Talk:MrBeast/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC "Jimmy Donaldson"

MrBeast is also commonly known as "Jimmy Donaldson". He is not at all known as "James Stephen Donaldson", in fact this name was not even known until a few weeks ago. There have been multiple attempts by multiple users (these just in the last couple of days: 1, 2) including me to mention his name somewhere in the article, which have all been reverted by User:Strugglehouse. I'm starting this discussion to hopefully get a consensus about whether this name can be included in either: the lead, the infobox, or both --FMSky (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky Edit: I've changed my view on this slightly. I have adding "Jimmy" nickname back to the |other_names infobox perametor, and I have also added a Template: Explanatory footnote next to the full name.

Original comment:

Oppose - Should not be included anywhere: It definitely should not be included anywhere in the lead. This is a well-known rule, and should be followed. See MOS:HYPOCORISM.

Also, mentions of "James", such as the very first thing in the first sentence of the article, and the |birth_name parameter, should definitely not be changed to Jimmy, as this is not his birth name.

We also should not add Jimmy to the |name parameter, as, for biographies of living people, this is for the WP:COMMONNAME (the article title).

It also should not be in the |other_names parameter as, as said above, it's a common English hypocorism/nickname. We don't include these per MOS:HYPOCORISM. There's no reason to include it. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Strugglehouse for your adherence to the WP:MOS. If you scroll to the bottom of the policy you reference, we get a beautiful solution that I think satisfies all parties here, as it seems a shame not to include MrBeast's common name, Jimmy due to a confusion of policy.

Alas, the MOS does not let us down, since according to MOS:BADNICK, we can easily accommodate both MrBeast and Jimmy as nicknames in the 'lead, per this section with an example, which I have pulled from MOS:BADNICK for editors' convenience: "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately."

• Poor, confusing example: William Emery "Emory, Spunk" Sparrow (September 15, 1897 – February 2, 1965) was a Canadian professional ice hockey forward....
• Clear rewrite: William Emery Sparrow (September 15, 1897 – February 2, 1965) was a Canadian professional ice hockey forward.... As a professional player, he spelled his name Emory, and was commonly known by the nickname Spunk Sparrow.

Pistongrinder (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pistongrinder The examples given at MOS:BADNICK are not common hypocorisms. Sure, if Donaldson was known as something that was completely different from his name, we could include it in the lead in that way. That's why "MrBeast" closely follows Donaldson's full name in the lead. This doesn't mean we should add "Jimmy" to the lead in any way. That's a common nickname and should not be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my stance on this a little. See my edit summary and comment edit. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A bit late on this one, but I think that we shouldn't put "Jimmy" in the lede in accordance with the MOS, and I'm unsure about putting in the infobox (leanings towards a no on that one). However, I think we should fit in the Jimmy nickname within the article. If we look at other famous people known by Jimmy but legally James, e.g. Jimmy Carter or Jimmy Fallon, they all have "James" in the very first sentence while incorporating "Jimmy" in the article when they can. Endoftalk 19:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is obviously that on Jimmy Carter and Jimmy Fallon its already the article name so there's no need to state Jimmy again. If you omit Jimmy at MrBeast's article however there would not be a single mention of it --FMSky (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be "James Stephen 'Jimmy' Donaldsson, known as MrBeast", as is common with nicknames for people (like on the article for Spike Lee). I don't think it's fitting to have it say "known as Jimmy Donaldsson" as he is rarerly referred to like that, especially compared to him being referred to as MrBeast. Bluthmark (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What about adding a sentence to the Early life section stating that Donaldson prefers to go by his nickname "Jimmy" to differentiate himself from his cousin whom he was named after.? Granted, the source is a MrBeast staff member [1], but it's a compromise. Some1 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Some1 That can only be sourced by Reddit, which isn't a WP:RS. It also doesn't pass WP:ABOUTSELF since it's a claim about Donaldson's personal life revealed by someone other than Donaldson himself. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so keen on keeping Jimmy out of the whole article? I just think its a bit odd. It seems like you're just here to enforce rules instead of actually improving the article --FMSky (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky Nicknames just aren't included like this in Wikipedia articles. That's just how it works. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - of course Jimmy Donaldson should be included in this article. There is a re-direct for Jimmy Donaldson, it is widely reported by multiple sources (national and international), it is overwhelmingly widely known, it is relevant to the topic of this article, it is a significant viewpoint, and Wikipedia is not censored. Washington Post — USA Today — New York Times — Forbes — CNN — Los Angeles Times — The Philadelphia Inquirer — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette — The Baltimore Sun — Sunday Independent Ireland — Daily Beast — Business Insider Germany — La Republica Peru — La Cuarta Chile — Vanguardia Mexico — El Sol de Mexico — Rolling Stone — BBC — NBC News — CBS News — Time Magazine — Variety — Orlando Weekly — Verge (2019) — Evening Standard — Bloomberg — Newsweek (2018) — The Guardian (2019) — The Hill (2019) — Hollywood Reporter — Yahoo! — Insider — The Independent — Sky News — People Magazine — Engadget — Entrepreneur — Australian Broadcasting — E! News — CBC Canada — ET Canada — Orlando Sentinel + hundreds more of sources using Jimmy Donaldson. Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject — obviously that is the case here.— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Obviously it should be included. I really like this infobox btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MrBeast&oldid=1169328756 looks slick and i dont think there is a guideline against it. that would probably be my preferred solution--FMSky (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  @FMSky See Template:Infobox person#Parameters. The name parameter is meant to be used for the WP:COMMONNAME – "Common name of person" – and also is not meant to be used for alternative names – "Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter.". Plus, I think it puts a bit too much undue WP:WEIGHT on the name. While a common nickname of his, it doesn't need to appear that prominently. I think how it appears now is fine. The nickname already appears in a footnote and in the other names section. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The common name is still listed though ..? its just that another one was additionally added --FMSky (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky Yes, but see the rest of my comment. Alternative names should not be in the name parameter, and putting the name there puts undue weight on it. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Strugglehouse, WP:UNDUE does not apply here per Isaidnoway . Pistongrinder (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pistongrinder Fine, but the infobox documentation still stands. The name is on the page, it doesn't need to be anywhere else. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If a name is widely used in reliable sources, and therefore likely to be recognized by our readers, then we use that name. The overwhelming weight of the sources clearly show he is best known as MrBeast/Jimmy Donaldson. We shouldn't be on a campaign to actively suppress Jimmy Donaldson from "anywhere else" in the article.— Isaidnoway (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Okay, the weight thing is fine. I understand that most sources use Jimmy. But it's in the article now. We don't need to break documentation guidelines just to include his name in another place. We're not suppressing it, we're just not using it in too many places. The |name parameter in the infobox is for the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, that is MrBeast. Real names aren't listed there if the nickname is in use. In this case, MrBeast is the article title, meaning it is the WP:COMMONNAME, meaning it should be the |name parameter. That's why the parameter defaults to the article title. That's what it's used for. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the infobox specifically, it's fine, I'm talking generally, you said it doesn't need to be anywhere else, I'm just merely pointing out that if it does need to be somewhere else, there is nothing wrong with using Jimmy Donaldson.- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Where else would you want it? Strugglehouse (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I said generally. I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future of this article, and what might or might not be. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I assumed when you said "it does need to be somewhere else", you had an actual idea of where it needed to be. Are you saying that at the moment there's no other specific place it needs to go? Strugglehouse (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I said IF it does need to be somewhere else. Like I said, I was speaking in general terms. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Okay, apologies, I misread it. Still, it's fine how it is now. There's no reason to include it anywhere else, at least at the moment. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

