Talk:Smosh

Damien Haas Redirect Page

I was looking into the possibility of creating a Wikipedia page for Damien Haas that would reflect his career in Smosh as well as his other work as a voice actor. When I tried to create this page, I discovered that the page Damien Haas already exists as a redirect page to the article for Smosh. I was wondering if there was any way to delete/remove this redirect page so that a dedicated page can be created to detail the life and career of Damien Haas rather than show one of the few companies he has work for and represented. Rylee Amelia (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that it would be BLP, I'd recommend you create a draft article first and then submit for consideration rather than try to start it in main space. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

How about being honest?

Whats wild is that I thought having a successful career is the goal. You cant have one stealing from other creators and known loved creators that was apart of the story of smosh. Loved by fans respected by other actors and studios. Wish u the best and hope that you have a good future Wearenotthesame69 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Hey editors, just to let you know, I'm going to edit this article frequently this month because I hope to bring it to good article status soon. My goal is to get this page to reach GA hopefully by October, so I could nominate this on DYK to appear on the front page on November 19, 2024 – the 19th anniversary of Smosh's YouTube channel. Afterwards I wish to focus on bringing this to featured article status next year as well. I'm going to add and expand a couple sections within the next few days, so if any editors wish to help me, feel free to let me know. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

While this definitely isn't ready to be nominated for FA or even GA yet, I wish you the best of luck with your pursuit. I might make some changes myself. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And yeah, this article definitely needs work. Hopefully with time and effort we'll make this GA worthy soon! PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Channels and Content section

Rambling Rambler Hi, I noticed yesterday that you made revisions to the "Channels and content" section. While I appreciate your work, I feel your rationale was misguided. That section was intended to describe the actual content and nature of their videos, including their notable videos, style and video production process. Likewise, the History section was intended to catalog notable events surrounding the group's formation and evolution. The purpose of separating these sections was to organize these distinct pieces of information together, akin to a proper web series as noted by WP:WEB. See examples such as VanossGaming, CaptainSparklez and Syndicate; all of them are YouTube good articles that separate their content from their history.

Adding content here would disorganize the page and introduce potential confusion between two different forms of info, when in reality they would best serve readers if they were separate. Rather, the History section should be expanded with more cited events regarding their story (including Barry Blumberg's role, more aspects of the Smosh website itself, lore surrounding the group in general, etc.). Likewise, the Content section needs more explanation to avoid indiscriminate listings of their videos without context. Because of this, I decided to restore the entire section as before, and I also added a couple more sources for verification to address any OR concerns I may have missed.

P.S. Please make sure you actually add reliable sources, especially for the sake of this article reaching GA status. You included the Bit City show without a secondary source which I also included. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

And I've restored it @PantheonRadiance because of the very simple reason that it's unnecessary duplication of existing content (hence why I was able to remove 1/3 to 1/2 of the added content because it already existed) and makes the article confusing to read.

For example you feel the need to talk about their history of making music videos on the Smosh channel when their music videos are already covered in the history section. There is no need to cover it twice.

There is also plenty of material you've added that is clearly about the company as a whole yet you've decided yourself must only be about the Smosh main channel, such as strangely deciding it's relevant to talk about Smosh the company expanding as only relevant to the Smosh Main channel and not the history section or the makeshift reception section that talks about Smosh's content as a whole (which by then included multiple channels).

Overall, much of what's added is of relevancy to the entire article subject and not simply the one channel as you ascribe it to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Also as to the issue of channels sections as they existed, I agree they aren't perfect. However having extremely limited obvious WP:BLUESKY descriptors of typical content and what videos are currently airing was far better than the bloated messes they were before that tried to describe extremely trivial information such as every video they'd ever done, or attempting to make them into mini-articles that duplicate existing content. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an example for this, your new short paragraph on Smosh Games reads:

"The original members consisted of Padilla and Hecox with Smosh Pit Weekly cast member Mari Takahashi, and ClevverGames members David "Lasercorn" Moss, Joshua "Jovenshire" Ovenshire, and Matt Sohinki. Their content is noted for being personality-driven, focused on the members' perspectives. Smosh Games launched the Dungeons & Dragons-based series Sword AF in July 2023, which features Damien Haas as a dungeon master and Smosh members as players."

