Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

YouTube subscriber count

Mr. Dice has raised an interesting question on twitter. At least some other youtubers have their subscriber and view counts in the first paragraph of their article. I don't personally know what standard practice is in this area, or what general guidelines are used to determine when this data is included or not. I'd like to discuss it.

He also has other concerns about the article and I've invited him for a civil discussion of these issues. I'd like to remind everyone in advance, Mr. Dice included, that our discussions here must be respectful and kind, and that this is not about evaluating in any way whether his ideas are right or wrong or whether anyone likes him or not. It's about whether this Wikipedia entry is well-sourced, neutral, and an appropriate biography which complies with our stringent rules for WP:BLP's.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimmy. To the Editors: Why does my page read like my career ended in 2015, when my career exploded at the end of 2016? To anyone who has been following my career, it's obvious this page is outdated and casts me in a negative light. I was the first conservative YouTuber to reach 1 million subscribers (2017). And my last two books were Amazon best sellers. The True Story of Fake News (2017) and Liberalism: Find a Cure (2018) both hit #15 on Amazon's best seller list (of all books, not just in a category).

And the "Controversy" section is just as big as the "Career" section! haha. Look at my YouTube videos from the last few years. They average over 250,000 views per video in the first 24 hours after they're released. I regularly debunk fake news from the mainstream media (remember the BuzzFeed bombshell from a week and a half ago that Robert Mueller's office debunked?) My channel is fun and educational, and very popular among Trump supporters. I think it's unfair that my Wikipedia page doesn't accurately reflect what I do, or the impact that I've been making. --MarkDice (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dice, can you provide any RS baking these claims?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Remember that subjects of biographies are not expected to know all our jargon. :-) To be clear "RS" means "reliable sources". WP:RS is a good starting point to read about the policies here. Mark, just so you are aware, a conversation like this will usually take several days. Different people live in different time zones around the world of course, and so the people most interested in helping may not be online at the moment. I will also post a notice on the biographies noticeboard to attract the attention of people experienced in biographies but who are unlikely to have any particular axe to grind other than compliance with our broad editorial policies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Mr Dice, thanks Mr Wales we sometimes forget.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like the Editors to look at are my Most-Viewed YouTube videos. Dozens of the most-viewed videos I've produced speak volumes about what kind of work I do, and what I stand for, right? On YouTube.com/MarkDice if you click "Uploads" and then click "Sort By" and then filter them by Most Popular, the will be organized in a list from post popular down. What are those videos about? What is the overall theme of them? That's what I'm about, and that should be reflected on the Wikpedia page about me. --MarkDice (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As Mr Wales said above read our polices on reliable sources. In essence we cannot use original research wp:OR to judge what a source says (or what it is about), only take it word, literally (in a sense, we can infer facts). Moreover (and generally, please read wp:sps) we do not use primary sources for facts (only opinions) we use secondary sources. This means that whilst we could use your videos for your opinions "according to Mr Dice..." it would not (for example) trump a reliable third party source claiming that is a conspiracy theory or racist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