there have been dozens of people trying to restore Jimmy somewhere in the article. Dont you, at some point, maybe realize that you're in the minority and should take a step back? and no, only having it listed once in the middle of the infobox is not enough FMSky (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky It's in the lead too. Where else do you want it? Strugglehouse (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

its not visible in the lead, its only in a note --FMSky (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky It shouldn't be visible in the lead per MOS:HYPOCORISM. That's a clear rule. Where else do you want it? Strugglehouse (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

sometimes its better to ignore rules if they make the article worse FMSky (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky I really don't think this is enough to ignore rules. It's already in the article in two different places. Nicknames like this are never usually included at all in articles, so these two places are already a push. It really doesn't need to appear elsewhere. See literally any article about someone with a nickname. Even if almost all sources use it, unless it's very difficult from their actual name, it's not listed – at all (other than in the |name perametor if it is the WP:COMMONNAME, which, again, it isn't in this case). See Bill Gates (legally William, goes by Bill), Will Smith (legally Willard, goes by Will), Jon Jones (legally Jonathan, goes by Jon), Domics (legally Dominic, goes by Dom), DanTDM (legally Daniel, goes by Dan), TommyInnit (legally Thomas, goes by Tom), Dan Bull (legally Daniel, goes by Dan), Ben Shapiro (legally Benjamin, goes by Ben), Dan Brown (blogger) (legally Daniel, goes by Dan), Danny Gonzalez (legally Daniel, goes by Dan/Danny), jacksfilms (legally John, goes by Jack), Matt Parker (legally Matthew, goes by Matt), MatPat (legally Matthew, goes by Mat), TomSka (legally Thomas, goes by Tom), WillNE (legally William, goes by Will), Zach King (legally Zachary, goes by Zach), and so many others. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: — please stop invoking MOS:HYPOCORISM as if it is the only guideline that exists and is the controlling guideline for this discussion (and it is a guideline, not a rule). See also: MOS:BADNICK — Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject. See also: MOS:NICKBOLD — Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article. See also: MOS:BOLDSYN — Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. (1) we have already established that Jimmy Donaldson is a nickname and other alias frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject. (2) we have already established that Jimmy Donaldson is a common nickname, alias and variant. (3) we have already established that Jimmy Donaldson is a redirect to this article. (4) we have already established that Jimmy Donaldson is a significant alternative name and is a redirect to the article. So we have already established that the use of Jimmy Donaldson in the lead is permitted. It's time for you to drop the stick. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This how the lead sentence should read: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), also known as Jimmy Donaldson, and known online as MrBeast, is an American YouTuber and philanthropist. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I'm not sure why you are against me linking to MOS:HYPOCORISM. Two out of the three guidelines you cited are listed within the MOS:HYPOCORISM section. Don't you think this might mean "follow this main guidelines, and also these", and not "ignore that main one, do these instead". Of course it's not the only guideline, but we shouldn't ignore it in place of other guidelines, we should follow all guidelines. Yes, Jimmy is a significantly used nickname, but it still shouldn't be included in the lead. It looks messy and is unnecessary since it's already in the article twice. As I expressed already, common nicknames like this are never included unless they are significantly different from someone's legal name. That's why the "MrBeast" pseudonym can be used, but it's why we shouldn't use "Jimmy". Having it there twice is already a stretch. Please see all of the examples I gave in my previous comment, as well as literally any other articles where people use nicknames of their first name. Unless they are extremely uncommon nicknames, or completely different from their first name, they are not included. Why should we go against guidelines just for this article, when similar articles clearly show the guidelines and consensus of the community? Strugglehouse (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: That section is titled Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names. The guideline you keep on referring to is in relation to his pseudonym, that is the guideline in relation to his pseudonym. That is listed in the lead. That is the title of the article. The other guidelines I quoted are in relation to his common name used by reliable sources. We know by the weight of the sources that Jimmy Donaldson is a widely used common name for him, we don't just ignore that. And those guidelines permit the use of Jimmy Donaldson in the lead. Common names are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article. Jimmy Donaldson is well known to our readers, and there is no reason to suppress that information from our readers like you continue to advocate for. He is notable for Mr.Beast/Jimmy Donaldson, as evidenced by the overwhelming use of that combination in reliable sources, and the lead sentence should reflect that, because those guidelines I quoted instruct us that we do so. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And additionally, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section instructs us to use his significant alternative name given in reliable sources, when it is a redirect to the article. Jimmy Donaldson is a redirect.- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Yep, but that lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names in a See also. Don't you think that might mean "make sure you follow this too!"? Strugglehouse (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway It does not only refer to pseudonyms, otherwise it wouldn't reference hypocorisms. It says that "If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name." That clearly says not to add Jimmy within or after the name. Jimmy is a common English-language hypocorism of James. See Jimmy (given name). You've again ignored a major part of my previous comment, so I'll say it again: common hypocrisisms are not included in the article. If you really think they should be, go and try to add the nickname to any of the examples I previously gave. Go change Bill Gates' article to read "William Henry Gates "Bill" III" or "William Henry Gates III, also known as Bill Gates". Go change DanTDM's article to read "Daniel Robert "Dan" Middleton" or "Daniel Robert Middleton, also known as Dan Middleton". Watch your edits get reverted by Wikipedians who don't refuse to follow the manual of style. