This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
'channel_url' is not a 'url'. it's an 'id'. Everyone gets confusing.
Associated acts without their own Wikipedia article?
I have a concern about including associated acts without their own Wikipedia article in infoboxes. What prompted this is the fact that, right now, TommyInnit has a "Slimecicle" as an associated act, but there is currently no existing article for such a person. I've seen instances of people removing associated acts without their own article, such as those on Cr1TiKaL's, but I can't find any guidelines pertaining to this. What do you people think I should do? L33tm4n (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following the deprecation of the associated acts parameter on Template:Infobox musical artist, are we following suit on here? I see no valid reason to keep the parameter on this infobox for the same reasons listed on the discussion for the musical infobox. – DarkGlow • 08:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes remove. The discussion at special:permalink/1091721708#Associated_acts_confusion is a comparable situation. In that discussion I read general opposition to the inclusion with some acknowledgement that the field is useful in certain circumstance. Until and unless someone produces a best practice guide which can prevent this field from being problematic then remove it.
Yes, definitely should be following suit here. Should be similarly replaced with current_member_of and past_member_of for those that are part of larger groups that have their own article. - Brojam (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, keep the field. YouTubers are significantly less likely to have articles on groups they are a part of than musicians, and the proposed membership field won't be used. YouTubers to their YouTube groups is not the same as musicians are to bands. For example, despite the publicity it's received, Team 10 (influencer group) is not a standalone article. As the current notability guidelines stand, there will be near-zero articles on YouTube groups and thousands of articles on bands. Keeping the associated acts around also means that we don't need to put them in the 'see also' section of an article. SWinxy (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Games" and "teams" parameters
I feel like a "games" and a "teams" parameter should exist in the infobox. I don't think it should be required, nor do I care if it's included in the basic parameters or not, but I definitely think it should be included in the infobox (e.g. TommyInnit is notable for Minecraft on his YouTube channel; KSI is a member of the Sidemen + CouRageJD is a member and co-owner of 100 Thieves). These parameters also exist on "Infobox Twitch streamer". L337m4n (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally not interested. Maybe 'Minecraft videos' could be considered a genre? There are, after all, 1 trillion views of the game. Maybe there should be a page about Minecraft on YouTube... SWinxy (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
