Talk:Charlie McDonnell

Notability

I was told that multiple refs showing the subject's notability is enough. See the two refs. Buc 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Bio - to be honest, just because they've been noted in two different places doesn't automatically make them notable, but it's probably borderline in this instance. I'm left thinking "so what" after reading the article, which is a pretty good indication (to me, anyway), that WP:NN isn't being satisfied. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

how about if I provide more links [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Written by fangirls

I know 'charlieissocoollike' from YouTube, and I enjoy his videos, but is this article necessary? It's a complete mess, it's full of original research, and it's like it's been written by fangirls. Either it be cleaned up, or it should be considered for deletion. 92.10.19.59 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is constantly being vandalised. It seems like I have to come back here at least 2-3 times per week to remove more of the vandalism. Does anybody else think it would be a good idea to lock off this article to newly registered users? There seems to be quite a few Charlie haters out there. TheTwoRoads (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

As this is a biography of a living person. I will remove all poorly sourced or uncited material. WP:RS WP:NOR Hetelllies (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am particularly bad with Wikipedia so I'll leave the editing to you guys. However, I think the most important part of cleaning up this article is some organization. We need a section for "Projects" under which we can have several subheadings for Chameleon Circuit (linking to the main article), Chartjackers, Challenge Charlie (with the strange challenge facts fitting in here), and his work with the RNLI. A section for "Trivia" may be added for the bits of information that we feel cannot be left out. "Early Life" should be another section. Since he has not been in a formal interview, I suggest someone do one by email. I am sure he'd be happy to oblige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.47.244 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He has been in a formal interview, but remember that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Kevin Smith (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BlogTV

Can someone please mention that he does a live show on blog TV, at 8pm on a friday and a monday. Its become part of his reputation now and needs to noted. Any opinions?

86.11.47.17 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is far more important that Reliable sources be added to this article. Without them, it is a valid target for deletion. I recognise that he broadcasts on BlogTV occasionally but is there an independent source for that information? DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hair shaving

Should the fact he is shaving his hair for charity be put on? (Note- by the time you read this it is likely it will already have happened.) For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can Cite your sources, please do. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources -- He talks about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIcfHqRaPo. And proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgTJwipk7I There. Starsafterlight (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Contributing To the points already been made, I would also like to point out Charlie McDonnell already has a page on the DFTBA wiki wich is pretty sufficient. I would also say that Youtubers, even as legendary as Charlieissocoollike, are not significant or notable enough to have a page. I sugges this page be deleted. If anyone would like to put the points made into another peice, go ahead.

92.16.38.250 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Rob (No account)

Agreed. Also, why in the world is his number of Twitter followers interesting?

On his "Twitter" page Charlie has received 33,178 (Aug 5th 2009) followers from advertising his page on his Youtube channel.

80.203.42.168 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. Is this whole damned article necessary? I guess it is the permission to anyone write articles about themselves. By the way, I killed a big hairy bug yesterday and think it's enough to create a page about myself. Will anyone persuade me? 189.83.124.81 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I looked him up. Doesn't that say at least something. Would people look up you to find out about your bug killing.. aside from people who would do it as a joke? Kanjo Kotr (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of twitter followers that someone has is a reflection of their standing in modern life. That's a new reality. Live with it. In the 1950s, some people thought that music charts were a just a crazy fad, but now no rational person tries to remove reference to them from wikipedia. Alex Middleton (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously - is this necessary?

As per below, this article is full of original research, is poorly written and should be cleared up properly or more realistic, considered for deletion. Bigup sim (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please start at discussion at the bottom of the page from now on. It has already been established that Charlie McDonnell is notable, so trying to delete this page because it is poorly written is well, dumb. If you don't the writing in this article, or you see "unsourced or poorly sourced" contentious material (as the BLP box says above), consider doing something yourself. Sorafune +1 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The month you made that suggestion, this article was visited seven times as often as the article about Dunstable, so why not delete that article? Dunstable isn't of any fundamental importance, the article is basically just a collection of local interest trivia, and perhaps wikipedia should only have articles about places like London and Paris. Alex Middleton (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Chameleon Circuit

Namesake: "In reference to the TV show Doctor Who, the Chameleon Circuit is the component of a TARDIS that allows for a distinct change in shape in order for the ship to match its surroundings and remain inconspicuous. The circuit on the Doctor's TARDIS has malfunctioned, leaving it stuck in the shape of a 1950s-style British police box."