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hypocorism is defined as a pet name, or used to show affection for a person. Jimmy is not a pet name or used to show affection. It is his common name as shown by the weight of the sources. And "other stuff exists" in other articles is not a compelling argument for not using his widely used common name in this article. Each Wikipedia article stands on its own, and the guidelines I quoted instruct us to use his common name overwhelming given in sources, especially when it is a redirect to this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the lead sentence should read: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), (better or widely) known as Jimmy Donaldson, and known online as MrBeast, is an American YouTuber and philanthropist. Better known, or widely known (either one) are more accurate as defined by the weight of the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway That looks incredibly clunky. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it looks incredibly accurate. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway You, again, ignored my previous examples. If this is the best way to do it, and the most accurate, should we go to Bill Gates' article and change the lead to say "William Henry Gates III, better known as Bill Gates, [...]"? Strugglehouse (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My preference is: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), better known as Jimmy Donaldson, and known online as MrBeast, is an American YouTuber and philanthropist. That is accurate and is overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway On MOS:HYPOCORISM, it says "hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation)". Jimmy is a diminutive form of James. The guideline still stands as that's mentioned. "Other stuff exists" does matter here – why should we change the rules for one article? Strugglehouse (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy is neither diminutive or an abbreviation. It is his widely used common name, the weight of the sources show that. And we are not changing the rules, we are following the guidelines for common name in relation to this specific article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Literally, yes it is. You're using Wikipedia definitions, but refuse to see the Wikipedia definition for Jimmy. Jimmy (given name) reads that Jimmy "is a diminutive form of the given name James". If we were following the rules, we'd have the article the same as all others. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What about this article or that article is a red herring. The topic of this article is MrBeast. The content under discussion is Jimmy Donaldson. It has been clearly shown that Jimmy Donaldson is a common name widely used in reliable sources. The weight of the sources clearly show that. It has been clearly shown that MOS guidelines permit the use of a common name and it is usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if it redirects to the article. We'll see what the consensus of this RfC is. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Why should we ignore every other instance of this on Wikipedia just to do what you personally want to do? I still don't see why we should go against guidelines just for this one article. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My argument is supported by the following guidelines: MOS:BADNICK, MOS:NICKBOLD, MOS:BOLDSYN and a core Wikipedia policy, NPOV, and it says we should: represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The topic of this article is MrBeast, and Jimmy Donaldson is a common name that is a significant view published by reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway You just keep repeating the same thing. I am well aware that Jimmy Donaldson is a common name of his. You still haven't explained why we should ignore all other instances of this. I would love to see you make this same argument in any other article about someone who uses a nickname of their first name. I don't think it'd slide. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Look (off topic), but I've seen RfCs over including a suspects name (widely reported) involved in a shooting, and many commenters used the same argument (other stuff exists), that this article and that article includes the suspects name, why shouldn't this one? Guess what, in spite of "other stuff exists" arguments, the result of the RfC was not to include the name. I've also seen the same with RfCs on infoboxes, all the other articles include them, why shouldn't this one? Wikipedia is not a one size fits all, and in this specific case, with this specific article, policies and guidelines permit the use of Jimmy Donaldson in the lead. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of this RfC is. Consensus is policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And please stop pinging me, I am watching this talk page, I don't need a ping every time you reply. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia app automatically does it, I'm not doing it on purpose. I'll try to remember to manually remove it, but if you already follow it then you already get notifications for it, so it shouldn't really matter that much. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not get notifications from this talk page, or any other talk page where I comment. I said I am watching it. It does matter to me. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Strugglehouse, would you be opposed to adding the nickname Jimmy in the infobox like in this edit [2]? Bill Murray, for example, has 'Bill Murray' as the infobox title even though his first name is William. Some1 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Some1 I would be less opposed to that, as long as "MrBeast" isn't replaced by "Jimmy Donaldson". However, the example you gave isn't really relevant here because "Bill Murray" is the WP:COMMONNAME, which is what the infobox title is supposed to be used for. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Support both in lead and infobox. As a native English speaker, it was not originally intuitive to me that James is synonymous with Jimmy. We don't have to follow the MOS to a tee just because that's what it says. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Just want to comment that as a native English speaker, Bill is synonymous with William, which I find is much less intuitive than Jimmy being synonymous with James. Yet many famous people nicknamed Bill who are legally William don't have Bill on their lede like Bill Clinton or Bill Gates Endoftalk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support leaving in infobox.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever But why should we ignore clear guidelines for this single article? Why should we ignore all other instances of this on Wikipedia? There are examples of exactly this on Wikipedia. Should we go to Jimmy Carr and change his lead to read "James Anthony Patrick Carr, better known as Jimmy Carr..."? or change Jimmy Hoffa's first sentence to read "James Riddle Hoffa, better known as Jimmy Hoffa...". It's against the manual of style and pointlessly clutters up the article. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

