Talk:Dude Perfect

Channel name in infobox
If you go to Dude Perfect's YouTube channel, you will clearly see that their channel name is Dude Perfect, not corycotton. But whenever I change corycotton in the infobox to Dude Perfect, it comes out as Perfect Dude Perfect. Similarly, if you do Perfect Dude, it comes out as Dude Perfect Dude. We need to fix this, because readers of this article, will think Dude Perfect's channel is corycotton, even though now their channel name is Dude Perfect. What do you think we should about this? KingSkyLord (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)KingSkyLord

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dude Perfect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140115220620/http://tamunews.tamu.edu/dude-perfect-becomes-national-sensation/ to http://tamunews.tamu.edu/dude-perfect-becomes-national-sensation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Jargon?
Anybody familiar with the phrase, "successfully converting the final shots"? From the context in this article, "converting" a shot appears to mean getting a shot or series of shots worth using in the final edit. However, since the phrase comes right after the discussion of hoax charges, it could be confused with something related to that. If "converting" a shot is videographer jargon meaning something other than the term's traditional definition (to convert video or film from one format to another) perhaps an editor who understands it would be willing to unpack that text and make it accessible to ordinary Wikipedia readers. 180.241.227.134 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Converting a shot" is a rather generic and widely used term in sports (particularly basketball see here, here, and here, at least in the US) meaning "making a shot". So what it is saying is that it takes multiple filmed attempts before "converting" (or "making") a shot, i.e. they miss multiple times before finally succeeding. Vyselink (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You provided 3 links to prove that the verb "convert" is not basketball jargon. The word is used 11 times in those articles. Here are 3 excerpts:
 * "He has a solid step-back jumper, as he converts 55.0 percent of his step-backs from inside the arc. He also converts his floating jumpers at a ridiculous 65.2 percent rate."
 * "This was the 2009 playoffs, when he was converting on just a third of his shots from downtown."
 * "He converted 51.1 percent of foul shots in his career and tried everything to become better at making them overhand, even visiting a psychiatrist for a month."
 * Based on this sports-jargon filled context, I would say that "convert" is jargon as well. Thus this word should be either replaced by a generally understandable one, or explained in this article, or better yet linking to a wikipedia article explaining the term (which doesn't exist for the basketball use).
 * These articles, with their niche wording, are obviously meant for people who are into sports, more precisely basketball. It is a bit upsetting how often sports-people think that their jargon is supposed to be widely known among general public.193.40.10.98 (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New evidence that Dude Perfect is fake
I was watching a video of theirs called Ping Pong Trick Shots, and in one particular instance, the guy did a front-flip and threw a basketball into a hoop while airborne. Something seemed off, so it spent some time trying to pause the video on the right frame. I did, and sure enough, the ball disappears for a split second. I didn't want to edit the article until there was a consensus on the talk page, but this is pretty damning if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickdubois30 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC) It is pretty obvious that there are often cuts and edits between shots. Clearly some of the more simple stunts are achieved by repeated attempts such as the many ping-pong ball into cups. Undoubtedly these guys have become skilled at the many and various techniques and stunts they demonstrate. The channels repeat appeal (subscriber and viewer count) is from several generations of children, as the antics would only amuse even dim witted adults for a very short period. Tellingly, they would do their stunts in front of fans, if they were able to do a broad range of tricks consistently. Like most, I once believed in Father Christmas then progressed to believing magic conjuring tricks, moving onto the David Blaine showmanship bull. Dude Perfect is a combination of skilled camera tricks, persistence and some sporting / throwing skills. In the end, it is about as real Hollywood, otherwise these guys would be millionaire athletes.
 * Yes, but Wikipedia is not for original research. This research should be published somewhere else before, in order to include it here.193.40.10.98 (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Number of Guinness World Records?
