DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki

Nicknames

[edit]

The nicknames column should also have "Speedy" and "SpeedyBoykins" as his nicknames. He even uses them for his other channels. 87.116.166.17 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should also list John Bobby, a nickname/alter ego he's continously been using during his livestreams. 213.114.74.242 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok clip 1
TikTok clip 2
Tiktok clip 3
Instagram reel 213.114.74.242 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok then look at his YouTube channel, it says it on the name ~2025-41391-57 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources you provided are not reliable. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 03:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

[edit]

Is he not Muslim he has shown many times he is Muslim like how he checked to see if there weren’t pork in China and France. He has also shown in videos he’s listened to the Quran. DharMannMan (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the video whereby he stated that he converted about a year ago. You can bring it up to the moderators.
Though he still maintains a secular lifestyle. 117.20.154.134 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not actually Muslim. He lies about lots of random things. He loves to say he's from Portugal, even though he isn't. He also claims that he played college football, which isn't true. 24.153.50.101 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2025

[edit]

Changing Twitch Streaming genre from gaming > gaming . travel . irl streaming Teavrc (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar fixes

[edit]

@ItsMario97 Why are you reverting grammar fixes without explanation? In the genre list it doesn't make sense for "Comedy hiphop" and "Brazilian funk" to be capitalized, but "trap" and "pop rap" not to be. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackVulcanX:
Template:Infobox musical artist: "Most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized."
MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence."
ItsMario97 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then your edit is still incorrect as non-leading genres in it are capitalized. BlackVulcanX (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackVulcanX: Comedy hip-hop is the first genre on the list, and Brazilian funk is capitalized because Brazilian is a nationality and nationalities are capitalized. It's not that hard to read the rules, thanks.
MOS:PEOPLANG: "Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized, including in adjectival forms (Japanese cuisine, Cumbrian dialect)."
ItsMario97 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Brazilian funk" is a genre, and the rationale you just provided should not be capitalized. BlackVulcanX (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackVulcanX:
Again
MOS:PEOPLANG: "Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized, including in adjectival forms (Japanese cuisine, Cumbrian dialect, French cuisine, cultural Romanization, English billiards, Scotch whisky, Arabic coffee, liturgical Latinization, the Byzantine Empire, Dutch oven)."
You're getting into an WP:EDITWAR (second time i'm telling you btw) and I'm not going to take part, do whatever you want, thanks.
ItsMario97 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"My mom is kind of homeless" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect My mom is kind of homeless has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § My mom is kind of homeless until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. IAWW (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: WhatADrag07 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello @WhatADrag07, I'll review this. Note that since you have less that 10% of the authorship on this article, it is considered a drive-by nomination. This is what the GAN instructions page says about this:

If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, a reviewer may uncontroversially consider the GAN a drive-by nomination

However it is understandable that you missed this as it is buried in a footnote on that page, so I'll go ahead and review this anyways. Normally if the nominator has low authorship, it indicates a lack of familiarity with the sourcing (hence why the requirements of higher authorship exist), which often means the article has sourcing issues. I notice also that the article has one unreferenced passage at the end of a paragraph:

Watkins became the youngest Royal Rumble Entrant not to be signed to WWE at 20 years and 11 days old, which also made him the youngest ever Entrant beating René Duprée by 1 month and 1 day.

Which also indicates sourcing issues. Therefore I will start with a source spot check to see if the text is supported by the sources throughout the article. The spot check numbers are based on this version of the article.

[15a]: ☒N Almost, but "averaging two viewers per livestream" is incorrect, the source says he averaged two viewers on his first livestream.

