The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Young Sheldon's Raegan Revord on books, writing and acting

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 19 December 2024 by reviewer Anuwrites (talk · contribs). 2010s Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

In case Raegan Revord or someone who knows her sees this, please consider contributing a picture of her per Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to be ignoring the fact that SettingSunset_ has streamed on Twitch with face and voice visible/audible, and it is clearly Revord. There is your proof right there. The account belongs to them and confirms they/them pronouns.

Also, to some of you out there who continue to use she/her pronouns, just because you can’t find a reliable source for editing, doesn’t mean you can’t have basic respect and use what you know are the right pronouns. Jlchips (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, it is unclear whether Revord uses those pronouns outside of her Sunset alias. Her website uses the pronoun 'her' for her, which proves this. 86.143.44.159 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This website clearly hasn’t been updated in a while, as it still mentions Revord being 15 years old. Wakkapakka (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, an Instagram video of an interview with Revord refers to her with feminine pronouns in the caption. Revord reposted this and clearly had no objection to being referred to like that. 2A00:23C6:89E:3501:19B1:CDDC:DDD9:963A (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the same video/stream I'm thinking of, did any of the people say "I am/they are SS" or something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jlchips: First off, thank you for realizing discussion is not locked - your own contribution is evidence to the contrary. Second, while your proof would verify a claim such as "Revord is streaming on Twitch using the persona of SettingSunset that uses they/them pronouns" it is currently deemed not to verify a claim such as "Revord uses they/them pronouns", a much more general statement. That is the reason this article is not making this latter claim; we're waiting for a reliable source (if one ever appears; we're not ruling out none will). The fact Revord so far hasn't made a clearly definitive/official statement or otherwise provided any clear guidance on preferred address (verifiably traceable back to Revord) suggests it might be a good call to hold off. Thank you for your understanding. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp@Novem Linguae@Queen of Hearts@NatGertler, other interested.

This video [1] appears to be Revord talking about her SS reveal. Is it something we should use per WP:ABOUTSELF, and if so, how? We could perhaps put "Revord has used the handle "Setting Sunset" on social media since 2022." under Personal life or something like that, but per earlier discussion I'm hesitant going further with that as source, though "Setting Sunset" uses they/them pronouns. is possibly ok too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summarize or at least provide one or more timestamps, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång? The video is over 23 minutes long. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp Sort of a smoking gun at 1:04-1:10 (I haven't watched all of it), but it's not a very focused discussion, and it seems the intended audience is people who know what SS is all about. Noting also that at c. 0:47-0:54, Revord's interlocutor seems to use they/them pronouns. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have the technical problem of that video appearing to be a self-published source that cannot be used about the living visuals except the publisher, and Revord is not the publisher, even though it appears that who is the guest. We get into the loop that we don't have a reliable source (whether a reliable third-party source such as People or a social media source that is either officially verified to Revord or covered in reliable source as belonging to Revord) that links Sunset to Revord. There may be a WP:SKYISBLUE argument to be made (I'd say that's what Jchip is doing), but particularly with a minor and gender issues, I think we're in the realm where caution is called for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first question is (haven't seen the video yet): is Revord specifically and deliberately distinguishing between this Setting Sunset persona and herself/themselves? If so, this shouldn't impact the article (without further communications, of course) since Raegan Revord isn't about Setting Sunset. (Mentioning Setting Sunset is of course fine, assuming a RS can be found) If Revord is addressing themselves using they/them full stop, however, I see no defensible reason to hold off editing our article. I don't think Wikipedia waits once a BIO has declared their preference based on exactly where and how they made that declaration - AFAIK the reason we have held off is, to put it crudely, much more "Is this perhaps limited to Setting Sunset? Would we do Revord a disservice if we conflated the notable person with the twitch handle?" and much less "Revord needs to understand we only accept certain sources, why isn't she making an official statement". Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents again, maintaining this caution and uncertainty around “gender issues” may just further perpetuate negative stigma. It isn’t something we need to tiptoe around, it’s just like any other Wikipedia dispute. So I’m hoping we don’t let “it’s about gender issues” influence us against making the right edit.

