This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. T-Series very recently hit 92 million subscribers, while PewDiePie is only on 91. Please could you update the top 50 most subscribed channel table to reflect this please?
PewDiePie is now at 92 million subscribers and t series subscriber count is balance and PewDiePie is now going up Ax man98075 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Badabun ceased making its subscriber count publicly visible earlier this month, and the total on Social Blade has remained static at 37,292,948 ever since. I have added a note to the Badabun cell explaining this situation. Unless the channel reverses its decision, we will have no choice but to use the 37.2 million figure for Badabun in all future revisions of the list. LifeofTau 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
As this is relevant now, more than ever, it should be noted that the sub counts (and the 1st vs 2nd positions) are fluctuating wildly, far more rapidly than the static list that is currently used as a source is being updated. At this point, it seems necessary to factor in live sub counts, which are being streamed by Social Blade in an official capacity here. ~Swarm~{talk} 07:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added the live sub count as an additional source. ~Swarm~{talk} 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm proposing the discussion that instead making both "PewDiePie" and "T-Series" as the "co-Most Subscribed YouTube Channel" so that I'm gonna end about the current further discussion that is currently tackled on. I'm just making my proposal so that we're gonna end this debate/fight. Whether you support my proposal or not, it's up to you to decide.
On "Most-subscribed channels" link, I'm proposing this sample table for both PewDiePie and T-Series only:
On "Historical progression of most-subscribed channels" link, just remained the name "PewDiePie" because it's not included in my proposal and don't mind about the streak. But it up to you.
If you have any suggestions, you may leave it here; but as I always said, it's up to all for you. I hope you support it or not.
P.S. This is a temporary...Movies Time (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your proposal, but I am afraid I must oppose this. I made the image and caption suggestion several days ago because large, prominent features at the top of an article should not be changed on a regular basis. In contrast, the main list can be expected to undergo relatively frequent updates in order to reflect real-world changes in rank and subscriber count. The fact that this can be done relatively quickly and that even small differences can be taken into account is, in my view, one of the list's greatest strengths. Stating that PewDiePie and T-Series are the two most-subscribed channels is very different from stating that they are both the most-subscribed channel. Bestowing the number one ranking to both channels falsely implies that they are "tied" in subscriber count. I trust that we as editors will be able to update the table as necessary whenever these two channels surpass each other in the future. LifeofTau 15:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This section contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
It must be an April Fools joke. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually yes, it is. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Not possible: While the Hacksmith's subscriber count of two billion is undeniable, the last thing we would want to do is offend the sensibilities of PewDiePie or T-Series by reporting the truth of the matter. We have no choice but to keep news of the actual reigning YouTube champion under wraps, lest we be beset by hordes of nine-year-olds and Bollywood fans. LifeofTau 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[April Fools!]
I thing i'll start making the point of battle about PewDiePie versus T-Series there.
History
It is all started of Late-2018, and T-Series did a first try in the #1 on February 2019. T-Series was a leader for 11 hours in 21 March. For some reason we did only changed in leaderboard. Once in 25 March T-Series helded it's leadership in more than 12 hours, we ignored this fact and prefered PewDiePie's streak unbreaked, despite sever people awaiting it. What even livestreams didn't think PewDiePie have enough leadership to be there for 12+ hours per day. That did happend also in March 26, and obviously March 27.
List of 12+ hours leadership to T-Series
As Wikipedia itself noted, that is 25 March and 26 March, 2019. Is that ok to the fact Pewds had only 9 hours to take a lead, and T-Series had 14-15 hours for it?
This is happend:
Probably we're should to get further into this fact, why we're still allowing the 24-hours rule, and not constanting the fact the one channel taking a leadership in 12 hours and more, rather a second channel. I mean PewDiePie have only did a 6 hours of leadership in night to March 27. There was more discussion about it, and the PewDiePie vs T-Series topic before me, so i did only just a overail analysis of T-Series being #1 for 12+ hours. So, what's the point of making PewDiePie to be an unbreakable in a subscriber war, rather of making the modern rule of leader streaking? Are we waiting for someone get a 100 million subscribers, or we finally can edit a history, adding a current event?
Result
This is very dissapointing to watch PewDiePie currently leading in a history, just like there is nobody a competitor of PewDiePie, and he is a "eternal" leader, but maybe there is something that i, and probably everyone else, don't understand. I don't see a "24-hours criteria" making any sense right now. It is losing since 25 March. Any ideas how to make a history of leadership some sense?
Discuss below this text. Awaiting - 46.39.248.31 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about this topic
Agreed. In fact now is the best time for the editors to take a firm decision, as Pewdiepie has lead for the lesser part of the day for 3 consecutive days.Freak5 5 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Second this. We are probably going to be omitting a lot of days if we were to wait for T-Series to have a 24 hour streak. If the channel cannot be considered #1 for these three consecutive days even after being in the lead for 15 hours each day, neither can PewDiePie. It is simply not a streak. Also, T-Series' growth generally dips after IST 12, but this is because the Indian subcontinent is sleeping at the time. 2.51.19.121 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless T-Series leads for a full 24 hours, it should not replace the current leader. --Haljackey (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Can the editors confirm this? Also I hope the rules will not suddenly change for Pewdiepie after T-series gets 24 hours, as we have a precedent of T-series where short overtakes were not listed to historic progression, and I expect the same to follow for Pewdiepie.Freak5 5 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to see many people agrees that PewDiePie's streak is ended like since 4 hours of 27 March. We had a nice day in a plan of discussion. We need more research and times to see the aftermath of current situation of the subscriber "war". --46.39.248.31 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
what about: pewdiepie streak is broken but T series can't be named the most subscribed channel yet...? It's not like we can't let be three days with no youtuber being #1. Eligio Budde (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Its Over
In about a 1-2 hours T-Series will have been the #1 channel for 24 hours. Its 12k subs ahead and its midnight in US. The discussion about this can now end. Daiyusha (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedians finally confirm only today. But still i hope they create a rule for it. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Aaaand... it takes back to the older version. See? Allright, it is seems like this is not over yet. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
A YouTube channel's parent or production company is not necessarily its network. Mythical Entertainment appears to serve an example of the former, but not the latter. Smosh most likely either remains unaffiliated or has joined Rhett & Link's networkStudio71 as part of the acquisition. I have yet to see any indication that Mythical Entertainment also operates as a multi-channel network. LifeofTau 05:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Might as well start a thread because people are going to come with the news that pewdiepie passed again. So this will be the thread. I recommend all discussion on the topic happen here. BMO4744 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
God this is actually annoying. Is this going to happen every time? It's been months now, can we put this to rest Rmehtany (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, we have to deal with this shit for 2 more months.BMO4744 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that PewDiePie and T-Series will likely continue to surpass each other in subscriber count for hours at a time over the next several days. In light of this, I am considering whether to replace the single image for the most-subscribed channel with an image for each channel, positioned side-by-side and accompanied by a single caption. It would appear as follows:
Swedish Let's Player and vlogger PewDiePie(left) and Indian record label T-Series(right) operate the two most-subscribed channels on YouTube. Each has accumulated 90 million subscribers as of March 2019.[1]
The reason I am considering this is because switching between different images at the top of an article is, in my view, a relatively major change that not should be performed on a regular basis. If adopted, the above setup could remain without needing to be altered after every significant overtake. I invite users to reply with their thoughts below. I am also open to suggestions to modify the images and caption in terms of formatting, placement, order, or phrasing. LifeofTau 20:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a lot better than flipping the whole table. I agree with this approach.BMO4744 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the T-Series logo copyrighted? Using it in their wiki page is fair use but is it legal to use it here? HermitCurator 07:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The T-Series logo itself is considered by Commons to be in the public domain, for "threshold of originality" reasons. ~Swarm~{talk} 11:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. The two channels are flipping on a daily basis, and its silly to keep changing the top image every time one passes over the other. I'd reccomend noting the competition within the text description of the two images. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
100% support this, channels will continue to flip for a least another few weeks. The less often we have to update major sections during this the better --Rcmaehl (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this, but why hasn't it been done yet, I cannot see the changes, please do it, whoever is allowed to Stud2608 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. After receiving unanimous support, I have implemented the proposed change. LifeofTau 01:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that it would be unfair for Pewdiepie to have his 1420 day streak broken by like 2 days so we should just leave it be unless it’s over a week Tstrasavich (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
PewDiePie was most subscribed for 1919 days, then T-Series overtook him on March 26 which lasted until March 31, giving T-Series a lead for 5 days. This should be reflected in the page because since there were takeovers lasting over a day for each, they shouldn't be "TBD" anymore. Jacobmask2015 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you noticed the number of discussions over how to count the days of leadership? There's still a lot to work out, so I don't think you should expect any changes for some time. Rmehtany (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Edit requests should only be made for non-controversial changes; this issue is contentious and consensus regarding the delineation of streaks is pending. No decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 03:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It is very clear that T-Series completed 24 hours as no.1 for the first time on 28th May (though they surpassed on 27th May). Reference: Social Blade Sub-Gap graph on YouTube.
