Talk:Sidemen/Archive 1

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). —

wiki

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

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.

@

wiki

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

wiki

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. —

wiki

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)

@

wiki

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? —

wiki

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.

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. —

wiki

17:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(NB: I have left a comment on your talk page following up your comments here). —

wiki

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

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[

wiki

11:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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.