Talk:Bill Wurtz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bill Wurtz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

split into their own articles

The videos "history of japan" and "history of the entire world, i guess" should be split into their own articles. Although the first maybe should be titled "history of japan (video)" or "history of japan (Bill Wurtz video)" --I'm on day 4 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@I'm on day 4: We should not be too quick to create an article on a viral video. Many other videos have millions more views, yet are not deserving of a separate Wikipedia article. It is unnecessary to include wikilinks that redirect back to the article itself. We don't need the wikilinks until the articles are made (if we decide to make the articles). We should wait and see. For now, I think we should keep the videos contained in the Bill Wurtz article unless more sources are covering them and they grow considerably in notability. The articles would not be long anyways, and the content on the Bill Wurtz article is nowhere near too expansive or detailed. According to the template transclusion counter, there are only 10 articles using the Template:Infobox internet video, so many "viral" or popular videos are not given their own article.^[1] —TheAnonymousNerd^{(talk • contribs)} 00:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We could split those two videos out if their sections got too long, but seeing as both are only two lines right now, I don't see anything to worry about yet. ~Mable (chat) 12:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Give it some time. I'll check back later.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@I'm on day 4 and Maplestrip: It seems user I'm on day 4 has created the article history of the entire world, i guess without discussing here (the page was previously a redirect to Bill Wurtz. The split article tag was not removed either. I'm not sure if History of the entire world, I guess fits the notability criteria; there have only been about 10 sources covering the video (Google advanced search for exact title), and the amount content in the Bill Wurtz page is minimal, and in the video's article even less. I am not experienced with tagging / proposing article deletion. No consensus was agreed on whether or not to create the separate article in the first place, so is it favourable to remove the page's content and replace it with the original redirect? —TheAnonymousNerd^{(talk • contribs)} 01:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be considered separately notable, but as long as Bill Wurtz' article only describes the video in two sentences, there is no point in creating a new article. This is especially jarring because the article I'm on day 4 wrote doesn't even say anything the main article doesn't already say. I'll redirect it back to the main article ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 07:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Maplestrip: and think it should be made a new article if new content is added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper1931 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Since we're not going to be creating a separate article until more information is present, should we also remove the split section template? —TheAnonymousNerd^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the foreseeable future, then sure. Of course, people are always free to discuss the topic here. ~Mable (chat) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

^ "Jarry1250's Wikimedia Laboratory - Template transclusion count". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

Case?

Because bill wurtz spells his own name in all lowercase, shouldn't the article reflect this, as with e e cummings, bell hooks, or danah boyd? Sea Captain Cormac 23:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Good catch! I think we should follow sources for this one, rather than the Youtube username. I have only checked a few of them, but they all seem to use capitalization when naming Wurtz. I think we should follow suit. We could do the same as in E E Cummings article, though, noting that it is stylized as bill wurtz. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

He is pretty much known for using lower case but mainly on his website. I did note that he rarely uses capital letters on his site (sort of a trademark) although he uses caps in his videos. Should I source it because someone will probably delete it for vandalism or something. B-Movie Fan (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

History

Should I add history? Quite a few things happened on his website before history of Japan and history of the world B-Movie Fan (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Found a credible and sourceable article about Bill Wurtz

MEET BILL WURTZ, THE INTERNET MUSICAL GENIUS YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF, by Mel Magazine https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/meet-bill-wurtz-the-internet-musical-genius-youve-never-heard-of

Feel free to use this article to improve the bill wurtz page and provide it with more information.

BoatyKappa (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Outsider music

I don't think it's accurate to call Bill's work outsider music, but I don't want to remove the genre tag without discussing it first. Outsider music is generally by self-taught musicians, and considering Wurtz studied at Berklee and has a very technical composition style, it doesn't really fit. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Italicised or quotation marks?

