Talk:CGP Grey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section on his desire for anonymity

should this section be in or not? Please explain why you think yes or no.

Anonymity

He is very secretive about his appearance, often having his face blurred out or hidden when he appears in other people's videos. He also chooses to represent himself as a stickman with square glasses in his "thoughts from the screen" vlog-series. He has said that he "very highly" values his anonymity. He explains this by saying that he likes "being able to walk through the streets of London at night without being recognised and "not having my face in the videos forces me to me to concentrate much more on the visual side of an explanation for particular topic so I can't just shoot myself talking about it."

No. Article is about the channel. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinutePhysics and related channels to see how they are written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.224.169 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Creepers

In most of the videos that Grey does, he includes a hidden Creeper in the video game Minecraft. Should this be added in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredomJS (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. The edit I made was pretty messy, so feel free to alter it. 2.102.81.45 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

When I said 'alter' I did not mean 'remove completely'. Kindly notify me if you plan on deleting my work, or at least provide some justification. (The reason my I.P. address is different is that I made the first edit using my ipod.) 88.104.241.72 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your work was not deleted, it was relocated to the section above, where it was merged with existing text which overlapped with it. --SnorlaxMonster 07:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

I realise that the name is sourced to a news article, but i am unconvinced that it could be said to be his name as he has never stated it and has said multiple times that he values his privacy. Nor does the news article appear to have any source for the name, suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.140.138 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit to my own page with this comment: "I understand that people should limit editing their own pages, but I would like to prevent the use of my full name on the page to bring the article in alignment with the Wikipedia guideline on biographies of living persons." The section of the guidelines that I'm referring to is this one on privacy of personal information. --CGPGrey (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you state you don't want your full name on the page you can indeed remove it accoding to the guidelines for living persons. However i would like to point out that it will still be in the edit history of this page and since you are the person removing it it is likely people will still stumble upon it if they look through your edit history. The only way to prevent people from seing it is to hide all edits since the one that added your name. I know you are quite fond of your anonimity, so if you'd really like to do this you'll have to contact an administator (I would however like to warn you of the streisand effect). Amphicoelias (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the edit he made, and I would guess that he is aware of the complications involved in both using his personal initials whilst also remaining anonymous. Tis all good. –Quiddity (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the person who added his name. Sorry about that. Jinkinson (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be unhelpful to add that the use of his name falls into a Grey area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this appears to be being repeatedly added, would it be appropriate to add a hidden note that he has requested his full name not be published? --SnorlaxMonster 06:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, yes. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Internet

This article is about Grey's videos and to a much lesser extent Grey himself, so why does his HI podcast encompass more than half of the article? I understand that it is his podcast, but it also Brady Haran's podcast. They are collaborators on Hello Internet, yet there is no mention of the podcast on Haran's article. Any suggestions on what to do about this? Soulbust (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that Hello Internet had its own article, but was determined not to meet the notability requires for its own article so merged into this page. (Not that I think it is good the way it is now, but that's why it is that way.) I agree that it is not formatted very well at the moment, and the podcast should also be mentioned on Brady Haran's article. --SnorlaxMonster 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

An image of his face, spoiler alert.

Grey made a live appearance last month. We have an image of him at the event. He has held back on publishing images of himself so far. There are fans that have gone out to look for images of him, and regretted it.[4]. I don't think it would be prudent to post this image of him onto his wikipedia page. If there is some way of initially hiding the image, like was proposed for graphical content, that would be best I think. --1Veertje (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Were it up to me I would leave the photo off the page entirely and bring back to logo image. CGPGrey (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't why we can't respect the subject's anonymity in this case (for certain interpretations of "subject" - the article is currently written as if the title refers to the YouTube channel, though whether that continues to be appropriate as the HI section gets larger is a debate for another time). I don't understand the line of reasoning "I don't think it would be prudent to post this image. [...] If there is some way of initially hiding the image, [...] that would be best" - hidden content is still included content. I have restored the logo. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can respect this wish. We already keep your name off the page, don't think keeping a live photo off is any more of a stretch. I will see to it left off. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Video References

It seems inconsistent what we are using for references. Shouldn't we just point to youtube itself like we do for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly. I understand that independent sources are important, but here we're citing, basically, that the video exists, along with basic information like title, right?. I'd think the actual video's URL would be much more effective for this purpose than waiting for a 3rd party (or in some cases currently, the content creator himself) to write a separate blog post or article about it... --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Independent source is needed because the video might get removed from the channel. Of course, it's very unlikely, but is possible. Why not have both a link to youtube and to independent source for every video? I don't know if it will violate WP:LINKFARM or not. — andrybak (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a list at all? Sam Walton (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was a no primary sources principle? There a lot of youtubers who have had there pages deleted for this issue. 131.227.165.186 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Article title

