Talk:Keivonn Woodard

First name
Is there a reference to Keivonn being a real name rather than a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes: thousands of articles from reliable sources (including every single reference here), all of his official performance credits, and his social media profile. It's clearly not a typo. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Thousands of articles'? Highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, thousands; I was not exaggerating. Regardless, just the dozen used in the article prove the spelling sufficiently. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are exaggerating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're underestimating how much has been written about The Last of Us. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, rather you're considerably overstating how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not—not that it matters, since that wasn't the point of my comment anyway. The point still stands, whether it's thousands of articles or just the dozen used here. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 07:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you're now changing your claim: (i) 'thousands of articles' has now become a Google search result, and (ii) your point now isn't your original point. Consistency isn't your strong suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, the Google search results largely consist of those thousands of articles, so that claim remains true. And my original comment wasn't about the number of articles—that was just evidence to support my point, which is that his name is, in fact, spelled "Keivonn". I guess you would have known that if you'd taken as much time reading the sources as you did arguing a tangential point here. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 'Believe it or not, the Google search results largely consist of those thousands of articles' Clearly you don't understand Google search results. Just as you don't understand the concept of the magnitude of numbers.
 * Rather notably you have now dropped 'reliable' from your claim of articles. No doubt as there not thousands of articles, let alone reliable ones.
 * 'so that claim remains true.' Your original claim of 'thousands of reliable sources' remains unsupported.
 * 'And my original comment wasn't about the number of articles' Well, you did as shown by your statement of 'thousands of articles from reliable sources'.
 * 'that was just evidence to support my point' You making an unsupported claim is not evidence.
 * 'I guess you would have known that if you'd taken as much time reading the sources' You guess? Not confident are you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.106.183 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some are admittedly marginal and there are likely some false positives, but after a quick look I counted 2,000+. That being said, I'm sorry if my answer to your original question was not to your liking. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo, just a unique name. (Seriously, if you look up "keivonn" on Google, every top hit is about him.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)