Should "history of japan", history of the entire world, i guess, and "hi, i'm steve" be put in quotation marks ("example") or italicised (example)? It seems since they are short pieces of work, they should be put in quotation marks. — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought too. I think I'll change the article to use quotation marks. — Elliot Winkler 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Blank "Discography" section

As of now, the Discography section of the article is blank except for a link to a source. Work on this can be done in the Article's sandbox page. - Trg5503 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles don't have sandbox pages. PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 14:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Instruments

Bass guitar and drums should be added due to the fact that he clearly plays the instruments, and piano should be changed to keyboards for accuracy. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerhapsXarb (talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure go for it. Just don't add guitar, since he has multiple times denied that he is a guitar player on his questions page. BoatyKappa (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

New Bill Wurtz interview available

A great interview with Bill done by Mark Vigeant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3BrlAvG6fM It was originally livestreamed on Twitch, but since Twitch deletes VoDs after a certain time, it's best to use this youtube version.

In the interview bill talks about a lot of stuff that can be of interest for the improvement and expansion of this page. Please take a look! BoatyKappa (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Found yet another sourceable article on Bill Wurtz

Feel free to use this article to improve the page further. "How Bill Wurtz’s Videos Make the Internet a Better Place" https://www.okwhatever.org/topics/wtf/bill-wurtz-videos BoatyKappa (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Question search app instead of Ctrl+F

Someone on reddit made a tool that lets you search through all of Bill's answers to fan questions. Great tool to find sources! https://dbarthe.github.io/billwurtz-search/

BoatyKappa (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We wanna reduce our reliance of self published sources

This article is pretty awesome so far, I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. Especially like the style section, well written and has plenty of citations.

I just want to express my concern that we might be getting unhinged in our reliance on the questions page. It's a great and cheap resource, but I'm going to eventually work on - and I hope everyone else can tag along - on trying to get find and cite more writing that are secondary sources. It's important we have a balance of difference sources, would be great if we get this up to a standard for a Good Article. Not blaming anyone, I've used the questions page plenty myself, just want to set a goal.

Surprise Wurtz' interview with Bass Magazine hasn't been referenced yet? It was done in a print publication (and should be cited as such) but it can be read here https://outline.com/W2rCZM

Thank youuuu Derick1259 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Great job so far!

Great job on the article so far! I think we are pretty much caught up to the present, and we mostly only need to expand it when Bill Wurtz releases something new.

A couple of things though that could improve the article further:

1. Combining the two infoboxes? (musician / youtube)

This would make the info easier to read. Example of a good infobox here: https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dodie_Clark I'm sadly a novice when it comes to the technical aspects of the wikipedia layout, but it would be great if anyone could combine them/create a new better infobox.

2. Adding an image of Bill Wurtz in real life? For instance one of him at VidCon or the Shorty awards.

Again, I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to images on wikipedia (copyright and stuff). Could anyone help out with this or is it impossible without someone donating their photo copyright for public domain?

Thanks in advance! BoatyKappa (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'm feeling real confident about the state and future of this article. Infoboxes: I agree with this, even though this my fault! Would make the article a bit more readable. You suggest that it should be collapsed into the musician infobox and get rid of the YouTube one(?) Sounds good, it would be a good stride to make it clear that Wurtz is a musician and not a 'youtuber'. Adding an image of Bill Wurtz: This one is a bit difficult I'm afraid. I have perused flickr and the like for a bit and there are really beautiful pics of bill (esp at the shorty wards) but... they're not under a free license. We're going to have to go a little longer without bill's face, until someone releases a free licensed one. My hope is that when he starts touring there will be some good pictures (maybe I'll take one!). On the other hand, I could contact bill to see if he'd give permission for a pic of him. Worth a shot, maybe? Thank you. Derick1259 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the reply! BoatyKappa (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

oops

sorry, didn't mean to completely destroy everything. i don't know how to fix this. Billy rocky fernansa (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've reverted it. As a new user, you are very welcome to edit articles, Billy rocky fernansa, but the "infoboxes" are rich in code, and are perhaps best left alone until you have a little more experience. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

Comedy music(?)