just stop it and move on please. its getting beyond tiresome --FMSky (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky Stop what? Citing genuine guidelines that are followed across the entirety of Wikipedia? What an odd request. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is in the sources. If you look at sources reporting about Jimmy Carr, Jimmy Hoffa, Bill Gates or Tom Hanks, you are not going to get any pseudonyms, aliases, or hypocorisms reported in the sources, because those are their common names. Whereas, when you look at sources for MrBeast, you are going to consistently get Jimmy Donaldson reported by sources along with his pseudonym. Why? Because Jimmy Donaldson is his common name. That is the difference, and we shouldn't be trying to hide that information from our readers. WP policies and MOS guidelines instruct us to always follow the sources, and there is no reason to ignore the undeniable weight of the sources that clearly show Jimmy Donaldson is relevant to the topic of this article, a prominent viewpoint and a notable common name. You act like his family, friends and employees call him MrBeast or James, and that is simply not the case, they use his common name Jimmy. So should Wikipedia.- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Brought here by WP:RFC/A) Per MOS:HYPOCORISM "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym" MaximusEditor (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @MaximusEditor Jimmy Donaldson is not a pseudonym. MrBeast is, that's why that's listed in the lead, but Jimmy isn't. It's just a nickname. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The suggested intro line of James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), also known as Jimmy Donaldson, and known online as MrBeast, is... is obviously fine, and not a big deal. The name "Jimmy" as he is known in a million sources should be included in the article. No reason not to include it, and many reasons to include it.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Cerebral726 Nope, no reason not to include it, other than it looks super cluttered, we don't do it in any other article, and it breaks the manual of style. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  You may not want to WP:BADGER so much. Plenty of other people have addressed those concerns and told you to lay off. You have an opinion, the majority have an opposing one. Responding to everyone who opposes with aggressive responses isn't going to get you anywhere. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I haven't seen a compelling argument to oppose this and this appears to be moving into WP:SNOW territory. Nemov (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right. And while, aside from Strugglehouse, we seem to have landed on consensus for including the name "Jimmy," I don't feel we've incorporated the name "Jimmy" in the best way yet. I've made a suggestion on that front below. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Pistongrinder I just replied to your other comment. I agree with your improved implementation. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize, Strugglehouse. I saw your response and moved to edit this comment accordingly, but you beat me to it, resulting in a failed edit on my part. Thank you for your input. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Pistongrinder Ah right, no problem. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support including Jimmy in some fashion (e.g. in the infobox or an "also known as" as suggested above), as he's much more commonly known as Jimmy than James, there is no compelling reason to exclude it, and AFAICT the norm is to include both the nick and the full name in such cases. For example, in Bill Clinton the article starts off with his full name "William" but is titled "Bill" and includes Bill in several places, even referring to Clinton as just "Bill" in some paragraphs where enough other family members are being discussed that saying "Clinton" would be ambiguous. -sche (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Boy, this has been a doozy of an RfC supported by a Great Stonewall. As such, I'm going to provide an alternative here. While I disagree with the narrow interpretation Strugglehouse gave to the MOS, I do think there is a way to effectively employ both MOS:MULTINAMES and COMMON SENSE.

According to MOS:BADNICK, we can easily accommodate both MrBeast and Jimmy as nicknames in the lead, per this section with an example, which I have pulled from MOS:BADNICK for editors' convenience: "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately."

Poor, confusing example: William Emery "Emory, Spunk" Sparrow (September 15, 1897 – February 2, 1965) was a Canadian professional ice hockey forward.

Clear rewrite: William Emery Sparrow (September 15, 1897 – February 2, 1965) was a Canadian professional ice hockey forward. As a professional player, he spelled his name Emory, and was commonly known by the nickname Spunk Sparrow.

I believe most of the suggestions editors gave above, as well as what currently exists in the article, break this style guide suggestion. Adhering to the MOS and incorporating Jimmy's common name, I offer this solution:

James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998) is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist. Jimmy Donaldson, known online as MrBeast, is credited with pioneering a genre of YouTube videos that centers on expensive stunts and challenges.

Because "Jimmy" is a common MOS:HYPOCORISM for James, prefacing the second sentence with "Commonly called Jimmy Donaldson" is completely unnecessary. And putting all three names in one sentence overly complicates the sentence, challenging the readability. The solution above adheres to the MOS while still employing all Jimmy's names as known by reliable sources. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pistongrinder If we are to include the Jimmy name, then this is a much better way of doing it than cramming it all into one sentence. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think MrBeast and Jimmy Donaldson should both be in the lead sentence per WP:LEAD. If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence per MOS:BOLDLEAD. Significant alternative names (redirects to the article) are placed in bold per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Another proposal: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), known professionally as MrBeast and Jimmy Donaldson, is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist. That is not a complicated sentence. Those two names, MrBeast and Jimmy Donaldson, are widely known and significant, and more relevant to the topic of the article, than James Stephen Donaldson. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDLEAD and MOS:LEAD are not policies written specifically for Biographies of Living Persons but rather leads generally, and the examples within your cited policies are of locations and other general topics. Whereas the policy I have referenced above, MOS:BADNICK, specifically addresses how to deal with hypocorisms.