The article says that the group has "several" Guinness World Records. Adding the actual number would be a helpful addition to the article. I have not yet found that number, or I would be glad to add and cite it. 38.108.59.142 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So Close
DUDE PERFECT HAS 49.1 MILLION SUBS! EDIT, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.69.15 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Multinational conglomerate company"
What's the reason for this assertion. It seems, from a brief skim through, that this is a YouTube channel featuring five people - why are we describing it in these terms? - noticed your username in the history, do you have a view on this? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason either. The article on 5-Minute Crafts for example doesn't mention it. When I started to edit this article, (first edit, it didn't mention any "employees" or "Multinational conglomerate company". I believe it is random fancruft, nothing more. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks - I've trimmed it. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP editor - and I do not agree with this description. We shouldn't expect the reader to use Google to try to verify assertions made in articles, they should be referenced to reliable sources within the article. If there is a reliable source that supports that claim, please provide it, otherwise self-revert.  Girth Summit  (blether)  15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a reliable source. Hover over note 2 on the article next to "Frisco, Texas, United States", and you will see a link to a Tech Times article. From what I know, Tech Times is reliable. I've used it several times when doing research assignments back in school, and I still got a good grade on them. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and the IP - This looks WP:CIRCULAR. Check the para, which seems to have been copied from a version of this article
 * And exactly how is this a Conglomerate? Bring more sources please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what is meant by the term, in the context of that article? It's not clear to me how a group of five ex-roommates can reasonably be described as an international conglomerate, which would imply that it is a holding company operating several different commercial operations in multiple companies. Are there, for example, multiple different groups of people creating and adding content to the channel, each in a different country? Unless we can give some additional context to the description, I think that the reader would be better served by a simple assertion that it's a YouTube channel, which is easily understandable and unambiguously true. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - yes, I believe you're correct, the date of that article post-dates the identically-worded description on our article: they've copied us, which they are entitled to do by the terms of our license, but which means that we can't use that as a source. More sources, and context, are needed here. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go. On that article, press Ctrl+F and type "conglomerate" in the find box. You will see: And does that follow a word order from any revision of the Wikipedia article? Nope. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a reliable source. Check the About US section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest more people should comment on this matter. Can this discussion about if DP is a conglomerate/channel be turned into an WP:RFC? 35.141.137.229 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need an RfC at this stage, we can simply have a discussion. That source, even if it were to be reliable, calls it a conglomerate, not a conglomerate company. A conglomerate can just be something made up of other things - so, an entertainment group composed of five people. Random websites can call things what they like, but we aim for straightforward factual prose - unless you can find a source that actually explains what is meant by the term, we should just call it what it is - a YouTube channel. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * calls it a conglomerate, not a conglomerate company. A conglomerate can just be something made up of other things - so, an entertainment group composed of five people. Well, take the article Alphabet Inc. for example. Its lead says "American multinational conglomerate ..." instead of "American multinational conglomerate company ..." I know that source from distractify I provided only says "conglomerate", but here is another one which says the full thing: which says:  If that is taken from Wikipedia as well, then I don't know what isn't. Even then, conglomerate is a special word for a company made up of smaller companies. It cannot be used for a group of any non-business entities. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what smaller companies are part of the Dude Perfect conglomerate then - are there any sources explaining that? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's also another highly dubious source by the way, it looks like an SEO spam site. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I was not the initial person who added that statement, and I think that the person who did add it thought that the members of Dude Perfect were smaller companies. We can keep that Dude Perfect is simply a company. As this editor said: remove 'conglomerate' - companies like Google and Amazon which are larger and more diversified do not use the term in their lead - 'company' works nicely However, Google is a subsidiary of conglomerate Alphabet, and Amazon is not a holding company. I think that leaving Dude Perfect as "company" is enough. Check out their own website, which says "Dude Perfect LLC" at the very bottom:  Also, if you google Dude Perfect LLC you will find a LinkedIn page which talks about Dude Perfect like a company. I think we are getting closer to the consensus: Dude Perfect is not a conglomerate, but it at least is a company. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily have a problem with describing it as a company, rather than a YouTube channel, but if we do that then we should be describing the company rather than the channel in the article. That might make more sense since we are talking about things like an app and a tour which obviously go beyond the YouTube content. But ditch the 'multinational conglomerate' bit, unless it can be demonstrated that there are multiple Dude Perfect franchises operating in different countries, it's just meaningless. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure! I've done that. This discussion is over. We've reached consensus. There is a company behind the Dude Perfect channel, but it's not a multinational conglomerate. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
SpeedyMarble (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Dylsss (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Early history section - nonsensical sentence
The section contains the sentence "The trick shot group which had been founded would never imagine singing lyrics such as "hatin' your gut" in Pet Peeves, their hit song", with no connection to the previous or subsequent sentence. This either (a) makes no sense, or (b) is missing enormous amounts of context. Please, someone who knows what is going on, please change this. --Lommes (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Partnership with Burnley FC
Recently, Dude Perfect invested in Burnley FC. Could this potentially be added to the “business ventures” section? source: https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/content/dude-perfect-enhance-partnership-and-join-clarets-ownership-group 82.25.46.186 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)