PewDiePie regained his crown back and successfully retained it for 1 day as of April 2.
I request the mods to edit the info based this information. HermitCurator 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
PewDiePie has achieved all four major options for streak delineation. As such, a row should be added on the streak table for him even if the length of the streak itself is still contested. Hi529 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done for now: The most restrictive of the options being considered (C and D) require a channel to hold the position of most-subscribed for the entirety of a calendar date in order to claim that date. Social Blade's hourly statistics verify that T-Series' subscriber count continued to exceed that of PewDiePie for the first eight hours of April 1 (UTC). April 2, the current date in UTC, will end in six hours. At that point, assuming that Kjellberg continues to retain the position for the entirety of that time, PewDiePie's latest streak will be added to the table and timeline. LifeofTau 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: PewDiePie was the most-subscribed channel for the entirety of April 2, 2019 (UTC). LifeofTau 01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It should be made known that after some consideration, I have shifted my position on this issue, and I would not have initially declined the request if I could alter my past actions. Put simply, the circumstances surrounding this latest overtake are entirely different (in that it was not preceded by many shorter incidences lasting less than 24 hours) that those of the one being discussed in the RfC. It should have therefore been treated in the same way as all of the other streaks prior to 2019, which are assumed to also be singular events, were: the date the streak began is the date on which the overtake occurred. I had said as much in my discussion comments, where I noted how the T-Series event was distinguished from the ones that had come before. I regret applying the same approach taken for that overtake to this one without first considering the reason why that approach was being taken. LifeofTau 01:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand: Why is there no specific date for when T-Series broke PewDiePie's 1920 days streak? I heard there is a discussion if the time T-Series passed PewDiePie for 12 hours count, and I don't see how is that discussion valid. The 24 hours rule fits way more than the 12 hours one. It's not like in the Historical Progression section there is someone who was number 1 for 7 days and a half. It's always full days, which means it's always full 24 hours.
I also heard that there's no real proof to when T-Series passed. How? Many people who followed the sub-count can testify that T-Series passed on 27 March 2019, and PewDiePie took back the lead on 1 April 2019. There are also videos showing the sub count during that time, and you can even see it on Social Blade. איתמראלון (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The social Blade live count on YouTube has subgap graph. The gap passes zero on 27 March and stays below for 24 hours fully for the first time on 28 March. The streak ends on April 1. PewDiePie's streak begins on April 2. HermitCurator 02:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Add a link to Pewdiepies Wikipedia page in the top section where it names all the channels that have been number one. Erlendtl (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: It is already linked the paragraph before. MrClog (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You really need to edit the TBD on the streak... T-Gay only held the streak for 4 days.... Do your job Vampi23456789 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Edit requests should only be made for non-controversial changes; this issue is contentious and consensus regarding how to delineate the streak is pending. No decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Switch his green TBD to 1934 days because that’s how long he held it for I believe Aidanfanshaw (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Since my edit was removed: should we add the milestones back in? Thanks. rayukk|talk 19:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes/Support; one of the first ideas I wanted to be included when I first created the page. I believe 100K, 1 million, 10 million, and eventually 100 million are important to note. Fred being the first to 1 million was an important thing to the YouTube community back in '09 and I also believe every 10 million milestone between 10 and 100 is okay to include as well. Perhaps also mention how PewDiePie was the first channel to reach every million subscriber milestone from 12–15 million, and 19–91 million. (Smosh reached 11 million first; YouTube Spotlight reached 16–18 million first; T-Series reached 92 million first). I think in terms of sourcing, let's pair credible 3rd-party sources here, along with the Social Blade sub counter reference. Soulbust (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes/Support: [Original edit for reference] I saw the original post and I do support adding the chart. After all, the heading is "Milestones and reactions", not just "Reactions". AppMaster1000 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In my view, major subscriber milestones are not inappropriate to include, but a table is a poor format to present them in. The table dedicated to them in the first years of the article struck me as listcruft. I envision the milestones and reactions section being expanded to become a chronology of the different channels to hold the most-subscribed position, with short descriptions of each user and their content. If the approximate number of subscribers each channel had upon becoming the most-subscribed is also included, readers will be able to determine which channel was the first to reach any given milestone. For example, if it is noted that Ray William Johnson had 3.8 million subscribers when he surpassed nigahiga and Smosh had 6.7 million when they surpassed Johnson, a reader can infer that he was the first user to achieve the milestones of four, five, and six million subscribers. Subscriber milestones that are powers of ten are significant enough to be noted on their own in the same way that Fred being the first to one million is already described in the section. 50 million may be also be worthy of mention given that YouTube sends a custom award to users who attain that amount. LifeofTau 02:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the sentence in the first paragraph, "The most-subscribed channel as of April 2019 is PewDiePie, which has accumulated more than 93 million subscribers since 2010." should have use the word "who" instead of "which" since PewDiePie is an individual. However, I'm not sure if I'm right about this since the "which" could be referring to the fact that the channel is named "PewDiePie." JustinIsAwesome77 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please change the "TBD" to "1917" for Pewdiepie and change "TBD" to "4" for Tseries 2A01:E35:8BE2:65E0:3C5B:9F43:CDB:A681 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently the history table shows the previous holdings of Pewds and T as "TBD" due to the uncertainty regarding the partial days. I propose adding a note to the table to tell people who don't look at the Talk page (most people, I assume) why it's so hard to count/determine days until a definite method is decided upon. AppMaster1000 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes/Support: I think this is a really good idea because it could prevent users from making all of these edit requests to add the streaks back. JustinIsAwesome77 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I was checking the most-subscribed YouTube channel times, and I realized that T-Series' takeover time was to be determined. So, thanks to the SocialBlade livestream, I got the correct dates.
Also, I feel that we should use March 27 as the T-Series surpassing date either way, and April 1st for PewDiePie becoming number one again, since it was March 27 in Brighton and New Delhi at the time, and same with April 1st. Brighton is where Felix lives (I get that right now he's in Japan, but it was also April 1st there, too. Remember, the International Date Line isn't until you reach American Samoa and British Samoa.[1] (go check view history if you think I edited it to support my argument.) ), and T-Series is headquartered in New Delhi.
-- TechnoDiamond (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The reason that the beginning date of T-Series' streak is not yet specified is not because of a supposed lack of reliable data from late March. It is because T-Series did not surpass PewDiePie in a single instance, but instead overtook the channel on dozens of occasions prior to securing the position for at least 24 hours. The consequence of this is that there is no specific date that stands out as the inherently "correct" one to use, and therefore a discussion among editors is necessary in order to determine a local consensus regarding this issue. That discussion is taking place in an above section on this talk page in the form of an RfC; your opinions and ideas are more than welcome there. LifeofTau 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to edit the historical progressions of the most subscribed channels Tupacfanboy214 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
You'll have to request the edits on this talk page on the form of "Please change X to Y". You can for example create the section in your sandbox and then request that it be added to the article by reopening this request. – Þjarkur(talk) 20:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
bruh why is t series in front when they are losing to pewds by 300,000 subs? subscribe to pewdiepie and please let me edit this. 92.29.55.88 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Maranello10 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have already commented on my view in regards to the options presented in the delineating streaks discussion, I thought it would be more useful to ask this question here. It has been almost two weeks since the topic thread was raised, the rate of new editions to the discussion has slowed and at least once a day there is a new extended confirmation request asking for the table to be updated.
