Talk:Ryan Creamer

wholesomeness

Twice now, the descriptor of "wholesome" has been removed. First by Bri (talk · contribs) at 04:12 on 14 August 2022, saying NPOV: Wikipedia doesn't judge 'wholesome'-ness. Now, the use of "wholesome" wasn't editorial; six of the article's eight secondary sources use the word to describe Creamer's videos. However, the word was only explicitly used in the body once, so perhaps Bri thought its placement in the lede was incorrect. So, at 12:43 on 15 August 2022, I replaced the word in the lede, and appropriately put it in two bits of body prose, as well, saying Undid revision 1104307741 by Bri (talk) as it's not a judgment by Wikipedia, but by 5/8 cited sources (and a further-reading link); + scattering of the word amongst prose, where cited, for User:Bri. Sixty-one minutes later, WWGB (talk · contribs) removed all cited uses of the word, saying rm cloying adjective, but I cannot find in our MOS any prohibition of subjective "cloying adjective[s]".

I don't understand the protest against using descriptive language that's common across 75 percent of the relevant sources in the article itself. It would therefore seem to not only be germane to describe the work as "wholesome", but improper not to. Can anybody point me to the appropriate internal page that explains my folly, here? Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fourthords - I'll chime in here to say that I agree with the removal, but not stridently. It does come off sounding less encyclopedic to me to include the word "wholesome." I think omitting the word is a greater benefit in that way than including it is in specificity. I'll be the first to admit that this is a subjective measure and reasonable minds may differ on the subject. As such, I am not sure there is a page that really would be helpful, and I don't think you've engaged in any "folly." You've made a sound, policy-based argument, and in essence, are being disagreed with on style grounds. I know that may not be a terribly satisfying answer, but it's the best I've got. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand the subjective arguments. If most sources use very specific language to describe the subject of our article, then isn't it dereliction to specifically avoid that language? Or if this language is wholly inappropriate by consensus, and the specific consensus of most sources is pertinent to an article, is there then a more-"encyclopedic" or acceptable phrasing that is equally as descriptive? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's dereliction to avoid unnecessary adjectives, especially when they are inherently subjective judgments, even from our sources. I would agree we shouldn't describe it in some other way, but a neutral, factual description strikes me as best. We really don't lose much without "wholesome," to my eye. You could try adding language that ascribes the description to one or more sources, but it just sounds off to me in Wikipedia voice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

update?

The article was tagged with {{update}} (which says, "This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.") but nothing was indicated in the tagging nor on this talk page as to what additional content or sources need to ba added. Does anybody know what was actually keant by the tagging? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fourthords I added it last night since I found out that he is currently a writer for Dropout TV and was previously a writer for Clickhole, but I didn't have time to update it myself TheodorTheTheo (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the reliable source(s) to use for adding this prose? I certainly don't mind mining them to expand the article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fourthords The Clickhole information is on his website, but I don't know how to verify it. I learned that he is a writer for DropoutTV from an episode of Game Changer in which he appeared in, but I'm pretty sure that can't be used as a source in the article TheodorTheTheo (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We're currently citing primary sources a lot in the article, and it'd be best if we can avoid them as much as we can. The article already says he's been a staff writer at CollegeHumor (the production company for Dropout) since 2016; I think it'd be unnecessary to just confirm he's still there, but if there's a reliable secondary source we can use, it also wouldn't hurt. Does this mean the {{update}} is just for the ClickHole claim? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)