Talk:Rebecca Heineman

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erica.Coppola.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth name
I am not clear on why MOS identity does not apply here. The page states: 'An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).' Does her time of birth not count as a phase of her life? It is invasive and unnecessary to include trans people's birth names on their pages, especially as glaringly as they are. Girlsimulation (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, a person's birth name is not a "pronoun, possessive adjective, or gendered noun," so it's clear on the text of the policy that it does not apply. Second, including the birth name in the lead is identifying a vital statistic, not making a judgment on gender identification: it is a fact that this is the name given to her by her parents and the name under which she did most of her important work in the computer game industry.  Just as an article on a writer that uses a pen name must have that name identified so that the reader knows what books the author has written, so too must a transgendered person's original name be identified so that the reader knows what work that person undertook at all phases of his or her life.  To say it is unnecessary to include the birth name, which would therefore leave the reader incapable of researching the subject's career further, is quite simply, ludicrous.  Finally, there is nothing intrusive about including her birth name, as it is already included in dozens of reliable sources; it's not some secret dug up through some shady research; it's a matter of public record.  Wikipedia does not exist to coverup historical fact to serve the agenda of one user; it exists to provide knowledge. Indrian (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other transwomen do not have birth names, example Amanda_Simpson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rebecca Heineman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807145810/http://burgerbecky.livejournal.com/18628.html to http://burgerbecky.livejournal.com/18628.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rebecca Heineman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150503120609/http://www.gamemoir.com/lgbt-gender/always-been-there-honoring-gamings-transgender-roots/ to http://gamemoir.com/lgbt-gender/always-been-there-honoring-gamings-transgender-roots/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadnaming
Hi Indrian. I recently removed multiple references to Becky's deadname. However, a quick check on the page's history, as well as the talk page's history shows that you have been undoing edits like these for at least six years now, and it doesn't seem like you're going to stop any time soon. I'm also fairly stubborn, and I foresee an edit war approaching, so I'd like to head things off now and see if we can come to a resolution so no animosity happens. I hope you'll be accepting of what I write here, and I promise to do my best to read your responses with an open mind :)

I'd first like to explain my edits, then attempt to convince you of why I believe they are necessary.

As directed by MOS:IDINFO recommendations 2 and 3, I don't believe Becky's deadname should be published here. Recommendation 2 states "Before including a transgender subject's former name inline, consider including it as a footnote instead." I didn't see you attempt to do this in any of the edits I read. I think if we really, truly, absolutely need to mention Becky's deadname, it should be in a footnote. Recommendation 3 states "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources." As far as I can tell, nobody refers to Becky by her deadname, and none of the articles or videos I've seen about her have used that name for her. I have absolutely never heard her called by her deadname until I read this article, so I don't think it's that well-known. Worst-case scenario, I left her deadname in the "Other names" section in case some sources refer to her with her deadname.

I'd like to now talk about why deadnaming is such a horrible thing. I'm new here, but the rules for Civility have some recommendations on trying to deal with things before they get uncivil, and I'd like to try to use those so everyone here is happy :)

First, some of your responses seem a bit short-tempered. Maybe you feel strongly about this subject and are frustrated, maybe I'm reading too far into things. Regardless, I will do my best to assume good faith, apologies if I slip and do the opposite. Now, your insistence on deadnaming Becky makes me feel upset, and scared. In your edits, you deadname her multiple times, far more than I think is necessary, as if you're aggressively trying to make a point. If you need to deadname her at all, once is more than enough. The very thought that one day I might end up on Wikipedia with my deadname plastered everywhere is terrifying. It really makes me hope nothing big ever happens to me, my private life shouldn't be open for people to dissect and treat like a plaything just because I wrote some code.

Now, in one of your edit messages, you say "It’s almost as if she did most of her important work under her birth name...oh wait..." and while I agree that's true, I haven't really seen her as a prominent figure until very recently. Just because she did important work under a deadname doesn't mean she should be referred to as such, especially if she's only been seen as a notable figure after her name change.