I do agree with the potential split between Revord and the SS persona (as CapnZapp mentioned). However, seeing as it is an account which Revord does obviously stream on (indeed my WP:SKYISBLUE argument), I still think it should be included in the article. Jlchips (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view remains that atm, no independent WP:RS or even confirmed Revord social media has bothered to mention SS, so mentioning the SS-accounts reasonably fails WP:PROPORTION for now. On pronouns, we have on one hand the SS-twitter, on the other hand "Raegan started this journey from her love of reading" plus "Actress Raegan Revord known for her role as Missy Cooper". And fwiw, this is from this month. For me, this adds up to leaving pronouns out, we need more solid sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a nitpick, but just mentioning the social media accounts wouldn't fail PROPORTION in my mind. After all, nobody is disputing it is actually Revord in those clips. It is the outright replacement of our article's pronouns based solely on those social media accounts (which, as a reminder, can't be tied to something approximating Revord's official position on preference) that is in contention if you ask me. CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And IMO, per sources available, WP:PROPORTION-fail fits hand in glove here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think this discussion of the supposed pronouns of a teenage girl is particularly conducive to the core mission of Wikipedia. The status quo is fine as it is. Nerd271 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID is very important to many people, it is what it is, and there's WP:BITE etc to keep in mind. Which I think we have, and new arrivals have been civil too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, your stance is outdated and you are well advised to update it, User:Nerd271. Respecting the life decisions of our article subjects has probably been elevated to one of the highest priorities of the core mission of Wikipedia during the last decade. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @PrimeHunter, @Liz and @Sandstein, incase you like to watch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the AfD has closed, I hope everyone involved, especially User:Pppery, can agree the discussion was at least closed properly (even though we got that scare at the last moment 🤡). Note: I am not asking you to agree or disagree with the outcome (which was The result was no consensus‎. Substantively, the community seems divided here. It is quite unlikely that more discussion would move this anywhere nearer to a consensus, but there is clearly no consensus to delete.), only whether the close was properly done, since that was the main impetus for having a 3rd discussion: not that the previous consensuses (consensii?) were "wrong" per se, but that the discussion(s) were closed prematurely or for the wrong reasons. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the close, but if there's a new DRV, please let me know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of visits per 30 days, I am surprised that there are people who would like to delete this page, which is steadily growing. Give it a bit more time and questions about its notability would be moot, even if this page were still a draft. Nerd271 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says nothing about traffic, afaik. But people did make IAR-style arguments in the latest afd, and that may have had some effect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brand_new_user_forging_signatures_on_a_bunch_of_non-admin_closures. I happened to see the afd during the 36 min it was closed. That was a mean prank. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

raegan reword uses they/them pronouns as you can see on their twitter page https://x.com/SettingSunset_ 188.18.179.196 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. article already uses they/them as far as i can see Cannolis (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please change pronouns from she/her to they/them. These are the pronouns Raegan uses on their gaming social medias. ^[1] Chronicallychandler (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But nowhere else, see Talk:Raegan_Revord#Another_pronoun_comment and earlier discussions, some archived. To recap, per WP-rules like WP:BLP/WP:PROPORTION, what is wanted is an interview or article in for example People that mentions this somehow, or a confirmed RR social media/website (Insta, FB, RwR, what have you) where Revord mentions a preference. If there is none atm, we'll wait. Consider also that putting those pronouns on the Setting Sunset twitter doesn't necessarily mean intending to do so on all aspects of life. Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion Gråbergs refers to can be found here: Talk:Raegan Revord/Archive 3#They/Them Pronouns. Thank you.

I genuinely don’t understand why this debate is still going. It does absolutely zero harm to change Revord’s pronouns to match their chosen ones, even if SettingSunset hasn’t been 100% confirmed to be Revord. Wakkapakka (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not the pronouns Revord wants to use professionally, then the harm is giving that person the wrong pronouns, which is viewed as harmful. Revord has a number of official web presences, and has posted to them lately without making any statement about pronouns, and with she/her pronouns remaining on them.