There's been a recent edit by @St. Jimmy Jammy: to the infobox that puts his music down as 'comedy'. It's a perfectly good faith addition, and it's not unfound; the body of the article has sourced discussion over his 'comedic style'. I just wonder if it is placing undue emphasis by describing it as such in the infobox, I mean it hasn't been described as of the genre 'comedy' per se. Of course on the other hand, all genres are being treated with a grain of salt, with that one footnote noting Wurtz' lack of interest in genre names. So I'm not jumping on reverting it, I'm just wondering. I would like to point to one thing Wurtz' said on the questions page that refers to this article https://billwurtz.com/questions/q.php?date=201907071924 - I couldn't ascertain what it exactly means (if the questioner is lying, or the article was lying), but it was a source of concern for me. JAYFAX (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Never called him a comedian just said he makes songs with comedy lyrics and weird lyrics that are borderline comedy example being "I'm riding a pony, into the sunset..." (from: Mount St. Helens is about to Blow Up) St. Jimmy (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of his stuff may fall under deadpan comedy, maybe jingles such as "i hate myself" or "still a piece of garbage". Although this mainly applies to his non-song content. If focusing purely on his music output, the word "comedy" is not the first thing that comes to mind. Just my two cents. BoatyKappa (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes but he does make lots of comedic jokes and random refrences to things for absolutely no reason and/or for a joke in his songs. St. Jimmy (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Do the lyrics of I Am The Walrus make The Beatles a comedy troupe though? That was an example Bill used when asked about whether his music is "humorous" https://billwurtz.com/questions/q.php?date=201706211216 JAYFAX (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That was in refrence to the song-writing/flow of it not the lyrics I'm pretty sure St. Jimmy (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Bill is returning!

He recently posted on twitter and instagram. He hasn't done that in almost 2 years! Get ready for new content soon. He seems to have completed the Blender/Final Cut transition. BoatyKappa (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoatyKappa, He released a new video just now. The article needs to be updated to reflect this. FranchuFranchu (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoatyKappa I don't think this is the best place to post this SirKFCPepsi (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Documentaries?

Are "History of Japan" and "History of the Entire World, I Guess" documentaries? When I think of documentaries I think of long-form, live-video, narrated videos about topics backed by interviews and citations featuring experts. Bill Wurtz' videos don't fit this category, I don't think. I suppose you could call them animated comedy shorts but I think that's stretching it as well. Despite putting hours into them, Bill didn't intend them to be exhaustive and clearly doesn't take them that seriously — see the answer he gave which is quoted within the section on the video). Therefore, I don't think these videos should be italicized but should be quoted like the other videos. — Elliot Winkler 05:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mcmire: IIRC I was the one who wrote "documentaries", and now reading this, yeah I agree actually. Guess we can call them "videos". JAYFAX (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

date of birth?

i was thinking if we should add a date of birth to this article. should we add it? Billy rocky fernansa (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question, because it ought to go on record: absolutely not, I'm afraid. There needs to be very, very reliable sources that detail his birthday, and there are none currently. All there is out there on the web are a few dodgy content farm websites that make up a birthday for him. Even if he announced his birthday on the questions page, that cannot bed used that as a source, cause it could easily well be him joking/non-fictional, as he likes to do time-to-time. And of course, one shouldn't attempt to figure out his birthday by correlating all the stuff he said in the past. Even if such a result was credible it still must be confirmed with reliable sources. JAYFAX (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. Billy rocky fernansa (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

i'm not sure this would count as a completely reliable source, and you probably know about it already, but there is a reality page from dec 8 2013 where he's talking about getting older. what do you think? Toxicnapkin (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"William Wurtz"

Somebody keeps adding this as his real name but they don't have a source. Could they perhaps cease doing this until they have one? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir-Joshi01 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

there's this post on expert mode. It's a i'm not sure if a random picture on the website is the most concrete evidence, but it seems reasonable since there's no reason for him to lie about his name Toxicnapkin (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