Chameleon Circuit is a band which is composed of four British YouTubers: Alex Day (Nerimon), Charlie McDonnell (charlieissocoollike), Chris Beattie (Ginger Chris) and Liam Dryden (littleradge). These four teens started their band in August of 2008, and evidently they created a new genera of music Timelord Rock or Trock for short.

The four teenagers wrote about songs of the British television phenomenon Dr.Who, the 2005 edition and recorded and produced their first album which is composed of ten songs which are avaible to buy on iTunes, or as a hardcopy on dftba.com. The bands first, and only album includes the songs: 01. An Awful Lot of Running written by Alex Day

02. Gallifreyan History 101 written by Chris Beattie

03. Count the Shadows written by Chris Beattie

04. Shipwrecked written by Alex Day

05. Type 40 written by Alex Day

06. Blink written by Charlie McDonnell

07. Exterminate, Regenerate written by Charlie McDonnell

08. K9’s Lament written by Chris Beattie

09. Journey’s End written by Alex Day, Charlie McDonnell

10. Friends of the Ood [Acoustic]written by Charlie McDonnell

Song Meanings

An Awful Lot of Running: being the Doctors companion and the thrill of traveling with him. How much better is it living life with the Doctor in comparison to their previous way of living.

Gallifreyan History 101: title suggestive, a history of the race of the Timelords.

Count the Shadows: based on the season four episode of Silence In the Library/ Forest of the Dead.

Shipwrecked: based on the beginning of "Rise of the Cybermen" in season two. When the TARDIS is said to be 'dead' pronounced by the Doctor. The song expresses the emotions of the Doctor after he believes his time-machine is no longer working.

Type 40: the TARDIS's point of view on the scheme of things.

Blink: expresses the Dr.Who episode 'Blink'

Exterminate Regenerate: a Doctor and Davros duet. (Charlie McDonnell- Davros, Alex Day-the Doctor)

K9's Experiment: a song for K9, expressing his want to be like a 'real' dog and chase sticks.

Journey's End; brief summary of the season four finale, 'Journey's End'

Friends of the Ood: symbolizes the race of the Ood and freedom.

This band was formed so that these four boys could have fun singing about one of their favourite shows Dr. Who. As it stands, it is unsure whether Chameleon Circuit is going to produce a new record in the near future. However, the band seems to have become a smashing hit among these YouTuber and DFTBA fans.

(1) http://trock.wikidot.com/chameleon-circuit

(2)http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=402378852&blogId=495405170

(3) Sierra Jones-Vassos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierrajv (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Band members

The line-up for the band members have changed -- Chris Beattie is now replaced by Youtube musician/vlogger Eddplant. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98rtEm7sUsU&feature=feedu. Please revise section. Thank you. Starsafterlight (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Reference

Reference #12, entitled "11/10: Kristina is Dangerous with a Shaver," doesn't appear to have anything to do with the subject of this article. The guy whose hair she is cutting is NOT Charlie McDonnell, and no other guy appears in the video. Therefore, this video reference should be deleted. Cocktails42 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, don't think it even needs discussion. Go ahead. --Half Price (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FirstTV Section

Whoever started the aforementioned section seems to work for First News. I am always surprised to see respectable companies effectively advertising on WP, and it shows that we editors have to keep an eye out otherwise this site will fall apart! --Half Price (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Section change proposal

I don't think FirstTV warrants its own section as it does currently. So I propose merging it with the Chartjackers sub-section, under the section title of Media Work (or similar, because that's a rubbish title!). Thoughts? --Half Price (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Greggydude (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

How can this page exist, but Alex Day (nerimon) page was deleted? They're both musicians, youtubers, bloggers, etc.! They were in the same band. Alex Day's article was far more complete, so why was that page deleted, and this one remains (note: I'm not proposing to delete this page. I'm proposing that, if this page exist, Day's page should too.) --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Alex Day had clearly written his page himself, and it was full of favourable biased comments and opinions that he had written about himself. Not to mention the fact that he is nowhere near noteable enough, considering that many more popular YouTubers don't even have a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.176.147 (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that Day wrote the page himself? The page was good. I didn't even see a concensus about deleting the page. That one was way better than this one. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day and the more recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerimon (2nd nomination). If you still feel as if this page should be deleted, nominate it. But McDonnell is far more notable than Day, even just in terms of YouTube popularity, let alone outside of YT. —Half Price 11:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rules that decree a fringe footballer at a fourth tier club to be notable, but not someone with hundreds of thousands of YouTube subscribers are patently absurd, and crying out for an update to reflect new realities. I read the other day that on a global basis YouTube is now more watched than the three major American television networks combined. This article is visited about a thousand times a day, so there is huge demand for it, and wikipedia should serve its audience (I know there are some people who cling to abstract academic conceptions of wikipedia's purpose that deliberately exclude being useful as an objective, but that is absurd too). Alex Middleton (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple more media references, but they really are pretty endless. The fact is that CM has appeared in just about every major media outlet in the UK. He's been on BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, several branches of BBC radio, the BBC World Service, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky, and he has been featured prominently in the Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Sun, and The Daily Mail, and those are just the ones that come quickly to mind. He is easily more notable than most people who scrape through on the bottom end of long established notability criteria. There needs to be a new notability criteria for the online world. The idea that online presence is not real life and somehow doesn't count is increasingly unsustainable. Alex Middleton (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Love Life Section