Being deadnamed isn't just a minor inconvenience, it really, truly hurts. Few things hurt me anymore, but being deadnamed, especially multiple times, brings me to tears. In your talk post, you say "Wikipedia does not exist to coverup historical fact to serve the agenda of one user; it exists to provide knowledge" as though not wanting people to be deadnamed is some sort of "agenda". In my opinion, Becky's deadname does absolutely nothing to increase the knowledge of the world. In an edit on December 19, 2019 you say "You cannot erase a person's history for political expediency. Sorry." I don't really understand this at all. Sure, a deadname is part of someone's history, but it's also unnecessary to bring up. There's nothing political about not deadnaming a person, it's really just basic decency. Deadnaming a trans person causes significant emotional distress, and purposely deadnaming someone multiple times without a reason for doing so is very upsetting.

Now, I'd like to explain why I think your deadnaming is aggressive. In this edit, you deadname her at the beginning of the article with "born [deadname]", again a sentence later with "credited as [deadname]" despite the issue of "being credited in what?", and no citation. You again deadname her in the "Early life" section, despite adding no new information that has not been written twice already. On January 20, 2020 someone removed many of those references, and left a message stating "I don't speak for Rebecca, but I found the existing wording emphasized her former name more than was necessary for the article." You then reply by undoing the edit, and responding "It’s almost as if she did most of her important work under her birth name...oh wait..." despite that being completely irrelevant to whether or not you were over-emphasizing hear deadname. I'm keeping in mind the "assume good faith" policy, but I do believe you overemphasize her deadname quite a bit.

I hope I've been able to adequately explain why people are upset and frustrated at your deadnaming, and provided a valid reason (through MOS:IDINFO) to remove many of those references. I hope you'll be able to see things through the eyes of a trans person, and understand that trans people not wanting to be deadnamed has absolutely nothing to do with politics, censorship, erasure of knowledge/information/history, etc. It's really just something that deeply hurts us, and it's basic decency to not deadname us any more than absolutely necessary.

I apologize for such a long wall of text, but I'm doing my best to be as expressive as possible. If you disagree with my views, perhaps we can use a dispute resolution, as we both seem to be passionate and stubborn on this issue, and the last thing I want (and I'm sure the last thing you want) is to be involved in a 6 year edit war. Thanks for reading :) 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the civility and will respond in kind.


 * Rebecca Heinemann did literally all of her significant work in the video game industry under the name Bill Heinemann. This name is well known and has been for almost forty years.  To strip the name from the article would be akin to discussing Samuel Clemens without ever discussing the name Mark Twain.  You would leave the reader without context because you are offended by the context.  Facts are facts, and an encyclopedia reports facts even when they are unpleasant to some when they are necessary to understand history.


 * No one is being aggressive towards anybody or outing some great secret. No one is being persecuted.  She is properly referred to by her correct self-identified gender throughout and in no place does the article ever imply she is biologically, psyiologically, psychologically, or in any other way anything other than the gender she presents as.  Just because you are personally offended does not mean you actually get to try and hide, manipulate, or alter historical fact.  And you also do not get to be offended on her behalf.  She is alive and almost certainly aware of Wikipedia and can fight her own battles if she so wishes.