His full name must be supported by a reliable secondary source. Key biographical details such as names, birthdays, etc, must strictly adhere to WP:BLP or be removed immediately. JAYFAX (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Toxicnapkin: Yeah. While it doesn't seem like a secondary reliable source has mentioned it yet, his PayPal account shows William Wurtz right above smaller text saying bill wurtz, despite nothing about the middle name James or the suffix II (two/2 written in Roman numerals being mentioned, and no I don't mean World War II 😂). Also, why would the image be upside-down, in four different text colors for each word, and have long spacing? The "II" part may be a typo of "III" or "I", or an unknown ancestor or offspring of the living public figure and Internet personality in question. The Bill Wurtz Wiki FANDOM page for a page with the same title lists it as a possible full name with the website as a source, but Wikipedia is not for stuff made up or a crystal ball. 209.52.88.130 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What source do we have on Bill starting out in the year 2000 in the infobox?

I have a feeling I read somewhere (possibly on his questions page?) that he indeed did start earlier but I can't find the source. Can anyone find it or should we change the infobox to say "2002-present" again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoatyKappa (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

found this, which is probably what @BoatyKappa is talking about.

though the reliability of the source is probably don't use it JacksonChen666 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested Move

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Not moved per WP:SNOW Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bill Wurtz → William Wurtz II – He has a dad and a son with the same name, also his real name is William, not Bill. 2600:1700:6180:6290:9DF4:436E:5E7F:66B (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to the title. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose (strongly) per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NICKNAME, MOS:LEGALNAME etc. He's EXCLUSIVELY known as (and referred to as) Bill Wurtz professionally. Can we speedy close this, per WP:SNOW? Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

revisitng the question on if History of the Entire World, I Guess should get it's own article

The video came out 5 years ago and I think now it's pretty safe to say that it's noteable and not just a flash in the pan viral video. It has many indapendant articles about it, it's frequanlty shown in schools, and it still is referenced and parodied all the time online. What does everyone here think LJFIN2 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What sources exist on it? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

it's been covered by The Insider, Scroll.in, The Verge, Variety, Vox, Mel Magazine plus Bill talked about the video in his interview on the H3 podcast. Personally I think that it warrents it's own article but I'm not sure if the admins would see it the same way LJFIN2 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone make a page about history of the entire world, i guess, please!

it is now necessary. nobody will stop asking. 71.60.239.210 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Fusion

Would it be fair to add Jazz Fusion to Bill's list of music genres? I think a significant portion of his work fits under the umbrella, with a lot of his music using aspects of Funk, Folk, and R&B. It's also how he's identified his own music in some (non-referencable) interviews on Youtube. Cerrathegreat (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We need a source for that. A video interview is better than nothing, but still unideal. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Wurtz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 04:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You can make a religion out of this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

no, don't. :) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It is done. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose reads smoothly. No typos spotted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section adequately summarizes article. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not overloaded with words from the WTW list. Fiction policy does not apply. Lists are correctly incorporated.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A reference section is available for attribution of referenced sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Since the Mashable articles are about their niche, pop culture, they can be used as a reliable source. OK Whatever is written by experienced journalists, and several other reliable magazines and websites (e.g. Gizmodo, The Verge, Vice, Variety, HuffPost, MEL Magazine, Polygon, Billboard, and Scroll.in) are used, not to mention the scholarly journal!
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is text-source integrity and, therefore, no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	According to the Earwig report, the top result is at a 31.5% similarity. However, that's a song list, and the rest of the results highlight small snippets of text from the source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Wurtz's career and musical style contain a great amount of important information.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not go off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article remains neutral. It does not try to form its own opinions for or against the artist.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The Bill Wurtz profile picture and the History of the Entire World, I Guess thumbnail are in the public domain due to it being made up of simple shapes. The History of Japan thumbnail, however, is non-free; it has a valid non-free use rationale as well.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Wurtz's profile picture is relevant, as it provides a clear symbol of his YouTube channel/internet personality. The thumbnail for the external video box helps depict information that cannot be conveyed in words alone.
	7. Overall assessment.	Oh hi, thanks for checking in... 🎵I'm still a piece of garbage!🎵

Quickfail?

Y Article is stable.
Y Earwig isn't a problem.
Y First GA review; no previous mistakes to note.
Y No valid cleanup banners or citation needed tags spotted.
Y Nothing severe to note.

