Talk:Hank Green

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

TikTok Revenue[edit]

Just a note that "a sum comprised of an estimated $700 from 20,000,000 TikTok views in a month as of August 2020, averaging to about 3.5 cents per 1,000 views" as stated in the article is definitely outdated info, as over $35,000 in less than a year as more recently stated (see article ref. 125) would be at least a few thousand per month. All I found was the TikTok (again, ref. 125) stating "my TikTok has gotten bigger since then", so if someone knows of more detailed recent figures that might be helpful. Otherwise, I'd suggest taking out this entire piece of info or boiling it down to "3.5 cents per 1,000 views", which I don't see any reason to believe has changed (?). Disturbnce (talk)

Notability of sections[edit]

The following sections do not have secondary sources and should either be cited or removed:

  • PBS Eons
  • Journey to the Microcosmos
  • Bizarre Beasts
  • Sexplanations
  • Animal Wonders
  • Holy Fucking Science
  • DELETE THIS, SciShow Tangents
  • Complexly (probably could be cited)
  • DFTBA Games
  • VidCon (could also be easily cited)

The following sections have insufficient sourcing quality for a WP:BLP and should be discussed:

  • Welcome to Sanditon, Emma Approved, and Frankenstein MD
  • The Brain Scoop
  • Cereal Time
  • TikTok

Look, I know that Hank Green gets up to a lot of stuff, but not everything he touches is important enough to go on his personal Wikipedia page. We should really discuss how long we want this article to be, and how it could be improved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a lot of the sections need better sources, but I'm not sure the length of the article is something that should be a concern at the moment. There are plenty of BLPs that are significantly longer. We want a thorough article of Green, and if he does a lot of projects, the article should reflect. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Cereal Time, I believe the sources are plenty strong for the article. The information is uncontroversial and the articles are well written and include quotes from the relevant people. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider[edit]

theleekycauldron, I think the Business Insider source should stay. Since there is no consensus for Business Insider's blanket removal, the facts are not overly controversial, and John Green linked to the source in a tweet, it seems fine for this use. I agree the other one is worth excluding, especially since we at least have the Indy Star source. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebral726: I mean, maaaaybe, but BLPs generally have a higher standard for sourcing than any old article. My issue is more with due weight—BI can often throw in lots of details that feel irrelevant and/or promotional. Is there something we get from BI and not from Indy Star that's major/fundamental? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Green also actually spoke to the author for the article, forgot to mention that above. The main loss is info on the Awesome Socks Club, which is completely missing from the Indy Star article but really should be included since this business model is becoming a bigger thing for them.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I think it checks out- Insider is reliable for culture, too, so it's not the worst in the world. it's shaky, but I don't think it needs to be removed unilaterally. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being arrested[edit]

He was arrested at 16 for kidnapping a lemur from the Zoo. 24.250.252.8 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true and part of a new TikTok trend, started by the user childprodigy. In the video, he admits that this rumor isn't true, he wanted merely to start a rumor because he "was bored" and "hasn't started a rumor in a while". Wikipedia is not a collection of easter eggs, and purposefully spreading false information is disruptive to Wikipedia's goal. Askarion 💬●✒️ 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022[edit]

Add in Hanks early life how he stole a lemur from the central Florida Zoo when he was 16.

Evidence: https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1544370413232201728?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet HankGreenFan (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As in... the part where he says "no, I did not kidnap that fucking lemur"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a YouTube video as a source for Hank Green announcing his cancer diagnosis[edit]

The news just came out and I forwent checking editing history before seeing that someone editing this page with that information using YouTube as a source had their edit removed because YouTube is considered an unreliable source. I'm sorry for my recklessness.

To avoid starting an editing war, I figure I'd start a discussion here.

While YouTube /is/ unreliable to use as a secondary source, isn't it fine to use the subject (Hank Green) as a self-published source given that he announced it himself here? Per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. Cadenrock1 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, people speaking about themselves are reliable sources for themselves. The YouTube video is fine. --Jayron32 16:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are now several news stories about this, so we are more than well covered. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped photos[edit]

@Strugglehouse Sorry for undoing your crops. In both instances, I found them to be cropped too tight. For the infobox image, some of his hair was cut off, and the current version to me seems like an ideal amount of breathing room. With the photo of them onstage, part of the focus is that they are on stage in this photo, so having more of the background is a positive aspect of it. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebral726 Okay, that's fine. I probably didn't crop them very well. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome socks club[edit]

Is there a reason for no article about the awesome socks club? It seems to merit an article. Sailcalculator (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not seeing the kind of secondary significant coverage that would merit an article on a quick google search... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hank_Green&oldid=1211242223"