While I don't think your suggestion is overly complicated, I do think the alternative I provided is easier to read and leans fairly on the policies relevant to our subject at-hand, namely WP:BLP. In your case, "Jimmy" is separated by his birth name and date by three words and mine by seven. Surely, this is not a weight issue. But perhaps we leave that to WP:CONSENSUS. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO says — The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. In this case, we know for a fact that reliable sources commonly describe him as Jimmy Donaldson first and foremost. This is just a small sample of that from -The New York Times, CNN and the BBC- Jimmy Donaldson better known as Mr. Beast, Jimmy Donaldson did not seem like a future celebrity multimillionaire, Jimmy Donaldson, the person the online world knows as MrBeast. And MOS:FIRSTBIO does cover BLPs, which gives several examples, but ultimately concludes that it's on a case by case basis and subject to consensus. So my argument is for the lead sentence to describe him as he is commonly described in reliable sources — known professionally as Jimmy Donaldson and MrBeast.

In your version for the lead sentence, James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998) is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist, does not describe him as he is commonly described in reliable sources. His birth name is not used by reliable sources to describe him in relation to his professional activities (YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist). In this case, we should follow the reliable sources in how they describe him in relation to his professional activities. How he is known and described professionally is significant, and more important than his birth name. This is what our readers would expect to find in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway MOS:ROLEBIO, as the name suggests, relates to roles and positions of the subject (i.e. YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist), not names.

Also, Pistongrinder's suggestion splits it into two sentences. It's still the first and second sentence in the lead. I don't think people are going to get confused if it's two sentences instead of one. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and in relation to his roles and positions, he is commonly described by reliable sources as Jimmy Donaldson and MrBeast. Those two names are directly related to how he is known professionally, and the lead sentence should reflect that for our readers.

You've mentioned other articles as examples, look at good article Sean Combs, every known version of his name and stage names are in the lead sentence, along with his roles. Elvis Costello gives his birth name first, and then what he is professionally known as, so does Lady Gaga. The lead sentence I proposed follows those same guidelines. James Stephen Donaldson is known professionally as Jimmy Donaldson and MrBeast; and then his roles and positions. Follow the reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I just don't think it all needs to be squashed into one sentence. Plus, Jimmy Donaldson isn't a stage name, it's just his name. It's not an alternative version of his professional name. Before Jimmy Donaldson was added, the article matched other articles. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

He is known professionally in relation to his roles and positions as Jimmy Donaldson/MrBeast. The sources tell us that. YouTube superstar Jimmy Donaldson, Social media star Jimmy "MrBeast" Donaldson, YouTube star Jimmy Donaldson, YouTube sensation Jimmy Donaldson, YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson, Top YouTuber Jimmy "MrBeast" Donaldson. Follow the sources for the lead sentence. That's what editors seem to be saying here in this RfC as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I just think we don't need to clutter the first sentence. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

And I don't think my proposal for the lead sentence looks cluttered. See FOLLOW THE SOURCES.- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Well I do. It doesn't read great and isn't accurate. His first and last name isn't really a "professional alias". Also, you've linked to the entirety of a lengthy policy there. What are you actually referring to? Strugglehouse (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Informal survey

There appears to be a rough consensus to include Jimmy Donaldson in the infobox and the lead. There are some proposals being floated on how to include Jimmy Donaldson in the lead. This is just an informal survey to !vote/discuss those options. Pinging everyone involved in the RfC: @FMSky, Strugglehouse, Pistongrinder, Some1, PerfectSoundWhatever, Ortizesp, MaximusEditor, Cerebral726, Nemov, and -sche:

• In the lead sentence
  • A: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), better known as Jimmy Donaldson, and known online as MrBeast, is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist. (current version)
  • B: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998), known professionally as MrBeast and Jimmy Donaldson, is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist.
  • C: Jimmy Donaldson (born James Stephen Donaldson; May 7, 1998), and known professionally (or online) as MrBeast, is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist.
• In the second sentence:
  • D: James Stephen Donaldson (born May 7, 1998) is an American YouTuber, entrepreneur and philanthropist. Jimmy Donaldson, known online as MrBeast, is credited with pioneering a genre of YouTube videos that centers on expensive stunts and challenges.
• E: Jimmy not in the lead sentence, but somewhere else in the lead.
• F: I don't like any of these options.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and ideas. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. I like "professionally" over "online" because people call him MrBeast offline as well. I also like A, though it would be better if "online" was substituted with "professionally". I think B is not a great option, because of the claim he is known "professionally" as Jimmy Donaldson is slightly misleading. I'm sure he's also casually known as Jimmy. I think E is the worst option, followed closely by D. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway Edit 2: My actual preference would be Option F, i.e. not to include it in the lead at all as there's really no reason to and it breaks the manual of style (MOS:HYPOCORISM). But, if we decide to do so due to consensus, I can't go against that. Therefore, my second preference is Option C, but only if "born" was changed to "legally". My third preference is Option D.

Edit: IF "born" was changed to "legally", as per Bob Dylan, then I would change my !vote to Option C, as I do think this looks the cleanest.

Original comment:

Option D: I don't want to go against consensus, so if there is consensus to keep the nickname, this is the option I choose.