 * If you have any further questions about this situation, I will be happy to continue this discussion. If you want to present the material in a slightly different way, that is also fine. I have only maintained the status quo here, the words regarding her birth name are not mine originally, and you should really research claims like that before levying accusations at people. However, your current edit cannot stand. A footnote or an infobox mention does not suffice when she created numerous significant games under her birth name, and the policy you have linked to specifically condones using the birth name in the article body when referring to authored works (see example one under "recommendations"). The ball is in your court.  Change the context in which the name is used in the article body with my blessing; I honestly don't care.  But let's avoid becoming the Ministry of Truth. Indrian (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm calling in a WP:DRN. It seems you didn't read anything I wrote, and continue to think this is just because people are "offended", when in fact we're simply following MOS:IDINFO. You can view the DRN posting here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is truly sad that this is all you got out of a quite civil and thorough explanation on how the name is relevant historically, how incorporating it into the body of the article is well within the policy you quoted, and how changing the specific language on how the name is incorporated is perfectly acceptable. This act shows that it's not policy or history or facts that you really care about but pushing some personal agenda.  I wish I could say I was surprised.  We'll do this through the wikipedia beauracracy since this is what you prefer.  Indrian (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I gave you an explanation, and you ignored it entirely, what other route are we supposed to use? I don't want to get into an edit war with you, the next step is DRN. What would you prefer? Isn't that what it's there for? 3nk1namshub (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add, I never entirely removed her deadname. It remained in multiple forms in the "Other names" section, and I would be extremely open to using a footnote (as MOS:IDINFO suggests) to clarify her deadname. The extent of her contributions is irrelevant to a footnote, as I would argue the Wachowskis have made much more culturally relevant works, and they're the example used by that IDINFO recommendation. I don't know what you're talking about with the references to censorship, removal of history, and 1984, since I never censored anything. 3nk1namshub (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see some positive dialogue here. There is still time to avoid an annoying and protracted DRN if you are willing to talk here instead of trying to unilaterally force a change on the article.  In short, IDINFO allows a name in the body.  You point to one method proffered by the policy, the footnote, and I point to another.  In the case of the Wachowskis, they have always been commonly referred to by their surname, so a footnote works well in that case.  Rebecca was commonly referred to by first and last name as well as the nickname "Burger Bill."  This needs to be acknowledged in the article and not shunted off into a corner where many readers will quite simply not notice.  Does it need to be mentioned as often as it is now?  Not really. Feel free to lessen the mentions and place them in a different context.  I imagine you are better equipped to do so in a sensitive and nuanced manner that is respectful to the community than I am because you are more knowledgeable about the issue. No one has ever come here to do that though, they just want the name gone.  If you are interested in balancing the needs of history and respect to the subject, then let's do this.  If not, I will see you at DRN. Indrian (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Does it need to be mentioned as often as it is now? Not really" Then why did you mention it so much?
 * "Feel free to lessen the mentions and place them in a different context" I did, you reverted them. Throughout this entire issue you have completely ignored WP:AGF. I look forward to resolving this politely at the DRN. 3nk1namshub (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also: "Rebecca was commonly referred to by first and last name as well as the nickname "Burger Bill." This needs to be acknowledged in the article and not shunted off into a corner where many readers will quite simply not notice." I left multiple references to that. I assume you must not have noticed. Please go back to my original edit and review the changes. 3nk1namshub (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to respond to most of this (not because its unreasonable, but because we will just go in circles), but I think there is one point that needs be made clear that you have not yet picked up on. None of the naming convention in this article is mine.  I have not authored any material related to the naming of the subject in this article.  I did not make any decision on how often a name should appear in the article or in what context.  I have only reverted edits by other editors that have attempted to strike the name from the article entirely (I know you did not strike it entirely, but many people have).  "So why did you mention it so much?"  I never did. Indrian (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You reverted edits removing the unnecessary deadnaming. You are just as responsible as the editor who originally wrote the material. 3nk1namshub (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted them. And I have invited you to make changes that balance competing needs.  That you are uninterested in doing so is really not my fault.  Nor is it my duty to make changes to an article if someone else wants to present information in a different light while still respecting the historical context.  Indrian (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I did balance them. You have spent 6 years reverting any and all edits balancing them. You are now actively lying about history, Mr. "Ministry of Truth" 3nk1namshub (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And now the claws come out. Surely you can come up with a more inventive personal attack than that.  Most of the edits I reverted tried to remove the name entirely.  The remainder tried to remove it entirely from the body of the article.  Mentioning the name only in the infobox is not balance, its obfuscation. None before you have attempted discussion on the talk page to reach some kind of middle ground.  And you were not really interested in trying to find a middle ground seeing as you ran to DRN before conversation here really even got started.  These are the actions of someone with an agenda.  I have been transparent about every action I have taken here.  Its hard for me to believe you have done the same.  But since you have decided to go to DRN, why don't we let that process play out, eh? Indrian (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works
Reminder: this article i s covered by WP:BLP and the attendant Arbitration Committee sanctions. The way we handle deadnames is as follows: The article on Wendy Carlos is a good model of how we handle this. Guy (help!) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We typically include (Born deadname) once provided it is covered by reliable independent sources.
 * We may discuss transition in a "personal life" section if it is significantly documented in reliable sources (not just one).
 * We may include (as deadname) after publications if they have not been republished under the current name.


