Talk:Vinesauce

the corruption is outdated
vinny uses realtime corruptor(vanguard) now
 * Yeah this is super old. I'm almost certain he said as much in a stockpile intro once but can't find it. It looks like the link to the RTC has consistently been in the description for stockpiles since Stockpile #38 from 12/30/2019.  I've never edited Wikipedia before but I know they're rigorous about sources so I don't think this will count. Thestorebrandslimshady (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're right, it doesn't count. Unless any new reliable, secondary sources have emerged that prove they use that corruption software, we wouldn't be able to include the info. See "verifiability, not truth" on why we require reliable sources even when true. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

2020 vinesauce is hope
There's a new vinesauce charity see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufiuSsdIkVpqzVqqlEb5Mc6sRCP0x4Qj/view
 * I've added the content for this now. WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Red Vox?
Someone needs to improve a Draft:Red Vox page? GreatPaul64 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A List of New Sources
Hello everyone. While looking at the recent changes made to the Super Mario 64 article, I saw a section which discussed the various | fan projects spawned from the game, with Vinesauce's gameplay video of a fan project cited with a reliable source. This led me to restore this draft recently after collecting a plethora of sources which discuss Vinesauce and their content. Reputable gaming outlets such as Kotaku, PC Gamer, Nintendo Life and VG247 have written articles about various videos they have made over the past several years, from their Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda hacks to their Half-Life mods, creepypastas and so on. This should qualify them as notable according to WP:WEB, in that the nature of their content has been discussed fairly significantly, enough to establish them as prominent Internet personalities and gaming content creators. I am pinging the original editors/submitters of the article and some of the AFC reviewers that left feedback on the draft. My original plan was to work on the draft on my own time, but the next few weeks may be a bit too busy for me, so I decided to give it to you guys to work on it once more.

If you want a new template for organizing the article, here’s a quick one I made that might help.

History

 * Information on how they formed (may use Primary Sources/Interviews here)
 * Insert website info here
 * Controversy with Vinny (Daily Dot source here, along with others)

Internet Content

 * Insert information on the video content they make, such as Mario 64, Legend of Zelda, Half Life, Active Worlds videos gaining attention from publications (Secondary Sources)
 * In Popular Culture info here, written in encyclopedic prose format (Secondary Sources)

Other Ventures

 * Red Vox Info (Highlander Source)
 * Philanthropy (Some Primary/Non-Independent Sources here)

Sidenote: I'm honestly disappointed with the work done to this draft. There were so many sources you could've used for this article, and heck, there were sources in other Wikipedia articles about Vinesauce's videos that you could've used for this draft. But instead of using them, you provoked the ire of so many AFC reviewers with your dependence on unreliable and primary sources (and writing about Mario's Mystery Meat FFS 🤦). While some of these sources can be kept to verify basic facts about them, you have to use reliable sources to support most of the information in the article. I hope you guys use these sources to finally get Vinesauce to mainspace once and for all, and that these sources would be enough to prevent other editors from deleting it.

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

Pinging Leave feedback below.

This draft could use a clean start
I stumbled across a Vinesauce upload where the subject joked about Top Angler: Real Bass Fishing having an article while Vinesauce doesn't, showcasing all the "Submission rejected" tags on this. So I thought I'd take a look at this draft to see if it looks like it's worthy of being in mainspace and ...

It's bad.

It's really, really bad. Nearly all of the sources are primary sources linking to the Vinesauce website, YouTube videos, or tweets. There are a couple of actual secondary sources in the lead of the article that are indirectly about the subject (or more specifically, its Mario 64 Corruptions video which was viral at the time), but this is never brought up anywhere else in the article. The entire "History" section has no secondary sources except the very last bit which mentions a temporary Twitch ban. Vargskelethor is mentioned without ever being introduced. The only part of this entire draft that has a good number of secondary sources is the single sentence about the sexual harassment allegation. The Red Vox subsection has one secondary source which praises the band, but the contents of that article are never mentioned in this draft, it's just used as a source to state that it was founded in 2015. This is the last secondary source in the draft. The entire Philanthropy, In Popular Culture, and Team sections have no secondary sources demonstrating their notability, and the "Team" section doesn't even have any primary sources demonstrating verifiability. Vinny is referred to as Franzetti throughout the entire draft, and this is never sourced. The draft also seems to struggle with deciding whether it's about Vinny (the person behind the YouTube account "Vinesauce") or the collective Vinesauce group. It seems to be trying more to be about the latter, but not a single secondary source is about the group of streamers.

