Talk:Maddy Thorson

New headshot?

Can anyone find a new photo for the infbox? Its been a year and a half since Maddy came out and their appearance has changed a lot in that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordoftheRaccoons (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be a freely licensed image. The one we have is from their last appearance at GDC for Celeste, and until make a new game, unlikely we'll see them at the show. --Masem (t) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added an image which has been submitted via VRT. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Something like commons:commons:village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#Wiki Unseen drawings uploaded by WMF is an option. Arlo James Barnes 03:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this person a significant figure?

How is this person a significant figure? 216.60.18.58 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources discuss her history in game development and successful games. --Masem (t) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

why is maddy's deadname in the introduction at all?

that's not her name anymore, there's no reason for it to be listed at the very top of her wikipedia article 184.57.163.191 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The question that needs asked is, was she notable under her deadname? Given the name of the game company mentioned at the start of the article, it looks like there's a case for it. When people are notable under their deadnames, they are included in the articles. Caitlyn Jenner is probably the most obvious example, but she is not the only one. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, particularly with the attention that Celeste got which was released before she transitioned. Search Google News on "celeste matt thorson" prior to 2020 and there's tons of hits. It is clearly a searchable term. --Masem (t) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Masem hey Masem if you agree why do you keep deleting my correction Sandrinator (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You are adding the name a second time, which is not appropriate. The dead name is present once in the lede. Masem (t) 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem the birth name should be used for the period before the transition (if the person was relevant, which is the case). It is in the Spanish Wikipedia so mu edit is legit. You have a history of bad faith edits. I am not the only one complaining about you. And I think you should let a third editor decide if it is worth keeping. This is a community project and you do not own the page. Let the community decide Sandrinator (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What happens on the spanish wiki doesbt apply here. We have a policy WP:DEADNAME that says when the deadnane is notable, then to mention it once in the lede, nowhere else. You are adding it a second time. Masem (t) 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. The name should also be mentioned somewhere in the body, but again only once (unless necessary to mention it again), because the lead should not include content not in the body. WP:DEADNAME does not contradict this. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: The intro already does include content not in the body for biographies, like full name and date of birth. In similar situations, like The Wachowskis, the one place the deadname is mentioned (besides titles of references) is the intro. There's no reason not to treat this article similarly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also incorrect to do so there. Full name and date of birth should be mentioned in an "early life" or similar section. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not required, and the principle of deadname here is to minimize its use. For a case where the name stood out like Caitlin Jenner, repeating the dead name at the start of the early bio makes sense. Here, where the dead name should be mentioned but doesn't have the household recognition, it makes sense to keep it to a minimum Masem (t) 19:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "repeating". The lead should not contain info not in the body, and WP:DEADNAME doesn't dispute this. The relevant sentence of WP:DEADNAME says when the name should be in the lead -- and while it doesn't explicitly say this, that combined with the next few sentences implies that it should also be mentioned in the body. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We should be minimising the use of the deadname, which basically means include it at most once. Since she was notable under her deadname, we need to include it at least once. In combination, that means exactly once. In the interests of least surprise to a reader arriving at the article who may be unaware of Thorson's transition, it ought to be in the lead IMHO. stwalkerster (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that when I created this article, it was under the deadname (they had not announced transition at that time). Since she transitioned the article was moved and the deadname redirected to here, so as a possible search term it does need to be in the lede. But repetition in the body is just not necessary. We do speak of her transition announcement in the body, which in those source her deadname is mentioned but there is no value to bring it up again. Masem (t) 20:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead is only supposed to be a summary, though. If the deadname is important enough to be included in the lead (which it is), then it should be included in the body that the lead is summarizing. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is guidance but not policy as Deadnaming is. I mean how many bios repeat the birth date in the body? Surprising fewer than you think. The case here is where thus may be appropriate to restrict to the lede only to do no harm under BLP Masem (t) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEADNAME is not a policy either... and additionally, it does not support what you have been saying here. I disagree that any harm is done by mentioning the name once in the body, given that it's already mentioned in the lead. Doing so also allows the article to be more clear (as it can be easily explained why that is no longer their name, while doing it in the lead might be awkward, and it is also rather unexpected for someone's deadname to be mentioned only in the lead).

If we wanted to reduce deadnaming, we would only include the name in the body once, and not in the lead at all (I would generally not be against such a change), but including it only in the lead leads to our articles being less clear and violating our basic editorial guidelines, and it leads to highlighting the person's deadname. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: I was under the impression that due to your lack of reply for over a week, you no longer had an objection to this change after my previous comment. I am well aware that BLP is a policy, but that is not relevant to the details of whether the deadname should be included in the body in addition to the lead. Doing so clearly does not violate BLP. If content is acceptable under BLP to include once in an article, it's acceptable under BLP to include twice in that article (though except for the lead, there's not much of a reason to duplicate content in an article, of course). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because no one responded does mean you have consensus. And core of BLP police is to do no harm to BLP. Unnecessarily.repearing the deadname is harmful, particularly on a case like this where there was some but limited notabolity to the name. Masem (t) 00:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The potential harm done by repeating the deadname once is entirely insignificant compared to including it at all. Including the deadname at all causes harm because it makes the deadname easier to find. If we used her deadname to refer to her throughout the article, we'd be doing harm because we would be deadnaming her in wikivoice. Including it twice doesn't do any significant harm over including it once. It doesn't make her deadname any easier to find and we aren't deadnaming her in wikivoice.

Including the deadname in the body has the clear benefit of following our guidelines for how leads should be written, which improves how understandable the article is to most readers. This is also similar to how other articles are written, such as Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner, both of which also mention the deadname once in the lead and once in the "Early life" section. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: do you still have an objection here? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because just as you have those examples, I can point to Elliot Page and The Wachowskis. Masem (t) 00:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

From Elliot Page: He was assigned female at birth and used his birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning.

You haven't responded to the rest of what I've said. The harm done by repeating the name is nonexistent, but it makes the article significantly better and in compliance with our guidelines for how pages should be laid out. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for more input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography (eg the talk page where DEADNAME is given).

However, I disagree repetition is not harmful. If two uses are okay, someone will argue three uses are fine for the same reasons, and that can grow out of hand. The point is that we do not want readers to associate the deadname with the BLP, and that is "helped" when the deadname is used repeated. The single use in the lede is sufficient most of the time. Masem (t) 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this might be worth clarifying at MOS:GENDERID for the future, if a clear consensus emerges (and if not, maybe open an RfC). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This entire article is a BLP violation

If Brianna Wu can have her deadname removed, then why can't Maddy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fag marriage (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wu's former name was not notable, only identified through primary sources (like court documents) which we do not allow. Thorson had their own company and won awards under their original name and then their transition was also widely covered. --Masem (t) 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

We need (preferably current) sourcing on her being non-binary

There are archived posts about her self-identity and use of she/they (this old Twitter screenshot on Reddit, for example), but I cannot find any recent primary source where she identifies as non-binary. CBR (don't think this is a precisely good source) does mention she coming out as non-binary, but that article is a couple years old. There are non-binary people who don't use gender neutral pronouns, but I do think we should try to be as accurate as possible. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:898E:45B4:CEEB:16D2 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

CBR is a bad source and should never be used for potentially contentious information about a living person. HOWEVER, this Nintendo Life (a VGRS) source dated to August 2022, states, Maddy Thorson — the game's director and designer, who is non-binary, and I don't think it can get much clearer. DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Maddy's Medium posting outing herself as well as Madeline in the game as trans Masem (t) 03:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)