 * I propose that we do the above in this page. We put a lot of work into treating Wendy with respect and dignity, and that case was one of a handful that cemented Wikipedia's policies on handling these sorts of conditions.


 * I have a related question; in the case of Wendy Carlos we had to deal with a work that had the name as part of the title: "...Carlos's Clockwork Orange". in that case we had to think about people searching for the name of the album they owned. Am I correct in assuming that there was never a game with this person's name as an actual part of the title? If not, that makes this page simpler to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, her name was never part of a game title or a part of the title of any other work that I am aware of. Indrian (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! So, does anyone here object to treating this as "The other Guy" suggest above? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding names
Recently, has asked to hear what editors think about the current situation regarding Becky's deadname. To avoid any residual issues in the previous section, I've opted to start a new one.

As the page currently stands (as of this edit) I believe everything is appropriate. Becky's former nicknames are mentioned in the "Other names" box, and her deadname is mentioned in the "Early life" section. Anyone doing research on Becky's contributions to gaming should have absolutely no issues finding information about the work under her deadname, as I believe it should be obvious to any researcher to look things up in both names. Being trans myself, I would prefer her deadname be mentioned only in a footnote (per MOS:IDINFO recommendation 2), making it less visible for casual readers (who will already see that Becky is trans, and have no need to find her deadname), yet still readily available for researchers. However, as I am a new editor, I will of course defer to more experienced editors regarding the MOS. TL;DR I take very little issue with the article's current naming (I don't know how to word this, apologies if you don't understand), and would be happy if it stayed the way it is. 3nk1namshub (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , see above. Guy (help!) 21:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had not seen that when I made my edit. My apologies. 3nk1namshub (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is awful as it stands. I appreciate that you have come around to the idea that the deadname can be mentioned in the body of the article even if its not your first preference.  I still think the January 2020 version of the article is the best way to go.  I realize the leap from "William" to "Bill" is not a large one in English, but I do think its appropriate to include Bill in there as the name of attribution on most of her work.  Whether or not that is in the lead does not concern me. I think this approach still falls in line nicely with MOSIDINFO and the Wendy Carlos example therein.  If others disagree, that's fine.  Its really only a minor preference.  Of course the name is still in the infobox, and maybe that's good enough. The important thing to me is that we not erase the deadname or hide it in a footnote or infobox as something a casual reader should not see. She was published under the deadname, and it was her public persona for the first two decades of her professional life. Therefore, it is not just a piece of trivia. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , absolutely not. Your edits were unacceptable. Note how infrequently the article on Carlos mentions her deadname, in quite a long article on someone who was dramatically more famous under her deadname than Heineman. Guy (help!) 21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we are back to unbridled hostility. Got it.  This is a talk page discussion.  I have stated my opinion calmly, civilly, and without judgement as to the opinion of others.  I have also pledged not to make changes without consensus.  I fail to see how your statement helps the discussion in any way. Indrian (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in a final bit of irony, the January 2020 edits that I restored were not even mine! They were made by an anon and trans ally attempting to reach a compromise and were sadly underexamined by me at the time.  So misplaced hostility as regards editor intent for the win I guess. Indrian (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, we're back to me explaining how Wikipedia policy works. Feel free to ignore that, but expect it to go badly for you if you do. Guy (help!) 23:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And threats. Still not seeing how you are helping.  No one here is projecting any hostility at this moment nor edging close to violating any Wikipedia policies but you. I would remind you of Wikipedia's civility policies, but I realize that as an admin you already know them and are merely choosing to ignore them. We've all been there at some point (lord knows, I have!), but right now, you are staking out that particular island all by yourself. I am sorry you feel the need to derail a productive conversation after it finally got on to the right track after much drama (in large part caused by me of course). In the interest of not letting this thread get hijacked any further, this will be my last response on the topic of your current boorishness. Happy editing! Indrian (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure, you can dismiss explanations of policy as not constituting "help". Let me know how that works out for you. Guy (help!) 09:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually see no problem with 'e edits. This individual was known by their former name from the start of their career, 1980 to 2005 when they transitioned. From the time of their transition onward, they would be notable under their new name. This article doesn't even mention that name. Our notability guideline states this has to be done. That said, should it be done every time their new name is mentioned? No way. Once or twice is fine. (Not in a row either! :) ). Doing this is in keeping with the notability guidelines, sticking with what reliable sources say and is writing the article neutrally.  I would move that this individuals name be mentioned at least once anywhere in the 1980 to 2004 time line, thereafter, their new name, as long as it's reliably sourced and they meet notability guidelines, is fine.