All of this is to say that this draft is unsalvageable. It's time to blow it up and start over. It'd be faster and easier to nominate this thing for deletion, create a fresh new one that's not flooded with "Submission rejected" tags, and have it be written by people who are at least a little more familiar with Wikipedia policy or encyclopedic writing in general than the fans who threw this one together.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I already said my thoughts on the draft a couple months ago and on the MfD, but long story short I'm working on fixing the draft. Seeing as how none of the original draft editors seem interested in editing the draft anymore, I'll take care of it. Give me a week or so and I'll have it done as best as possible.
 * As a sidenote, Vinny clearly used an "other stuff exists" argument in that video and hadn't even read this draft entirely. If he knew Wikipedia's guidelines and saw how people edited this draft, even he wouldn't want a Wikipedia article anymore. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:FAMOUS for why having a Wikipedia article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. That said, notability =/= popularity, which is what confuses many people. You can't simply "earn" your way into Wikipedia by having a ton of viewers, as it's not an advertising vehicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Vinesauce
I've said enough on Vinesauce's notability in the past, both here and in various discussions, so I'll just keep it short. Vinesauce is a notable group for their internet content which has been discussed significantly on various video gaming websites. Most of the sources here pretty much focus on media outlets offering secondary summary and/or commentary of the videos they've made and their general reactions to them. For the best sources, see
 * 1: GamesRadar (corruption mods)
 * 2: Kotaku (Active Worlds)
 * 3: Vice (Active Worlds)
 * 4: BGR (Active Worlds)
 * 5: Uproxx (summary of their videos)

The rest of the sources also consist of outlets like VG247, PC Gamer, Nintendo Life, and TechRadar. They were even cited in a book about archaeology as well for their Active Worlds videos - see ref #24. Overall, this should be enough to pass WEB and GNG with flying colors. Let me know if there's any concerns about the draft. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion over exactly what notability these articles prove. Articles about a Youtuber playing a game only prove notability of the game itself. The article has to be directly about the Youtuber - their life and accomplishments - to give notability to the actual person. Trivial mentions of a person playing a certain game do not demonstrate notability, which is why this article is floundering. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, allow me to clarify the group's notability once again. TL;DR - they're a group, not an individual, and the relevant notability guideline is WP:WEB.
 * 1: First off, those confused by the notability completely miss the point of the scope of the article in my opinion. The Vinesauce draft isn't about one particular streamer - it's an ensemble of streamers who make up the website and the web content they're notable for, akin to the Game Grumps, the Sidemen and the Yogscast. That's the reason why info about their various other projects alongside their content, such as their collective charity drive and Red Vox, are also included with reliable sources. While it does go into the history of how the specific founder, Vincent, formed the group, this article doesn't focus on a particular individual nor was it my intention - this isn't a biography of just Vincent Franzetti himself.* So arguments about the article not focusing on an individual member's life is irrelevant. Also, the most applicable guideline here is WP:WEB, considering that the primary focus of the article is the web content the ensemble has made.
 * 2: How exactly do the sources only prove that the game they play is notable, rather than them for creating videos around the game? As aforementioned (way too many times), these sources focus on the web content that the group has made which has been covered by multiple media outlets significantly. It's pretty typical for news outlets to cover the creations a person made and intersperse it with background info about them in general for context. For example - pannenkoek2012's Super Mario 64 videos and how outlets like Kotaku and Polygon have written articles summarizing and analyzing the YouTube videos themselves. Or how Rolling Stone and Paste Magazine review an album or multiple works from a musician, as they reflect the creative process of the artist.
 * Going by your rationale that the page needs to focus on notable accomplishments, how is having
 * a): multiple news outlets write in-depth about a video they created (as in, not just the game itself but also the personal experiences of the streamer and the audience's reactions)
 * b): having that same video a few years later be cited as one of the most significant creepypasta stories on the internet from GamesRadar and a popular example of archaeogaming in a published book (showing the video's impact), AND
 * c): having their other videos also be significantly discussed in multiple reliable sources about their methods for modifying video games, reflecting larger discussions on game emulation not their accomplishments?
 * Not to mention, being cited as an example of a comfort creator in the NYT and listed as one of the top PC gaming YouTubers in TechRadar. Granted, these two credible claims wouldn't be enough to prove notability on its own. But when combined with the other WP:SIGCOV articles, again, how is any of this in totality trivial? If this seriously isn't enough to prove their notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, then I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.
 * Also, my comment on Vinny not wanting a Wikipedia article was meant to be hyperbole, but thanks for linking an essay I already read two years ago. I was simply stating that he would understand why his draft was rejected for it being unencyclopedic. At this point however, it seems even with good faith attempts at proving it has encyclopedic value, this page will never get accepted to mainspace. At least, not until someone unsalts the page.
 * &#42;although it does adhere to the BLP policy. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is confusion that notability is somehow inherited from other things. For example, if I wrote a book and the book became a best-seller, I am not necessarily notable, even if the book is. If I made a creepypasta about the game, and that becomes widely known, then the creepypasta is notable, not me. It's more likely that the press will then turn around and want to know more about me, but not guaranteed by a long shot. This also applies if it's a studio or group. Wikipedia gets tons of people or studios who assume that because their works are notable, they ought to have an article.
 * I'd actually argue, though, that all the links you posted here as examples are simply trivial coverage period. They are mostly routine announcements, not indepth analysis.
 * So, overall... I'm really heavily doubtful that it meets notability criteria, even after your full argument. In terms of the Game Grumps article you cited as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would probably not approve it if it was submitted as a draft in its current form. Its notability is dubious at best, with the biggest example of WP:SIGCOV being a listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I initially planned on refuting your claim that notability isn't inherited from the works one creates themselves (and that these sources provide SIGCOV evidence that goes beyond simple inheritance), but I decided to relent. It seems that we both have our lines drawn in the sand on our positions, so it's not worth the bytes. Instead, why don't we just agree to disagree and reach a compromise? How about I contact an admin to unsalt the page and move it to mainspace, and if you still believe the group is not notable, propose a procedural AfD on it? The article has only been A7'd as previous versions (most likely) had none of the reliable sources present in the draft, so it has never been vetted by community consensus. Even though I still believe they're notable, personally I'd much rather have it go to AfD even if the consensus is to delete than having this linger in draftspace until a G13 meteor hits it.
 * Also, WP:OSE doesn't apply. I wasn't arguing that Vinesauce automatically deserves an article because Game Grumps has one. I was refuting the point that this article is about a single person as opposed to it being about a group. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you still don't believe me, you could ask for further feedback on notability at WP:VG/Talk rather than having to go through the song and dance of an AfD. If the other experienced video game editors believe the article is notable then I will happily concede that I am the one who is incorrect. I firmly predict they won't either, but I might be the one who is wrong and am missing something, which would actually help me as well if there is some kind of gap in my understanding of the notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll consider asking it there in the next few days or so. I'll also spend some time reviewing the draft's sources again and checking to see if there were any extra sources I missed about Vinesauce as well. Despite our differing positions, I do thank you for at least taking notice of the draft after such a long time. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, so apparently the draft was accepted to mainspace a few days ago, before I got a chance to discuss its notability on the VG talk page. Should I still post a discussion about it, or is it unnecessary now and we should just wait and see if anyone objects to their notability via an AfD? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability for categories?
The Impact section clearly shows that they've contributed to memes, but would it be enough to put them in other categories? Discussing like:


 * Category:Internet memes
 * Category:Video game memes

BonziBuddy appears in the former, while 7 Grand Dad appears in the latter. I would consider Vinesauce is significant to both. Crazyeditor23 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Those categories are overused and too often incorrectly. They are for memes themselves. Unless you can say "Vinecsauce is a meme" the same way "BonziBuddy is a meme", then they shouldn't be in either category. 7 Grand Dad is a redirect but can be categorized. The Flintstones article should not have been categorized. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be worth highlighting a seperation between the "Group" Vinesauce and the "Person" Vinesauce potentially as a separate category.
I've been talking to Vinny and he's been stating there's been active confusion in relation to both this wiki page and just in general with how people see Vinny as the "leader" of a team which hasn't been a thing for years. As well as the fact that we can go a bit into detail of the origin of the name Vinesauce has stated in the past.

For example: The name Vinesauce originated in two ways. The one that is commonly resaid on his streams is that when he was playing Mario Party as a kid with friends he asked "Mom is it okay if vines grow out your ass." and than got the nickname Vine from such.

While on Ustream he use to be called Vine and when talking to chat someone in chat would always end a sentence with "sauce" during the phase of the internet using "awesomesauce" and adding it to everything. The user ended up at one point saying vinesauce and Vinny liked it and decided to go with it. I know this one might be impossible to cite properly as there's really only Youtube VODs that really mention name origins.

In the end of the day however, I feel we should try to clarify the separation between the group and Vinny in terms of the name. AlizarinRed (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Vinesauce may not be as active as a group nowadays, but the vast majority of reliable sources name them as a collective. Even Vinny himself stated in an interview that Vinesauce referred to both him and the group, and that they're still relatively active together for charity streams. The problem with making a separation between him and the group is that it can't easily be done with Wikipedia's policies. While plenty of sources have covered Vinesauce as a group, very little (if at all) sources have covered Vinny individually to justify him having a separate page. Meaning, if one were to try this separation through creating an article, there would be little chance of it being kept up for more than a few months. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding notability that Vinesauce the group meets, but Vinny himself sadly doesn't.
 * As for the name's origin, you should keep in mind WP:FANCRUFT. Not to say that including the origin of the name is unencyclopedic; it could make for interesting trivia if it were demonstrated to have some real-world impact or were covered by reliable sources. However, generally if interesting info about something hasn't been covered in reliable sources, it's generally presumed to be of interest only to the fans of such group. We determine when information is of interest to the world at large based on whether reliable sources outside of the fanbase have written about it in enough detail. Think books, scholarly articles, or even news websites. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds reasonable.
 * In the future he hopes to bring up this stuff regarding the group when he is interviewed in the future. That way we can have it properly cited. This should hopefully allow the page to be a made a bit more clear and allow for a proper source outside of YouTube or Twitch. AlizarinRed (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)