To be specific - we need mainstream media referring to view counts and followers. I did add that The Guardian said you had 317,000 Twitter followers in 2018. If you have links to MSM reporting on your popularity then that would be helpful. Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If I could chime in here and say: let's look at the two examples that Mark produced on twitter of other people whose YouTube stats we do report on. Lisa Donovan and Tyler Oakley. For Lisa Donovan, we used to report on the numbers but as of October 15th of last year we removed them. For Tyler Oakley we still report them and source it to "SocialBlade". Would SocialBlade be generally considered a sufficient RS to cite the numbers? I wouldn't have thought so, as it seems to not be a site exercising editorial judgment but just a site that scrape youtube to create number pages for lots of people - if we did have a practice of listing youtube numbers, it seems obvious to me that we should take them directly from youtube, not from a spammy scraper site. (In my view, this would not in any way be invalid primary research, so long as it isn't some kind of undue synthesis. If someone is famous for being a youtuber, it makes sense to talk about how many video views they have. But it's probably more important to be consistent and thoughtful about the practice across all biographies.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The YouTube channel itself shows the number of subscribers. So does SocialBlade.com, the industry standard for tracking YouTube stats. Also, does Amazon have a database of which books were ranked what over time? I have an Amazon Author's account that shows what rankings my books have going back to the date they were published, but to cite that they were #15 on the Bestseller list (of all books) my personal dashboard can't be used as the source, so is there a public list that keeps track of the historical ranking of books (not the one next to the listing that shows the ranking at this time) I mean one that has logged the rank, to prove they were bestsellers? --MarkDice (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that youtube would be an RS for subscribers. As to books, amazon would only be a source for how many you have sold on Amazon, and I am not sure that is overly encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY would be an issue (as would snapshoting the YouTube subscriber count). We would want a secondary RS discussing this. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not so sure about this. If someone is described by a RS as a "youtuber" that establishes it as a part of their notability, and then there should be no problem with reporting on the latest number as of a certain date. It would be wrong, for example, to say "John Doe is a famous youtuber with over 7,000 followers as of January, 2018." That would be wrong because it isn't really up to us to decide if someone can properly be called "famous or not". I don't see a problem with, having established the notability of the fact, we use the most accurate number available, which is youtube itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question, whilst a YouTube page is a primary source (it is user created) does this apply to content that is created by YouTube itself (such as subscriber numbers), after all this (as far as I know) cannot be altered by the user, it is not his creation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite. A YouTube counter is WP:PRIMARY (or actually - really just raw data) since it is "original materials that are close to an event" (and does not contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"). It is not user generated, and hence it is WP:INDEPENDENT and probably is reliable to some degree (though YouTube, as well YouTubers, may have a commercial interest to inflate numbers in various ways). However, if no secondary source discusses the YouTube views - including it is problematic per BLPPRIMARY. They might be a source discussing this - I did find the Twitter followers number when searching for a secondary source discussing the YouTube views. Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is more or less correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I did find - media matters transcript of Fox & Friends from 2015 saying "Mark Dice, whose YouTube channel has over 130 million views" (not sure of RSness - iffy, a bit out of date) and TruNews in 2017 (which does not seem like a RS at all) saying 315 million. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dice is talking about subscribers, not views. I think none issue here (And this applies to Twitter as well) is that this is only going to be a snap shot out of date about 30 seconds after it is posted. I am not sure what encyclopedia such trivia stats are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha - I was looking for the wrong term. Per Variety (which I guess will be a RS for this -Variety (magazine) ) in Feb 2018: "Mark Dice, a conservative media commentator with 1.2 million subscribers for his YouTube channel.". Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also - The Hollywood Reporter (as of 2016) - "Dice is best known for his YouTube videos,... His YouTube channel has 630,000 subscribers, and he is adding about 1,500 new ones every day. The channel is viewed 15 million times a month. - so Variety + Hollywood Reporter at least tells us secondary RSes "care about this" - so quite possibly DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This [[1]] might be a start.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the above can we hold off editing the article for now as a courtesy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I find it very disturbing that Jimbo Wales is once again responding to the demands of a conspiracy theorist with a Twitter following. The last time he caved to Mr. Dice's demands and tried to influence this page, he introduced Amazon linkspam into an article in violation of our policy on primary sourcing, and just plain common sense that we don't link to booksellers. Dice is notable for being a conspiracy theorist. He happens to run a YouTube channel. I personally don't think the subscribers for any person should be included unless it somehow impact their notability and has been consistently commented on. It is frequently changing and that requires constant updating to make sure it is accurate.
  This is just Jimmy Wales trying to help a conspiracy theorist white wash his article by making it seem more positive than what the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources report. He should stop taking Twitter edit requests. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it disturbing. You should not. The fact that you don't like a person is not in any way a reason for us to not take complaints seriously. There appears to be an emerging consensus that it can make sense to include his youtube numbers. If you have an axe to grind, do it somewhere else. If you can point to me suggesting anything that would amount to suggest that we should "white wash" anything, please do, as you have surely misunderstood what I have said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

He is clearly trying to promote positive views of himself, when the overwhelming majority of sourcing views him as a conspiracy theorist. He has been doing this for years, and you have in the past assisted him in it, and you're doing it again. Wikipedia does not exist to promote Mark Dice's views of himself. It exists to report what reliable secondary sources report and how they portray him. In this case, emphasizing how popular he is on YouTube in the lede would be giving an undo emphasis to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Do his Amazon book reviews count for nothing?

Can users please remember to comment on content, not users conduct, if you have an issue with a users conduct either report it or complain on their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to this discussion that the only reason we are having it is because he somehow managed to convince the founder of this project to help him make it seem more positive. There was nothing wrong with the article before, and if Dice or any of his hoard of Twitter followers had come here (like the frequently do) demanding we make this change, they'd be shown the door. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article in this regard before. There's nothing wrong with not including his subscriber count in the lede: it is difficult to maintain. We already have an (unsourced) box designed to explain when he reaches certain number of users. If there are reliable sources for current numbers, we can discuss it in the body "as of X date" Considering how this discussion came about is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you should permanently refrain from editing this entry and leave it to those who are more neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think TonyBallioni brings objectivity and wisdom to this discussion, and I would encourage him to continue editing, rather than to abstain. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I think Jimbo Wales should permanently refrain from attempting to throw shade at our best admins. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Me three. Jimbo Wales, I'm surprised to see you claim that admin X is not neutral and "just doesn't like the subject"--we hear that bogus argument all the time in AfD discussions, for instance. Slatersteven, wut? Whoever you were patronizing, the other party doesn't need your help, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Who said anything about the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

At least some other youtubers have their subscriber and view counts in the first paragraph of their article. in the first post. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, well that (depending on the article) might not refer to a lede, in this case it does. I am not sure it is relevant to the lede, but might be to the first paragraph in the body (assuming we accept this is not trivia, and I am still not convinced, but I have seen no better counter argument it should not be here). To explain to Mr Dice, the lede is the part of the article above the index which is a summery of the most important points (hence why I think it is inappropriate).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If it can be sourced to a reliable and neutral secondary source, like Icewhiz did for Twitter, I would support including it somewhere in the body so long as it is qualified by date. Discussing that he does have a following is important to show his reach. It should not be included in the lede, because given how short it is, it would be giving it undo prominence that he's just some other YouTuber with a large following. I'm all for including how large a reach he has, but it is important under the NPOV policy to do so in a way that is neutral, both in phrasing and in presentation.