The longer we wait the less relevant this whole discussion becomes, as by around the end of May once the channels reach 100 million the race will likely be called off; this page will really only continue to receive widespread attention in the short term. I do not see the point of not making a decision at this present time, however, I may be missing something. I ask the moderators/main editors, what are we waiting for? And if we are waiting, what is the time frame for the end of consultation? Maranello10 (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, it's been 2 weeks now just pick one of the most voted for options and go with it.--Benjamin Machine (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Any user who believes the RfC should be ended is certainly welcome to request closure by an uninvolved editor at the WP:ANRFC noticeboard. I do however reject the arguments that the discussion should be concluded because it is becoming "less relevant" or because of any approaching milestones; external events should have no impact on our decision-making processes. The only relevant reason to end the discussion is because new contributions have recently ceased. I also reject the notion that the RfC should be ended by simply "pick[ing] one of the most voted for options and go[ing] with it." I would expect the closing editor to follow the advice at WP:ACD and WP:CLOSE, carefully considering the different points debated and weighing the strength of the arguments made before deciding upon the outcome that best represents the community's consensus. LifeofTau 18:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines pertaining to the WP:ANRFC noticeboard state the default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days. This is the answer I was looking for. Maranello10 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The 24 hours rule makes more sense because it's technically been like that since the beginning. We've always updated the historical progression by days. You don't see someone who was the most subscribed channel for 4 and a half days. It's always full days. So in my opinion, the historical progression should go by the 24 hours rule: If a channel had the most subscribers for more than 24 hours, he needs to be added to the table. איתמראלון (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
All the Hindi links should be replaced with Central Zone languages as those sources really means Central Zone languages. Thank you Karachi2 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The sources cited in the Hindi cells each specifically state that the primary language of their respective channels is "Hindi", not "Central Zone", "Hindustani", or any other term that includes related forms such as Urdu. Applying a subjective interpretation of what a source "really means" would violate Wikipedia's original research policy. As the name suggests, the Central Zone languages are a family comprising multiple languages of South Asian origin. Listing it as the the primary language for any of the Hindi channels would be akin to designating a creator who produces content in Italian as a "Romance-language" channel. This page is not a place to take a stance on or attempt to settle the Hindi–Urdu controversy, a linguistic dispute that is entirely irrelevant to an article about YouTube channels. We will continue to adhere to what is stated by reliable sources. LifeofTau 05:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I was wanting to make substantive changes to the page. For the table, I wanted to add a new column for the country that the youtube channel is from. Darrel dennis (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: This article is currently protected such that only extended confirmed users may edit it. Your account, which is more than 30 days old, will automatically be granted extended confirmed status upon your 500th edit. Regardless of the protection level, the addition of a new column to the table is significant change that should not be implemented without discussion beforehand. Your best course of action is to create a new section, outside of the edit request process, in which you propose the change, lay out your rationale, and allow discussion of the proposal to take place. Please note that the table did include such a column until January of last year, when it was removed by an editor who stated that it was "unsourced and unclear". A separate table listing channels by assigned nationality was in place until last month; my primary reason for removing it was a lack of objective, reliable data needed for such a list to be viable. LifeofTau 23:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Wei4Green. In your most recent edits to this article, you added a template to the bottom row of the historical progression table which automatically displays the current date. Although I neither oppose nor support this, you should know that a very similar setup was in place for the same row in the same table until nearly a year ago, when an editor did away with it entirely, arguing that "Always showing the current date makes this field completely useless and even wrong". I am not insinuating that you were incorrect to restore the {{date}} template. I am simply hoping to make you aware of the fact that a user was very much against the idea in the past. LifeofTau 03:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Life of Tau: Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the info. Your contributions to this article is appreciated. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many awards for subscriber milestones the most well known one is the gold play button if you have 1 million subscribers you can fill out a form to get a golden play button —Preceding unsigned comment added by SubtoPewDiePie749874948348 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion has stagnated, and there is a fairly clear consensus in support of A2: A streak begins when a channel holds the most-subscribed position for a continuous, uninterrupted period of at least 24 hours. The streak is considered to have begun on the date that the 24 hour period began. Speaking practically, I believe that means the relevant date to be determined in the article is March 27, but please verify. Thanks to all for sorting this. Regards, ~Swarm~{sting} 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
In the past few weeks, T-Series has repeatedly surpassed PewDiePie in subscriber count and in the past several days has held the most-subscribed position for increasingly lengthy periods of time. Although the images, lede, and list of rankings have been altered to reflect these changes with minimal dispute, the fact that a channel's ascent to the number one position has proven to not be a singular event has resulted in protracted disagreement regarding how this matter should be treated in the historical progression table and timeline.
A large number of users have offered their own suggestions on this page for delineating different streaks. Although these have varied considerably, there has nevertheless been an overwhelming, near-universal desire among editors to formally establish a set of criteria specifying how dates in the table are to be assigned and when exactly streaks are to begin and end. In the interest of fulfilling this, I have combed this entire talk page for common suggestions and am now presenting them together in a straightforward manner in order to facilitate discussion. Most of them have been modified to be more precisely defined and reasonably implementable. The intent is to ultimately determine a consensus on this issue.
The first option does not take dates into account. It instead sets a requirement that can be met at any time.
Option A: A channel must be the most-subscribed for a continuous (uninterrupted) period in order to begin a streak. The streak begins on the same calendar date as that period.
A1: The continuous period must last at least 12 hours.
A2: The continuous period must last at least 24 hours.
The next two options involve assigning the position on a day-by-day basis.
Option B: Each date is assigned to a single channel. In order to claim a given calendar date, a channel must hold the most-subscribed position for the majority of that date (00:00 to 23:59 UTC).
A practical way to determine whether this has been achieved would be to compare the hourly subscriber counts for each channel—these are published by Social Blade. The channel that has the higher subscriber count for at least 13 of the 24 hourly intervals in a calendar date (01:00 to 24:00 UTC) would be recognized as the most-subscribed channel for that date.
Option C: Each date is assigned to a single channel. In order to claim its first calendar date, a channel must hold the most-subscribed position for the entirety of that date (00:00 to 23:59 UTC).
If Social Blade is used, the channel must have the higher subscriber count at all 24 hourly intervals in a calendar date (01:00 to 24:00 UTC) in order to begin its streak.
Option D: Calendar dates on which more than one channel held the most-subscribed position are designated to neither channel; they do not continue or begin streaks. Instead, they must be labeled in a manner denoting the situation, such with the word "Contested" in the channel cell.
D1: This must be done only for days on which at least two channels have held the most-subscribed position for a not-insignificant portion of the date.
D2: This must be done for any date on which more than one channel held the most-subscribed position.
Other options: Alternative suggestions are welcome. They will be considered if they garner substantial support.
I have halted the historical progression table and timeline at March 20, 2019 because March 21 is the earliest date that T-Series could claim under any of the first three options. All days after March 20 are the subject of this discussion. The result of this discussion would only apply to situations such as this, wherein the overtaking of one channel by another at the number one position is not a singular event occurring within one date. It would otherwise be inconsistent with the methodology used for the previous entries. LifeofTau 17:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have reinstated the T-Series row in the historical progression table, with the date achieved cell set to March 2019 and no defined value for the days held cell. I intend for the specific date to be determined by the result of this discussion. LifeofTau 04:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
A2, B or D1 (I will update my decision later if I think of a better one): As for the references listed for other #1 channels, they are generally not reliable since there are no starting or ending time stamps (accurate to minutes) for their streaks. There is no way to know when exactly the channels are the most subscribed back in the late 2000s. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @Wei4Green and Life of Tau: The only point of contention was whether overtakes less than one day should be considered as breaking a streak. This was never resolved, but now that T-Series has carried a 24 hour period starting on 3/27, it should not be contentious to list them now. In fact, continuing to exclude them would seem to be more contentious, because they've satisfied the status quo threshold that we were supposedly enforcing before, and this feels like moving the goal posts based on a technicality. We can, of course, continue to hammer out the subtleties, and we may decide to tweak the formatting and dates of the list, but based on the current situation, I can't see any reason to continue to exclude T-Series. ~Swarm~{talk} 21:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I have since restored the T-Series row in the historical progression table, with the exact date unspecified and no defined value for the days held cell, as these will be determined by the result of this discussion. LifeofTau 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
B or D1: I would prefer these options because if we are going by day, we should stick to this base unit and not subdivide it further. Therefore, whoever gets the most of the day gets the day. I would say if nobody got a majority of the day, use D1. I would also be happy with D1, as it makes sense to only award complete days. Walkyo (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
D2: Simple as that.