Few things to note

Mashable's a bit of an iffy source to use. Per WP:MASHABLE, some articles may be sponsored content. I wouldn't consider using the source when other, more reliable sources could just as easily provide similar information.
- Online pop culture is within the niche of Mashable, so the source should be fine for its reviews of online videos. None of the articles cited are labelled as sponsored.
Never heard of OK Whatever. Is it reliable, considering how often it's used in the article?
- I also had never heard of it before working on this article. It appears to be a reliable source, even if it has a "weird" niche. According to the website's about page, OK Whatever was led by a writer who has worked for SFGate and The Los Angeles Times, and it has won a Webby Award. So it should be a good secondary source about Wurtz's career, but I was cautious not to cite it about his personal life.
Prose is a little choppy in the "public image" section
- I tried rewriting it a bit and moved a sentence to the "Career" section. I think it's better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Could have a sentence summary of his website
"animated video creator" -> "animator" or "music video creator"
- Done.
Distinctive what style?
- Rewritten to be more clear.
"which includes" -> "composed of"
- Text removed.
Cut "calm" (the word "deadpan" already implies that)
- Done.
Wurtz has published music and videos dating back to 2002. -> Wurtz has created music and videos since 2002.
- Done, but kept the word "published".
He proceeded to upload his videos on Vine, where he gained his initial popularity, and on YouTube. -> He uploaded his videos on Vine, where he gained popularity, and on YouTube.
- Done.
He experienced breakout success on YouTube with his animated videos, History of Japan (2016), and History of the Entire World, I Guess (2017), which both went viral and inspired internet memes. -> Two of his animated videos on YouTube, History of Japan (2016) and History of the Entire World, I Guess (2017), went viral and inspired internet memes.
- Done.
Follow-up point: Aren't video titles usually in quotes and not italicized?
- Perhaps, but MOS:TITLES doesn't specify, so I wasn't sure whether to change it.
  - The linked page considers videos, regardless of what medium they're released in, to be films. Therefore, they can be italicized.

Career

first song with vocals
- Done.
He released songs more frequently beginning in 2010. -> "In 2010, he began to release songs more frequently."
- Changed phrasing.
Cut "for his presence"
- Done.
where he ~~first~~ gained a following
- Done.
He began by taking short videos he had previously published to his website and re-editing them to fit Vine's six-second restriction. -> "He took his short videos he had previously published to his website and shortened them to fit Vine's six-second restriction."
- Changed phrasing.
"Before transitioning fully to YouTube" -> "Before fully moving to YouTube"
- Changed phrasing.
Would prefer if "In 2015" was first in the sentence
- Done.
At the awards ceremony, his acceptance speech consisted of the words "Thank you." - Don't really find this relevant (it's just a speech in my opinion, even if it's curt)
- I think it's worth including, since it's mentioned in a source about him, and it mentions his appearance at the ceremony rather than just the fact that he won the award.
- Also, I've added a second citation to show there's more coverage.
I assume January 16, 2016, was the last time Wurtz ever posted on Vine. Should that be mentioned?
- I don't think it's relevant, as no secondary sources mention the event of him leaving Vine.
on the advice of a friend to post content that was previously exclusive to his website. -> "...after a friend advised him to post content that was previously exclusive to his website."
- Done.
Two things for the "History of Japan" external videos box:
- One: Shouldn't it have a thumbnail like the one below it?
  - Added fair use media.
  - Just reminding you to update your review comment for criterion 6a to say that there's a fair use image.
- Two: Shouldn't we directly link to the YouTube video itself?
  - Makes sense. Done.
Didn't someone suggest him to make a video on the history of Japan?
- If that's true, I don't think it's important enough to include, unless you can find a secondary source.
It received considerable attention on Tumblr[3] and Reddit.[9] - Suggest putting both citations at the end of the sentence.
- Done.
Well-written section.
- Thanks.
~~spanning~~ from
- Done.
it became the most upvoted YouTube link - Couldn't we say "YouTube video"?
- "YouTube link" is the phrase used by the source, so I'll keep it.
"and was listed at eighth place" -> "and listed eighth"
- Not done, I think this phrasing sounds more natural.
Could merge the Post-History of the Entire World section
- I think it's better as two paragraphs, as the first paragraph focuses on YouTube videos.
Link absurdist humor?
- Done.
In 2018, Wurtz appeared on the H3 Podcast, his first significant interview. - Does this imply he had other interviews before this?
- The source describes it as "his first substantial interview". I changed the phrasing to "major" (as I guess there could hypothetically be an unknown one from ages ago).
Try a better word for "spawned"
- Done.