As 192.43.244.42 pointed out, this article is about the channel, not the person. For this reason, the article title should be "CGP Grey", instead of "C. G. P. Grey". The periods and spaces seem to be vestigial elements, from when the article was about the person, not the channel. User:Robsinden most recently moved this article to its current state, citing "per our MOS and per official website", though the official website is about C. G. P. Grey the person, and not CGP Grey the channel. The channel (and related branding) goes by "CGP Grey", so the article title should reflect that. If no one has anything to say about this, I'll move the article to CGP Grey in a few days. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If this article is about the channel then the whole "Podcasts" section would need to be deleted. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is quite clearly primarily about the channel. (Hence, the introductory sentence is "C. G. P. Grey is an eponymous YouTube channel featuring short explanatory videos." Judging by the article's form, it prioritizes the channel.) If framed explicitly and unambiguously, it can still include information on the creator's other work and related projects (similar to Mega64). If the title isn't changed, the contents should be changed, and the article should be made biographical. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that was my point, that maybe the article should be repurposed into a biography so it's inclusive of all his works. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's really about both the person and the channel (or "brand" as suggested above). The person and the content he produces are more or less inseparable, and attempting to treat the article strictly as one or the other just causes endless agonizing over these very issues - it's a grey area (see what I did there?). And even if we discuss the person first, why can't we use the channel/brand's puntuation-less name (per WP:COMMONNAME) anyway? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. The brand clearly transcends the Youtube channel (Grey uses it on Hello Internet, etc.), so the article can be a biography, while maintaining the common, punctuation-less name. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• If it is about the individual, then WP:SPACEINITS applies. I guess if it isn't about the person, then it doesn't. It does seem to be more about the contributor than anything else though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Article not moved

As the article stood, it was formatted to center on the channel, not the person. I've now gone and rephrased/reformatted things to turn it more biographical; however, the following issues have arisen:

• There is little sourced information regarding the person (due to a lack of third-party coverage). Some details (such as his degrees, career as a teacher, and Irish citizenship) are publicly available, but only from primary sources. Whether this is due to a lack of notability, or his refusal to be interviewed, is debatable; if anyone can find a third party source, they're free to add a "Personal life" section.
• The preferred article title could be argued to be "CGP Grey" (as per per WP:COMMONNAME and the above notes on branding).
• I've moved the CGP Grey (channel) infobox down to the "videos" section, causing some spilling over to the next section. Ideally, that can be ironed out with future content.

—Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of videos

Should the list of videos exist in its current form, or should the more notable ones be cherry-picked and made into prose? By "more notable" I merely mean the ones that have a significant amount of coverage (yes I know almost all do, but more significant). I'm more than happy to write it up myself, I just didn't fell like I had enough boldness in me to write something that may be discarded. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't have both. There's already a bit of prosaic coverage in the article, so expanding it should be fine. However, I don't think the current autocollapse table takes up enough space to warrant removal. I can understand removing it if the lack of references is a problem. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Internet

I know that the section is here because the content was merged rather than deleted, but I find it quite inappropriate to put the Hello Internet content solely on this article. Hello Internet is a collaboration between CGP Grey and Brady Haran, not a project by CGP Grey that features Brady Haran. It's certainly a good idea to mention Grey's contributions to the podcast here, but I really don't think the primary destination for Hello Internet should be this article. If it doesn't meet notability requirements for its own article, then it shouldn't try and continue to try to be a pseudo-article here. --SnorlaxMonster 15:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a collaboration, but it is (or was?) produced almost entirely by Grey, wasn't it? I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate article for it, but I think it makes more sense to have it here than remove it entirely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It definitely isn't yet covered in enough reliable sources to warrant its own article. As a listener of the podcast I've been interested in writing some content on it, but honestly have hardly found any coverage at all, so I'm not sure it even belongs here at the moment. Sam Walton (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the podcast is indeed edited by just CGP grey CR055H41RZ (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's important to notice, however, that there (probably) is a legal contract binding the to parts ( CGP Grey and Brady Haran ) to the project and dividing the rights and income to them somewhat equally. This is not confirmed facts, however it has been hinted to several times during the podcast.

--ElleExtreme (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Internet

This has to be it's own article, it makes no sense at all to put it there. Brady Haran is as important to the podcast as his CGPGrey. It's very arbitrary to put in on Grey's page rather than his. This is confusing. You did that because it's Grey who edits it? Since when is that the criterion?

Now, there's no problem of notability as the podcast has been mentioned on many outlets, including Slate, BBC News, Tech Times and Tech Crunch. It was nominated for a Podcast Award.

Podcasts similar or lesser in their outreach and notability already have their own articles : 99% Invisible, Stuff You Should Know, Reply All, Grammar Girl, Song Exploder, etc, etc.

There's no reason to keep it as it is. There's a ton of stuff to say about HI and it would make a great article on it's own.