Revord is apparently about to do an SXSW panel, judging from the official facebook page, so I reckon it's quite possible that we will have something usable shortly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revord at SXSW. Perhaps [2] will tell us something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another presentation link: [3] It appears to be the same text, but without the "do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SXSW" disclaimer. Both use female pronouns when presenting Revord. The presentation of the event linked ([4]) introduces "three young innovators" and refers to them as "these young women" seemingly with no proviso for other/no genders. CapnZapp (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify that this in no way precludes Revord from using this event to declare new pronouns, only as a comment on whether we have gendered her correctly so far. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed that page I linked said "Programming descriptions are generated by participants and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SXSW." Her choice of pronouns, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very fair argument I have not seen yet. Hopefully we can get something from the SXSW panel. Wakkapakka (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The direct link to the segment is [5] but I really think we should choose to wait: If Revord uses this opportunity to make a declaration I'm sure a reputable source will pick this up. If not, she probably is there only as an enthusiastic entrepreneur talking about her book club, not as a gamer interested in gender identity. It didn't feel appropriate to monitor her every utterance here for clues on pronouns so I didn't do it. CapnZapp (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Actress and author Raegan Revord talks debut novel and bookish fun at SXSW EDU, it didn't come up.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What harm does changing pronouns do? That's the exact question making Wikipedia work hard to give people preferring they/them the courtesy they deserve. But this goes both ways - if someone wants to be addressed as he/him or she/her, it stands to reason it would be equally harmful to mislabel him or her as they/them. If you argue it does "absolutely zero harm" to change someone's pronouns, then you're effectively also arguing it does no harm NOT to change them. You don't get to have a one-way street here, where people get to mind being labeled as male or female, but where we deny people minding being labeled as non- or neutral-gendered. Either way, Wikipedia disagrees with this view and spends considerable effort correctly gendering our article subjects. Not prematurely changing Revord's pronouns should be seen as a manifestation of that respect. CapnZapp (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, this is a source from Soap Central that mentions "queer" or "they/them" pronouns. Absolutiva (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soapcentral is, along with Dexerto and Daily Mirror, one of those that shouldn't be used for serious BLP-stuff. About a WP:MINOR (that essay is an essay). In a MOS:GENDERID/WP:CTOP context. As has been noted, her official web-presences remains unchanged, and stuff like [6][7] is more recent/WP:RS.

That said, Soapcentral persists (that's from yesterday), perhaps things are changing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutiva, just to clarify - thank you for engaging on talk. To expand on what Gråberg said (what's up. With the fragmented. Sentencing, Grå?) the key question isn't truly if Soapcentral can't be relied on... rather it's if the information is legitimate, it should be picked up by other, more reputable, sources. Thus, either no other sources are forthcoming and then Soapcentral ends up looking very suspect, or other sources are forthcoming... in which case we prefer to use them. Either way, it's important to get it right, which is why Wikipedia doesn't change its information at the slightest whim or rumor.

Now, to the actual source provided. To me it is clear Soapcentral and Jashandeep Singh hasn't been near Revord; this is just a regurgitation of an old interview of Revord's. To me there is nothing compelling about a random internet writer choosing a particular set of pronouns. Just from this link alone, assuming it isn't an outlier, I can clearly see why we consider Soapcentral generally unreliable. (And if you Google "raegan revord site:soapcentral.com" you will easily see it is not an outlier...) Revord is an established actor; I am certain Revord's team knows how to message something like this. And this ain't it. CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more sources like Sorry, but Lance Barber Is Wrong About This ‘Young Sheldon’ Character around, interested editors could try to make a separate Missy Cooper article. 2 actresses, 3 tv-series, it's not unthinkable. But consider WP:BACKWARD. And since Missy is fictional, that article can have a non-free leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss there being a row about this article having a lead image, or am I misinterpreting that last part, Gråbergs? CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have in the past added pics like [8] to Commons/this article, and they have been speedily deleted. More routine than row. WP:s rules about pics are not obvious to new arrivals. A story:

Dixit, for example, found Jeremy Strong of Succession at a New York showing of the new The Apprentice and asked to take a new headshot of him for Wikipedia. “His publicist said no,” Dixit said. “But Jeremy said, ‘Wait, you’re from Wikipedia? For the love of God, please take down that photo. You’d be doing me a service.’ So he stood and posed, and I got a shot of him.” Strong’s old photo was from 2014. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the WikiPortrait people were at SXSW... last year. SO close! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were there this year too, but no pic, it seems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, Revord's participation ("Three Innovators Discuss Books, Media, & Entrepreneurship") was part of SXSW EDU 2025, which was held 3-6 March, just ahead of SXSW 2025, which happened 7-15 March. CapnZapp (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - if and when the gender identity of this article subject changes, don't forget to change or at least review the categories displayed here on talk (down below), currently: Start-Class WikiProject Women articles, All WikiProject Women-related pages, & WikiProject Women articles. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