If we can't find reliable secondary sourcing to include it in the body, then it doesn't get included as its trivia. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence that subscriber counts have been manipulated in the recent past (ex: [2]) that we should not be including this information in this article. If it's present in other articles we should remove them from there too. I think we can show Mr. Dice's popularity (or not) in other ways than subscriber or Twitter follower counts (ex: [3]). I want to emphasize that I think this happens to all major content creators and should be omitted not because of anything MarkDice did wrong but because it's a generally unreliable metric through the malicious actions of others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of them either, but if you find the NYT or the Guardian or the like noting it in an article, I think its fair to have them in the body. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Except it's information that is both quickly obsolete and likely misleading even when it was published. So for the 2018 variety source Icewhiz posts below this was before YouTube did a round of purging (an action I coincidentally also cited to Variety) - so its own reporting casts doubt on the reliability of that information. The Twitter example is less than a week old showing that these platforms continue to battle this problem. I am suggesting subscriber counts are inherently unreliable and misleading information don't belong in our articles even if a RS takes note of them at one point in time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, you've convinced me. Was never a fan of them to begin with, but didn't take into account the purges, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable Sources (I think!) for YouTube subscribers of Dice - Variety 2018, The Hollywood Reporter 2016. Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the most important question. As TonyBallioni said, "[Wikipedia] exists to report what reliable secondary sources report and how they portray him". As it is clearly relevant to why he receives media attention, as covered in multiple reliable sources, we need to include it in the article. That Tony dislikes that it (somehow?) makes him look better (it doesn't, being famous isn't necessarily positive) is utterly irrelevant. People disliking someone is totally irrelevant to writing a good Wikipedia entry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What you mean that nice Mr Hilter may not be a good candidate?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Do we have sourcing from publications like NYT, etc. where he has previously been covered? I don't doubt the numbers, my concern is with the weighting here. That being said, I think those are reliable enough sources for verification. I could get behind including them similarly to the Twitter stats, so long as the time of measurement is included. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I agree w/ barkeep above. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Well - it checks out vs. his YouTube page. If we were to include this, we would say "As of 2018, according to Variety he had Y subscribers". YouTube inflation issues aren't specific to Dice (they're fairly uniform for all YouTubers) - and I do think it is interesting to known he has around 1 million subscribers (as opposed to 10 million or 100,000) - as an order of magnitude it does tell us something about his on-line influence. Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the snarkiness of this comment, but lots of unreliable information is interesting. Given the repeated, continuous, manipulation of subscriber counts and video views on YouTube, and the repeated, continuous, manipulation of followers on Twitter I think despite the interest factor they don't belong in our articles. Full stop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nielsen numbers get massaged too - but let's roll with your comment - Dice is complaining we've got this info on other YouTubers but not him - @Barkeep49: - do we open up a project-wide discussion and nuke this off of the hundreds of other YouTubers (per my estimation - most of the YouTubers notable for YouTubing we've got bios for) with subscription numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that project wide we should indeed remove YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers as information in our articles, yes. How we go about doing that is a different discussion about which I would be amenable to a wide variety of methods - for instance I am guessing we could do so a normal edit uncontroversially in most cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We cannot make Wikipedia wide decisions on this talk page, we can only discus what we do here. At this time the case for consistency is we treat Mr Dice no different from any other YouTube "personality". I find the argument compelling, and at this time it seems we do put such figures in articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree and support that we follow the lead of many other Wikipedia entries. I'll gather some (rough) statistics and come back with it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No, but we can decide through valid arguments that it would be a bad idea here. That other articles follow a bad practice does not excuse it here if objections have been raised. Regardless, body over the lede if it is decided to include it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree we can't make Wikipedia wide discussions here. Importantly precisely because there is no formal global consensus we are able to make a local consensus decision here. I would suggest that the inclusion of Mr. Dice's followers count is not reliable information. As an example of why see above where Variety (a reliable source) reports on the subscribers, only for Variety (a reliable source) to report a little while later on how such counts were manipulated, whereby Variety casts doubt on its own reporting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather we put this on hold until have have a community consensus on the wider issue, the last thing we should do is have double standards, even if by accident. We are will not be judged by how we treat those we do not care about but how we treat those we hate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Subscriber numbers have previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Numbers in infobox. I oppose removing these numbers for inaccuracy reasons because e.g. {{infobox newspaper}} has |circulation=. I'm not familiar with the reliability of these metrics, including Nielsen ratings, but they are commonly cited and so we can assume that they are useful. See PewDiePie vs T-Series for a tangentially relevant topic. Regardless, over at the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Infoboxes and infobox modules, I have made the argument that Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS (a policy). As soon as there is more participation at WikiProject YouTube (which is concerned with all video platforms), I will try to estimate consensus for which infobox parameters should be removed from {{infobox YouTube personality}} in order to propose a merge with {{infobox person}} which is really the most similar infobox (also note {{infobox Twitch streamer}} which will also have to be merged). You can read all the arguments at the WikiProject talk page. With regards to the text, "popularity numbers" do not ever belong to the lead section per WP:NOTSPAM. I am not sure whether they belong to the article body, but per policies WP:V and WP:NPOV I recommend the following course of action: requiring a reliable secondary source for inclusion, using the {{as of}} template, and writing into stone some guidance that these numbers should not be updated without a new reliable secondary source. (Many articles about videos have something like "It has gained X views in the first 2 days" supported by a reliable secondary source) Finally, I just want to clarify that my primary concern has been that YouTubers are a very diverse occupation, so we should be using e.g. {{infobox singer}} for singers who are on YouTube. Madrenergic made the single most important observation, and that is the fact that infoboxes should not be brand-specific. I hope that this comment is considered short, because I did not even attempt to summarize the WikiProject YouTube talk page discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I was hopeful to see thoughtful discussion around the use of the numbers in the infobox discussions you linked to above. The discussion was thoughtful but was you and one other editor discussing it. This discussion has already had more editors contributing than the discussions you linked to and so I don't think that discussion sheds much light on what the right decision is for this article. As for your circulation question, I will point out that there are two substantial differences: first there are auditing circulation figures and second there is not, as far as I can find, any reliable sourcing suggesting that there has been widespread manipulation of these statistics by malevolent actors - this is not the case for Youtube subscribers/views and Twitter followers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a Reliable Source, a Variety article, that mentions the number of YouTube Subscribers I had at the time the article was published (1.2 million). https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/viacom-vidcon-acquisition-youtube-creators-react-1202693569/