Docteur (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, especially since there has been a legal agreement on the co-owned rights of the podcast by the parts, C.G.P Grey and Brady Haran. The podcast is now also reaching enough significance (as mentioned in the article) that I find it relevant to separate it from the respective YouTube channels. This agrument is reinforced by them being different mediums, and it, through the podcast, has been confirmed that there are exclusive audiences to both. --ElleExtreme (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are sufficient to establish the podcast's notablity; they're all mere mentions of it. I'm not even sure it should have such a big section here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Outing Grey, again

@Moonsprite: Welcome to WP:BRD. You've been entirely too bold and I've reverted you. Grey doesn't want to be identified. While you may think you're improving the article, I don't think it's worth causing headaches for others. We need to come to consensus about this before this sort of information can be added. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Grey went to a public event called Random Acts of Intelligence where did a meet and greet with his fans, signed stuff, and took pictures with them and willingly let his pictures be taken. That doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who wants their "identity hidden." Some of those pictures are in the public domain now and on Wikipedia. What right do you have to say those pictures aren't allowed to be put here? Someone who "doesn't want to be identified" wouldn't go to a public event and get pictures taken. There is no reason his identity should be a secret anymore. Moonsprite (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Be caused he asked for it and WP:BLP says we should honor this request. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

When did he ask for it? Can I get a any source at all for that after his appearance at Random Acts of Intelligence? Moonsprite (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While I have made and will continue to make occasional public appearances I would still prefer to not have my full name and photo on the Wiki page. Obviously that's not something that I can enforce, it's just something I would like to request. On social media and on my website and in my podcasts I've never posted my photo or intentionally listed my full name. --CGPGrey (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

CGP Grey has been noted to be a professional flag critic. This should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. 208.82.157.102 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: oh boy. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But in all seriousness: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

I previously edited this page poorly. I have revised what I be believe should be put in, this should be included in the hello internet section as the flag rebellion is a growing topic on the podcast and some background knowledge (that new listeners may not have) is required to understand parts of the show. I also think, although less necessary there should be a picture of the flag in the section. Even if you do not use what I have written it would be wise to include a section. Anyway here it is:

The Flag Rebellion The flag rebellion or the fight for the alleged one true flag, is the campaign to get the "Flaggy Flag" design officially recognised as the flag of the Hello Internet podcast. The main cause of rebellion is that many support what one co host said: flaggy flag is more old fashioned and traditional - Brady Haran[1], so it would suit the podcast that often talks about flags. It is also said to have a more professional appearance than the so-called cheap design of "Nail and Gear" flag - these are some of the points presented by the people of the rebellion, and are to be viewed with that in mind. History of Flaggy Flag: It was originally designed and put on the HI subreddit then was later put on the flag shortlist only to come in a second. However that was not the end, the flag latter went on to become the center of the rebellion.