change She to they change her the their and all appropriate changes with grammar with the pronoun change 2001:56B:3FF5:5224:4C03:981A:BB3:624B (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Raegan_Revord#Another_pronoun_comment and the several other discussions on this, some archived. See also [9] from South by Southwest regarding an event earlier this month. That page states "Programming descriptions are generated by participants". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gråbergs, but in the interests of cutting down on these edit requests, let's speak more directly: unless you can source that Revord have changed her pronouns in general, this article will retain the pronouns she is using now, and those are she/her. Put otherwise, this isn't an article about the SettingSun social media account specifically, this is an article about Raegan Revord in all her capacities. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those that missed SXSW and why Revord was there: recent CBS Austin news article. Note how this source uses female pronouns for Revord throughout the article, which is consistent with how she was presented by the actual event (per Gråbergs link and similar ones upthread). CapnZapp (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison: The article Desmond is Amazing uses they/them pronouns. Based on this, which is clear and unambiguous. Sometimes people change those pronouns anyway, but such is life on an open wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is published by or for Desmond, yes of course. SP (self published) sources aren't good for much, but we can and do use them to verify a BIO's direct wishes. Whether that article was changed specifically because of the linked site, I take your word for it. But it matters little: not only do we not have any SP content from Revord (that clearly is about her overall wishes and can't be misinterpreted as mere role-play for instance), we have recent RS directly contradicting the claim made here, that Revord uses they/them pronouns. CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that people have at times changed pronouns at Desmond is Amazing despite the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am very aware that even with the most iron-clad source, Wikipedia still attracts trolls and vandals, especially given current political headwinds. But I am not interpreting the rash of edit requests here to be trolling; instead I think most of them are GF attempts at following Revord's wishes, just focusing a bit too much on online handles. CapnZapp (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly worth a try, but many new arrivals, perhaps particularly on smartphones etc [10], will not bother to check earlier threads. We could nail something like Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting at the top. It's not foolproof, but some people might see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel an editnotice is the way to go, if we want to go in that direction. I rarely check older talk sections myself before posting! :-) Not to speak specifically about that FAQ but it to me does carry a small whiff of something created in order to be able to have something to point to, a "we told you so", when reverting changes. I far prefer efforts that instead actively try to intercept readers, preventing them from wasting their efforts before they waste said efforts. Furthermore, I have seen small easily-missed editnotices and am of the opinion an edit notice should be big, bright and in your face to serve any function. So if you want to create one, I suggest making it several lines high and probably use bold language, and a template with a warning icon and/or contrasting background color as well. Do check the appearance on a smallish mobile phone. Finally, I will hope we can agree editnotices should always be a temporary measure - best is if they're created to expire right off the bat. Best of luck, CapnZapp (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change She/Her pronouns to They/Them. Reagan Revord has stated that those are their preferred pronouns. They are also listed as their pronouns on their Instagram page for their gaming channel @settingsunset_. 142.147.71.91 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread above this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord has revealed themselves to be nonbinary on their streaming account SettingSunset, and uses they/them pronouns. Alyssa.sambur (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Raegan_Revord#What_harm_does_changing_pronouns_do? and other discussions on this, there are several on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång & everybody: I took a stab at creating an editnotice trying to reduce these edit requests, have a look at: Talk:Raegan Revord/editnotice draft. CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: 1) if and when this goes live - please remember to update the actual location of the edit notice page. 2) are edit notices shown for people that can't edit articles (in this case because of protection)...? This should be shown to editors getting the "you can't edit the page, do you want to make an edit request" blurb, not just to editors that actually get to edit the page. 3) not 100% sure the page status indicator system is right for what I'm trying to accomplish (a link to the actual edit notice in the top right of the edit notice). regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I was reminded edit notices already contain a self-reference by default (since quite recently), so I'll remove the self-reference. The edit notice should, of course, go to Template:Editnotices/Page/Raegan Revord when and if enabled. I am also to understand edit notices work nowaydays on mobile, which is good. What is still a question is whether they show up when editing is blocked, where the editor is asked to instead make an edit request. Displaying the edit notice to those users is the primary intended audience after all. CapnZapp (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally understand now that edit requests are fancy ways of editing the talk page, so if we add the edit notice both to the article and talk (this page), we should give everyone a chance of reassessing before they publish. CapnZapp (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will do no harm. However, editors who come to this talkpage with this [11] view, like the 2/3 of the latest thread starters, will not see it unless they tap the discreet i in a circle.

