Talk:Vlogbrothers

Hank
I think Hank is very interesting and he deserves his own page.

-Hi, Hank currently does have his own page which is located at Hank Green. I hope this helps and DFTBA. Ryan (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merges
It appears to me that both John Green and Hank Green are notable enough to keep their own pages. Unless this article ("Vlogbrothers") gets more content, I'd say get rid of it. Both Green pages have a section on their internet activities... I worked on the Hank Green article, this seems like mostly recycled B2.0 sections from (badly-written) early versions of the Hank Green article. There might be potential for an article here, not gonna argue about that, but as it is, this article is pretty worthless. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging the content would not improve the organization of the project here, as Hank and John do a lot of separate things for which they are notable, not just making videos together.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hank Green does too many awesome things to be merged with John Green, who also does so many awesome things, that the article combined would be way too long for one wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.28.140 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hank and John do lots of stuff that is not associated with Vlogbrothers. I think that although this page needs more content, vlogbrothers is also notable enough to have its own page. 109.170.137.169 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I see that both this article and the Hank Green one have been slapped with tags, but, err, who's actually proposing this merger? And why do they think that a merger is a good idea? It's not mentioned on either John Green's talk page or Hank Green's talk page. FWIW, I actually think that merging the content of the Vlogbrothers into either the John Green or Hank Green article (or both) is actually quite a good idea – the article, as it currently stands, seems to go into quite an unnecessary amount of intricate detail. If it could been trimmed down to what is most important and notable about this project, then it could perhaps be interpolated into the John Green article. I agree that there's probably enough notability for Hank Green to warrant his own article though... A Thousand Doors (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging this into two separate articles obviously isn't practical, so I am going to remove the tags. It's not a question of notability - if you are disputing notability the way to go about it is a deletion nomination - but of organisation. The Beatles isn't merged into the four biographical articles because that would lead to duplication and inconsistency, and the same principle applies here. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This Star Won't Go Out
Should this be added? Or is it mentioned elsewhere? T eh P i G uy —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

Focus of article
I'm not quite sure that this article is properly focused - the article name is Vlogbrothers and yet the article starts with The Vlogbrothers are two American vloggers, John Green and Hank Green, who host a YouTube channel together, which while correct, is also sort of wrong. The article Vlogbrothers should be about the Vlogbrothers YouTube channel, its content, format and various projects, and not about the brothers themselves who both have their own Wiki articles. What I'm getting at is that Hank and John aren't Vlogbrothers per se. The article does seem to be about the YouTube channel, so I'm not sure. Opinions, anyone? --Ryan (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should start more like this: Vlogbrothers is a YouTube web series started by Hank and John Green in 2007, where various projects occur(or something) and focus on the channel, not the people. They both have a wikipage anyway. Jefferson LaRouche (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Camelcase title?
Should the article be moved to VlogBrothers? They seem to use both, in official/formal communications. Mentions of the topic elsewhere in Wikipedia, including John and Hank's articles, all use the current capitalization. Someone recently changed all the uses in this article, to camelcase. —Quiddity (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am especially bewildered by "VlogBrothers (sometimes stylized as Vlogbrothers)". This reads like this used to be the other way around and someone just exchanged the two capitalizations without realizing that the CamelCase title is much more of a stylization than the regular spelling of a proper noun is. --Mudd1 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeline Section
A chronologically-arranged timeline section that overviews notable events throughout the YouTube channel's progression would be helpful in finding information in learning about how the channel progressed. Any thoughts? --Jangnathan (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nerdfighters
Hi. I think Nerdfighters have become a large enough group that they deserve their own page. I noticed when searching for that title that I was redirected here. Could we please make a seperate page? Thanks! #-- Kairbair (talk)
 * Noone is stopping you from making the redirect into a seperate page :). Amphicoelias (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Four Minute Videos
One of the hallmarks and an important "feature" of all (normal) vlogbrothers videos is that they don't exceed four minutes in length. I suggest adding a remark noting this somewhere. It's easy and quick to do and takes little space and effort, and it fits together with mentioning them having surpasses 1000 videos, and it's an altogether important staple of their videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:7536:777B:C1EE:68B8 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sum of subscribers
I recently removed the "total" number of subscribers from the table in the "Overview of channels" section on the grounds that there is a lot of overlap in subscribers among the channels, so adding them up and listing the total is misleading. User:Soulbust re-added the figure, with a footnote saying "A user registered on YouTube may subscribe to more than one channel, meaning the 9+ million subscribers often overlap". While I appreciate the effort, I still oppose the inclusion of the number. Because of the significant overlap, the "9+ million" figure is almost meaningless, and including it in the article seems like WP:Original synthesis.

I would appreciate it if any other editors could give their opinions, or if Soulbust has any justification for including the figure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

VlogBrothers vs. The Green brothers
I'm proposing the addition of a new article that encompasses basically the entire "Launch of other projects" section, as well as any other information that can be included under the brothers' combined efforts. This article as previously stated is supposed to be about the VlogBrothers channel, and I have been adding information here on other projects. Perhaps other projects can be briefly mentioned in this article, but a combined effort article should be created. I also don't think the LoOP section should be spread out across the separate Hank Green and John Green articles, because those articles are supposed to concentrate on their individual ventures, like John's writing career and Hank's music and science careers (that may on occasion overlap like on the VlogBrothers channel or Crash Course). If anyone agrees with me on the creation of this article that would include information in the LoOP section that is currently in this article, then I'll begin to create that new article as soon as possible. Thanks :) Soulbust (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ning is Dead
Should it just get removed from the external links section? Or marked as dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singpolyma (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

VlogBrothers → Vlogbrothers – The title of this article is currently "VlogBrothers", but I can't find a single instance of that name being officially used. It is "vlogbrothers" on their YouTube, John Green's personal website, and their Google+ page. It is "Vlogbrothers" on the official Nerdfighteria site, the Reddit community, and the official merchandise store. It appears both ways on the DFTBA's team bios page. I can't find a single official use of "VlogBrothers"; in fact, the only use of any kind I found is this CBS News article, this NY Times article, and this Mashable article. Given that virtually every single other source cited in this article uses "Vlogbrothers" or "vlogbrothers", I think we can assume those are the acceptable spellings. Thus, I think the title should be "Vlogbrothers", and the correct article intro would be: "Vlogbrothers (often stylized as vlogbrothers)". Iago Qnsi (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. SST flyer 00:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Apparently it was moved to this spelling in 2013, .  But when I created the John Green template in 2011, I used "Vlogbrothers", and I am always right, so I agree with the proposed move.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Complexly
So it seems EcoGeek - the holding company for the various Green Brothers enterprises - has been changed (renamed? otherwise shifted?) into a company called Complexly (as in, 'Imagine people...'). See, if your DNS can resolve it (it's BRAND new).

Now that there is more of a 'public face' to that enterprise, I imagine it would be worthwhile to integrate that into the relevant articles and perhaps create its own article. Thoughts? Radagast (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)