[1] = http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/53

Omnicidal Coffee (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a trivial joke feud for entertainment purposes and not necessary to include. How would we reference it? Have reliable sources covered it? How can a podcast have a "rebellion" anyway? In short, including this would be fancruft. Then, of course, note that this is not even an article primarily about the podcast making it even less relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Separate the Hello Internet page and the CGP Grey page, so that Hello Internet no longer directly links here. This will allow the creation of a specific page for the podcast Hello Internet, as per the request of CGP Grey in his most recent Podcast. TheJoKr88 (talk)theJokr88 TheJoKr88 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That isn't for him to decide although I do think that it is a reasonable suggestion. I would not not want to see the split article become a place to dump fancruft though. Lets see what other people think. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Internet decided in 2014 that the opposite should be done. BethNaught (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there is significant additional RS coverage since then then I guess this could be revisited but the onus is on anybody suggesting the split to demonstrate this. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It has already been established that the podcast is notable enough : Slate, BBC News, Tech Times and Tech Crunch. It was nominated for a Podcast Award. It was talked about in many major outlets, especially after the term freebooting was coined. You people just hate podcasts for some reason. Docteur (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to overturn the AFD decision, try WP:DRV. BethNaught (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That page says "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first." Docteur (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Docteur: The articles in Slate and BBC News are about freebooting with only passing mentions of the podcast as relates to Brady. The other links don't look like WP:RS to me so you have zero sources for your assertions. Honestly, this sort of work, if done at all, needs to be done by dedicated Wikipedians, not by drive-by partisans. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Look... Take a step back. You may be wrong here. Why are the same rigorous standards not applied to all of these? How many of those have been mentioned by the BBC? Why does the most similar podcast, Dear Hank and John, deserve it's own page but not Hello Internet? Docteur (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a valid rationale. Dear Hank & John probably ought to be deleted, too. Go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Make sure you can explain why. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's delete all articles on podcasts except for This American Life and Serial. That's very fair for the millions of people who use the medium. This brings us back to the obvious problem which is that your rules are not appropriately adapted for Podcasts. This should be all the evidence you need to realize that you're talking about a significant cultural product with a massive following. You would never apply this level of scrutiny to a radio show, even with a much smaller audience and less impact. For a podcast somehow having an audience, being talked about in newspapers and nominated for an award is not enough. Docteur (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Docteur: we have not got no content on Wikipedia about HI, it has merely been decided that it does not at this time merit its own article. To have its own article it would need to pass either WP:GNG or the more specific guideline WP:WEBCRIT. This requires that it has been the subject of multiple independent published works, not just mentioned in them. You say that we wouldn't apply this level of scrutiny to a radio show, but we certainly would, and it would be even less likely to survive an AFD as information about it is less online focused, which means that a casual search would show up less. It is a feature of the podcasting culture that they tend not to attract reviews, which are what is often used to justify notability for similar media (such as film or music). Basically, people don't tend to write about podcasts, so (due to the way Wikipedia selects content) neither does Wikipedia. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but this system of selecting content has very strong community consensus, so some people may take some convincing that an exception should be made. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Then most of this page would have to go. And you can't change the basic rules of logic by citing a WP. If X is good and Y is the same as X, than Y is good. So either entire categories of articles have to be almost wiped out or HI is indeed notable after three years. Docteur (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As Chris troutman said above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a useful argument when discussing inclusion decisions: it is possible that many of those wouldn't survive an AFD. A very quick look shows me that many of those articles are very old, which is an explanation for their initial creation. Additionally, many of them are tagged as possibly not notable too. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to list several notable sources for hellointernet that might justify it's own entry that were not considered or were not available at the time of the decision to merge the article with CGP Grey's article. The facebook issue: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34106475 (note: also references coinage of term 'freebooting') and http://www.techtimes.com/articles/80747/20150831/facebook-piracy-video-fullscreen-youtube-content.htm. The AdBlock issue: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2014/09/30/ad-blocking-software-and-game-theory/. In the news: http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/relay-fm-and-the-podcast-renaissance-that-never-was/. The Flag Referendum: http://www.instructables.com/id/Carving-and-Framing-the-Nail-and-Gears-of-Hello-In/ (not the best reference). Notable published recommendation by respectable agency: http://mentalfloss.com/article/60640/15-podcasts-extremely-specific-kinds-nerds.

At the very least the bbc, cornell, and techtimes articles are beyond reproach for credible sources. 76.119.11.41 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the BBC and Techtimes articles only makes passing mentions of the podcast. The Cornell page appears to be some kind of blog (unreliable), TechCrunch only mentions the podcast, Instructables doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and mental_floss may be reliable, but a single article with a section on it doesn't make the podcast notable. Sam Walton (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: The BBC mention is NOT trivial! It refers to the podcast as the source of the word describing the main topic of the article. It's not a detail of the story! Look at WP:notability. Docteur (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, these sources aren't about HI, they refer to it. They are fine for verifiability, but not notability which is the thing that we need. The only one that is the right sort of thing is [5], which is very minor coverage of the right type. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: The one source you accept says "For me, this is the best new podcast of 2014." Yet this is "minor"?? You simply can't admit that you've made a mistake. And it's not even a mistake, it's just that things have changed in two years.Docteur (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: That's exactly the point! Those articles are still there and Hello Internet isn't! How do you not see this? It's very frustrating to argue with someone who acts as if they were completely immune to logic. Hello Internet is a successful podcast by all standards in which someone would measure what a successful podcast is. A successful podcast is obviously something notable. Stop quoting arbitrary web pages and think for a second. Docteur (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Docteur: I'm not sure you understand the basis of my argument. On Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus, and the actions taken by individual editors (such as myself) should reflect consensus rather than individual opinions. If you honestly think that my arguments are invalid and that it is likely that community consensus will be to accept an article on HI, you are free to create a draft article and then submit it to articles for creation, where independent editors will review its suitability for inclusion. I don't deny that I could be wrong: I've been wrong before and I'm sure I'll be wrong in the future, but in this instance I am not seeing sufficient coverage for an article to pass WP:GNG, and notability is a core guideline for inclusion. Additionally, from WP:N: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". In my honest opinion, I think the standards for notability are sometimes too stringent, but that won't change how the community at large considers an article. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded harsh, I just find the whole thing infuriating Docteur (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The way Wikipedia works is a little odd at first, with a load of guidelines (Category:Wikipedia guidelines) and a few seemingly counter-intuitive ideas such as WP:VNT and WP:IAR. If you want to get an idea of how the rules are implemented, spend some time looking around at WP:AFD. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, the mention of Hello internet should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_Internet I would also remove the link on the word "podcast" to not have two links one after the other.74.15.150.237 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Done —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Person or channel?