[16a]: ☒N The source discusses only his ban from Valorant. It does not support any of Watkins became prominent after his fanbase began posting clips on TikTok of his often-violent behavior during live streams towards games, players, and his camera, which gained popularity and became memes. His outbursts have resulted in bans from the streaming platform Twitch

[37]: ☒N Supports most the text, but doesn't support at least during the round of 16 match between Portugal and Switzerland

[18]: ☒N The words "rape threat" are stronger than the source. Watkins was the first contestant to be eliminated, and shortly after the game had ended, he quickly rejoined the Discord call. He started harassing Kash through offensive remarks. Watkins was then kicked out of the call, with Ross apologizing to Kash for his behavior. is not supported at all

It's clear this article has serious sourcing issues and needs a full source-text integrity check to fix them all. That will take some time and change the article significantly, so it should be done outside of the GA review. Therefore I will fail this now. @WhatADrag07, I would recommend picking a smaller and less controversial article for your first GA. If you do that, feel free to ping me and I'll answer any questions and help review your work. IAWW (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Speed (rapper)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Speed (rapper) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 14 § Speed (rapper) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. While a not-insignificant minority of participants believes the event was impactful enough to have an article, consensus definitely swings towards the majority that believes it lacks the coverage for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. First time closing one of these, constructive criticism welcome. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging My Mom Is Kinda Homeless to IShowSpeed. The article about the meme is mostly a description of the events in the original stream and the reunion, with not much secondary analysis or reactions other than it going viral and being briefly listed as the top rated "episode" on IMDb. Can be very well summarized on the article about the streamer, in the appropriate context. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1timeuse75 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IGN and Indy100 don't mention the meme, they're for the "Background" section describing Speed. Honestly, even if it was notable given the current level of coverage, WP:NOPAGE applies. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1timeuse75 ConeKota (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems sources is notable.
AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 13:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This topic has had such a notable cultural impact I feel it warrants its own article. Superocelot589 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Most of the sources are about IShowSpeed instead of the actual meme. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm not seeing breadth of coverage to prevent this from fitting as a paragraph or two in the target article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article already cites strong, reliable sources, and this stream is widely considered the most significant moment of his streaming career. Because of that, I believe it earns its own standalone page. CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sourcing about the meme as a standalone entity doesn't appear that substantial, and per WP:PAGEDECIDE it can be more appropriately covered and contextualized within the main page. Zzz plant (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m all for it. I’ve been on TikTok and seen the meme a lot. But I have a feeling that the people who made the article were some kids that wanted to see their favorite meme on Wikipedia. If you want, I’ll nominate the article for deletion. Ilovehistory2011 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to feel obligated to support or oppose this article's deletion. I personally feel that this article is both unnecessary and insufficiently covered by reliable secondary sources; it would be like if Wikipedia had a standalone article for Twomad's "Goodnight, Girl, I'll See You Tomorrow" quote. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I’m sort of new here, so I wanted to make sure people were okay with it. Ilovehistory2011 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think it would be better if it was not marked for deletion while this merge discussion is ongoing. See Wikipedia:Merging for a detailed explanation of this process. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Ilovehistory2011 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The meme is popular on its own and the sources of the meme are completely different from the actual IShowSpeed page AppleyAppleson (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, IShowMeat and the 4th of July incident need their own articles Ilovehistory2011 (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, due to those incidents and memes not being as big as this one. This meme has been popular across multiple years since its happened, and has been getting more and more popular, reaching its notability status as an article. AppleyAppleson (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few commenters here should know notability is not about popularity or how some editors perceive its cultural impact. Notability on Wikipedia is more objective - about the sources. I can't deny seeing this meme spread around a lot, but I don't see how a Wikipedia reader unfamiliar with the meme would understand the extent that it went popular or was impactful after reading that article. They'd probably think "That's it? It originated a few GIFs and some people online rated it 10/10 on some movie database?" I just don't see why this can't just be described on the IShowSpeed article, with the whole context on the streamer.
Also, not sure what "sources of the meme are completely different from the actual IShowSpeed page" means; the sources on My Mom Is Kinda Homeless can be moved to IShowSpeed. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many big sources on this meme too, also reaching notablity. ~2025-34586-17 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I would consider that the sources don't provide that much significant coverage about its impact and whatnot. They're mostly regurgitating what happened on those streams, which can be easily summarized in the IShowSpeed article without much loss of valuable information. Other than mere GNG, we should consider WP:NOPAGE too. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above replies.
