouTube groups can claim (e.g. Dude Perfect and Smosh, albeit the latter only recently became independent again). Furthermore, the last time the OP suggested this move, he did not provide a compelling argument to remove the disambiguation, nor had the group existed quite long enough to do so. Now, his arguments are more compelling. (That said, they are not ironclad and insurmountable; Google Search results are not the greatest indicator of success, for one.) Meanwhile, the opposing votes have not provided any counterarguments expressing why they believe the group has still not reached the long-term significance needed for the move, only putting out passive single-line statements. –WPA (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose yet again, never going to pass long-term significance. And it is a YouTube group, what is so urgent to remove (YouTube group) from an article about a YouTube group. How does this serve any reader? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: if it gets over 47 times more page views every day than the occupation then it would obviously benefit the vast majority of readers for the page to be moved. You have to remember that just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:DONTKNOWIT it does not mean that it isn't the primary topic on Wikipedia. Sahaib (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support As @Sahaib said in their proposal, the occupation is searched for much less than Sidemen.

I think there would be almost no confusion with Sideman [ Occupation]. But in case there would be any, a " Not to be confused with..." could be placed right below the title. Lusor Lulu (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lusor Lulu: Yes, of course. You can always assume that {{other uses}} can/will be placed on any article "X" where "X (disambiguation)" also exists. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:PLURALPT, the default is for plural titles to redirect to their singular forms, and there must be a strong reason to deviate from this; but if such a reason exists, then WP:SMALLDETAILS holds. A difference in page views of two orders of magnitude is a very strong reason. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Want to add in their Guinness world records Vccihnmk (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 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 may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. 💜  melecie  talk - 02:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)