Talk:The Cutting Room Floor (website)

Joystiq and Cracked
The about page claims coverage in Joystiq (which, according to WikiProject Video games/Sources, is a reliable source) and Cracked (is it this Cracked?). As Joystiq is defunct and Cracked hard to access, is there any way to see what kind of coverage this site has there? Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You still can use Engadget (formerly it was Joystiq). It still contains all the content from Joystiq (and more). Also, you can search for Joystiq articles in Wayback Machine. Here is the list.--Biografer (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a lost of mostly dodgy sites on the archive.org link... Adam9007 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to look for some. I know there is a way to retrieve them from there somehow. Like, I used to archive a ton of Joystiq webpages (and now do the same with Endgadget). I don't know much about Cracked magazine, but try PC Gamer (both US and UK), see if they have anything. Also, Kotaku is a reliable source too. :)--Biografer (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the two Joystiq links here, but they were just trivial mentions :(. Hopefully, there's more. (To make matters more confusing, there's a French magazine with a very similar name) There could well be stuff in print sources, as the Edge article was originally in the magazine. Adam9007 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I brought up PC Gamer. It is a magazine too, and quite reliable. Still runs in the USA. PS: See if you can do anything with this source.--Biografer (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I think the use of the term there is the actual figure of speech, not a reference to the website :(. Adam9007 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will see what I can find. May I suggest PC World. My only problem is how to check them out if most libraries don't allow people to rent magazines? :(--Biografer (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there's a magazine called PC World . I only knew that as the name of the retailer. Adam9007 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know of various other sites that do talk of games. I live in USA, but am Russian-born and raised. By the way, do you use Skype by any chance?--Biografer (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I used Skype only once or twice a few years ago. Why do you want to know? Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we might find something in common. You are a gamer, I am a gamer. Tit-for-tat. Either way, I looked even into Igromania (a Russian-language magazine about video games world wide) and found none. :(--Biografer (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reckon that if there's anything else out there, it'll be in print-only sources. That the site is named the same as the figure of speech also doesn't help in finding sources. Adam9007 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * / I know that the About page was linked, but you may also want to check this page, which has direct links to articles. --70.175.53.102 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! So, we don't even need to use Web Archive, sweet! What's your take ?--Biografer (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew about that page (I linked to it earlier in this thread and I think it may be how I found out about the Edge article and the other sources), but I think most of the links contain only trivial mentions. Not sure what we can do with them... Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Something hit me, ... I possibly can go to Web Archive and try to retrieve some of the info. The thing is, is that I manually was able to reconstruct a link which was in .xls format. That however, is for a different topic and different article, but what if something similar is possible for these ones as well?..---00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've lost me . What info? What link? How would a .xls file help here? Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What name to use for one of the designers/maintainers of this website?
User:Adam9007 came to my talk page to ask my opinion on this. His question (well researched with reference to policies) and my reply (off the cuff and without any particular expertise in the area) can be seen at User talk:MelanieN.

The issue is about Alex Workman (Xkeeper), one of the two people mentioned in the history of The Cutting Room Floor website. Our article was originally created using his real name, with a mention of his online handle. Today IPs removed his name several times, citing a request at the TCRF website from the person involved: https://tcrf.net/User:Xkeeper#Note_for_Wikipedia The request is addressed as “Note for Wikipedia” and says “My online handle is enough. Please do not use my full name. Thank.” After several back-and-forth edits and reversions, the current state of the article is using the handle only. I propose we leave it that way temporarily (to avoid edit warring) while we discuss what to do.

My first question was, what do the sources call him? There are three sources about him and they each treat the issue differently. The first source about him (reference #1), an article in Edge magazine, gives his name, says “known to visitors as Xkeeper", and refers to him by his surname in later mentions. The second (reference #3) is the TCRF “About” page, which refers to him only as Xkeeper. The third (reference #5), an article in Tedium, uses both name and handle at first mention, and calls him Xkeeper in subsequent uses.

Of the policy links cited by Adam, WP:NICKNAME is about how to TITLE an article, and MOS:NICKNAME says how to style the lede sentence when the person is the SUBJECT of the article. Neither is the case here; this is just a person mentioned in several places in the article text, and I don’t think Wikipedia gives clear guidance on what to do. We often leave out the names of people, for privacy, or where it is not essential to the article. Examples: siblings and children of a biographical subject; co-workers; victims of or witnesses to a crime. Those obvious examples are not the case here; this is just a person asking us not to use his real name.

