Talk:The Streamer Awards

Origin of Peepo the Frog and why he's chosen for the trophy in an award for streamers.

This article from Vice News is a far better source on the origin of Peepo the Frog and why he's extremely popular on Twitch, instead of the ignorant rage-bait article written by someone who clearly doesn't understand Twitch culture and have no idea why he's chosen as the trophy for streamers.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7jz9y/why-twitch-loves-this-animation-of-a-more-gentle-pepe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkain2K (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Arkain2K: The article you linked doesn't even mention the Streamer Awards. The Kotaku source is simply there to identify the figure on the trophy. Unless we're writing about the origins of Peepo (e.g. for a paragraph describing the trophy), then I don't see why we should use that source. Yeeno (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Does Wiki still want to use neutral and informative articles as the source?

We have two pieces here, one from years ago clearly explains who Peepo is and why he's a popular mascot with Twitch streamers, the other is a rage-bait rag from someone who doesn't even know what Peepo was until over a hundred people in the comments informed the author of his ignorant and prompted an update that recognize that "Peepo is not Pepe", but still stick to this made-up "confusion" that don't actually exists. There are zero confusion to anyone in attendance, nor the 380,000 viewers who unanimously refer to it as the Peepo trophy. Hell, even the event itself featured a "Peepo going to the Streamer Award" segment to showcase the nominees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So_Ixo_8DCQ

I implore everyone to read both articles and see which is a better source for a paragraph that attempts to explains what Peepo the Frog is. Arkain2K (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jerma2022.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Info box can look more like other info boxes

If you look at the info box (top right corner) at Wikipedia article on Comcast you will see that it starts with

The name of the company in bold

The logo of the company

Photo of the building

Wikipedia article on Billboard Music Awards' infobox starts similarly but without a buiding

So for this article's info box, the info box can start like

The title in bold (The Streamer Awards)

The logo (which is at the bottom of this info box)

Photo of the award

103.35.168.94 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable notability

None of the references provide significant in-depth information on the awards which are not prestigious in the sense that they are relatively unknown. I suggest this is either redirected to QTCinderella or moved to Drafts. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe the issue is with the "Reliable" nature of the cited sources, or with the nature of their coverage? I believe the coverage meets the bar of "Significant Coverage" as defined here, Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . I'm less certain about how "Reliable" the cited sources are, but I want to make sure that's what your issue is before diving in. ContentCaribou (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)