I think it would be better to make this article about the youtube channel, not the person. I get why Vi Hart would be about the person and not the youtube channel. We actually know something about the person and she is known for other things than the youtube stuff. But here that's just not the case. It would be like making an article about Henry Reich, only known for minutephysics.

I'd hapily make the needed changes. I just didn't want to do it without consensus from the rest of the contributors. Amphicoelias (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The CGPGrey channel is the notable thing, not the person C. G. P. Grey --192.43.244.42 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

However, his podcasts are also notable and are referenced in this article. If this article is just about the channel, those sections should be removed. UpperJeans (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This original discussion from 2013 has resurfaced on this page again: Clarification: Is this about the person or the channel?, where you commented also. I think that this article should be about the online personality know as CGP Grey, outlining his work on YouTube and Podcasts. If he continues to make appearances in the real world it could be argued that he is no longer trying to remain an "online only" personality and it could just cover the person, which brings up the WP:NBIO question. ~ Ablaze (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: Is this about the person or the channel?

All the information in this Talk page clearly indicates that this article is about the CGPGrey YouTube channel, not C. G. P. Grey the person, as C. G. P. Grey does not meet the notability requirements for an article about himself (?). If that is indeed still that case, this article is in need to some major reworking to refocus it on the channel. I'm happy to do some of the work, but I don't want to make a unilateral decision on the content of the article. Gk007 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I would assume that this article is referring to neither, but his online presence. Since, it references much more than his YouTube videos, the article can't solely be about his YouTube channel. However, it also barely mentions anything about Grey that is unrelated to his online presence. UpperJeans (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comment above on Person or channel?~ Ablaze (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Mention of CGPGrey2. Also, CGP_Grey.

Is it noteworthy enough to perhaps include a mention to CGP Grey's alt channel, CGPGrey2? There isn't much significance, but he does have a large viewership on the videos he posts there. I think it could belong in the Infobox to contain its statistics and URL link in YouTube information section.

Somewhat unrelated to my first point, CGP Grey is used on the article to refer to the person, while CGPGrey is used to refer to the YouTube channel name. However, his current YouTube channel is CGP Grey with a space between CGP and Grey. Looking back at his channel's name (using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine) it shows that it was formerly called C.G.P. Grey in October 2013, became CGPGrey on around 2 November 2013, and then was switched to CGP Grey on around 11 November 2013, remaining with a space ever since. I think that the instances of CGPGrey in the article be switched to CGP Grey to correctly match his channel's display name. Side note: the channel banner features C. G. P. Grey throughout all the channel name changes.

I'm just hesitant to make the edits until I get some agreement or consensus; I don't want to get other editors upset. —TheAnonymousNerd ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheAnonymousNerd: I have fixed the YouTube channel display name. --ArniDagur (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

CGPPlay and CGPGrey2 livestreaming

Looking at the recent edits, we will probably need to include some information about Grey's livestreaming (which was not listed on here until he streamed a couple of days ago). The header says he livestreams under the channel "CGPPlay". However, there are only 3 videos on CGPPlay and I was wondering how often he actually streams on there. His two most recent streams were on CGPGrey2 so perhaps that should replace "CGPPlay" in the lead section.

CGPPlay on YouTube and CGPGrey2 on YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAnonymousNerd (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Vice-host"

This "vice-host" joke is getting disruptive. We can't write the article in made up words as the readers won't know what we are talking about and that defeats the point of having an article, or indeed an encyclopaedia. This is not about our egos or preferences, we have to write what the readers will find comprehensible and informative. In this case the word "cohost" could simply be omitted. We could explain this "vice-host" joke very briefly (and I do mean literally only one short sentence) in the HI article but I don't see any point in having it here. As for the claim that it is somehow an "official" title that we are bound to follow... What can I say? Go look up "official" in a dictionary maybe?

Also, I would like to reiterate that some HI fans risk writing such nonsense that they risk making Grey, Haran and HI look stupid. We really do not want to make them look stupid, or to do anything to damage their reputations, so this nonsense has to be removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Name, Again

This article is about both the person and channel, and he is a somewhat public figure (in that he has done meet & greets, was/is a teacher [he even said his students knew about his channel in at least one episode], etc. and so secrecy isn't key to his persona like it is for Banksy.) His name is easily found in a reliable source by looking at the UK business registrations for "Grey Industries Limited" and "Hello Internet LLP" (redacted). His name is redacted Grey and he was born in April 1981. I see no reason why this shouldn't be included in a biography about him. Coinmanj (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the name and URL from your comment but left the rest unchanged. For anybody who is wondering, yes, it does seem to confirm what Coinmanj says.

He has asked us to keep his full name out and, as yet, there is no good reason not to agree to this. After all, for public purposes CGP Grey is his name and he is not the sort of major public figure where anonymity would be untenable. You mention Banksy who is a major internationally known artist and yet remains anonymous. It isn't a big deal. Banksy is Banksy. The real name is just a background detail. I suspect people only find it interesting because it is withheld. How much do we gain from knowing, say, PewDiePie's real name? PewDiePie is PewDiePie. Arguably, it says more about him than his real name as it is a name he chose.