1000% it should not be option C, as this makes it appear as though Donaldson has actually legally changed his name, which simply isn't the case. See MOS:NICKNAME – "where the subject uses a popular form of their name in everyday life, then care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name". Strugglehouse (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To address that valid concern, "born" could be substituted with "full name" or some other option possibly. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebral726 If born was changed to "full name" or "legally" (per Bob Dylan), I'd changed my !vote to option C. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Made a couple edits to my comment. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option C This reads the cleanest to me. Thanks Nemov (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option A because each other option is misleading in some way. Strongly oppose C for its implication that Donaldson changed his name. Also, Option B is misleading for labelling the Jimmy name as "professional" when it isn't. My top option, more than A, is using "full name" or "legally" in C, as proposed above. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Definitely not Option C, cause it implies a name change, which is obviously not the case here. "Jimmy" is a common nickname for James. I would oppose variants of that too such as "Full name"/"Legally" which was suggested above. Some1 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Should note that I oppose adding his nickname "Jimmy" to the lead sentence, since that's not done on other biographies per MOS:HYPOCORISM. See Bill Clinton (Bill, a nickname for William) and Dick Chaney (Dick, a nickname for Richard) for example. There's nothing unusual/extraordinary about MrBeast's nickname that requires departure from the MOS. If his nickname must belong somewhere in the article, then adding "Jimmy Donaldson" in the "Other names" parameter in the infobox is fine, or even adding a sentence in the Early life section stating that Donaldson prefers to go by his nickname Jimmy. would be fine, IMO. Some1 (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option C - and I disagree it implies a name change. It is the name most commonly used by reliable sources. And Jimmy Donaldson will be recognized by our readers as his most common name. Giving his birth name right after doesn't imply a name change. It has been repeatedly stated in this RfC that Jimmy is a common nick and/or HYPOCORISM for James, our readers will recognize that as well. I don't believe legally or full name is required either. Bob Dylan, which has featured article status only uses legally because he legally changed it, and that is followed by "born as". Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway It certainly does imply a name change. It's also against the manual of style. See MOS:NICKNAME. Also, it isn't displayed like that because he changed his name, it is actually a similar case to this Jimmy Donaldson situation. See Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 10#"Robert" Dylan? Never!. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cool story bro! See WP:BLUDGEON.- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway I was just letting you know. Don't need to be rude. Also, not bludgeoning. I would be bludgeoning if I was replying to all comments, which I'm not. The only other reply I've made was to say about how I would consider changing my vote. I've not been replying to everyone else. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've commented quite enough here that the WP:BLUDGEON label is perfectly reasonable. Nemov (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov Nope, because I've not replied to "every comment" to "persuade others to [my] point of view". Strugglehouse (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't have to reply to every comment, but you're certainly coming across as dominating the conversation." Nemov (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of C: As already said, this implies that he changed his name which is obviously nonsense. Leave it like it is (option A) --FMSky (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it should be James Stephen "Jimmy" Donaldson, known professionally as MrBeast Bluthmark (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO either A, B or C (with whichever of "known online", "known professionally" or "better known" we pick) works; D is bad IMO because it fails to clarify that James Stephen Donaldson and Jimmy Donaldson are the same person rather than two different people. -sche (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support of Option E: If we look at other Jimmys like Jimmy Carter or Jimmy Fallon, we see that even though reliable sources widely report them as Jimmy, they have their legal name "James" at the lede, while incorporating "Jimmy" within the article when they can. For example, for Jimmy Carter, "Jimmy" is included when the article discusses other members of the Carter family and it needs to specify which Carter. For Jimmy Fallon, its included when discussing about Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, the official title of the show, and when quoting someone else talking about "Jimmy". Endoftalk 19:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option B best matches most other examples that I can find of similar multi-named persons. I don't find any good-article examples of the other choices. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option D is the clear choice because it was built on WP policy, not just on opinion as to what sounds the best. (Plus, it also sounds the best, IMO.)

Here's a reminder of the policies employed using Option D:

1. MOS:PSEUDONYM: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." Option D puts Jimmy's legal name first. His pseudonym, Mr. Beast, closely follows in the second sentence, easily identified in bold and captured at a glance by readers.
2. MOS:BADNICK: "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately." Three separate names are all important, but it is complicated for the average reader. Simple sentences are easier to digest. There's no need to have all three names in a compound sentence when they can be employed separately just as effectively.
3. MOS:HYPOCORISM: "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title [or, in our case, James' common name] and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name." Because "Jimmy" is a common hypocorism (nickname) for James, prefacing the second sentence with "Commonly called Jimmy Donaldson" is completely unnecessary. But unlike Bill Gates or Jimmy Fallon, we do need to state his common name because the article title is Mr. Beast, not Jimmy Donaldson. Option D takes both of these issues into account. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Comma

Under personal life, in the sentence about the Titan submersible, there is a mistaken comma. The comma after the word Titan should be removed as the subsequent phrase/clause do not form a full sentence. The new sentence should be- In June 2023, Donaldson stated that he was invited to go on a tourist expedition to view the wreck of the Titanic in the OceanGate submersible Titan but declined the offer. Rforb001 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Idk if this is really necessary but i removed it --FMSky (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Request Edit on most viewed MrBeast video

The article says that MrBeast's 456,000 dollar squid game video is his most viewed when it is actually "Would you fly to Paris for a baguette?" But the page is semi-protected so I can't change it. 68.101.233.30 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've clarified that its his most viewed video that is not a short. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Kris Tyson paragraph

So considering there is currently a culture war over transgender people's existence, and numerous conservative channels have called Mr Beast "woke," I believe the public image section should include the previously deleted paragraph about Kris's coming out. Especially since the main article regarding her was merged into this one. ~Cassandria (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A few errors under "Philanthropy"

I spotted the following errors under the section "Philanthropy":

1. Plants vs. Zombies is referred to as a company. It is not. Plants vs. Zombies is a franchise owned primarily by PopCap.
2. "On September 17, 2020, the YouTube channel Beast Philanthropy was created" is passive voice. It should read, "On September 17, 2020, Donaldson created the YouTube channel Beast Philanthropy".