Here are additional Reliable Sources that describe me as a "Media Analyst," FYI.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/inside-the-beltway-independent-media-rallies-behin/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/06/tech-giants-facebook-apple-youtube-ditch-controversial-infowars-star-alex-jones.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/video-hillary-clinton-supporters-ok-repealing-bill-rights --MarkDice (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, why is "Dice has also attracted criticism and attention for his claim that the United States government orchestrated the September 11 attacks" in the Lede as if it's some central focal point of my existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDice (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 2 where the WT and Fox stories have been analyzed in the past (pinging Doug Weller and Binksternet as the users from those discussions who are still active and haven’t commented). Your conspiracy theories are noted because reliable sources cover them and they are one of the major reasons you have an article here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, why aren't my last two books mentioned in the Career section, when they were both Bestsellers? #15 on Amazon's best seller list (of all books, not just a category)? My 2017 book, The True Story of Fake News has over 1800 five star reviews from Verified Purchases. My latest, Liberalism: Find a Cure came out in November 2018. Two, best selling books, but the "Career" section on the page makes it look like my career ended in 2015, or that I haven't done anything significant in four years. Writing two bestselling books in the last two years surely should be in the "Career" page. It's not, because the editors are trying to have the page give the impression that I haven't done anything in the last few years. It's pretty shameful. --MarkDice (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Book titles we could enter. However the best-seller bit - we'd need a MSM source. We don't use Amazon directly for this, nor would we use a tweet from you ([4]). Find MSM discussing book sales rankings - and it might be possible to insert. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason this isn't mentioned are the lack of any reliable secondary sources covering the books - I've searched, and am unable to find any sources covering the books. A sentence that you've written those two books could be included but in the absence of any sources nothing more can be written. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So, just pausing for a moment here, let's collect up the things that we may have some good friendly consensus on...