So, your links do confirm that the name people have added in the past is genuine. I had wondered about that. He let it slip in one of his videos where it was shown in an animation as part of an email he was quoting from. I did wonder if he had done that deliberately, using a fake name, as a joke but I doubt that one jokes in legally mandated business filings. As these filings are legally mandated I don't think we can count these as him voluntarily surrendering his anonymity.

So when would we say that the real name should be used? I'm afraid that I don't have a definitive answer to that but let me give a couple of suggestions:

• Were Grey ever to become separately notable under his real name then we would have to link the two names to cover it properly.
• Were mainstream, reliable sources to take an interest in him or HI and publish the full name then anonymity would be completely out of the bag and we would give the full name using that coverage as a reference.

So I say we keep it out for now. If nothing else it might help to prove to the Tims that we do respect him and that Wikipedia deserves their respect too.

That said, if there is a reliable reference we can use for him being born in 1981 which does not have the full name on it then I think putting they year of birth in the article is acceptable. I'd be much less keen for us to include the full birthdate. That said, I can't find one. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious, when/where did he specifically ask Wikipedia to not publish his name? Because absent that, I really don't understand the point of not having it. It's a perfectly legitimate biographical detail (along with all of the others in the article). Coinmanj (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the full details but I understand that he requested it to be removed through the official channels. I don't have access to that stuff, only the administrators do, but you can see him making a similar request here: diff --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Coinmanj (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under the 'Hello Internet' section: "As of August 2017, Brady suggested the podcast's listenership had increased to 900,000 downloads per episode."

Citation: "Haran, Brady; Grey, CGP (2017-08-24). "Banana Republic". Hello Internet (Podcast). Hellointernet.fm. Retrieved 2017-09-26." Scboon (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Could you please provide a time stamp so that readers don't have to listen to the whole podcast to verify the statement? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation Timestamp: 1:09:40 Scboon (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. After listening to Haran's statement, it sounds to me like the "900,000" was an off-the-cuff guess, not intended to be taken as a precise estimate of the podcast's listenership. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

The order of the professions that CGP Gray is involved in should be changed tow where Podcasting comes before youtuber. Granticus96 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The request really is a minor edit; however it seems that YouTube is what this person is best known for, so it makes more sense to me that that comes first. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

voting system used for hello internet flag vote was "Instant-runoff" not "Single transferable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent114 (talk • contribs) 10:10, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Order of "Podcaster" and "Youtuber" Comment

@174.96.120.62: If you want to change up the order, try gaining consensus here first. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it should stay as YouTuber before podcaster. Grey may produce more podcast episodes than YouTube videos or spend more of his time on podcasting, but he is far more notable for his YouTube videos. --IagoQnsi (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

+1 to above. Vermont (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Internet, here is a straw poll to decide the first line: http://www.strawpoll.me/15622852/r (If this is against wiki rules or there is a proper way to do this on wikipedia - please message me) Mindi Crayon (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to use some external polling site. See WP:Consensus for how decisions are made on Wikipedia. (By the way, I agree with IagoQnsi and Vermont—the subject is notable for being a YouTuber, not for being a podcaster, so it makes sense to put YouTube first in the lead.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

Added vlogger according to a newly posted video. 07h3rw153 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-Free Image in Infobox

@CGPGrey: Hey! I was wondering if you would be willing to upload an image like the one in the info box and license it is a way compatible with wikipedia. Obviously isn't a big deal, but figured I would ask rather than just continuing to use that image without an appropriate license. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@CGPGrey: To elaborate on the above, currently the stick figure image is used under fair use, which a small few of the Wikipedia communities (mainly en.wikipedia.org) have opted into allowing. However, in order for the image to be allowed on other pages and Wikipedia language editions (e.g. Dutch and German Wikipedia) it must be released by the copyright holder under a free license. If you wish to do so, the easiest way would be for you to upload this image, or another image of your choosing, through Commons Upload Wizard. Alternatively, you could e-mail your permission and we will handle the rest. --Krinkle (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Standard.tv

i would like to raise awareness to the wikipedia community of a new business that cgp grey is involved in.

he is a founding member of Standard.tv .

I don't know how to include this in the article, but i thought that someone with more experience would be able to add it into the page.

thanks

[[User:Rachael M 94|] (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachael M 94, if you know of some quality reliable sources that has covered it, we can work on adding it. But if no one has been covering it, especially CGPGrey's involvement, it is WP:TOOSOON {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

zchrykng the page that i linked to - standard.tv/pages/about is a source from the company which mentions cgp grey as a founding member. Is this enough? The website also sells Hello Internet merch, as well as merch from a bunch of other podcasts/ youtubers that it represents, so I don't think it can be fake.

but I understand, since there's no external websites that talk about it, it is very easy to doubt.

