Talk:Chuck Wendig

Birthdate?
Okay. The birth date is in the article, but not in the infobox. In order to keep it consistent I added it to the infobox, but it got removed. So, what is the stance here? Why is it acceptable to be in the article but not the infobox? Stereodice (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does not belong in either place in a bio article of a living person unless it is cited. If you have a source for his birthdate, I can help you add the citation to the article.— TAnthonyTalk 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wendigo
Previously the personal life section contained mention of the "Wendigo", a sandwich the subject is credited with inventing. The citation for this was the subject's own blog, and the mention was understandably removed, although the edit removing it was tagged with the explanation of "removed nonsense" despite the content having been in the article for an extended period of time and being written in a neutral manner.

Since then a 3rd party (radio station) did a show on the sandwich, providing an outside source on the subject. Since a suitable citation now exited, the information was added back. It was removed again as "trivia".

Wikipedia's own trivia guidelines state that "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. Nevertheless, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found."

In the time the information was removed from the Wikipedia article, at least one person questioned Chuck Wendig about it being removed on Twitter, indicating the information is of some importance to readers. Wikipedia's trivia guidelines suggest integrating trivia into existing sections, such as the personal life section, which is what was done in this case.

I believe the information is within Wikipeida's guidelines and should be left in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.238.101 (talk) 01:27, June 16, 2018


 * I have yet to see an FA BLP in which a food item named after the subject was considered notable. There are people out there who also care what kind of shampoo Britney Spears uses, but that doesn't mean we should note this in her article. I'm hoping others will weigh in here, but it is a SANDWICH. And all the source proves is that one radio DJ got a boner for it. I see nothing establishing the widespread popularity and supposed cult status of this sandwich beyond Wendig's own fans/Twitter followers. It's silly trivia.— TAnthonyTalk 03:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way, your sandwich appears to be spelled Wendigo, no N.— TAnthonyTalk 04:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is a unique case. Wikipedia has a huge entry of foods named after people and I'm sure many of the biographies of those people cross-list the food item. The sandwich is a frequent topic on his social media, but the posts often lack context. It is reasonable to think that people who come across a reference to the sandwich but don't understand what is special about it would seek out information, and Wikipedia is a natural place for that to happen. By definition something with a cult following has a "small but very passionate fan base " so being known primarily within Wendig's own fans/Twitter follower's meets the definition of cult status.


 * It may be silly trivia in your eyes, but Wikipedia's own trivia policy specifically states that is not grounds to exclude it. Trivia is not banned by Wikipedia as long as it can be worked into the BLP in a neutral manner and has proper citations. You don't personally have to like the content as long as it abides by the Wikipedia policy on trivia, which it does. 76.104.238.101 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Wendigo isn't notable enough for its own article, and most other entries on the list are. And that list is horribly unsourced; there seem to be a number of non-notable entries which fail basic entry criteria, like Lady Curzon Soup, which is unsourced and not mentioned in the BLP of its purported namesake. In any case, a reasonable place for people to look for details on this wondrous sandwich is Wendig's own website, not here. To my eyes, you have not demonstrated that this sandwich has any notability beyond his fanbase, and we usually apply cult status to actual people and works, not favorite recipes. I don't think you have demonstrated that the sandwich itself has a "small but very passionate fan base"; I don't see a dozen people getting excited about a sandwich as indicative of anything. And just because a citation from a reliable source establishes that the sandwich exists does not necessarily mean the sandwich is notable. You're reading the trivia guidelines wrong, just because something can be included neutrally does not mean it should. Wendig is known for being an author, and this sandwich has no relation to that. And if I'm nitpicking, Wendig's claim that he invented this sandwich could be considered unduly self-serving per WP:ABOUTSELF, and this is not nullified by his fanboys publicizing the claim.— TAnthonyTalk 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reddit Posts
I'm being much, much too kind here opening up a talk page section after you've made six reversions, were issued four warnings, and received one very thorough explanation of the issues with the edit on your talk, but this is strictly in the interest of formal process. You cannot keep reverting other editors and re-adding this section. As explained, Reddit is not a reliable source (WP:RS), the email image source is the Reddit post, the email is unverified, the claim itself is otherwise unsubstantiated, the claim is not proven notable enough to have grounds for inclusion, and the content is inflammatory. On top of that, you've been asked to open up a discussion on the talk page yet, despite proof that you read edit summaries, you performed two more reversions. Any further reversions will result in my filing a report at WP:3RR/N, that is if some other editor justifiably decides not to wait until you perform your seventh reversion. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already reported the IP, this has gotten out of hand.— TAnthonyTalk 01:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)