Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of most-liked YouTube videos

This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of most liked YouTube videos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Create page with the following:
{{editnotice
| id = allornone
| header = Updating this list
| headerstyle = font-size: 120%;
| text = Please do not selectively update the numbers for individual videos; all like counts should be updated at the same time, as well as updating the "as of" date in the Lead section. Please update the access dates in the video's references as well.
| textstyle = background-color: #fee;
}}
This is very similar to that of the most disliked and most viewed pages. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Not controversial given the similar edit notices that already exist. ~ Rob^Talk 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of most liked YouTube videos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the last sentence in the text section of the Editnotice, Please update the access dates in the video's references as well., should be changed to Please do not update the access dates in the video's references.

According to this Wikipedia Category, "The |access-date= (or its alias, |accessdate=) is the date that the online resource addressed by |url= was added to the article." It is my understanding that the access dates should not change because the online resources are only added to the article once. They are not added to the article every time the like count is updated. MattStan10 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MattStan10: The thing is, it can be correctly assumed that YouTube links are permanent and will not change, so changing access dates is an appropriate action. I'd say it's an exception to the suggestion you cite. If the video simply goes away, then it should be removed from this list. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MattStan10 and Andy M. Wang: The like count being added to the article only existed on the exact date the article is updated because it constantly changes. In other words, the source is changing, even if it's at the same URL. It's as if we're removing one reference and replacing it with another that just happens to be at the same URL, which is why access dates should be updated. ~ Rob^Talk 05:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]