SpragueThomsontalk 18:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It reaches notability and is split enough from Ishowspeed to be it's own page ~2025-34586-17 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative per nom Gabriel120YT (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above replies. 77qq 💬 contributions 23:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If the article had a bit more detail and there was more WP:SIGCOV for the sources, it can be kept. Unfortunately, thats not the case. If this topic gets more sources it can retain article status. WhatADrag07 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this meme has skyrocketed IShowSpeed to an internet icon and not to mention this is one of the most recognizable moments of his entire career, many artists have made satirical arts based off this meme, that should really tell us if it deserves a page or not. Mvschiline (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs citations to back its authenticity according to all of the Wikipedia guidelines that the users have posted under this thread. Without it, you can't verify its notability, regardless of whether there are satirical artworks and other things associated with this meme or not. That's just how Wikipedia works, everyone surely knows just how popular it is in modern culture, but if it fails to meet the requirements, then it will surely be merged. Gdshordy (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not define nor help notability. Notability is based on the citations in the article, and its coverage. Currently, there are insufficient sources to give sufficient notability for this topic to warrant its own article. Even so, the citations they use just state what IShowSpeed say. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 09:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it doesn't meet the criteria, right? So it's gonna get merged either way Gdshordy (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, also just to be clear, I was replying to the @Mvschiline’s reply, I generally agree with yours. Satirical art doesn’t help with notability, and the article should be merged. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 02:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry I thought you was talking to me, what a foolish mistake by me. Gdshordy (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fine, it’s not foolish at all. This reply system can be a bit visually misleading at times, I myself should have indicated or pinned the person whom I was replying to. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 03:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this isn't Know Your Meme. This should have been SNOW'ed. B3251(talk) 04:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be notable on its own Wikiman2230 (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Honestly, I do not really have a strong opinion on this. “My Mom is Kinda Homeless” has sufficient notability, but I also see the point of the argument mentioning that other memes made by IShowSpeed should also have an article too, like the IShowMeat incident.
I think that other memes and incidents have sufficient notability to warrant its own article, but it may not be fully necessary. So ig it is also possible to make some new articles on the other memes around IShowSpeed.
I honestly don’t know though, I don’t think either choice would be very detrimental or beneficial in any way. Gileselig (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I think popular memes are already appropriately covered on Know Your Meme, and a Wikipedia article wouldn't serve much. When secondary sources describe a meme's real world impact in detail or thoroughly analyze it - information that might not really be fit for a KYM entry - I think that is where a separate Wikipedia article would be warranted.
The IShowMeat incident got a very brief burst of coverage and fails WP:NEVENT. It is already appropriately discussed on the article. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with you @ObserveOwl 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 06:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It’s very important to note that this meme will naturally die off, and get superseded by other, future IShowSpeed memes. (Heck, I think that it may be slowly dying already). I am not too sure if this also means that its notability will go down as time goes by, bc I relatively new to Wikipedia. For that reason, I would like to shift my neutrality to a support for the merge. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌 :) 06:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notable on its own
Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This meme is more widely known than most when looking at the sources. This is no different from All Your Base. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the meme article doesn't document any significant usage outside of the streamer himself: it just quotes the original clip from 2021, quotes him revisiting it in 2025, and says that his fans briefly review-bombed IMDb about it. If the clip was a major part of his streaming career, it should be given more detail in his biography anyway. Belbury (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different from All Your Base, except more known. BlackVulcanX (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to merit a standalone article. Reviewing bombing of imdb is hardly notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just IMDB. There is also IGN, Indy100, GamesRadar+, and News18, and more. BlackVulcanX (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please wikipedia!! I need this!!! My article is kinda failing WP:GNG.... But seriously, we should merge the entire article with IShowSpeed in the 2022-2023 section. Even the part about the reception on IMDB and the revival microTato(🗯️) (✍🏻) 15:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article seems to be too short and does not have so many references, even if it is somewhat notable. I think the text and citations should be merged.
Babin Mew (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, articles that are too short can sometimes retain article status, due to its potential to be expanded significantly in the future. However, I don’t see any for this article, so I think a merger is perfect for this occasion honestly. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 09:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2025

[edit]

In March 2024, Watkins released his first extended play, Trip 2 Brazil, a baile funk–influenced project featuring Brazilian collaborators.