[[User:Rachael M 94|] (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachael M 94, it isn't about doubt. I'm sure that he is part of the company. But wikipedia policy requires reliable sources that are preferably independant. Unfortunately, company websites don't qualify for most things. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Taking a step back"

I've added a sentence to report that CGP Grey appears to be taking a break from internet production. Pity. I do hope he returns. Tony (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, User:Tony1. I am a bit unsure here as you are a far more experienced editor than I am, but are you sure he is taking a break from production as well as consumption of internet content? From his podcasts I had understood that he was explicitly only ending consumption, although those are also just primary sources. If it is true he is taking a break, I too am much saddened. Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

From listening to him, it sounded like he was only taking a break from consumption not production. The lack of videos would probably just be his normal slow production cycle. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

I wish to update the statistics, in particular: CGP Grey: 405 Million View - 407 Million Views CGP Play : 389,000 views to 390,000 views Muffington (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bradv🍁 05:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

Change "The podcast has an "official" flag ..." to "The podcast has an official flag...", as it is referred to as 'official flag' (without quotes) in several other articles, and in another spot in this same article. FiliusBonacci (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@FiliusBonacci:  Done per WP:SCAREQUOTES. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

I wish to update the statistics, in particular: CGP Grey : 405 Million View - 407 Million Views

CGP Play : 389,000 views to 390,000 views Muffington (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Potential reference

Given the BLP primary sources tag at the top of the article, perhaps this Independent article[6] could be added as a reference? --58.8.168.152 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning! That article contains a CGPGrey name spoiler! --IngenieroLoco (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Image

@CGPGrey: Could you please license File:CGP Grey stick figure.png under CC-BY-4.0? It's starting to become a problem since the file is not technically free to use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I also want to discuss if the current usage is truly unacceptable. Genuine question, where is the policy that does not allow non-free images to be used as an identifying picture, and what are the exceptions you mention? The WP:NFCC seem to be entirely fulfilled, hence why I reverted it in the first place. I apologize if I am entirely in the wrong, but I want to be sure before we get rid of an an image that has served the article well for quite a long time now (and has not been contested by the copyright holder who is semi-active on Wikipedia). Also pinging the uploader of the image, IagoQnsi and MJL who seems interested in this topic. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living persons are the paradigm of replaceable images barred by NFCC#1, and are explicitly cited as such in the governing WMF policy resolution, as well as applicable en-Wiki policy pages.. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

However, this is not an image of a living person, it is a representation of this person. And to quote the rational from the photo: CGP Grey is known almost exclusively known by his stick figure representation, which is copyrighted by him, so a freely licensed version couldn't exist. A freely-licensed photograph of Grey could be used, but it would not be illustrative in the same way that this image is (because he very rarely shows his face publicly), and it would also violate Grey's request for privacy on the talk page. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with with our nonfree content policy. If this isn't an image of the subject, it doesn't identify him and doesn't belong in the infobox. And this isn't really a privacy issue, but one involving the desire of a public figure to exercise control over the public image, which is not a concern recognized by Wikipedia policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cerebral726: Grey is not all that active on Wikipedia anymore. The simplest solution would be for him to just license this one awfully specific photo for free use. CGP Grey, the subject of the article, is almost exclusively depicted as this exact sick figure (therefore, identifying the subject). Without the logo, I am pretty confident that this image would be considered a {{PD-shape}}. I also think that the logo, by itself, could qualify as that as well.. but both together seem to be enough creative content there to copyright. Regardless...
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I think this pretty clearly qualifies as WP:NFCCP#8. There's longstanding consensus against including the image face of Grey per WP:BLP concerns, so let's not get into that debate again. If this is simply a question of whether or not the image should stay, then I say yes since that is the image fans and the public know him by. To give a rather crude example, the stick figure adequately depicts Grey as much as the self-portrait of Vincent van Gogh. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the image should stay. The reason non-free images aren't usually allowed for living people is that a free photograph could be created which would be able to replace a non-free photograph. But here we're not talking about a non-free photograph—we're talking about a non-free stick figure drawing. The possibility of creating a free photograph is irrelevant (in fact, free photographs are already on Commons)—the issue is that a photograph is not an appropriate or adequate representation in this particular article, for reasons that have been mentioned in previous discussions on this talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Please stop edit-warring. You are the only one here arguing that the image violates NFCC. As I just explained, the image meets NFCC#1 because a photograph would not be an adequate representation of this subject. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus here is to include the image, and the one dissenting user is not responding here on the talk page, so I'll restore the image to the article. If anyone disagrees, please address the points that have been made and gain consensus before removing it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A local consensus established here on this talk page cannot really override a policy like WP:NFCC. While I think both sides have made some valid points, I also think that the best place to try and resolve this is likely going to be at WP:FFD since that's a community-wide noticeboard and whatever consensus is established there is going to carry more weight. The file should, at least in my opinion, stay in the article until an admin removes it either per WP:F7 or WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