I'm going to address something before someone slings this at me. I'm not transphobic by any means, I worked with a supervisor that transitioned and once the transition occurred, I addressed them with their preferred name and pronoun and was quick to correct anyone that didn't. (I was known as an SOB for doing so, but I didn't care! ). W.K.W.W.K...  Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty  16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above. Anyone searching for Bill Heineman will be extremely confused to end up at an article that's seemingly about someone else entirely. Once in the lead should take care of that, and since anything in the lead needs to be somewhere in the body once quickly in the early life paragraph. What policy forbids that? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Active bullshit. It doesn't matter what RS say about the matter, just the person who is being deadnamed. I cannot find anywhere that shows Rebecca still going by her old name. Per BLP I'm removing this info from the article till a consensus is reached. Valeince (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OH and the classic "I have a black friend, so I can't be racist" crap by W.K.W.W.K above should be ignored. Valeince (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't matter what RS says about the matter"? I think you should go back and read up on, it sure does, especially when a living person is involved.  About that second comment, I don't really care what you say about me, see, I believe in freedom of speech, which means, I might not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.  W.K.W.W.K...  Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty  20:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached months ago. You are a little late.  The above two comments only strengthen said consensus.  Everything here conforms to Wikipedia policy.  Figures who were notable under a deadname have that name included.  She was known by the name throughout the significant period of her professional career.  It's in multiple reliable sources and is not a great secret being outed.  Its included once to complete the historical record, which is allowable under policy.  Your crude language and love of burying history does not trump that. Your hate, prejudice, and intolerance are showing, and it's honestly off putting. Indrian (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol my hate and prejudice? Intolerance? For what? Trying to uphold BLP when is comes to trans individuals? Please enlighten me where those descriptors come from. Valeince (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually don't bother, I'm obviously trying to enforce my own views on the matter, thinking it aligned with BLP, but if other editors disagree, which I guess it shows above, I'll apologize for the tone and bow out. Valeince (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So the more I look into this, the more I think it probably is appropriate to include the former name, but I would vote for once, in the infobox, and not with associated nicknames (I don't think they're particularly notable?). From there, the paragraph on dysphoria can take over.  Does that seem reasonable? Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Burger Bill is notable because that was a common nickname among colleagues and its origin (how she kept old burgers in her desk and would randomly pull them out to munch on them) gets discussed in most interviews with her in reliable sources. Just plain Bill is not strictly necessary since it's an obvious derivative of William.  The name should be in the article body because of its longstanding use in her career.  Once is fine, but just putting it in the infobox serves to obfuscate a basic fact.  We don't need to hammer it incessantly, but it is notable enough for inclusion in the body, and our naming policies allow this. Indrian (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am okay with it once in the body -- but I still don't see a real rationale for "Burger Bill." While it may have been common among colleagues, it doesn't seem notable in a Wikipedia sense.  My brief investigation only showed this page as mentioning it.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem here. The nickname has never really been "Burger Bill" or "Burger Becky," but rather just "Burger."  If you do a search for "Burger" and "Heineman" (as two separate terms, not a phrase) I think you will find more hits.  The easiest way to fix this is just put Burger in the infobox rather than attaching it to a first name. Indrian (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't have time to look in to it now, but that doesn't seem objectionable. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So how do we resolve the fact that Bill Heineman redirects to this article? Readers need to know they're at the page they're looking for, obliquely referring to it with a little wink-wink nod-nod is unhelpful. See how the article on Laura Jane Grace handles this. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The full birth name is still in the body of the article. I just took "Burger Bill" (and Burger Becky) out of the infobox because the actual nickname was just Burger. I think on the English Wikipedia, the jump from William to Bill is a pretty small one and follows logically.  I did advocate for "Bill" to appear once in the article too so there would be no chance of confusion, but I think consensus is against that at the moment. Indrian (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , No idea. all I care about is that the name is not included unless there are substantial RS that include it, and if it is included, it is included only minimally. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020
Around 2003, Heineman began transitioning to a woman 77.191.160.35 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Seagull123  Φ  20:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Burger Nickname
To head off another completely pointless name edit war on this page, here is the full story of the Burger nickname as told by Heinemann to Matt Barton. See Gamasutra for the full interview.