In 2025 he issued a run of singles, including “Higher” (April 19), “Can You Be All Mine?” (May 31), “Head Shot / Gas in the Truck” (June 14), “Big Girls” (July 26), “i know” (August 16), and “Bailar” (August 30). He also released the project Speed Gang in August 2025. VrajPatel9 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jolielover♥talk 06:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Known online as IShowSpeed

[edit]

Hey! I am writing to reach a consensus on the phrasing of the lead sentence for this article. There is currently a content dispute similar to the one on Pokimane's page. One editor (@ConeKota) prefers (and keeps reverting back to) the phrasing "also known as his pseudonym IShowSpeed." Other editors, including myself, prefer the standard and clearer phrasing "known online as IShowSpeed". 'pseudonym' is mostly used as a pen name to describe authors wish to conceal their identity, doesn't fit much with streamers. Please discuss the change here.

Cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'pseudonym' is mostly used as a pen name to describe authors wish to conceal their identity, doesn't fit much with streamers.
I’m honestly not convinced by the argument that pseudonym “doesn’t fit” here, and it’s frustrating to see that point repeated as if it were established fact. Per Wikipedia’s own article on “Pseudonym,” the term is defined as “a fictitious name used by a person, distinct from their true name,” and it explicitly states that pseudonyms are used by performers, artists, and public figures—not just authors and not only as “pen names.” Concealment of identity is not a requirement.
Online creators and entertainers routinely use pseudonyms, and Wikipedia consistently refers to stage names, screen names, and creator names as such when they function as a substitute for a legal name. “IShowSpeed” is a deliberately chosen, professional name under which he is publicly known, credited, and branded. That is exactly how a pseudonym functions.
The claim that pseudonym is somehow incorrect because he is a streamer doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s own definitions or its broader usage across biographies of entertainers and internet personalities. While “known online as” is certainly serviceable, that does not make pseudonym inaccurate, non-standard, or misleading.
At this point, reverting solely on the basis of personal preference rather than definitional accuracy doesn’t seem productive. The wording “also known by his pseudonym IShowSpeed” is supported by reliable definitions and established encyclopedic usage.
Cheers! (P.S. No need to ping me on two articles at the same time, I mostly won't respond to both at the same time aswell.) ConeKota (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "pseudonym" is not the standard phrasing on Wikipedia. The most common/standard phrasing on Wikipedia are "known professionally as X" or "known by their stage name X." Whereas "Pseudonym ~ pen name" is primarily used for authors, see Mark Twain or Lewis Carroll.
This definition is supported by major dictionaries like Merriam Webster: "a fictitious name, especially pen name; Mark Twain is the pseudonym of the American writer Samuel L. Clemens." Cambridge: "a name someone uses instead of their real name, especially on a written work". Collins: "A pseudonym is a name which someone, usually a writer, uses instead of his or her real name."
For the Wikipedia definition of Pseudonym, in the lead is mentioned "Many pseudonym holders use them because they wish to remain anonymous and maintain privacy..", and if you check the Usage, the most common (and longest part) is Literature because that where the term is used the most. So for online streamers who are not hiding their faces or who they are, the term doesn't fit.
This is not about "personal preference". Rap no Davinci (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the sources you’ve cited establish that pseudonym is inaccurate here, only that it is commonly associated with writers. “Especially,” “primarily,” and “usually” in dictionary definitions describe frequency of use, not a restriction of meaning. None of those definitions exclude performers, entertainers, or online creators, nor do they require anonymity or privacy as a condition.
Wikipedia’s own article on Pseudonym explicitly states that pseudonyms are used by performers, artists, and public figures, and concealment of identity is described as one motivation, not a requirement. The “Usage” section being literature-heavy reflects historical prevalence, not a binding rule on modern biographical wording.
More importantly, Wikipedia biography leads are not governed by dictionary usage statistics, but by MOS:LEAD and MOS:BIO, which prioritise clarity and accuracy. “IShowSpeed” is a deliberately adopted professional name under which he is publicly known, credited, and branded—functionally a pseudonym by definition. There is nothing misleading or non-standard about that description.
That said, I agree that “known professionally as” or “known online as” are also acceptable stylistic options. But framing pseudonym as incorrect or inapplicable to streamers overstates the case and isn’t supported by policy or definition. This remains a wording choice between multiple accurate options, not an issue of factual correctness.