Can someone take that out please? I checked the user listed as his "long-term girlfriend", and she looks about 12. She's just a fangirl who makes videos about how much she loves Charlie and how obsessed she is with him. I don't think that she's his girlfriend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.100.7 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been removed. I watched a video of hers. She is crazy. And 12. And from New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.230.124 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The section has been removed and I have added a Vandalism warning to the user's talk page. Can we not call people crazy though (regardless of whether or not she actually is!)...? Ryan (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The section needs removing again, this time as it is locked it needs editing by someone higher in the wikipedia food chain. Anyone fancy editing it? Benmooe2 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The section has been removed, as I said nine hours ago. It has not returned since. Ryan (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Guiness

Hey, I can't edit the article now, so could one of u wikipedia guys write down that currently, Charlie has a guiness world record. (If you don't believe me, see his video bunjee jump). Thanks! 72.172.17.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

This just says it all... this article is unworthy and sjould not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.27.211.125 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Views gone down?

Is it really necessary to mention the recent loss of view count? As true as this might be, unfortunately it seems to be true of many YouTubers, and is not restricted to just Charlie. Unless someone disagrees, I'm gonna go ahead and get rid of it. Fonzleclay :D 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Cereal Time

Under "Production Companies", there are lots of claims, but no references at all. I would add them in, especially when they mention rumours. The origin of the rumours is quite important. On top of this, in the summary at the very top, there is mention of a new breakfast show that he hosts (Cereal Time - https://www.youtube.com/cerealtime). This is not mentioned at all later on in the page. As this is a big part of what he does now, I would expect there to be further detail, and potentially even a separate section, later on in the page. Hucki

Photo in article

Seems to be some conflict recently regarding the use of the photo of Charlie at VidCon 2014, more specifically the fact that McDonnell does not consent to the use of it anymore. Do we have a source to cite this claim? XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

She mentions in this video that she prefers to remove all images of her old self where possible. Stelith (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Charlie's consent is not necessary to display the 2014 photo as Charlie does not own the copyright. Personally, I would like to see both the 2014 and a current photo in article. Vulc (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:IDINFO, it is best to avoid the 2014 photograph per McDonnell's preference. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:IDINFO states under Best Practices that "Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image". Lead image. Nowhere it states that pre-gender identity change photos should be avoided altogether. The person's preference as to photos is not mentioned at all. Given that CM achieved notability when CM looked the way CM did, CM's 2014 photograph should definitely be in the article, just as transgendered people's birth names are treated. Vulc (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Name in introduction

Hi everyone, if you'll forgive the use of her own instagram as a source, Charlotte has recently expressed that she prefers to be referred to as Charlotte rather than Charlie (though she has said that Charlie is still okay, and that she is likely to keep using charlieissocoollike as a handle)[6]

The intro currently reads "Charlie McDonnell (born 1 October 1990), also known as Charlotte McDonnell". I think it would work better as "Charlotte McDonnell (born 1 October 1990), also known as Charlie McDonnell". I'm new to wikipedia so would appreciate views or if there is a policy on this matter.

Similarly, is it worth this article being renamed to Charlotte McDonnell (and Charlie McDonnell redirecting to it)? KitchenSong (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@KitchenSong: Thanks for your comment! The relevant guideline is MOS:GENDERID if you want to take a read. This definitely feels like a more nuanced situation than simply switching names—McDonnell still uses "Charlie" on her website, Twitch, Patreon, and YouTube, and "Charlotte" on Instagram and Bluesky. The reason the article title and lead places emphasis on "Charlie" is because she still partially uses it herself (and it's commonly recognisable); if she ever indicates that "Charlie" is her deadname, we will absolutely make the switch per MOS:GENDERID. That being said, I'm not opposed to making the change sooner if consensus heads that way. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)