A pinned thread at the top with a heading in the line of "If you came here because you want the article to use "they/them", please read this first'" is more visible, which of course don't guarantee it will be seen or listened to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And my indent was indicating that I was responding to your first post. I was typing my response before you added your second post. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got you. Feel free to rearrange. CapnZapp (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We are likely misunderstanding each other. I'm talking about an edit notice, a blurb you see when you edit the article (or attempt to), both on desktop and mobile, not something visible on talk. As I stated earlier, the reason I want to make an edit notice over a talk message is because I believe talk messages with the "before you edit..." purpose are largely wasted in that a) I suspect most editors are like me in rarely reading talk page before editing ;) and b) a message like on Muhammed Ali easily gets lost among the talk header clutter anyway and c) as your link shows, almost every tool we have to make something stand out on talk are suppressed for mobile users anyway, so even if they do check talk first, there's no way to catch their attention. That's not to say we can't have both; I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, just to explain my own effort. I'm sure you knew all this already, but I'm confused by your reply, so hopefully this clears up my intent. Do you have any thoughts on the actual edit notice? Best, CapnZapp (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looking at your link I thought you meant that as a talkpage banner, but you meant like if you try to edit Jesus. Got it, and no objection to that. Of course, I reverted someone who ignored that on Jesus just the other day[12], but in those cases it gives you something to copypaste. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, to everybody: please have a look at Talk:Raegan Revord/editnotice draft. Is this ready to be implemented as an edit notice?

Specifically, asking an administrator, page mover, or template editor to move this draft into:

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Raegan Revord (to catch people before making an edit)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Raegan Revord (to catch people before making an edit request)

I suggest an expiry of 60 days, though I suppose that's up to the implementing editor.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is that "Before you edit the page, please understand the topic of Revord's preferred pronouns have been discussed extensively on the talk page." is both genteel and vague. Perhaps something like "Wikipedia supports using people's preferred pronouns. There are specific complications regarding Revord's expressed preferences that make that unclear here. If you're concerned about the pronoun usage here, please join in on the conversations on the talk page rather than making changes yourself."? (I don't know how much this is needed if the page gets under the current arbitration remedies.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now WP:BLUELOCKed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the extra remedies will take care of the edits/edit requests, though I guess it can't hurt to further improve the edit notice draft for when (if?) the extra measures are pulled back. To that end: I have two observations, but first, a thank you for responding Nat Gertler. I would personally avoid stating "Wikipedia supports using people's preferred pronouns" because that implies edits are vandalous and against this principle, and most edits and edit requests are if anything too zealous, but still adherents to this principle. But I don't mind it if the consensus is it would help. I do advise against us claiming Revord's pronoun preference is "unclear" however - we have no evidence of that, and I would avoid claiming anything other than "Revord prefers she/her AND she uses a SettingSunset persona using they/them" (without further sources, of course). There was a reason I was "genteel and vague" - if an editor is hell-bent on making an edit or edit request, an edit notice can't stop them, so I'm not really addressing the kind of close-minded editor. Instead, an edit notice as I see it is for the open-minded editor, and meant to prevent them from making an effort which is bound to be frustrated later. CapnZapp (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I neither see the implication of vandalism you claim nor see anything in the message that you propose that will actually discourage edits. I see the editors coming to edit in they/them as having either (or a mix of) two viewpoints. One is that we are simply uaware of SS stating a preference, the other is that Wikipedia is anti-trans/anti-enbee and they're damn well going to correct the page whether we like it or not. That first sentence I propose, which is simply a reflection of MOS:GENDERID meant to reassure the second group; the second sentence, suggesting that we have that knowledge but are aware of some other factors, is meant for the first.

As for RR's prefered pronouns, that is indeed unclear. For SS, we have an actual statement of preference, which doesn't come with any statement of "but I only mean this when I'm using the SS name". For RR, we have no such statement, we merely have the implication that arises from practice, some of which is older material that has not been updated, some of which is promotional material that may have been sent out in advance of SS's statement and in any case may well be being handled by a publicist who may not have been fully coordinated on what was going on, and that RR did not make any corrective statement during an appearance in Texas, which is not the most friendly place to be promoting pronoun preferences at the moment. So we are in a situation where us using she/her pronouns is in no way egregious treatment of RR, as such terms continue to appear on RR's own sites, but we don't have a solid statement one way or another. So "unclear" is accurate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the latter part since it is by far the most important one. For me to be comfortable characterizing the situation as "unclear", I would need reliable sourcing, or this is just original research. As I see it, our confusion and/or uncertainty comes from our particular needs; none of that should spill over on Revord. CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standards of discussing the status we're in on the talk page (if you'd rather "unclear to us", fine) is different than the standards for article content.... and if not, I don't see how you justify "Revord prefers she/her AND she uses a SettingSunset persona using they/them" when I can find no such statement from Revord, just our assumptions based on past usage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue if you use the phrase "unclear" here on talk because I agree the situation is unclear - to us Wikipedia editors. I don't think it is appropriate to say the situation is unclear in general, and thus I advise against saying so in outward-facing content, such as article text or edit notices.