"Days" literally mean 24-hour periods. If more than one channel is proven to be the most subscribed, neither gets the day to start or continue a streak. Eligio Budde (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @Life of Tau: Is PewDiePie streak continues until now or not? Also, I'm gonna decide later about the options because I need to review each of them one by one so that I can made my decision whether what should I choose from.P.S. This is a temporary...Movies Time (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Movies Time: I am unsure of what exactly you are asking. PewDiePie's subscriber count has not exceeded that of T-Series for any period of time since the beginning ofMarch 27 (UTC). The displayed streak of 1,913 days is the minimum possible under any of the first three listed options. LifeofTau 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Life of Tau: OK, it's fine with me so I appreciate it and thank you for that. Movies Time (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: While we're deciding what constitutes a streak, I have temporarily added back T-Series' streak on the historical progression table and timeline. Because just as PewDiePie’s streak was halted at March 20 (since March 21 was the earliest date that T-Series could've claimed the lead), T-Series' streak should begin at March 27 (for now) since that is the latest possible date that they could've claimed the lead. It is unfair to show that T-Series does not currently have a streak when they have led for over 2 consecutive days without being surpassed. The date of March 27 may change as we come to a consensus, but for now T-Series' 2 day streak should remain on the chart since it is the absolute lower limit of their streak, just like 1913 is the lower limit of PewDiePie's streak. -MattStan10 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
A1: This should be democracycal, please. --46.39.248.31 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
D2: I suggest a modified version of D2 where the entire period from February 22nd (first brief overtake by T-Series) to March 27th is marked as "contested". Future readers probably do not need a day by day detailing of who was ahead, so I believe that this would succinctly summarize the overtakes by T-Series. Obviously, if Pewdiepie retakes the most-subscribed position in the near future, the "contested" period can be adjusted accordingly. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: On a side note, this discussion seems to be buried among many other discussions on this talk page, many of which are obsolete. I suggest that someone should archive these old discussions or make this one more visible in order to get more opinions on this matter. 72.68.96.57 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I always thought that E the subscriber counts were sampled once a day and those samples were then converted into streaks. That is, until I heard someone mention that 24-hour rule after that brief 8-minute surpass happened. But I have no opinion as to what algorithm should be used to convert a pattern of the most subscribed user onto day streaks. 112.72.238.174 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A2, C or D2: It is due to the following reasons of my decisions:
A2− It must be at least 24 hours to begin the streak and must follow the 24-hour rule. If under 24 hours, it doesn't considered as it;
C− Just like my decision in A2, it must be in entire one day or 24 hours to make it start the streak. Seconds, minutes, and under 24 hours doesn't count; and
D2− Must be one day or 24 hours to complete its task and also must be 24 hours≈1 day is needed for this kind of task and I like it to be contested.
Comment: Even if this is my three decisions I've finalized, I don't really know about the other options because some of it doesn't need it for the decisions and I've been research, review, investigate, etc. it each one. The rule will be same—24 hours≈1day—and that it is only thing the way to arranged with it. So, but for others, it's up to them to decided here in this discussion whether what they choose from. These three options I've decided is gonna be my final decisions.
P.S. This is a temporary...Movies Time (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
D2. I agree with A2 that to begin a streak there must be a minimum of 24 hour continous period in which the channel is most subscribed. I dont think we should consider a 5 or 8 minute period of being the most subscribed channel as the beginning of the streak, there should be a minimum criteria (24 hours seems good). Similarly we should not consider the days in which the channel was not the most subscribed for complete 24 hours as part of any streak (even if the duration of not being the most subscribed was of 5 or 8 minutes). A streak should end if the channel loses the most subscribed position (even for a second) and to begin a new streak 24 hour rule should follow. In case no channel remains as most subcribed continously for 24 hours, the time period should be marked as contested. Pratyush (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A2 - It makes more sense to count a day as a full day, rather than all the hours left on a certain date after a shift was made. I also feel that this point won't be needed as much as some people believe, as it seems that T-Series is going to break away from the dead-heat soon and instances of this happening again will be rather rare. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A2 - Seems like the easiest to use and the most logical, also helps advoids YouTube subscriber audits from counting. – BrandonXLF(t@lk) 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A2 - In my opinion A2 is the most fair choice of defining a "day" to "break" a streak because not everyone is from UTC. Then you need to decide what date the streak was broken in; it seems fair to put it as whatever UTC date the first hour of the 24 hour "streak break" began, in this case that would be the 27th of March 2019. I think we have a pretty good consensus that A2 is the best option for starting a streak, now we need to have a discussion about D2 - 'do we add "contested" days' - in my opinion; that would be nice if we could have done it from the start, but no, we do not have reliable information for the other "contested" periods in the late 2000s so in my opinion "No, we shouldn't add D2 at this point" Benjamin Machine (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
B is the best option since we have all the data available from the link Tau uploaded. Since the 1st 10 most subscribed didnt had contested periods recorded, it would disadvantage Pewd and T to take aways days from their legit streaks and mark them as contested. Whoever leads 13 of the 24 recorded hours in an UTC day from that link, gets the day. Thus, Pewd streak officially lasted till 20th March, according all the other days from Feb 22 to Pewd, since he won atleast 13 of the 24 periods on record till then. 21st March thus goes to T. Pewd gets 22, 23 and 24; while T gets the period after 25. If we look at the chart, other channels also have multiple reigns, including Pewd and I assume this method must have been followed then as well. Else all those other perioda would have been marked contested too.