I also believe it would be best to include the section about Kris coming out. People come to Wikipedia for information, and by excluding it, we undermine that.

- J. Max Price 2600:1700:AC00:A390:5CFE:6443:1ABB:C36D (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Change MrBeast Picture to More Recent Image

The picture of Jimmy on this page is old and he looks very different now in November. Can we change header image to this photo taken much more recently that reflects how he actually looks: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MrBeast_2023.png VoiceOfRaisin (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

In Jimmy's (MrBeast) latest video he was signed for 48 hours for the NFL Team known as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. This makes him a current (or former) NFL player. By his contract he was a player for 48 hours so this needs to be added. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdjh81uH6FU BambiFuzzball2023 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Couldn't find a reliable secondary source for this, and his video is a primary source. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 20:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

Montalbannnnnn (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

to put some miss info

 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

He has 216 million subscribers; the numbers are outdated. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:3CF5:7175:6290:A2BC (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 00:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Change source 158. from "Biino, Marta. "What's it like to work for MrBeast, the biggest YouTuber in the world, according to 5 former staffers". Business Insider. Retrieved November 25, 2023" to "Piamenta, Orr. “The MRBEAST-Ification of YouTube.” YouTube, YouTube, 30 July 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gauf6ZmIXxs." CptPurpleHero (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done YouTube is not a reliable source and a secondary source is always preferred in this scenario as it is more reputable. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New picture

Hi, just to inform that a new 2023 professional picture of MrBeast is uploaded. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MrBeast_2023.jpg G9mmB (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@G9mmB: This image is not under a free license. Skyshiftertalk 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is, I added it under free license but not sure why Wikipedia need a permission by email. Anyway, it will be sent shortly. Secondly, the current picture is a copyvio, it was deleted but that same user uploaded it again using archive YouTube link which is again a violation because the video on Wikipedia is not under free license. G9mmB (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why this user wants a picture where someone looks weird and must be taken from a video. I find it weird. He can use other available pictures, I uploaded one which can be used as well but still using an old picture. Please explain, also explain the copyright violation where it says an archive link can be used to base the license while the video currently is not freely licensed. Thanks G9mmB (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your questions, Wikimedia needs to confirm that the picture you've just uploaded is indeed under a free license because it's a professional photoshoot, and it's uncommon for those types of photos to be under a free license (that's not to say that professional photoshoots can be under a free license [1][2]). Wikimedia just wants to make sure that you're the photographer/someone authorized to release the photo under a free license, and not just someone who just found a copyrighted image online and uploaded it to Wikimedia.

As the uploader of the image you were talking about, I'll admit MrBeast isn't looking his best there, but because Wikipedia requires that every photo be under a free license (except under very limited circumstances), our choice of images are scarce. So far, every photo of MrBeast we have so far are screenshots of YouTubers' videos who've collaborated with MrBeast and also happen to release them under a free license. Creative Common licenses are irrevocable, so although the video doesn't have the Creative Commons label on it currently, it did in the past. The fact that they've removed the CC label doesn't change the license of the video.

Either way, once you prove that you're the photographer of that image/authorized to release it under a free license, we'll use it since it'll be the best image we have of MrBeast so far. Endoftalk 00:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and explanation. Appreciate it. G9mmB (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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:MrBeast/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 07:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Mister Beast 6000..." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 07:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to fail this review. The nominator isn't active; they haven't been on Wikipedia since January 16. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:07, 23 January 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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Honestly kind of surprised. There have been no recent edit wars.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Important issues

• There's some WP:PROSELINE in the "Investments and partnerships" and "Personal life" sections.

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.

Closing

For the record, I wanted to close this review. However, as Skyshifter noted on my talk page, I completely forgot to ping the reviewer, @Endof. I have no idea what to do next. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I had zero motivation to work on this article, so I just assumed the nominator wasn't going to do anything. This led me to close the review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

Can you change 189 million to 191 million, MrBeast's channel is now at that much subs 92.40.204.36 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Paper9oll, the YouTube about page, which is already automatically cited by {{Infobox YouTuber}}, is sufficient. But this is, of course, long-done. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr.Beast is a billionaire now, can someone please fix this???

Some people keep telling me his net worth is 500 million with their only proof being this, but he has confirmed that he is now a billionaire. KPantherH (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We need a reliable source for this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Editnotice

From a quick look at the page's history, it seems like a lot of edits to this page have been made by people attempting to contact MrBeast. Since a lot of these edits have been mobile edits, a banner at the top of the talk page wouldn't be effective at addressing this. Since there seems to be precedent for this, could an admin or template editor please create an editnotice to this effect? I've created one below, but anyone implementing this request is of course welcome to adjust as needed.