In the same vein, I only intended Revord prefers she/her AND she uses a SettingSunset persona using they/them for talk page usage, not as a claim to be made in an edit notice. What I suggest for an edit notice is what you see in the draft. CapnZapp (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an edit notice as "outward facing"; it is only seen by those editing Wikipedia (or at least trying to), and as such is an editorial discussion much like a Talk page message. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the implication, first off: can we agree that I can interpret something even if you didn't intend it to be interpreted that way? The fact you did not intend one interpretation does not mean it can't be a valid interpretation. I can see it from your angle, now can you see it from mine? Outright stating "Wikipedia supports using people's preferred pronouns" I hope you can see people asking "why would they ever need to say that unless people vandalized the page". But I've already stated that I won't object if consensus is this is helpful. Personally I wouldn't bother addressing the second group at all, not in an edit notice: as I said, that fundamentally misunderstand the power of an edit notice. CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that "unclear" isn't quite right from the WP-perspective, available sources points strongly in the "no change for now" direction for WP-purposes. We can speculate about if her web-presences are up to date and where, and the nature of appearing in Texas, but it's not that helpful. I'm reminded of "have been closeted by their management company, Modest Management, supposedly guided by homophobic corporate interests." I started that article. And if you like that one, don't miss Johnlock. Gaylors is not an article. Yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, was there a discussion of this elsewhere before either of the contentious topic status or the extended confirmation protection was implemented? Or did this just happen to get administrative attention because of the recent slew of edits? CapnZapp (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for EP at WP:RFPP after my last article-revert, and @Daniel Case thought I made sense.[13]. As he noted, it's a WP:CTOP/WP:CT/GG issue (because the non-binary etc claim), that was true even before he added a banner, that's just info, not implementation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I'll go ahead and ask for the edit notice to be added to edits of both article and talk. As stated above, I prefer to avoid having it make statements that newcoming would-be editors might construe as "official", unless of course the consensus don't mind. CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. Current expiry: 27 May 2025. CapnZapp (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva, hello. Facebook is fine as WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:FACEBOOK that you linked says so as well. There are alternatives, but FB is fine for the purpose. We could for example use readwithraegan.com, but IMO official social media is a little better in this context, more general so to speak. However, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL we shouldn't have both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Instagram or Twitter (X), cannot be used as external links, as stated: Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged (ELNO#10). Facebook is particularly discouraged as viewing the page sometimes requires registration (ELNO#6). Facebook, MySpace, and Instagram pages (other than official links) could be characterized as fansites (ELNO#11). But no official websites are present. Absolutiva (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about one/the WP:ELOFFICIAL here, that is not a directory of complete web presence. That would be an issue if we start adding more of her personal websites, insta, YT, readwithraegan.com etc. One social media as WP:ELOFFICIAL is perfectly acceptable. We can take this to WP:ELN if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged". However, for some people, the social networking site is their official link. When there is no "www.FirstLastname.com" option, but there is a social media account, then you should add the social media link. You can even put it in the {{official website}} template.

As background information, the #1 most clicked-on link for a typical Wikipedia article is the subject's official website. People are relying on us to figure out what the real link is, and to not post a fake one. Therefore I encourage you to include any link that is actually connected to the subject, even if it's just a social media account and not a full website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gråberg considered the video links EL:MAYBE, I would argue they are clearly ELNO.

External links should be relevant for an "encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and such value is dubious here, especially since the links are simply there, with zero context or commentary. If the appearance is worth mentioning, it should be mentioned in the article (as text, possibly using the link as a source, but probably not on its own). The linked site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article, in other words, we should only use external links when we can't integrate the content into our article.

Or Too Long; Didn't Read: let's avoid building up a link farm of random Revord appearances.