Else remove the table altogether for good, or till a time a resolution is reached. Since the table in its current form, hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6296:6E48:0:0:1D6C:10A4 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A2 - Full day measure is a good way to find the crossover point and start the streak to avoid small increases which are insignificant. FeWorld (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
D2 − Combination of D2 & D1 (and maybe B), favoring D2. Distinctions should then be made between significant contestation, and short flashes like the audit on February 22nd and the many short back-and-forths throughout March (if sources for these occasions can be found). Also, parts from option B could be included: For instance, indicating for contested days which channel held the number one spot for the majority of that day. Arvidiuz (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
B – I agree with the IP user above me. If Life of Tau's statement is correct that PewDiePie had semi-complete control before March 21, then we can easily compare sub counts from each day from the 21st and assign days based on majority reign. If a day somehow splits 50-50, we can use D2 to settle the day. Dannyyankee12let's talk 22:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
D2: Any days where a streak is broken (even if momentarily) should simply be listed as a contested day. Also, any streak that is less than 24h long will not be tracked in any capacity, as it is not noteworthy. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A1 or A2 - Once a channel becomes most subscribed, and stays most subscribed for an extended period of time, people will want to see the exact day in which the extended period began. Option A does this the best. Listing a streak as being broken simply because another channel overtook the leader for less than half a day is hardly meaningful. The details of those can be accomplished by footnotes. Eventhorizon51(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 + B - Having created this list back in 2013, I don't know how much my original thought process when creating it affects my opinion here, but I think A2 is the most sensible for beginning a streak. Once that 24 hours is set, then the previous day can be counted as the beginning of a channel's streak can be counted. (For example let's say T-Series passes PewDiePie on April 10. Once that hits 24 hours on the 11th, then T-Series' streak would begin April 10.) Additionally, I believe B is the best out of the B-C-D options. I don't like the idea of D, as I think every calendar date should be assigned to a channel. I like B over C, because I think needing the majority of a date to hold the spot is asking way too much. (Like in my example, if T-Series passes PewDiePie midway through April 10 + locks up 24 consecutive hours on April 11, then we should still assign April 10 to T-Series.) For a little more context on why I'm thinking this way, I feel like I should mention that when I initially created/worked on this list, I did include two columns: one for the date reached and one for the date surpassed at the #1 spot]. This format is no longer in place on the list, but if it was then I might warm up to the idea of the D option, as it would make it more apt in that scenario to allow for calendar dates to not be claimed by any channel. Kinda crazy, messy, and fascinating to see how complex the mechanics of this list have become. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - Considering the table uses days as its unit of measurement, I find it entirely appropriate that a streak can only begin once a channel has held the lead for an uninterrupted 24 hours. I also find it appropriate that a streak can continue providing the incumbent channel doesn't lose the lead for an entire 24 hours, as it did hold the lead at some point and therefore continues its streak as it was never beaten. This view seems to have consensus outside wikipedia (as Pewdiepie's streak was widely not considered over on February 22) and an A2 public interpretation seems to have driven real life behavior in the sub count. It provides a much cleaner and intuitive narrative as there is always a number one channel, while also providing a clear, objective standard as it makes incumbency its emphasis. Maranello10 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
B - This option just makes the most sense to me. 3ommy25 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - Readers should find it simple to know when streaks stopped and when T-Series started taking over completely (24h mark which happened on the 27th of March) and we all know PewDiePie will be overtaken and then the fans will let go (for example, when he reaches 100 million subscribers). I don't think these events will happen anymore with other youtubers, so why complicate things.. – OussDB (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - In my opinion, this is the most reasonable option. Channels and creators are from different timezones, so defining day as 24 hours, no matter the UTC time, feels fair to me, and streaks are counted by days, not half-days. This option also eliminates the need for "contested" days, which I think would be confusing as they don't continue streaks, so a streak wouldn't really be a streak because it would have some days left out. -Stormeair (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
D1 - It is frankly embarrassing that the Wikipedia community hasn't yet come up with a resolution for this issue! —Monkeyfume (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - I think it makes sense to only end a channel's streak after a specific amount of time. It wouldn't be fair to say a channel's streak is over simply because another channel passed it for 8 minutes because of an audit. Also, the current rankings for each option seem to be as follows: A2 - 13; D2 - 7; B - 6; A1 - 3; D1 - 2 ;C - 1. I think we should just go ahead and narrow the discussion to A2 and D2 and let the community decide from there. Rektroth 02:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 Summoned by a bot. A2 option Seems most logical. Comatmebro (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
B or D2 - I think defining 'most' as an average in B makes the easiest. Things like subscriber counts are a hazy field of numbers. Placing the contest into a 24-hour period, preferably in UTC, makes it very easy to declare a 'winner' each day. However, that might not be very clear to readers; D2 would better clarify that the streak was broken in the strictest sense. It would make very clear to readers that a specific period of time was more 'interesting' than the normal streak. The problem with D2 is defining 'not-insignificant'. Is it 1 hour, or 30 minutes, or 5 minutes? Or notable by wikipedia standards? Nosaj544 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nosaj544. I intentionally chose to leave "not-insignificant" undefined because I wanted to avoid predeciding every aspect of these options without any input from others. I reasoned that if D2 received the most support of any option, a subsequent shorter discussion could be held to determine an upper limit for a "not-insignificant" period of time. LifeofTau 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
D1 - I think D1 is the best. Option B doesn't make sense as we do not have data prior to Pewdiepie and T-Series. Let's take Ray William Johnson and Smosh for example. Smosh COULD HAVE passed Johnson at Jan 12, 2013 11.59pm UTC, giving him only one minute of the day (this is not a fact, just a hypothetical example that COULD HAVE happened since we don't have sufficient data from that time period). Under the rules of Option B Johnson would have been awarded Jan 12, not Smosh. Unfortunately, as these rules were not established back then, Jan 12 was awarded to Smosh. Of course we can go back now, do concrete research for all the top channels listed in the table and try to figure out exactly what time UTC Channel X passed Channel Y and award days based on Rule B, but like I said earlier, we may not have the full data since all these happened many years ago and there doesn't seem to be anyone who kept hourly records of the top subscribed channel. By the same logic, Option C doesn't make sense as well. Using the same example stated earlier, IF Smosh passed Johnson at Jan 12, 2013 11.59pm UTC, under Rule C he would only claim his first calendar date on Jan 13, 2013. Which is all fine and dandy, until you realise you have to go back and investigate at exactly what time UTC all the previous channels in the table reached #1, since under Rule C they may not be awarded certain calendar dates. And, as I mentioned earlier, we do not have the data from that time period, therefore Option C is a bad idea.
In my opinion, D2 also doesn't make sense, because it doesn't prevent YouTube audits from counting into the table. Using Pewdiepie and T-Series as an example, on February 22, T-Series passed Pewdiepie for ten minutes, but ONLY because of a YouTube audit. In this particular YouTube audit, Pewdiepie's channel just so happened to be audited before T-Series', causing Pewdiepie's inactive subscribers to be purged before T-Series'. Once T-Series' inactive subscribers were also purged, T-Series was once again behind Pewdiepie. Under rule D2, February 22 would be marked as "contested" since T-Series passed Pewdiepie for that 10 minutes. This, however, isn't fair to Pewdiepie. Its not right to cut Pewdipeie's streak short just because YouTube decided to audit his channel before T-Series'. Creators do not have control over when YouTube decides to audit their channels and its not right to cut their streaks because of something they had no control over. Had YouTube audited T-Series' channel before Pewdiepie's on February 22, under rule D2, February 22 would not be "contested". As rule D2 is prone to streaks being ended over the "bad luck" of having your channel audited first, I believe D2 is not a good idea.
While Option A isn't too shabby, in my opinion it should not be used as it does not reflect the "subscriber war" between Pewdiepie and T-Series (or, for that matter, any future "subscriber war"s that may happen between various YouTube channels). For example, under Option A2, Pewdiepie's streak would be listed as December 23, 2013 - March 27, 2019, while T-Series' streak would be listed as March 27, 2019 - April 1, 2019. Readers with no knowledge about the topic will see the two streaks and assume that from December 23, 2013 - March 27, 2019, Pewdiepie held the title of #1 without any interruptions, which is clearly not the case. They would see the two streaks and not gain a complete understanding of the whole situation between T-Series and Pewdiepie, which is not ideal. Of course this information can be reflected through the footnotes (as it currently is now), but readers with little time to spare might not bother to check out the footnotes. You might say: "Oh, they can just look at the page about Pewdiepie vs T-Series if they want a full understanding of the situation", but for readers with completely no knowledge of the topic, under Option A, they will not even know about the war between Pewdipeie and T-Series as Option A just shows two perfect streaks with seemingly no interruptions between them. As Wikipedia strives to be an accurate encyclopaedia where web-users can easily obtain their information, I suggest Option A NOT be used because, as I explained earlier, readers with no knowledge of the whole situation will look at the "perfect" streaks under Option A and gain misunderstandings.