So while yes you can say it has more citations than before, the problem is that what you've effectively done is describe the channel in such a way that suggests all those people are still there and didn't leave half a decade ago now. So simply citing content that is obviously now wrong doesn't help in your attempt to get it to GA status, if anything it's going to leave it worse off. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler:

1: The History section, just like Wikipedia, is still a work-in-progress that needs to be fixed, which I was in the midst of doing. For example, I planned to remove that info about their music and move it to another section. If that's the only example of duplication you found in the article, I see no reason to refactor it, especially when it's still in constant revision. Also, the "info about the company" was in context to the evolution of their content style. Again, the History section is intended to catalog events about the Smosh brand itself, while the Content section is meant to focus on stylistic aspects of their videos, including production values, editing process and upload schedule. It's akin to any Artistry section in a musician/band article, or a Production style for movies and TV shows.

2: And no, WP:BLUESKY does not apply here when it's a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information about their web series needs to be included with secondary sources no matter what, otherwise anyone can claim they've made a certain web series without any factual proof or evidence. I already addressed this on the Smosh Games talk page, but I wish to reiterate that WP:V is a core policy. Leaving information there because you or anyone else merely believes it to be true is not sufficient for inclusion in any article. I find it ironic how you claimed that my entirely sourced description had OR, yet are okay with a fully unverified, OR-violating section (which didn't even have a single secondary source before my edits). Also, the Smosh Games paragraph was a work-in-progress excerpt that I was going to expand a bit more, including mentioning the departure of cast members and their content. Out of curiosity, did you assume I placed it there as a finished set-in-stone paragraph? If so, please read WP:IMPERFECT once again.

3: Just because it's long doesn't necessarily mean it's bloated; there's a difference between comprehensiveness and bloat. At worst, it could do with minor copy edits to be more concise, but Smosh's style of content has been significantly covered by copious reliable sources, enough to justify such detail. Again, GA-tier YouTubers like VanossGaming, Jacksepticeye and PewDiePie have lengthy video content sections, and plenty of GAs are justifiably long too. That section is entirely proportional to the numerous sources about their content. Plus, it was not even close to listing every video they've ever done - only the relevant ones covered in reliable sources. For the record, I've seen multiple GAs on YouTubers and even brought up two GAs myself. I don't say that with intention to brag, but to assert that I'm following the criteria of broadness and verifiability.

I'm not going to edit war with you. Instead, I'm going to request a third opinion soon. SNUGGUMS, if you'd like to weigh in with your thoughts, I'd also appreciate it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1: The history section may be a work in progress, but that still doesn't justify repeated repetition of the same information that already exists because you decided to just insert your own article within an article into it (and there wasn't just one instance of it). Your claim that "the Content section is meant to focus on stylistic aspects of their videos, including production values, editing process and upload schedule" doesn't hold much water because, again, you weren't talking about their content in general but deciding by yourself that publications talking about Smosh as a whole was them only talking about Smosh Main, which is a blatant misrepresentation of sources.

2: Bluesky does apply to obvious information, which "currently airing" would arguably be considered under given it's what the channel is actively outputting and therefore easy to verify without an inline citation. Also don't come at me with "I find it ironic how you claimed that my entirely sourced description had OR, yet are okay with a fully unverified, OR-violating section (which didn't even have a single secondary source before my edits" when I literally said I don't think leaving it as an unsourced stub is perfect, but that compared to misleading inline citations where you have instead inserted your own view onto them and aren't using them purely as written it's a preferable situation.

3: It is definitely bloated when, as mentioned earlier, you're just introducing repetition of material that also isn't simply about the channel you claim it to be. And you can list other individual "GA-tier Youtubers" all you want but you might want to take note of the fact they're articles about individuals. They have a different format because they're effectively a cross between both an article about a person and an article about their business.

Also, finally, if you're going to knowingly demand acknowledgement of "imperfection", then you're also going to have to acknowledge that just dumping in another 20,000 bytes of content into a mainspace article, rather than working in sandbox, is going to mean other people will edit it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler This is my final reply before I request a third opinion. Keeping it shorter than before.

1: Those publications did talk about both, specifically the style of the comedic sketches on the main channel and other ventures they've explored outside of the main channel (especially the lengthy BuzzFeed News, SN&R/LA Weekly and Insider articles). Believe it or not, a source can talk about multiple things at once, and it's perfectly acceptable to use a source for one section and the same source from another. I'd like to ask, did you check every single source attributed to each statement before verifying it was OR?