I've removed them; feel free to re-add if you wish to argue for their value. CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've re-added them once already, I won't revert you as well, but I disagree on the removal. WP:EL:s under discussion:

• Raegan Revord/Missy Cooper gives SCS a tour of Young Sheldon set, 2021 video
• The Transformation Of Young Sheldon Star Raegan Revord, 2024 video by Looper
• Actress Raegan Revord of "Young Sheldon" talks about her joy of working and latest projects, 2024 interview on KCAL-TV

My view is that the number is reasonable, they are on-topic, and fits per WP:ELMAYBE#4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I consider the titles and dates and source when given context and commentary enough, and they contain stuff that shouldn't be in the article, way to detailed on for example Young Sheldon set design, her views and nice pics/imagery we can't have in the article. The school video is a detailed story on her YS work, the reason we have this article, pretty much. The next one is an illustrated gallery/commentary on pretty much everything she's done as an actress, and the last is "what she looks, sounds and thinks about now-ish."

That said, we're mostly in the personal taste (that essay is an essay) area here, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having at least one example of a human subject (particularly a performer) moving and talking is information and ought be included, and the tour video or the KCAL interview should fill that. I'm fine with having both.... would feel better if they were from farther apart in time.

The original "WP:ELMINOFFICIAL" reason for deleting the links was clearly inappropriate, as GGS noted in the reversion.-- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, those 2 are (almost) 3 years apart and she's rather young. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against keeping both, it's just the case would be more compelling if the earlier one was from the beginning of the Young Sheldon run, rather than most of the way through. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Young Sheldon: Interview mit Reagan Revord und Zoe Perry zum The Big Bang Theory-Spin-off? I don't mind, but I really like the school video. On the Looper, while I think it's problematic as a source for the article, I think the long timeline/many pics approach makes it fit pretty well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nat. When the subject is a performer, then a video of a performance is a good thing to include. I have no opinion about which one(s). It is more typical to include one or two such links; it is unusual to include three or more. However, there's no firm rule against it, and there could be circumstances that warrant more in a few cases (e.g., if an actor is known for three very different characters, or for film vs live theater vs singing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, here's my opinion of the individual three links:

• "Missy Cooper gives SCS a tour": pros: she's directly talking to the camera, it's related to her biggest role (to date); cons: it's on social media/facebook (we should not assume our readers are members; links there often break or you can't read all the text of the post for non-members)
• "The Transformation Of Young Sheldon Star Raegan Revord": I couldn't bear to watch all of it but it appears to be typical slop, with random footage with a voice-over, not directly engaging with the subject. I strongly recommend us never using this type of material.
• Actress Raegan Revord of "Young Sheldon": pros: an interview directly with the subject, semi recent

Of these three, the third (the CBS interview) is clearly the best overall. I could see us adding a second link to represent her Missy Cooper performance by finding earlier footage, but then I'd really want to avoid social media links. If you could find her SCS tour on a regular web site that would increase the value of that video immensely. CapnZapp (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you can archive video from facebook but I tried: [14]. If this works, it would be a far preferable link to reach the SCS video. CapnZapp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afaict, that worked, and there's certainly no harm in having an archive-link before the link-rotting. The live-link is preferable atm since the archive is slower, at least from where I'm sitting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 Everything on the net can WP:LINKROT away, we save it if we can, if it's gone it's gone. This is the social media of the school who sent her the question this video is in response to and it's been there since 2021.
• 2 Not random, stuff she's done on tv, film etc. Performing, as been commented on. But, among the commentators in this thread, seems to be somewhat lacking in support.

Social media, including YT, is just a platform, what matters is the publisher and content. From the WP POV, [15] is as potentially useful as [16] or [17]. All can disappear at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