As option A, B, C and D2 all don't make sense, I conclude that D1 is the most logical option and should be used. 222.164.3.81 (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I invite you to read the portion of the paragraph immediately following the list of options, starting at the sentence beginning with "The result of this discussion...", as it is relevant to some of your objections. I stated that, owing to the unique circumstances surrounding the beginning of T-Series' streak, the outcome of this discussion would only apply to similar situations: cases in which a channel's ascent to the number one position is not a singular event. The reason this is justified is precisely because the methods used for all of the previous overtakes cannot be implemented for this one without resulting in dozens of rows dedicated to extremely brief streaks, something that no user has advocated for since T-Series' first 24-hour run. LifeofTau 00:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to add an option E to this: Every date is assigned to a single channel - to the one having the most subscribers at the END of the day (23:59 UTC). You could compare it a racing game where every day is one "lap", during the day channels catch up to #1 as much as they want but in the end it's the one who crosses the finish line first that maintains its winning streak. This would work pretty fair for all parties involved in the race in reality. I personally think option A is bad because a streak's end and start would refer to a specific hour of a day instead of a day itself. B seems pretty reasonable to me, but does not exclude edge cases. I personally feel like every day should go to one youtuber which builds its streak upon that, so C is out of the lines for me. I feel like in a race, there must at all times be a "leader of the streak". I don't really like D1 because of the word "not-insignificant", which implies there should be hard-coded conditions deciding whether something is significant or not, I don't feel like that is a correct way of handling things on a website like Wikipedia. D2 seems OK to me, but that might be because I follow the hype and I'm interested in the "subscribers war", I do not think outsiders that just like to see a table of the most-subscribed youtuber over time wants to see a table full of "contested" cells. So I don't feel like any of the current options fits the solution perfectly, in the end it all comes down to what is considered a "streak" and I feel like my proposal would be very clear about that without any kinds of doubt. Jeunez (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have an idea for a compromise. Option E: to earn the title for the day, you must be most subscribed for a consecutive 24 hours (The date that is assigned is the day when the 24 hour period ends.) But, if you hold the title for a non-consecutive 48 hours out of 72 hours, you earn the title (Same application rule as above.) If one holds it for a non consecutive 48 hours within, for example, 52 hours, they take the title (Same application rule as above.) QuiksilverStorm (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - It makes sense to only count a streak as broken after a full 24 hours, as has been done so far. Furthermore, I don't agree with D2 as then a day would become contested because of a very short period of time, like if 20 minutes of a day were to go to a different channel. Also it would be strange to suddenly start adding "Contested" in the channel cell now if we aren't going to go back and change the information for previous streaks. Maybe if we had done so from the start I'd be more open to the D options but at this point it just seems confusing. WhistlingCanines (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 or another option, E - I think that a continuous 24-hour period (A2) makes the most sense, although it would be affected by audits. For clarity with A2, my opinion is that streaks begin after a 24-hour continuous lead, and don't end until another channel obtains a 24-hour continuous lead (the beginning of a new streak). Another option that assigns each date to a single channel could be done by taking the most-subscribed channel at the end of a day (24:00 UTC), like Jeunez suggested. This would be a simple way to determine each the top channel for each date and be unaffected by audits; however, this means a "true" continuous streak is not actually held (due to mid-day takeovers). Having "contested" seems odd (D), as each day should have someone who is leading; it seems too messy also. Either way, I think a solution sooner, rather than later, is best. —TheAnonymousNerd(talk•contribs) 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
D2 A “streak” is defined as “a consecutive series”.
Any day in which one channel surpasses the other creates a break in the consecutive time period in which the other held the lead, thus breaking the streak. Any streak thereafter must start over because it isn’t consecutive to anything that comes before. Therefore, it is ridiculous to continue the long streak by pewdiepie until the break in continuity of his streaks exceeds an arbitrary time period of 12 or 24 hours. Any days where one channel is an unchallenged leader is adds a 1 day streak. Any other day is contested because we don’t want to do a minute by minute analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.148.56 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 - Seems like the simplest option. No need to bring calendar dates into this. Saucy[talk – contribs] 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
A2 as per above. I suggest closing this discussion as it has been dragging on. Nice4What (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
D2 A & C over-favour incumbent channels; B is not fair on the basis of, for example, T-Series being ~6 hours ahead of Pewdiepie and having ~18 hours to stay ahead before Pewdiepie being able to catch up; D1 uses ambiguous wording. Benica11 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion: Date duration for TBD streaks
What is the current possible date duration for the TBD streaks? Should the date duration of the possible date duration replace the TBD streaks for now as of April 17, 2019?
My proposal: PewdiePie
December 23, 2013 – February 22, 2019 (1,887 days): February 22 was the first date T-Series surpassed PewDiePie.[1]
December 23, 2013 – March 27, 2019 (1,920 days): March 27 was the first date T-Series surpassed PewDiePie for a consecutive period of 24 hours.[2]
T-Series
March 27 – April 1, 2019 (5 days): March 27 was the first date T-Series surpassed PewDiePie for a consecutive period of 24 hours.[2]
March 25 – April 1, 2019 (7 days): March 25 and 26 were the first dates T-Series surpassed PewDiePie for a majority of the day, but both not for a continuous 24 hours.[citation needed]
Life of Tau: Thanks for seeing my edits as good faith. I know that the date ranges are related to the talk discussion, but the notes I used are from WSLS-10 and Mashable, as they are not referring to the comments. The bigger picture of where the date lies needs to be revealed to the reader. I think adding the date ranges help give useful info to the reader about the specific background. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wei4Green: My edit summary refers to the "streak dates are yet to be determined" statement added to the T-Series note, which certainly is a reference to this discussion. The differences between what is acceptable and what is excessive can be subtle; whereas the "TBD" acronym is necessary in order to communicate why no specific dates are displayed, calling any more attention to talk page events than needed is unwarranted. Likewise, a note making a general statement of the first instance of T-Series taking the lead and the first instance of an overtake lasting more than 24 hours (something a reader, not an editor, would find relevant) is a welcome addition—further notes naming exact dates (options C and D2 would begin T-Series' streak a day later than the 24-hour rule would) and detailing multiple streaks lasting less than a day are not, at least at this point in time. Data such as this is of importance to Wikipedia editors attempting to determine the best method to delineate streaks, but readers do not need to be made aware that various ideas are being considered on the talk page. Once a consensus is determined, whatever criteria are selected will become highly relevant to the table, and it will be very useful to inform the readers of why T-Series' first streak begins on the day it does. Until that point, however, listing ranges of possible spans only serves to indicate that a number of options are being debated by Wikipedians, not sources. LifeofTau 05:57, 17 April 2019 (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.
Badabun has surpassed Holasoygerman about 8 hours ago, thus pushing him out of the top 10.--Apersonthatdoesthings (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Done as part of the most recent list update, per the cited Social Blade list. LifeofTau 19:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Please make a statement on the wiki that reads "While T-series is currently the most subscribed channel, it is not the most subscribed Youtuber." T-Series is a company owned channel ran by the company of the same name. It does not count as the single most subscribed Youtube channel as it should categorized as something like Youtube music which already has over 100 million subscribers. 50.89.21.44 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Rihanna has channel related to MUsic and in article there is written entertainment type!! Review it (User:Gaurav456) 49.244.17.46 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Done The Rihanna category has been fixed, changed to Music. Maranello10 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Undone@Maranello10: The cited Social Blade page used for the subscriber counts and rankings is also the source for content categories of each channel. Rihanna's listed content category, per Social Blade, is entertainment. It is not music, as one may have expected, because the channel was originally a personal account whose content consisted largely of behind-the-scenes vlogs and other content not directly related to her music. It was only in 2018 that Rihanna became the designated "Official Artist Channel" for authorized videos pertaining to the singer (see this discussion for more information), and the content previously on RihannaVEVO was automatically merged into the OAC as part of YouTube's consolidation efforts. Despite now hosting all of her music videos, the category of the Rihanna channel was not altered from entertainment. This was not an isolated case; Justin Bieber, Luis Fonsi, and Shakira were also personal channels whose respective non-music categories remained unchanged after undergoing consolidation. LifeofTau 06:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems too subjective and difficult to source. Many individual streamers form corporations for business purposes, and even those who don't often pay multiple employees. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
YouTube Music is technically the most subscribed channel sitting at over 100k but is not listed here. Why is that? Sonicfan200530 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Per this article: "Automatically-generated channels that lack their own videos (such as Music and News) ... are excluded". Hddty. (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Change 5 minute crafts's network to TheSoul Publishing, because they are not part of channel frederator. Bobbobderson (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: A YouTube channel's parent or production company is not necessarily its multi-channel network. While there is no question that TheSoul Publishing serves as the first two for 5-Minute Crafts, both the cited Social Blade page and this news article (The Wrap) confirm that 5MC's network is Channel Frederator. If this has changed since last October, a more recent reliable source verifying the new network would need to be provided. LifeofTau 20:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend dbase.tube as a source to replace source 2 for the subscriber counts and rankings are always fully accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apersonthatdoesthings (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Pewdiepie needs to be pictured either beside or below T Series and acknowledged in caption as the most successful independent individual on YouTube. Both pictures should furthermore probably be placed beside the list instead of at the very forefront of the page. Googinber1234 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Pewdiepie operates his channel through "Pewdie Holdings AB" and its subsidiary "Pewdie Productions AB", which both are for-profit companies officially registered in Sweden, and has paid employees (video editors and content creators). T-Series channel meets the same criteria: it's operated by a for-profit company and has paid employees. Marking one of them as "company" and another one as "individual" would be misleading and inaccurate. Batanaka (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Youtube Music actually has more subscribers than T-Series Wait wut da (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
As an auto-generated channel, it is outside the scope of this list. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Article doesn't explain what subscribing means, nor does it internally link to an article that does. And subscribe redirects to Subscription business model which says it is a "business model in which a customer must pay". What does most-subscribed mean? I don't know what subscribe(d) means. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment—your concern is entirely valid. The fact that almost all the contributors to this article are reasonably familiar with YouTube's functionality is likely the reason why something so basic has been overlooked for this long. In my view, however, there is no appropriate place in the article—in its current form—to add this information. In the future, I envision an expanded section dedicated to the history of the most-subscribed channels on YouTube. It would begin with at least one paragraph describing the origin of the subscription feature itself, which would contain much of the same information as the current first paragraph of the lede. In lieu of prose, I have added a note after the first sentence containing a brief explanation of the subscription system on YouTube. This will hopefully alleviate the issue to some degree. Thank you again. LifeofTau 05:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Kids Diana Show Passed One Direction to be the #27 YouTube Channel
iBigHit passed Vegetta777 to be the #35 YouTube Channel
Voce Sabia passed Shakira AND Spinnin' Records to be the #41 YouTube Channel
Get Movies Passed Luccas Neto-Lunes and Ozuna to be the #47 YouTube Channel
The Tag of Ozuna says 46th but it is in the 48th slot.