1. Following the pattern in other articles on youtubers, and because it has been of interest in reliable sources, we can add his subscriber count in the body. We don't have complete consensus on it being in the lede.
2. We can add his latest two books no problem, but what we say about them depends on finding reliable sources. I agree that we generally don't use Amazon numbers directly.
3. Regarding the request about the 9/11 claim, unless it is inaccurate in some specific way, or unless it is something that has been recanted or modified in more recent publications, I see no reason to change it at all. Even if recanted, it still remains pretty core as it is a fairly... noteworthy / notable ... thing to have said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Jimbo Wales, to your first two points, it may be worth clarifying that both the Youtube subscriber counts and the information about his latest books must be cited to reliable sources. This is in line with the consensus here, and with BLP policy: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. For the rest, I agree with your summary. Bradv🍁 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   By my reviewing of the conversation spread across this page, Jimbo, Icewhiz, Slatersteven, Masem and wumbolo are in favor of the YouTube subscribers being included, myself, Tony, and Sitush opposed. Tony and Sitush have indicated that if the information is going to be included it should only be included in the body and not in the lead. Is there anyone who has weighed in on this topic who I have missed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding these topics: in general, Youtube follower counts are information that I support including in the Infobox, but not in the prose of the lead section. A WP:PRIMARY source (namely Youtube itself) is generally fine for this; as Youtube doesn't make historical data easy to access a secondary source would be better if one is available. Recent books published by this author should automatically be included in a Bibliography section (which appears to be missing entirely), otherwise they should only be discussed if reliable independent sources have discussed the book. Simply being an "Amazon bestseller" is almost entirely meaningless; even the New York Times bestseller list is problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the books were removed via consensus at some point because there were no reliable sources that mentioned them as being significant and every single one of them is self-published. I'd have to go through the archives. I still agree with barkeep (assuming this is still his position) that subscriber numbers are inherently unreliable, and shouldn't be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It is my indeed still my contention that YouTube followers are not reliable given the rampant repeated manipulation of them. They do not even meet the WP:SELFPUB standard because there most definitely is reasonable doubt to its authenticity as I document above (and would be happy to further document if asked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the number of YouTube subscriptions is any encyclopedic and on top of that, they are massively manipulable. At best, in the body. ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This page could copy the format used by other people notable for being on YouTube. PewDiePie would be a primary example of a page that has gone through many revisions to arrive at a suitable way of displaying YouTube information. It has a side-bar that lists among other things the subscribers, total views, genres, etc... To get around the "problem" of data being out of date, it includes a date after it so that when the figure becomes too old an intrepid Wikipedia reader/editor can update it. JettaMann (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is this does not address the base complaint that this page is out of date, this information is always going to be out of date, and this thus best left out.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying the whole page is out of date? That seems like a separate topic compared to listing YouTube subscribers. Or is the "information" you are referring to the YouTube subscriber numbers? If it is the later, there is a precedent for Wikipedia pages of YouTubers to list this figure as it seems to be an important figure that Wikipedia readers want to know when researching YouTube personalities. JettaMann (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There are many people on Wikipedia that use the strictest interpretation of the rules to selectively attack information that they want censored. After seeing this for over 10 years, I don't believe Mark Dice's page is ever going to be a good and fair encyclopedia entry. Those working on censoring information are well organized and never give up. Every time I see a censorship war on Wikipedia, the censors almost always win. You might score a temporary victory, but check the page again a month later, and you'll see that the censors have won. Only a subset of Wikipedia is ever going to be a good encyclopedia. Humanoid (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And two wrongs do not make a right. Just because we include trivial nonsense on pages about people desperately trying to prove how important they are because less then 1% of a viewing audience can be bothered with them is not reason to pander to someone elses ego in the same way. This is not about wanting information censored, it is about not seeing what relevance it has. As I said, David Attenborough does not need to have the number of YouTube subscribers he has. Or how many titter followers Ian McKellen has.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source for how many subscribers or views a channel has. Google "buying youtube subscribers" and "buying youtube views" for why. Also Youtube had to delete millions of views and subscribers from some channels recently. Unless the number is very low, these numbers should be taken as potentially inflated, especially when dealing with people who shout how many subscribers and views they have. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia insists on using primary sources for information, and YouTube is the most primary source available for subscriber and video view information. Saying YouTube is unreliable needs some sort of evidence. Nothing is ever perfect when it comes to information but that's as close as we're ever going to get. There's no better source available for YouTube views. And to maintain their own credibility, they probably work overtime to make sure they are correct just like any other major media company. There's been no reports otherwise about YouTube views getting their data wrong across the board, quite the contrary. I've seen no other Wikipedia page take this kind of stance against conveying YouTube subscriber and video view information. JettaMann (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary ones. And you chose not to address the potential problems brought up by Legacypac about inflated figures on YouTube. Check out the New York Times article about it, or the Business Insider story about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni "I think you should permanently refrain from editing this entry and leave it to those who are more neutral". I think if you as an administrator told me the same and I insist in editing the mentioned entry you would block me wouldn't you. Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thinker78, first, I wouldn’t phrase it that way on an article where I was uninvolved: I’d either topic ban or warn if warranted, but I’d never make underhanded hints about not commenting. I would also never take any action on this article as I’m WP:INVOLVED, as for Jimmy’s throwing his weight around above, you’ll note he was rebuked for it by people like Bishonen, who alerted him to sanctions in this topic area because of his poor behavior. If you wish to seek sanctions against me, you can request them at WP:AE, but until then, please do not try to silence me trying to ensure the fairness and accuracy of this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Great point by Slatersteven: "There are many people on Wikipedia that use the strictest interpretation of the rules to selectively attack information that they want censored. After seeing this for over 10 years, I don't believe Mark Dice's page is ever going to be a good and fair encyclopedia entry." What's incredible is how dogged the editors are who claim to be all about neutrality, but are openly pushing their own agenda 24/7, trying to control their tiny corner of this website (no longer ranked that high on google searches) to turn people one way or another. So much for "democracy", "fairness", "equality", etc. -- the same people who have convinced themselves they know what's best for everyone else, at street protests, are hitting people with over the head with signs that read "Love Trumps Hate!" This is the era we are living in, and it's ultimately pathetic. GreenIn2010 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Another sleeper account with a history of whining about bias shows up to misattribute a quote and, brace yourselves... Whine about bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The article of PewDiePie (a GA article) lists his subscriber count, and the source is given as https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/pewdiepie. Therefore, there should be no credible reason to not use the source https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/markdice to list Dice's subscriber count as well. It is very simple, and should not require the thousands of words of argumentative text seen above. Just equal application under the rules. Bollyjeff | talk 01:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