FWIW: I'm not grouping Youtube together with Facebook. Youtube is clearly welcoming everyone to consume their content, and isn't a walled garden with a varying degree of hostility towards non-members. It's not about linkrot, it's about too many users blithely assuming everyone else is a member and not for a second questioning the poor or hostile user experience for non-users. Like how some journalists keep linking to X posts as if Musk hasn't made Twitter unreadable w/o an account... IMO, links into social media should be avoided unless no alternative can be found. Yes, I am aware of WP:PAYWALL, but the gist of it is that we allow locked content when quality content can't be accessed any other way - if the same level of quality can be had for free, that's obviously preferable. (Compare restaurants whose facebook pages don't even show menus, locations if you try to use them without an account... 🙄 I try my best convincing myself these restaurant owners are "only" lazy, ignorant and/or piss-poor at marketing/computers and doesn't really intend to send the message "For me, the most important thing about my presumptive customers is that they're under the sway of Zuckerberg, I want to actively push you away if you aren't") CapnZapp (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YT and FB can be quite similar, comment sections can be quite toxic in both places. FB also want everyone to consume their content, or at least the ads. But this doesn't matter much from the WP perspective, CBS-published is CBS published. Your archive link still originates from the FB platform. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on the same page? First you assume my objection is about linkrot, now toxic comments. And what does CBS got to do with any of this? Wait, don't answer - just read this: My objection is about people carelessly linking into walled gardens, actively dismissing anyone not a member, only helping to enrich the social media giants at the expense of the open internet. IMO Wikipedia should at the absolute minimum treat Facebook, Twitter, Instagram et al as any other locked source, and ideally as a candidate for WP:RS/P - only to be used as a last resort when no other equivalent source exists. Wikipedia helps building a better Internet the fewer times it links into Facebook. CapnZapp (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you don't like links to FB in WP-articles. Personally, I don't think it matters if the video is on FB or YT, the "enrich the social media giants" factor is similar. And on the particular video in question, like I said, I'm not sure the YT-uploader is ok for our purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My primary objection isn't the enrichment of social media giants in general, or links into Facebook specifically. I am talking about the act of linking into these sites rather than the sites themselves. I don't want Wikipedia to be yet another site where people just blithely assume its okay to link into social media sites without for a second considering whether their audience actually can consume their link. If you have an account at Facebook (and so on), you really need to try clicking links into it from another browser where you aren't logged in before forming an opinion. CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried going to the Facebook link from a browser that was not signed in (provable by the fact that Facebook popped up a login window). The video played fine (although I had to close the login window so it wasn't visually blocked). Much of Facebook is accessible without being logged in. As such, I don't see that particular concern for this particular link. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, watchable without logging in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the FB-archive link doesn't work for me anymore. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That pirated version doesn't work for me either. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspected as much. The archive page loads (if you try to access the first out of two capture) but it hotlinks into FB = it didn't archive the actual video. (What pirate version are you referring to, Nat?) CapnZapp (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate version = Internet Archive, a site that hosts unlicensed copyrighted materials. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any policy prohibiting links to sources that have paywalls or require an account. Considering that some of the best sources have those requirements, such as many academic journals, that policy wouldn't even make sense to impose. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELREG is guideline, not policy, but it's also moot here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now I have made so many attempts at explaining it should be abundantly clear it isn't the paywall or the site itself I'm objecting to. Do feel free to ask if anything's unclear after rereading what I have already written. CapnZapp (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are the one who needs to reread what others have already written? I don't think other editors here are convinced by your various shifting arguments regarding this content. I have no issue viewing the Facebook video without being logged into an account. – notwally (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you argumentative? Why are you accusing me of shifting my arguments? I will answer any questions of yours, assuming you're able to assume good faith. CapnZapp (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are also the one who is not able to assume good faith? Given that response, as well as your prior claim (which you underlined and described as "my objection") about "people carelessly linking into walled gardens", which was not appropriate given that (1) you provide no evidence that Gråbergs Gråa Sång was "carelessly linking" and that assumption is certainly not assuming good faith and (2) despite your admonition to them that "you really need to try clicking links into it from another browser where you aren't logged in before forming an opinion", it does not seem you have actually tried this as I can play the video fine without any account, as can Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Nat Gertler. – notwally (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afaict your argument post-OP centers on "Wikipedia helps building a better Internet the fewer times it links into Facebook." and "If you could find her SCS tour on a regular web site that would increase the value of that video immensely."

You dislike FB, fine. WP has several restrictions on the use of sites like FB, YT etc, but they are moot on this particular point (adding the school-video to the EL-section). If you want to argue for more restrictions on FB etc for WP in general, take it to the relevant policy/guideline talkpages. Or put your views in an essay, if you prefer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the school video is on YT [18]. However, I "updated" it to FB since I'm not sure the YT-uploader is using the video with permission. My default assumption is that the school does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, I'm considering re-inserting

• Raegan Revord/Missy Cooper gives SCS a tour of Young Sheldon set, 2021 video. Archived version
• Actress Raegan Revord of "Young Sheldon" talks about her joy of working and latest projects, 2024 interview on KCAL-TV Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support those additions. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]