5-Minute Crafts [#3] and Bright Side [#31] are owned by TheSoul Publishing.
Clapryan321 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Requests 1–5:Done by both myself and another user, per the cited Social Blade list.
Request 6:Not done: A YouTube channel's parent or production company is not necessarily its multi-channel network. While there is no question that TheSoul Publishing serves as the first two for both channels, both the cited Social Blade page and this news article (The Wrap) confirm that 5-Minute Crafts' network is Channel Frederator. If TSP operates as the multi-channel network for Bright Side, please provide a reliable sourceverifying this fact. LifeofTau 05:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
the youtube music channel has 106 mil. subs
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.115.182 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Category channels such as Music, Movies & Shows, News, and Sports are intentionally excluded from the list—as is noted above the table—because they they do not function as YouTube channels in any normal sense. These automatically-generated channels have no videos of their own, and instead serve as aggregators of third-party content identified with their respective categories. Since around 2013, all newly-created YouTube accounts are subscribed to these channels by default (this is the primary reason for their high subscriber counts); these subscriptions are all removed once the user subscribes to a channel created through conventional means. LifeofTau 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It says Hindi is the primary language of T-series but they also have Tamil songs, and in many other languages. But these two are the primary. --Rolando 1208 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hindi, the listed primary language for T-Series, is supported by multiple reliable sources confirming its status as such. If Tamil is also a primary language of the channel, please provide a reliable source to verify this fact. LifeofTau 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Cocomelon - Nursery Rhymes has passed 5-Minute Crafts to be 3rd in total sub count.
Cocomelon - Nursery Rhymes also has 61 million subscribers now. -73.210.114.83 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Like Nastya Vlog. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gaioa (TCL) 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
In a community post released last May, YouTube announced that it would begin modifying all publicly viewable subscriber counts sometime this month. According to the website, all displayed subscriber figures will only consist of the first one, two, or three digits. For the totals used in this article's main list, only the first two digits would be viewable (three if the value equals or exceeds 100 million). Under this system, it will not be possible to differentiate between a channel with 26.19 million subscribers and a channel with 26.78 million, as both will have a displayed total of "26M". Furthermore, third-party analytics websites—such as the one heavily used as a source for this article—will only have access to the same abbreviated subscriber counts available to the public.
Although this article already uses rounded figures, knowledge of the complete subscriber totals has been necessary to determine specific rankings and to ascertain when channels have surpassed each other. Because subscriber rank is the metric by which the main list is ordered, YouTube's forthcoming changes will make restructuring the table a necessity, and it would be prudent of us to have a new setup already decided by the time these changes are put into effect. With this in mind, I am putting forth two possible solutions for a new list structure.
One option is to simply remove the two leftmost columns (rank and net change in rank), as the information they contain will no longer be obtainable. Because we will not be able to rank channels that share the same abbreviated total, I would recommend sorting channels within a single million-subscriber range by alphabetical order. My second suggestion is similar to the first, but divides the list into sub-ranges, such as 28–33 million subscribers, to emphasize that it is not an exact numerical ranking (this format is inspired by the one used in List of best-selling music artists). I have created a preview for each of these options in my userspace.
I invite users to reply with feedback, thoughts, or alternative suggestions. LifeofTau 05:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC); edited 03:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: YouTube has published an addendum to its original post, revealing that the website has since altered how it intends to abbreviate public subscriber counts. Rather than occurring in August, as originally stated, these changes are now scheduled to be "gradually roll[ed] out" over the course of this month. It remains a fact that third-party analytics websites such as Social Blade will be affected by these changes.
According to YouTube, all displayed subscriber counts will consist solely of the first three digits. In the case of this list, this means that we will have access to one more digit for totals in the 10 million to 99 million range than had been previously indicated, allowing for a more precise ordering of channels. Apart from that, the concerns noted in my previous comment remain present—listing ranks will no longer be tenable once YouTube's changes are implemented. I have updated my previews accordingly in light of the website's update, and I continue to invite feedback, thoughts, or alternative suggestions. LifeofTau 03:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Social Blade is now in the process of altering its pages to accommodate YouTube's new changes, and the website's lists of channels have already been affected. As a result, I have gone ahead and implemented the changes to the main table proposed above (I have selected the first of the two suggested options). I am aware that this is major alteration and welcome subsequent discussion and suggestions. LifeofTau 08:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Life of Tau I am late to the decision, but it seems as though no one else made any other suggestions. It seems you have chosen Option 1, which I believe was easily the better of the two options. In effect, a million subscribers is now the sub-range, instead of the second option which would have required these ranges to be be somewhat arbitrary with additional and unnecessary loss of information. I also appreciate that you have not ranked equally subscribed channels in alphabetal order; it maintains a natural "incumbancy" ordering (who arrived at the million first) which not only perserves a little more information but is also consistent with what was agreed earlier in the year in the top channel discussions, in terms of placing weight on incumbancy. Maranello10 (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I would like to clarify that alphabetical ordering is being maintained for channels whose listed subscriber counts are exactly the same. For example, Maroon 5 and Trap Nation both have a public subscriber count of 27.5 million as of this writing. The latter is listed immediately after the former in the list the despite being the first to achieve the total. LifeofTau 14:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot of buzz on YouTube and their community about individual content creators in contrast to companies using the platform as a means of social media. It has particularly been brought to attention by a certain battle-to-the-death and has given the contrast a bit of an David vs Goliath twist. Since this list has been mostly taken over by companies, I think we should create a sublist in a subsection highlighting the top 20-ish individual creators. Especially consider that this sister article sports a similar special case aimed at noncommercial creations. I have made a draft here, and you may edit to improve. Another option may be to color-code the preexisting list, or otherwise mark it in terms of individual/corporate. Any thoughts? Gaioa (TCL) 20:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, since no one has said a word, I'm adding it now. I'm making it top 25 to begin with, we can prune it later if we need to. Gaioa (TCL) 05:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Giaoa – I apologize for not replying sooner. Although I understand why you may desire a section dedicated to individual creators, there are two primary reasons why this is not an appropriate addition to the article. The first is a concern of redundancy. Unlike the non-music videos section previously found in List of most-liked YouTube videos, nearly thirty percent of the channels in this article's main list reappeared in your new table. Furthermore, these channels comprised the first fourteen entries in the latter list. When the majority of content in one table is repeated from another table, there is usually little reason to retain the derivative table. The second reason is a lack of requisite sourcing. The image caption stating that PewDiePie is the most-subscribed individual creator is appropriate because the text is accompanied by multiple citations verifying that the claim is true. For an entire section dedicated to individual creators, reliable sources should be cited verifying the status of the listed YouTubers as such. This would most likely be fulfilled by either a single article containing its own listing of such channels or via a piecemeal effort, with a source provided for each listed channel. With a lack of such sourcing, the inclusion or exclusion of channels appeared to be a subjective decision. If true, the list was also a work of original research. Note that the section for non-music videos you previously referenced was later removed after an RfC concluded that "it [was] original research and [was] unsourced"—to a certain extent, those same issues also belied your addition, however well-intentioned.