(P.S. You are only twisting your own words.This is not about "personal preference" but also said, Other editors, including myself, prefer the standard and clearer phrasing "known online as IShowSpeed". ConeKota (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Dictionary definitions describe frequency of use, not a restriction of meaning", that's correct, since pseudonym is most frequently used for writers, there is a greater chance that readers could find the wording a bit confusing, and since "Wikipedia biography leads .. prioritise clarity and accuracy" then our aim should be to choose the most accurate phrasing and least confusing, for online streamers, wouldn't that be "known online as X"? Rap no Davinci (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reader clarity is a core goal of MOS:LEAD, but I don’t think “frequency of use” alone is enough to override definitional accuracy here.
“Known online as X” is certainly clear and serviceable, but it isn’t inherently more accurate—it’s simply more specific to platform context. Pseudonym remains an accurate descriptor of a professionally adopted name, even if readers most often encounter it in literary contexts. Wikipedia regularly uses technically correct terms even when they are not the most common lay association, so long as they are not misleading.
Crucially, there’s no evidence that readers are actually confused by the term “pseudonym” in biographies of entertainers or internet personalities. Absent demonstrable confusion or policy guidance discouraging its use, substituting a broader term purely on presumed reader interpretation risks turning this into a stylistic preference rather than a clarity issue.
So while “known online as IShowSpeed” is a valid alternative, it’s not demonstrably more accurate, just differently framed. Both phrasings satisfy clarity and accuracy; neither is incorrect. That’s why this should be treated as a style choice with multiple acceptable options, not as a correction of an error. ConeKota (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that "known by pseudonym" to be as clear and accurate as "known online as" for online streamers, then there isn't anything else to add that won't have us just go in circles! To move forward, I propose the most Wikipedian approach: let's look at what the sources say.
Major publications like Forbes, Rolling Stone, and The Washington Post keep it simple, by using "better known as". I was unable to find a single reliable source that used "pseudonym" about IShowSpeed. If you have any, please do share it. Rap no Davinci (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re treating pseudonym as something that needs to be explicitly named by sources to be usable. That’s not how Wikipedia works. WP:PARAPHRASE explicitly allows us to summarise a concept without copying the source’s wording, and MOS:LEAD cares about accuracy first, not whether journalists used a specific noun.
Sources saying “better known as IShowSpeed” are describing the exact concept of a pseudonym, even if they don’t spell the word out. Wikipedia routinely labels things (stage name, pen name, pseudonym) that sources imply rather than name outright. That’s normal encyclopedic summarisation, not synthesis.
So this isn’t “inventing terminology” or misframing the subject — it’s accurately naming what the sources already describe. If pseudonym were incorrect, that would be one thing. But it isn’t. Arguing otherwise conflates source wording preference with factual accuracy, and those are not the same thing. ConeKota (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, not going in circles about this. Please provide your sources since you're the one bringing a new term to these articles of streamers. Rap no Davinci (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t need sources that literally use the word “pseudonym.” Reliable sources saying someone is “better known as” or “known online as” a name are enough (as you've mentioned clearly enough). Wikipedia lets us summarise that accurately (per WP:PARAPHRASE, as I've said numerous times). The sources must support the concept of an alternate name; they don’t have to spell out the exact term.
I’m fine if you choose to ignore what I’m saying, but the rules still support this usage. ConeKota (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stretching definitions could make it difficult for general readers to understand. We could say "is known by their fictitious name Y", that would technically be correct, but confusing. We're looking for maximum clarity; which phrasing reflects how the subject is presented in reliable sources and aligns with Wikipedia's biographical style.
I am more than happy to change it to "better known as" since it's the most neutral and least confusing phrase. However, for you to introduce a new term in the lead sentence, community consensus is needed. Rap no Davinci (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think pseudonym is more clear. A lot of people call him Speed in real life. BlackVulcanX (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]