After being speedy deleted, the image has now been restored and WP:FFDed: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22 Ionmars10 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Never mind, he doesn't want his full name on Wikipedia.24jiang14 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

24jiang14, if you change your mind you can just exit out of the window to cancel the edit. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Update CGP Grey channel views from 470 million to 533 million per https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/about. Giraffer (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: YouTuber or content creator

Grey uploads his content on YouTube and also distributes it via rss. Won’t it be more appropriate to call him a content creator than a YouTuber then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesidhantgoyal (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Content creator is a very unspecific term – video creator would be better but Wikipedia does not have an article on that. If I had a YouTube channel, I would not call myself a YouTuber (because the type of content produced is more important than the platform) but the media does. I don’t think the article should be changed. —Dexxor (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of content creators, in the Youtube Information box called associated acts, I feel like it is the wrong word. Associated creators, or associated content creators would be better. - Chavoryn, Nov 16 2020

That name comes from the template {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. You should propose your change there. Keep in mind that the template is used in many articles and needs to have generic names. —Dexxor (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I see. If it's a generic template used for many personalities, then I don't think it's a problem. - Chavoryn Nov 19 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.223.194 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Photo

CGP Grey has revealed his face, and I think it would be appropriate to put a photo of his face in the article, but I wanted to hear input from others. Ethan Parmet (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus in previous discussions has been not to include the photo, as the stick figure is a better illustration and the subject has expressed a wish not to have his photo in the Wikipedia article. Please see Talk:CGP Grey/Archive 1 and the deletion discussion for the stick figure image, and respond to the points made there if you want to add the photo. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it goes against the interest of the encyclopedia as a whole if decisions like these are done by fans of his work. If the picture is in the public domain, it shouldn't be restricted by it. Rodrigo Duderte, por example, has a picture of him on his article and from his personality I am inclined to think he doesn't like it is there, giving some negative aspects of his administration that are depicted in the article. Yet it is there. His picture and his name isn't copyright and the decision to hide it is biased. --177.149.82.183 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested, the concensus (or lack of concensus to remove) has been established in a number of discussions. This includes in the linked archive discussion here and a WP:FfD that can be found here. You might want to do some digging before saying the decision is purely fan based. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There are policies around this kind of thing. See WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. I also personally feel that it doesn't actually add anything useful to the article to include it. Next to no one knows it, and it really serves no purpose to include. Especially since they have specifically asked for it to not be included. SamStrongTalks (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Defaultsort

@Jochem van Hees: "CGP Grey" is not a pseudonym. See Companies House: "Grey" is the legally registered last name and "CGP" are the initials of the first and middle names. Sorting CGP Grey under "Grey" is correct. feminist (+) 14:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As much as Grey is his name, his chosen name is CGP Grey as an entire title, so I don't agree default sort needs flipping. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand that logic at all. If someone uses their first and last name in conjunction often enough they shouldn't be sorted by their last name? There doesn't seem to be an argument that his last name isn't Grey, so it should be sorted like everyone else. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually thought of the article title as not being his name but his YouTube channel name. Other brands are also sometimes named after personal names, but we don't actually treat brand names as personal names. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This article devotes roughly equal coverage to Grey's YouTube channel (under the Videos section) and to his involvement in podcasts (under the Podcasts section). It is structured more like a biography than an article primarily about his main YouTube channel. feminist (+) 04:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Feminist again. This article is absolutely a biography on CGP Grey the person, not the channel. If this was just about the channel a significant portion of the article would need to be removed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Stick figure

CGPGrey2 logo

I think the non-copyrighted geometric logo (Pictured) is better than a copyrighted fair-use screenshot. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree, assuming that the logo really is too simple to be eligible for copyright. It's not clear to me whether the stick figure or the logo is better for identification, and given that uncertainty, I'd prefer to err on the side of using free content instead of non-free content. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is not my home computer, this is a public computer, and I don't want to sign in, due to security reasons. Will confirm this is me when I get home)

@Mx. Granger: Hello, me, QuickQuokka, I have found a high-res version of the CGP Grey, and @Pbrks helped vectorize it. I think they'll fit in better than what I previously suggested. --93.123.119.139 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Crazy idea, but what if we ask CGPGrey to draw a CC-licensed stick figure for use specifically in this article? 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Age

The biography of a person should include their age 2A02:C7E:3EDE:BB00:B987:AD8B:24B9:D7E0 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the YouTube channel. It isn't supposed to be a biography. Zbelios (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be a biography. But we also have privacy concerns. His age and full name is not widely reported in sources, so we do not include it. Also see this link from the header of the talk page. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)