variation in citation method

I stumbled here from somewhere else on-wiki (I've since forgotten where). Given the obvious consternation on this talk page, this topic is obviously contentious. I've already submitted an edit here, and wanted to ask (before I commit more): does anybody object to a consolidation of sources in the References section (i.e. list-defined references)? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

After three days w/o objections, I'm proceeding with my suggestion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

reversion explanation request (BRD)

Slatersteven (talk · contribs) reverted a large swath of changes I made, saying only "well for a start 'american' is in the lede." I used the edit summary to explain everything in my edit. On the single thing Slatersteven mentioned, I can only assume he's referring to removing Dice's nationality from the infobox; that was done—as I noted—because its a claim not present and cited in the article. That it's in the lead is a problem, not a cause for duplicating unverified information.

That being said, can anybody explain the rest of Slatersteven's reversion? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

removal of youtube 'most subscribed' data

X-Editor Why did you remove the information that his number of subscribers made him the 7,115th most-subscribed channel? I think listing one figure without the other doesn't tell the entire story. valereee (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC) bad ping X-Editor

Adding: And you've just inserted content sourced from the Washington Times, which isn't generally considered reliable for contentious information. Can we find that information in better sources before adding it? valereee (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be contentious that the man wrote some books, or is it the best seller part? That part could be removed it not provable, but the fact that he wrote them is a fact. It would be good to note that not all of his books are conspiracy related. Bollyjeff | talk 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff Yes, he did write them, but as there are no secondary sources talking about them. As such they are not going to be included. That is just how it works. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