So we need to discuss how to deal with this: We do know his real name, but he has asked us not to use it. My own feeling, which is based on a gut reaction rather than any profound knowledge of Wikipedia policy, is that we can accommodate his request and refer to him in some format like “a programmer known as Xkeeper”. My reasoning: he is not the subject of the article, so article titling is not an issue, nor is the lede sentence; and he is not a public figure so IMO we aren’t required to identify him by name if he asks us not to. What do others think? Pinging others who have edited the page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW the article was created in March; the name issue came up today. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we seem to be lacking a clear policy on the issue, I have posted at WT:BLP to see if anyone can come here and offer any guidance. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed out WP:SURNAME, which seems to say that if a person is best known by a pseudonym, he/she can be referred to by it unless they also use their real name. The sources do seem to predominantly use his pseudonym. I've also just noticed that the guideline page's lead section says it also applies to biographical information in other articles. If I'm interpreting this correctly, I think we can grant his request. However, I still think we ought to mention his full name. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have at least one opinion now at WT:BLP. You are suggesting to follow the pattern of the third reference (Tedium): full name once, handle thereafter. That's certainly possible, although it probably wouldn't satisfy his request. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel it's worth mentioning that he has apparently repeated his request on Twitter (there's a link in the history). However, his Twitter posts are protected, so I cannot see it. Adam9007 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that too - and couldn't read it either. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, we shouldn't fullfil anybody's request. He can discuss this issue at the OTRS if he filed a request there. I too don't see a reason for real name usage, but I would suggest analyzing those sources much thoroughly. Example: How many times was his nickname used and how many times was his real name used?--Biografer (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The one comment so far at WT:BLP also said that we should follow sources, not subject requests. As for the references, I analyzed them above: in one independent source, both names were given at first mention and afterward the real-life surname was used. In the other independent source, both names were given at first mention and afterward the handle was used. At their website, only the handle was used. The second method (both names at first, then the handle) would follow the pattern suggested at WP:SURNAME and used at articles like Moby and Ice-T. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biografer. I see Alex Workman is the name used by Vice, and I can't find any significant WP:RS that simply refer to his username at all. So for me, the request to remove his name doesn't have a policy reason to support it. I do think knowing the actual identity behind the username is important. If edit war erupts, the best solution would be to request semi-protection. Isingness (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all. The Vice Motherboard article is a mirror of the Tedium link already in the article. Those articles give the most detail about Workman, using the full-name-then-handle format. I think we have consensus. I have restored the name, using the format used at WP:SURNAME: A mention of his full name "better known as" the handle at first use, and the handle subsequently. I may also try to contact him by email to explain our decision, and to suggest he use OTRS if he wishes to pursue the idea (he may have some valid reason we don't know about). --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to email him, but my guess at his likely email address bounced. Xkeeper, if you read this, please email me; you will find a link to do so on the left-hand side of my user talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * sigh     --Xkeeper (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Xkeeper. I didn't realize you had an account here; looks like you haven't used it in nearly 10 years. I'm sorry you are unhappy with the way things have worked out. I really tried to find a way to accommodate your request. But it sounds like you are just giving up on us. I can't say that I blame you. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry for my late response, please note, I was on a wikibreak. I guess it doesn't matter what is used, as readers should recognize it easily. My opinion though. I was just patrolling edits, and probably misunderstood that editor at first. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a view that is contrary to what has been said, but consensus or not, I don't feel Wikipedia should violate Xkeeper's request. It feels arrogant for Wikipedia to continue using his real name when he requested for the site not to, and an example of group think. I acknowledge I don't run Wikipedia policy, but I think Wikipedia should avoid using his real name out of courtesy, and for his requested confidentiality. Additionally for what it's worth I know Wikipedia has a policy on not censoring, but I think a similar case is what happened on the article Dennō Senshi Porygon; the potential seizure inducing animation used to play automatically, but this was changed out of respect. Ethically it feels the right thing to do to not use his real name (even though other sources have revealed it), and I just feel Wikipedia has become too focused on policy in its later years. Torchickens (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Pokémon Gold and Silver
Several other websites also reported on it. How many of these can/should we mention in the article? Adam9007 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, they are all reliable, so choose one. Depending on what you wanna say. We usually use one source per sentence.--Biografer (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd already mentioned Kotaku and Eurogamer, and was thinking that we might be able to mention a few more, especially those that discuss TCRF in some way. Obviously, if the article was to claim coverage in a website, it needs to cite it: I was thinking that maybe we can change to something like ? Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But then you would need to provide a source for the others as well, which might result in citation overkill. Lets see what the others think, because so far I am the only voice here.--Biografer (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)