I've been holding off on this question for awhile, but I have to know. How'd you get to be called "Burger"?

RH: Remember when I told you I was flat broke? When we founded Interplay, we didn't pay ourselves much. We were starving. When I was at Boone Corporation, I was being paid twelve thousand a year. Slave wages. I was a kid; I didn't know any better. My entire life was get up, go to work, work until I'm too tired, sleep, repeat. Didn't have time for cooking, and I didn't have any money.

There was a place called Hamburger Stand. They sold 29 cent hamburgers. Since I spent most of my time at the office, I didn't want to walk over, buy a burger, and walk back.

So I'd buy a bag of twenty of them. Blow six bucks, get twenty burgers, go to my office, and put them in a drawer. I was too cheap to buy a refrigerator -- well, really too broke. Every so often I'd open the drawer and eat a burger.

I had an office mate who was a health food nut, constantly complaining about how I should eat right, exercise like he did. One day I was working all through the night. I didn't leave. It's the morning, and he comes in, sits across from me. I'm still working.

Around 3 p.m., I'm done. Burger time! I pull open the drawer, reach in, put the bag down, grab a burger, and start munching. Wasn't thinking anything about it. That's when my co-worker looks at me, looks back, looks at me -- and it dawns on him that the bag has been there for who knows how long. Those burgers are pretty firm.

He just loses it. He jumps up, his chair goes flying, he goes, "That burger is insane! That burger is insane!" He runs out. I'm sitting there like, "What's with him? Whatever." Then later Brian Fargo comes in and asks what I did to him. I didn't do anything. What's going on? My co-worker had gone to the restroom and tossed his cookies. That's how disgusted he was.

So then, the rumor started. "Did you eat any burgers lately?" So they started calling me Burger. I played along. "Okay, I'll get a burger. I'll eat a burger." Later on, unbeknownst to anybody, I had an issue with the name I was given at birth. So I would rather be called Burger than by that birth name. "Just call me burger." For the next twenty years, that was my name. Everybody called me Burger. Now my name is Becky. I finally shed the name Burger.

So yeah, Burger was a standalone nickname. Indrian (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)