LakesideMiners In one of the threads above I gave a source for the book on billoreilly dot com, and was told that this site is not reliable for contentious information. Bill O'Reilly cannot be trusted to reliably tell us of the existence of a book, and that he has interviewed the author about it? Why is this contentious, regardless of the contents of the book? Bollyjeff | talk 17:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The contentious part is whether a self-published book is worth mentioning. If it's actually a "bestseller" then the answer is yes, but neither the Wash Times nor Bill O'Reilly are reliable sources for that. valereee (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree if we had a RS calling it a best seller it would be an easy include. Really I'm pretty sympathetic to a wide range of scraps from a RS that would allow us to include the information because his notability is not hinged on being an author so the barrier for inclusion should be low. However, including a stat that he's that the 7115th most subscribed channel and NOT linking that to a RS seems to not be in keeping with policy. Is that number relevant? Is it impressive or suggests he's unimpressive. I have a definite opinion on how impressive this number is but we don't base stuff off of editor opinions we follow RS. Given the lack of reliable inclusion from RS that stat should most definitely not be included. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for continuing the conversation. The other 2 of his books mentioned in this article were sourced to The Oaklahoman, Vice, and The Hollywood Reporter, with no mention of sales status, so I suppose that means anything they say about someone is considered reliable and noteworthy? Can you point me to RfC or something showing that the Washington Times and Bill O'Reilly are not reliable for anything on Wikipedia? The book was mentioned by them for reasons other than sales figures, so I don't see why it should be so easily discounted. Often sources are not blanket banned for all content; I don't know if that is the case for these. As far as the most subscribed figure, its on socialblade, the same site that lists the subscriber count, and the same site used on other youtubers articles, so it should be reliable enough. I agree that its not very impressive though. Bollyjeff | talk 19:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, there's a list of perennial sources at WP:RS/P that shows Washington Times as shaky reliability valereee (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's awesome. Bollyjeff | talk 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, my rationale for adding the 7115th is that if we use the 1.4million, we have to keep it in context. Both stats are from the same site. valereee (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You can check the archives of this talk page for The Washington Times, but they are owned and editorially controlled by a cult, and I generally do not consider organizations that are effectively the propaganda arm of a cult to be reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: This is the double edged nature of what's happened here. Dice has attracted a lot of attention to the page and so many experienced editors are now highly involved in it. This means that things that might not get noticed on other pages are being noticed and acted on here. In this case that means use of the Washington Times (Tony's analysis of which I agree with) and Social Blade is being heavily scrutinized with regard to Dice. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the Washington Times sourced information, but there has got to be an acceptable source for the two newer books. The guy is doing other than conspiracy theory related work the past couple years. Bollyjeff | talk 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, the fact he's doing other than conspiracy theory work isn't the issue. He may have started doing yoga in the past couple years or bought a new car or got dumped by a girlfriend, too. For some BLPs, those kinds of trivial activities can be included because someone is commenting on them in reliable sources. If reliable sources aren't commenting on the two newer books, they aren't worth reporting. valereee (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand; get rid of it then. In my opinion, a problem occurs when one political ideology owns all of the "reliable sources", and they can purposely avoid the mention of things that others would like to know about. They often suppress good news and only talk about bad things that will help their cause. Bollyjeff | talk 13:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, I understand what you're arguing. If you mostly-agree with a source and it's deprecated here, it's tempting to think there is a political component to assessing sources. I would argue that the majority of editors are doing their best to be objective about sources, even those they disagree with, and that crazy left-wing sources are as likely to be deprecated as crazy right-wing. The Wall Street Journal is a conservative souce; it's considered absolutely reliable. valereee (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Specifically in this case, I suspect that the so-called reliable sources covered the first two books, even though they may not have sold well, because it made the author look bad. Whereas they will not cover the later books, even though they may have sold much better, because that would tend to make the sources themselves look bad. If Wikipedians are not allowed to use alternate, less rock-solid sources, even for basic information in cases like this, the public will not get the full story unless they look somewhere else. Bollyjeff | talk 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, there are plenty of generally-considered-reliable sources on the right. They aren't talking about these books, either. If the books were notable but the left didn't cover them because those books made the left look bad, reliable sources on the right would be ALL OVER THOSE BOOKS. If the only coverage is from generally-unreliable sources on the right, there's a reason. It's because reliable right-leaning sources consider the books not worth talking about. valereee (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Fair enough. It's puzzling then that the left-leaning sources thought that the old books were worth talking about. Bollyjeff | talk 13:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, why puzzling? Not every book by every author receives comment. There are many authors whose lesser traditionally-published works are maybe only listed in a 'works' section because they've never received comment in reliable sources. I recently had someone ask for citations for every work in a list of works, and all of them were traditionally-published. Am I missing some point you're making? valereee (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wait, do you mean the earlier books received comment because they were about illuminati, which sounds pretty out there, so left-leaning press mentioned them to laugh at Dice? Totally possible, although to be fair the single mention of the Hollywood book was actually limited to a bare mention in an article that was about multiple people, not just Dice, so it's actually fair to say the book itself received nearly zero coverage. Deserving of being included in the article? At best, barely. I wouldn't call it an indication the left-leaning press thought the book was "worth talking about," really. valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, plus it means other youtuber articles are also getting scrutinized more closely. Dice may have screwed the pooch for everyone whose youtube stats are "1.6 million subscribers!" because experienced editors are going to be like, "Yeah, and that makes them the 4563rd most subscribed channel." Which obviously does nothing to prove notability. Every other youtuber can thank Mark Dice for poking the sleeping giant, lol valereee (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

IMDb

The IMDb entry below #External links is apparently self-published and only covers the already linked YouTube channel. Please remove the IMDb link per WP:EL or add a {{external links}} at the top to get more feedback first. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

External links are allowed to SPS, we do it all the time/Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ELBLP could be clearer than "must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles", but I've not yet seen {{IMDb name}} for any YouTuber. Admittedly that would be less than twenty counting Mr. Dice. Of course the template is often used for directors, actors, etc. of movies, but YouTuber when the channel is already linked would be new for me. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

IMDb lets anyone with an account edit information. I'm not sure that's high quality enough for BLP? valereee (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged it -- let's see if we can get some opinions. valereee (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it can stay, the biography page is quite interesting: "He enjoys causing trouble for the New World Order, exposing corrupt scumbag politicians, and pointing out Big Brother's prying eyes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can edit an IMDB page (and, thus could include any amount of BLP issues and/or libel); in the same way as Wikipedia is not a valid EL, this should not be either. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not be high quality, but it is a traditional addition to EL when there is one. We link to his YT, which also could include any amount of BLP issues and/or libel. WP-articles would be under "See also" (not sure I get your point there, WP is per definition not an EL). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally acceptable for external link per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Its okay as a link but not as a source. Bollyjeff | talk 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but most IMDB links aren't written to make the subject look like a complete idiot. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell his bio on IMDb is lifted straight from his website before he made it a redirect.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it (edit conflicted with your post here), because I agree with Black Kite that we generally should not have IMDB profiles that exist to make the subject look like an idiot. If he wrote that about himself, it isn't a concern, but that being said, we should also not link to external links that are apparently copyvios, which it now appears to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The bio on IMBd looks like it was put there by Dice himself. If that is the case I am not sure it would be a copyvio. But there is no way to prove it was actually Dice that put it there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing now. Since he obviously doesn't mind looking like a loon (to paraphrase Black Kite) since he published it himself, the BLP concerns are less of an issue. Making sure that IMDb isn't hosting a copyvio of content that he owns, however, is another thing, and we tend to prefer the safer option on copyvios. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

