Talk:Smosh/Archive 2

Smosh's status

There seems to be some confusion over whether Smosh has become defunct since Defy Media's shutdown in the "Years active" section. What would be more appropriate to use? lullabying (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given Ian Hecox's comments on how Smosh is looking for a new "home" (in other words, parent company), I wouldn't use 2018 as an end year. That would be misleading. Maybe note a hiatus if anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page should be updated frequently with recent updates in regards to the situation, mainly because this is a very notable event in the History of Smosh and the future is currently uncertain. But I agree, noting a hiatus is the best solution for now. --Jsraynault (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate to put 2018 as an end date for now along with the hiatus notice. While it is true that there is a possibility that Smosh will come back under the control of another media company or individual, it takes a long time for these kinds of things to be drawn up and finalized. CrispyCream27 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much of a long time as you would expect... I have reverted the hiatus and 2018 end date edits based on Smosh's update video released today. K2323 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see at the beginning it mentions the purchase by Mythical Entertainment. Should this get added to the present day history?PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Courtney Miller part of Smosh Games now? She's appeared in both new videos... Audace1234 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Padilla post departure

Do we really need a picture of Padilla 2 years after he departed the company? ~~ PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 15:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should probably change it. It’s been almost two years since he has left. However, he has been an important part of the channel. Also, is Smosh still a “comedic duo”? The cast is more talking about the Smosh Family, at least on the podcast. There’s a couple of thins I feel should change if we remove Padilla as the second main figure. Audace1234 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ian said in an FBE video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP8ZOuFYiMw&list=PLwnD0jwK0yylBWRI6KpihIfL7vL4vCz3M&index=3) that the top photo should be changed. Audace1234 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Anthony Padilla into his own article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is obviously in support of creating a new article for Anthony Padilla. This discussion can be closed and that article can be made at a later date. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time that happened on Wikipedia as it's been over 2 years since he left, and he's forged his own career since including solo acting gigs. He's got enough of his own identity now to warrant his own Wiki. VampireKilla (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I agree he should be separated into a different article. Rushtheeditor (talk) 2:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment if he does get split out again (this has happened before and he at some point got redirected back to here), then we should strive for citations that specifically focus on Anthony as his own person when possible and not just rely on those centered on the Smosh team (which includes the days when it was just him and Ian). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support If this happens, can Ian get his own article? User:Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support a split between existing Smosh article, along with Ian and Anthony both getting their own new articles. Ed6767 talk! 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Neutral for Anthony's own article. Most of his notability is from Smosh, but there are some news headlines that can be used to support his solo notability unrelated to Smosh. But, I Oppose Ian getting his own article (not notable outside of Smosh or Smosh-related work). Sekyaw (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for reasons already stated. Also, I would like to comment that there already was an article at an Old revision of Anthony Padilla that was transformed into a redirect.
- It was redirected back to Smosh because there was an AfD that resulted in its redirect a while ago. The new article for Padilla had no new info to warrant his notability. Sekyaw (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Both founding members of Smosh are notable. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh is an entity by itself and therefore should have its own wiki page. Ian and Anthony however should be separate entities and have their own individual pages not redirected to the Smosh page to show their individual information and achievements as they have since separated. Rbmalabanan (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If a split for Anthony Padilla succeeds, rename to Ian Hecox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has shown that regardless of whether Ian Hecox gets his own article, this should stay as Smosh. This discussion also shows that on the presumption that Hecox is notable, another article on him may be warranted. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a article for Anthony Padilla succeeds via. split, should we rename this article to Ian Hecox, split, or not

Type 1 for rename, 2 for split.

Regards, Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, splitting would be far better than renaming, though I'm not sure he should have his own page at the moment when still closely affiliated with Smosh. This page is dedicated to Smosh as a channel. It's not just about Ian or Anthony as individuals. They're not the only cast members it has ever had. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I think, we should create 2 articles, one for Anthony, and one for Ian.User:Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rushtheeditor. User:Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with split. Strongly disagree with rename. Anthony has his article, but Ian does not have one of his own. Smosh is no longer a dynamic duo, as sad as that is. However, renaming the article is not the right move for a page like this. Smosh was the king of youtube back in the day. Renaming this article is almost like an insult. But that's my view. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 01:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see how Ian is notable on his own. Most (if not all) of his notability comes from Smosh. Unlike Anthony, Ian's career is wholly from Smosh. Just because one member breaks away does not mean the other member is notable by himself. Sekyaw (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One could argue that Anthony and Ian are both notable for the same reason. Also, if you think that Ian isn't notable enough, then why does Anthony get more attention? Both of them were involved in the same massive project for an extended period of time. The duo was once the biggest channel on YouTube, becoming the first channel to hit a bunch of milestones. Just because they went their separate ways, does that mean that one is less notable than the other? Especially the one that is still affiliated with the project that gave them their fame? --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I don't think either of them have done much to warrant their own article. But, in my opinion, Ian's case obviously doesn't warrant a solo article because his work his wholly from Smosh, thus it making reasonable for that info to stay on the Smosh article. Anthony has some news headlines that are about his work unrelated to Smosh that could back up the reason for a solo article. I can't say the same for Ian. Sekyaw (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Both founding members of Smosh are notable. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong support — high profile YT channel and person. 67.81.161.226 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on split. I really don't know Ian Hecox outside of Smosh as he was an employee of the channel for most of the time. I'm skeptical of the amount of coverage about Ian that would deviate from Smosh but could be convinced otherwise. Strong disagree for rename. Smosh as an entity was created by two people but was later bought and resold by different entities. It has also grown to encompass more than just the two founders, so we could migrate information if an Ian article comes to fruition but Smosh as a channel and brand deserves its own article. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support at this point it's clear Ian and Anthony are both vital in the history of online entertainment, considering the channel is not solely focused on them, it makes sense to separate them. GuzzyG (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regardless of wether Anthony gets his own article or not, this article should remain. Smosh as a channel, company, deserves an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smt42 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

