Talk:El Rubius

Correct mistakes

The previous version of this article was a literal translation from the Spanish version. I guess that's the reason there are some warnings on the article. I've corrected it in some way, but my English level is not really good so if someone wants to check it out and corrects all those mistakes I could have done, I would be thankful. Could you also add the Interwiki links? I tried, but I haven't got the permissions to do that. Greetings from Spain! Coco29 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• El Rubius beatboxing 2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Viewers and Subscription Numbers

@Atlantic306: Except YouTube's not actually RS in that way. However, that information is itself unreliable and misleading. For instance here is the New York Times on how easy it is to have fake views. Here is Variety on YouTube removing fake subscribers. Here's the New York Times again on how easy it is for robot views to be had. Here NY Mag suggests companies on the whole are struggling with this issue. I could go on, but I think there is enough evidence that subscriber counts have been manipulated in the recent past that we should not be including this information in this article. Subscriber counts and video views are simply inherently unreliable and misleading information and don't belong in our articles. Even though it's interesting - lots of unreliable information is interesting. Given the repeated, continuous, manipulation of subscriber counts and video views on YouTube, I think despite the interest factor they don't belong in our articles. Full stop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Hi, I disagree as YouTube is a primary source for its own channels.and El Rubious's viewers and subscribers have been reported in the Spanish press so are reported in reliable sources. The doubts about youtube are being addressed by Youtube removing fake subscribers so I dont think this information should be being removed by one editor without a community consensus, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that some specific information is OK - that's why I left in the fact, cited to a RS, that he was the first Spainard to 10 million. However, you are now making two different arguments. First you are suggesting that YouTube is a an RS for the infobox. I disagree but will admit that your view is reasonable to have. However, you reverted far more than that. I do not see any sourcing that says he's the second most subscribed channel in Spain. And just what kind of accomplishment is that anyway? We don't know. And it's not for us to say. We should be using reliable sources to tell us and I do not see any kind of community consensus that subscribercount.live is a RS for any of the information that is supposedly sourced to it. There is no apparent sourcing for making it the 15th most subscribed on YouTube, the second most subscribed channel in the Spanish language, and the most subscribed YouTube channel in Spain. And I do not see any RS which supports He gained many subscribers when he posted a gameplay - it's likely true which is why I changed it to attention. I'm happy to have a discussion about why the YouTube provided information isn't RS - it's the discussion I thought we were going to have - but I removed a bunch of other information that has far less firm of a leg to stand on and for which you reverted me. Can we start by agreeing to restore those removals? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • Hi, sorry for the delay, i'd like to check for sources prior to removal. The main issue is the inclusion of subscriber and viewer numbers in youtube articles and if you don't think they should be included then I suggest an RFC at Village Post is needed due to the large number of articles affected, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no formal community consensus on this only the practices on individual pages. I don't disagree with you pointing to them as support for your position, but given the lack of a formal community consensus on this topic we are welcome to make our own consensus on what is appropriate for this page. However, I view that as a secondary discussion to whether the other information I removed and reference specifically in my last reply should stay removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• El Rubius.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• El Rubius.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"SQ/200" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SQ/200 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § SQ/200 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)