2: WP:NOTBLUE counters your claim, especially with core policies such as OR, V, and NOT. Wikipedia info should be primarily based on secondary sources, and omitting said sources raises multiple questions. What makes this info relevant on Wikipedia? Why would anyone outside of Smosh fans care about their uploads? There are plenty of YouTube videos, and what makes their videos like "Bit City" or "Reading Reddit Stories" notable? Have they ever been reviewed, studied or analyzed? Without proof, how do you answer these questions? These are the questions that any reputable encyclopedia should answer for internet-based content. Internet content should always be discussed here in terms of development, production and analysis of the style.

3: Honestly, the articles being about individuals is irrelevant. Smosh originated as a YouTube channel who has made numerous web videos like the YouTubers I listed. Just like they have lengthy sections dedicated to verifiable video analysis, Smosh warrants a similar section as well, so long as it's reliably sourced and within the scope of the article.

Finally, I already proved the onus through the evidence I wrote, which satisfies V; so far your onus seems be to remove verifiable info solely for "bloat" purposes. This just seems you have an issue with longer articles and believe that concise = better, when oftentimes it depends. Some articles are just naturally long because there's so much coverage of its topic that omitting it would make the article incomplete. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

ADD: just added a third opinion request. Here's my revision for reference. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes I did check the sources, hence why I noted that the sources weren't as Smosh Main specific as you've instead used them, and don't try and build strawmen with comments such as "believe it or not, a source can talk about multiple things at once, and it's perfectly acceptable to use a source for one section and the same source from another". The issue isn't you using a source in multiple locations but you seeing it say x and instead using it to suggest it said y.
2. NotBlue is a poor counter, because that is talking in large part about items with numerous complexities and edge cases to account for, hence why in the lead it focuses on "before making a statement, no matter how trivial or "obvious", make sure that it could not be misinterpreted or challenged". Here, a simple one liner about the type of content on each channel is perfectly fine to not need citations, nor details of current output because it's impossible to be misinterpreted. As for the various hypothetical questions, did you ask yourself the same ones, because much of what you've wanted to include here and at Smosh Games could easily be judged to be trivial and not meriting inclusion simply because it has a singular source discussing it.
3. The fact those other articles are about individuals is relevant, precisely because they're both the article about that content creator as a person and their content. Smosh however is an article about the brand and its output in entirety, that's why people like Ian, Anthony, and Shayne have their own articles distinct from this one. And long doesn't mean duplication, and you're duplicating even within your own new stuff, writing "following their reunion in 2023, the channel shifted to uploading new sketch videos every two weeks among other series" (which, by the way doesn't have a source for the "every two weeks" bit) and then a few lines later saying "Following Padilla's return to Smosh, the channel returned to the sketch comedy format primarily featuring the duo, including revisiting past sketches such as their "Stop Copying Me" video and Food Battle". So it's clear you're not really copy-editing the material you do add, instead it reads like you're just googling anything to do with Smosh and dumping it in.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I have now seen your "Third Opinion" post, and I quite simply view your description to be misleading. This is not about the idea of a video content section, but the duplication of existing content, thereby rendering it unnecessary, and as part of that the apparent artificial assigning of sources that discuss Smosh as an entire entity to instead suggest, without evidence, they were only discussing select videos on Smosh Main. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm here from the third opinion page to offer my perspective. First, I agree that the description of the dispute was somewhat unclear. The issue, as I see it, is that @PantheonRadiance's good faith edits to expand the "Channels and content" section introduces some repetitive/potentially-unnecessary information. Historically, it seems the section has focused on outlining each channel's programming slate rather than detailing the history of individual Smosh-owned channels - the 'channels and content,' in other words.

While there's always room for improvement, @PantheonRadiance, I agree that outlining the histories of each channel in such fashion might bloat the article rather than making it more concise, especially since Smosh Games already has its own dedicated article and, in theory, so could Smosh Pit and Cast - but that's a different conversation. Overall, I agree with @Rambling Rambler's points. Maybe there's a better place for the info elsewhere. Tvfunhouse (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this request from the third opinion requests because a third opinion was given. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Should not Tommy Bowe be added in the cast members list?

He appears in List of Smosh cast members#Current. [1]https://smosh.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Bowe suggests he appears several videos, in addition of his role of social manager. LocusLaius (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)