This edit request to Smosh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change Sarah whittle and matthew raubs dates. They've both been in smosh considerably longer than 2019. 2015 I believe. Source is their videos and the smosh wiki. 2601:245:4201:D940:15D6:9839:7A78:3AC1 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Self-published sources and wikis are not reliable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh

ANHTONY DID NOT GET KICKED OUT HE QUIT . But please help me try to bring him back to smosh please 50.26.2.103 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many small grammar mistakes.

Can somebody change them? 173.206.20.230 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Members to its own article

The current list of cast members (both current and former) is already quite large, and is continuing to grow. For this reason, it seems that moving this list and timeline to a separate wikipedia article would help clean up this page, and allow more information about each member to be included. PopDisaster182 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

This edit request to Smosh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Anthony magically receiving control of Smosh somehow is hilariously inaccurate. 24.212.238.176 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

This edit request to Smosh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Near the end of the page about the current 2023 cast, I suggest changing “Hecox” to “Ian Hecox” because it better reflects the syntax of the sentence, since everyone else is fully named. Jeffthecreeper1 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please be more specific on which section you're referring to. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "List of Smosh cast members" back into this page

As it says in the title, I propose that this article be remerged into the main Smosh article. Currently the makes no sense in having a complete duplication of the "history" section on the main page, but when I removed this it was reinstated arguing that its removal renders the page too lacking to justify its own existence.

As a result there are two things as I see it:

A - Remerge and just put the tables and graphs back in the main page.

B - Delete the history section and actually justify the cast members page's existence by detailing more in regards to the cast with reliable sources. Apache287 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - Per WP:MOSLIST, articles about lists typically have an introductory lead that goes into the history of said list topic plus the general scope of what the list covers. It's not uncommon for lists to have lengthy intros of the topic, especially for featured lists (for example, List of Megadeth band members). The history section can be rewritten as a proper introduction that focuses more on the cast members themselves. As for notability, there are several articles that do discuss the Smosh cast both collectively and focusing on specific members, such as those from Polygon, Screen Rant, Tubefilter, The Daily Dot, Mashable, Insider, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. I do vote weak oppose however because not every cast member has been covered in reliable sources to justify their inclusion in the list (a good majority have though), which does bring some verifiability issues. I'm still looking for sources however so there may be more that exist. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point here though is the topic itself is so "small" in terms of its notability that essentially that "introductory lead" duplicates a good third of the main article, which outside of making it redundant also creates the already existing issue of having two different versions that aren't kept in sync. Either the cast page needs to only talk about the cast members (which you yourself don't appear happy with given the re-introducing of the entire history section) or we just keep the unique bits from it and put them back in this page. Apache287 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various featured lists, I've often found that they may often duplicate some info from their parent article in order to provide context of the topic itself, and that's a fairly inevitable aspect of lists. However, such lists also provide sufficient info about said topic that wouldn't necessarily fit into its parent article, and I believe this Smosh list qualifies as a valid split. Although I agree that some duplicated info should be rewritten and/or removed, the sources I provided go into detail on Smosh's cast history along with discussing the members themselves that can be expanded on in greater detail on the separate page. Instead of deleting, we can merely rewrite it to include info about the cast members that would otherwise bloat the already long Smosh page. For example, the Insider source discussing Mari's issues with mean comments, Daily Dot and Mashable discussing when Shayne, Keith and Courtney joined, Kotaku reporting Flitz's departure and so on. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually some duplication in the lead but the lead should be very simple and relevant to the matter at hand, so the lead of "band members of x" may share some similarities it shouldn't be a word for word history of the band itself. Apache287 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Opposition laid out by @PantheonRadiance. Another reason this page was created was to clean up the main page. As it stands right now, that page is an utter mess, and this was was created to help it look cleaner and organize a collection of information that other users seem very passionate about cataloging. Rather than keep a bloated collection of information on an already bloated page, it felt more reasonable to separate the two so that cast members can keep being listed in a way that is more organized and straight to the point (similar to the list of SNL cast members not being on that main page). PopDisaster182 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose seems fitting for its own page, and plenty of series have their own character pages if theres enough info whcih there seems to be here.Muur (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]