However, if the necessary sources can be found, I think it could be beneficial to indicate which channels are the products of individual creators within the main list. This could be done by modifying the relevant table rows in a similar manner to List of most-viewed YouTube channels, with a unique background color and a dagger. Doing this would provide most of the benefits you described while satisfying Wikipedia's policies and avoiding unnecessary redundancy. LifeofTau 07:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A couple of tags in the "content category" column are off. Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, and Rihanna are all listed under "entertainment" when they should be listen under "music". Blackpink, another musician, is listen under "people". El Reino Infantil is listen under "music" when the other nursery rhymes channel are under "education". Shemaroo is a combination of both music and films, so "entertainment" would be a better fit. Thanks.
Partly done: The content categories listed in the rightmost column of the table are obtained from the Social Blade page that serves as the article's primary source. Of the channels mentioned, Blackpink is the only one whose listed category deviates from what is stated by the cited webpage; this discrepancy has been corrected. LifeofTau 15:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
So can you include other subscriber wars like SET India vs 5-Minute Crafts,or include how channels like Bright Side and Cocomelon keep rising?2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The main primary language of Sony Music India is Tamil, not Hindi. Please revise this error. They do not make Hindi music. 216.186.188.152 (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide a reliable source to show Tamil as the primary language of Sony Music India. Can I Log In (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, this page is about most subscribed YouTube "channels", not individuals. Anyone can make a seperate page about most subscribed individuals on YouTube. Please reference any previous talk which provides a logic so as to why the PewDiePie picture should not be removed. While that can be discussed and decided accordingly, atleast T series picture should appear before PewDiePie as it has more subscribers as well as appropriate for the title of the page. So please place t series picture before PewDiePie, and remove the PewDiePie photo completely if you find my argument logical, otherwise please mention any relevant reason Stud2608 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The decision to add pewdiepie's picture was captioned as undiscussed changes, basically a unilateral decision. Should that we considered valid? Would like anyone to give any counter before actually going ahead with the removal of the picture Stud2608 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It says that Eminem's network is UniversalMC. Universal Music Group is not called that, was never called that, and will never be called that. Should I leave it as UniversalMC or change it to Universal Music Group? Besides, the cite note for it is old which means that now it's called Universal Music Group. Also, when I look up UniversalMC on Google, Bing, Yahoo, ANYWHERE, I don't see Universal Music Group in any of the results. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, the editing tam has been slacking in this department. If you don't know already, 3 big you tube channels have "blown up" and need a spot on this out of date page. Please give me access so I can fix this horrible mistake you have made. Not susspicous (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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. It would help if you named the channels and provided sources for the information so we could change it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
}why do not apear a music channel, that arrived to 100M before anyone?, and it still having 110M subs, and i dont see it in any top} 90.165.100.173 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
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. Jamietw (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
change eminem current subsriber number to 43 mil (exactly it is 42,8 mil) but it has to be rounded to the nearest million 84.238.54.189 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The figures are rounded down to the nearest million (Please see this discussion). Once the user surpasses 43 million, it will be updated, along with all other channels (the list is updated all at once). GoodCrossing (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Like dude's perfect channel has over 54 M subscribers Delbest (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dude perfect's channel is listed at rank 12. He currently has 51.3M subscribers, according to his YouTube channel page. GoodCrossing (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why the article says that MostlySane has 73 mil, when really she only has 5 mil. It's innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:E140:F100:24D9:618C:347:F0B6 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That was vandalism, and has been fixed. Aguy777 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Not within the scope of this: "Automatically-generated channels that lack their own videos (such as Music and News) and channels that have been made effectively obsolete as a result of the transferral of their content (such as JustinBieberVEVO and RihannaVEVO)[note 1] are excluded. " RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
i want it 47.183.249.113 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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. Pupsterlove02talk • contribs 01:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
On the table under Most-subscribed channels, Rihanna is listed as a How-to channel in the Content Category column; however, she is a musician and her channel should instead be listed as a Music channel. Geoc2022 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Life of Tau: Why does it matter what social blade classifies them as? Clearly Rihanna is a singer and her page is a music channel? Her channel has a note next to the name which is Youtube's offical verification of a [music] artist page. All that glitters is (talk) 14.58, 15 August 2020 (AEST)
Change youtuber MrBeast from the 39 million subscribers category to the 40 million category. The current cited source supports this. Tepig4444 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
BLACKPINK should be above Eminem tf? BLACKPINK has more subscribers Teddyparkfromyg (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't add useful info, people are just coming to this page for an easy reference of the current most subbed channels and their sub counts. It's also mostly redundant (eg name=T Series, network=T Series), plus some music artists part of labels are listed as N/A so its also incomplete. Removing it would simplify and improve the article. Arrowmouse (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the column for the reasons listed above. Arrowmouse (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Also I think we should remove the ref links in the table, as the reference for each channel is just the official youtube sub count so its redundant to have 50 seperate refs. Arrowmouse (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The rowspans in the language and category columns are pointless, confusing for editors, often unclear for readers, and very easy to break (as they are as of September 22, where HolaSoyGerman is listed as English language but in the category Spanish).
While I can understand the motivation behind using rowspans for the number of subscribers, there is absolutely no reason to be doing this for language and category. Having different rowspans in different columns makes it more difficult to try and align which category corresponds to which row. Also, the languages often have citations against them, but this is just confusing when the same language is spanning across multiple rows (making it unclear which row the citation is supposed to be for).
It also makes this list must easier to maintain. It's really difficult for anyone to update the table at the moment (without breaking it), unless they're very familiar with how rowspans work.
They serve no purpose, as there's no relevance to two consecutive entries sharing the same language or category. Perhaps using rowspans this way made more sense when most of the top channels were all a single language or a single category, but with the current layout they are pointless.
So in summary: There is zero benefit in using them for language and category, they make the page slightly harder to use for readers, much harder for editors to update, and make it unclear what the citations are referring to. --SnorlaxMonster 10:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The language of most subscribed YouTube channel is only written as Hindi whereas the language of most of the songs including the most popular ones in Punjabi. Kindly write 'Hindi and Punjabi' for its language. The lack of such description is quite hurtful to the Punjabi netizens. IDaljot (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Already done -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Not possible: While the Hacksmith's subscriber count of two billion is undeniable, the last thing we would want to do is offend the sensibilities of PewDiePie or T-Series by reporting the truth of the matter. We have no choice but to keep news of the actual reigning YouTube champion under wraps, lest we be beset by hordes of nine-year-olds and Bollywood fans. LifeofTau 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[April Fools!]
Done —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Edit requests should only be made for non-controversial changes; this issue is contentious and consensus regarding the delineation of streaks is pending. No decision will be made solely as the result of an edit request. LifeofTau 03:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done for now: The most restrictive of the options being considered (C and D) require a channel to hold the position of most-subscribed for the entirety of a calendar date in order to claim that date. Social Blade's hourly statistics verify that T-Series' subscriber count continued to exceed that of PewDiePie for the first eight hours of April 1 (UTC). April 2, the current date in UTC, will end in six hours. At that point, assuming that Kjellberg continues to retain the position for the entirety of that time, PewDiePie's latest streak will be added to the table and timeline. LifeofTau 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