Proposed editnotice

— Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Callitropsis: Can you give some specific examples of the kind of editing you mean? I made a quick check of a sample of recent edits, but didn't find any that fit your description. JBW (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@JBW and SilkTork: Special:Diff/1179197820, Special:Diff/1181223877, Special:Diff/1183893303, Special:Diff/1183923735/1184278498, Special:Diff/1188646329, Special:Diff/1188775530, and Special:Diff/1193628366 are from the past three months alone and all seem to be attempts to contact MrBeast. I suppose we could just semi the talk page but trying an editnotice first seems like it might be a better option. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Right before my comment at 23:22, I found an attempt to contact MrBeast within that timeframe that contained PII. I reported it to the OS team and it has since been suppressed. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 23:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done. As JBW indicates, there is not sufficient need for such a template, I see only one instance, February 2021, of someone directly addressing MrBeast. SilkTork (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Callitropsis; the problem is now clearer. The incidents were all removed from the talkpage rather than archived, so they didn't show up. Looking more closely at the edit history of this talkpage, I note that there are a lot of inappropriate comments which get removed, not all related to people thinking that they can contact MrBeast. A template would not stop those deliberately disruptive edits. Semi-protection would, but we don't usually semi-protect talkpages, especially talkpages of articles that are semi-protected as they are the place that new or unregistered users can come to point out errors. I have considered it, but given that this talkpage is actively and positively used for edit requests, such protection would be inappropriate. I think that in the circumstances it is worth trying your edit notice, and I'll now set it up. SilkTork (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Callitropsis, one of the problems was that I read your words "From a quick look at the page's history" as meaning "From a quick look at the article's history", not "From a quick look at this talk page's history", so I was looking in the wrong place. (An example of why giving links to specific edits is a good idea.) Now that I correctly understand what you were referring to, I am not sure how likely it is that an edit notice will discourage the problem, but I certainly agree that it's worth a try, so thanks SilkTork for doing it. I wonder if making the notice show up in an eye-catching colour might make it more likely to be effective. If its plain black-on-white version doesn't seem to significantly reduce the problem we could try that. JBW (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. In the future I'll be sure to include diffs when making similar requests. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 15:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Can anyone suggest why attempting to use this Wikipedia talk page to contact the person it's about is so common? I may have very rarely seen the same thing happen on odd individual occasions on other articles over the years, but as far as I recall I've never before seen a page where it happens frequently. However, I'm not sure that I've ever taken much notice of the talk page of any article about someone very popular among people who find watching someone counting to 100,000 entertaining, so maybe it's more common than I realise. JBW (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Cause his audience is mostly comprised of Gen Z Americans, braindead morons --77.22.43.153 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, apart from the moronic nature of dismissing a whole generation of a nation as "braindead morons", a check of the editing history and IP addresses suggests that none of the people in question are Americans, or at least none in recent months. JBW (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Already the new edit notice has proved ineffective in stopping the editing in question, as can be seen here & here, so I have tried replacing it with a more prominent, and strikingly coloured, page, as I suggested. JBW (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Hopefully that'll work, although I won't hold my breath. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• As I fully expected, the edit notice is still ineffective: [3] & [4]. JBW (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's not suprising. I wouldn't object if someone blanked or deleted it. I have this page watchlisted, so I'll deal with whatever else comes up. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I've got it watchlisted too. My feeling is that we may as well leave the edit notice in place, as it may possibly deter some people, and can't do much harm. However, it is a bit of a distraction, so if there is a feeling that it should be removed then I won't quarrel with that. JBW (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tampa Bay

So Beast played 1 game with the Buccs but no where on the article this is included, however in tags he is tagged with ||list of Tampa Bay buccaneers Players|| we should we include this somewhere? Melofy (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Since categories are based on the article content, and this isn't mentioned in the body (nor should it IMO), I've removed it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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:MrBeast/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 01:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for abandoning the previous nomination. I had no idea what to do and assumed you were inactive. This time I'll make sure to do a full review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: gentle ping to check in on this. Are you still intending to review this? Or should we return the article to the queue for someone else to pick up? Ajpolino (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Still reviewing. School's really pushing me back on this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TrademarkedTWOrantula, reminder ping that this is still outstanding. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dang it I keep forgetting this nomination TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Endof: Still here? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, still here. I've been busy with my personal life so I apologize for not being active. I've fixed some of the copyvio you've mentioned, and when I have the free time I'll work on the rest of the issues. Endoftalk 16:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Endof: Should I fail this nomination? It's been going on for quite some time. Also, I'm about to go somewhere, and I'd hate to have unfinished business while I'm away. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Endof: I'll go ahead and fail this again. I'll leave someone with more experience to review this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:23, 29 March 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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No bare URLs spotted.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Prior to review, Earwig says that the top result is at a 58.1% similarity. Quotes could be shortened.1 This has been fixed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable; there have been no recent edit wars.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In my opinion, we only need one image of MrBeast. At this point in time, there are three. I don't see why having two of the same person in one section ("Mainstream success") is necessary. The captions are suitable, though.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail?

• Y Article is stable.
• Y There was a prior GA review, but that was only because I was too lazy to finish the review.
• Y Concerning copyvio report ([5]). Endof has reduced text. Top result is now at a similarity of 41%.
• Y Haven't read the full article yet... I don't see any blatant issues

Some notes before we begin

• Okayyyy... so I'm seeing a bunch of questionable sources that are referenced:
  • Mashable, Tubefilter, and a few primary sources are sprinkled throughout the article.
• WP:PROSELINE in the "Investments and partnerships" and "Personal life" sections

Lead

• "handle" -> "username"
• videos estimating the wealth of other YouTubers - Why is this quoted?
• Why is "counting to 100,000" in quotes?
• earned tens of thousands of views

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.

Change "Kris" to "Chris"

It makes no sense to refer to "Chris" and "Kris" that is the wrong spelling. 185.58.55.148 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

changed name as far as i know --FMSky (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When? 185.58.55.148 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@185.58.55.148 Reasonably recently, but it happened. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9_20kflptY, and for more info just Google Kris Tyson or Chris Tyson. Kris is correct. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse, I am curious if "house" in your name means a content house Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Kris is a well know unixsex name there are numerous other notable people who also have that name(Some shortenings of their full name, some as their given name, and some as their chosen name).

Secondly especially with nouns such as names, there isnt really a "correct spelling" and attempts should not be made to "Correct" names when they have already been spelled out Ioangogo (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

Mr.Beast has 42.7 billiob views WikiBanksy09 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)