Style

~~The link for "absurdist" should be earlier~~
but it's not weird for weirdness' sake alone - Cut?
- I don't think I should cut it. I think the quote from the source describes how Wurtz's art is known as "weird", which is relevant.
Wurtz often follows patterns in his videos such as multi-layering, and clip art images. -> "In his videos, Wurtz often uses clip art images and multi-layering." (not sure if "multi-layering" is the correct term)
- Since "multi-layering" is cited only to an interview, I've removed the word and combined "clip art images" with the previous sentence.
and evolved naturally - ???
- Seems like a very rough paraphrase from the interview, so replaced with a direct quote. It might make sense to remove the sentence, but I'll leave it here unless someone disagrees.
"despite admitting" - Feel like this should be reworded in some way, but I'll keep it the same for now
- Rephrased and removed the word "enormous".
streams on music streaming services - "plays"?
- Sure.
promote ~~any of~~
- Done.
a devoted fanbase - Might be untrue (the article solely mentioning a subreddit doesn't really show me)
- The source described it like: "It’s a specific aesthetic—one that inspires devotion." I've changed the wording in the article to "online following", which might work better.
To save time, I've copyedited the article myself.

Website

Quote frame could better indicate who's answering the question (I tried doing it myself; not sure if that works)
- I've attributed it at the bottom of the quote box, and kept the original formatting of the quote itself.

Discography

I feel like the lists could be replaced with {{Track listing}}, but I don't think that's gonna help make the section look cleaner.
- Changed to table. I also think I could consider removing his songs that don't have videos, since they're less notable, but I've kept it like this because other articles list the artists' entire discographies.
Come to think of it, why isn't there any recent history in this article?
- Sources are lacking, unfortunately. The only broad overviews of his career are the articles from MEL Magazine and OK Whatever, which are dated. His more recent work is only mentioned sporadically, and mostly by independent reviewers that probably don't pass WP:RS. If you found any RSes about his work since 2019, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Spotchecking

Seven sources. This revision. Go!
#3 Y Y Y
#6 Y
#9 N (doesn't mention that it was popular on Vine) Y
- Changed the source for the Vine statement to MEL, and rephrased it to match the source.
#13 N (couldn't find any mention of Bill Wurtz or History of Japan anywhere on the page, do I have to download the PDF? if so, may you quote the text itself?)
- You should be able to download the PDF for free. The relevant quote is:
  "The video quickly went viral [...] and users on several social media sites began using quotes and images from the video in unrelated conversations. Noteworthy for its lack of any one single visual or verbal script to be remixed as most memes have, 'history of japan' became a flexible and relatively long-lived meme. One snippet of the video that lent itself very easily to use in various kinds of political talk was the phrase 'knock knock. it’s the United States.' [...]"
#22 Y
#25 Y N (technically says he is an absurdist YouTuber, rather than saying he has developed an absurdist style) Y
- Rephrased.
#29 N URL is inaccessible.
- The archive.org link is working. But I added another source anyway.

Ehh, why not

Since I have way too much free time on my hands, late nights don't count I'll be checking a commonly cited source.
- Thanks for putting in the work!
#8A: Y
#8B: Y
#8C: Y
#8D: Y
#8E: Y
#8F: Y
#8G: Y
#8H: Y
#8I: Y
#8J: Y
#8K: Y
#8L: Y
#8M: Y
#8N: Y
#8O: Y
#8P: Y
#8Q: Y - The actual quote is "verge on poetic", but you're not that far off.