PackMecEng, 'generally acceptable' for, say, an EL for a movie might not be good enough to meet standards for BLP? valereee (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We generally use it for any actor. Even Donald Trump has it in his external link. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, if this is an SPS then I see no issue with it, if it is not an SPS then I see an issue with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

birth date is December 21, 1977

According to many reliable sources including IMDB his birth date is December 21, 1977. PLease add this. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, IMDB is not considered a reliable source because the content is created and edited by anyone. I did a quick look around and cannot find reliable sources stating his birth date, but admittedly I did not look extremely thoroughly. Going from "According to many reliable sources", what other sources were you able to find? Birth dates can only be included in articles if they have been widely published in reliable sources, which unfortunately IMDB is not. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I just did a quite thorough search across news sources and various other web sources, and unfortunately, I could not find anything that meets our reliable source guideline stating that this is his birth date. There are websites that say so, but pretty much all of them are either forums, primary sources, wikis, or websites by a single person that have never received independent publishing or coverage, which are not usually considered reliable, especially for something like the birth date of a living person (see this guideline). Still, Google's not the best way of finding stuff, so what other sources have you got? If you could provide links that would be great so that we can evaluate them. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice's personal verified Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/pg/MarkDice/about/?ref=page_internal. https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mark-dice.html. The Spanish Wikipedia (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice), Swedish wikipedia (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice), Romanian wikipedia (https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice), and Chinese Wikipedia (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BA%A5%E5%85%8B%C2%B7%E6%88%B4%E6%96%AF). I don't think Facebook is a reliable source, but that is Dice's actual 100% verified account, i doubt he'd lie about his birthday. Other than that however, i couldnt find anything. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and providing the sources, but I'm afraid none of them would work for this. You are correct that the first link is Mark Dice's verified Facebook, but primary sources cannot be used for birth dates. The second source has been determined to be unreliable by consensus. Foreign-language Wikipedias are not considered reliable sources either, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The problem is not that all of these sources are lying, but rather that we do not include birth dates of living people that have not been widely published in reliable, secondary sources, for privacy reasons. I do understand your points, however, and I apologize if it seems like I'm just throwing a bunch of information from a bunch of policies and guidelines out there... :-) Also, note that it's possible that there are other reliable sources out there that include his birth date, but just that they have not been found yet. Best, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I figured that'd be the case, oh well. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, I am not sure you're right on FB here. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, if the date is uncontroversial, why not use it? I've seen social media used for this (WP:OSE, I know) in other articles, and as long as there are no conflicts with reliable secondary sources, I don't see a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I am not sure why this would fail, its not exactly the subject of controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF seems to agree with GGS valereee (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP seems to say that birth dates should only be included if they have been widely published in reliable sources, and to otherwise simply include the year. However, it's not something I particularly think is a big deal and I'm fine with someone else including the birth date, as it is possible that I'm misinterpreting something.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY has a little more, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

YouTube as a source?

In an attempt to modernize this archaic article, I was wondering if we could use Mark Dice's own YouTube channel as a source. I'm not sure what the general consensus is on whether or not one's own YouTube account is a source but if you look at Kyle Kulinski for example this page is littered with his own videos as sources in order to create content. I am curious as to if this is acceptable practice or if his page is in violation of Wikipedia's biography standards.Granitehope (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Granitehope if you read the above section Talk:Mark_Dice#Political_Positions_Of_Mark_Dice there's an explanation of why YouTube videos can't be used as a source -- that would be considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which Wikipedia prohibits. valereee (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Granitehope, don't delete stuff from talk pages -- especially anything posted by someone else, or your own comments that have already been replied to -- as we like to keep a full record. It's fine to just say you'll move to the other discussion but leave the previous discussion here! :D valereee (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

FAQ?

With Dice actively recruiting people to do his bidding here, perhaps in the interest of not repeating the same discussions a thousand times, a FAQ page is in order? And/or a bit more substatial edit notice? (although the current one made me chuckle) I could also see being a bit more aggressive with archiving to keep the talk page from being so bloated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Also I thought I read somewhere that there was a way to combine DS notices rather than having three separate boxes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the front matter here is a bit cluttered, having so many notices is likely to actually reduce the chance of people atually reading them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Please yes. What can I do to help? valereee (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Yeah, nevermind. No one would read it. valereee (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of it down but so far can't figure out how to combine the DS notices, asked for help with that at Template talk:Ds. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)