Talk:CGP Grey

Person or channel?

I think it would be better to make this article about the youtube channel, not the person. I get why Vi Hart would be about the person and not the youtube channel. We actually know something about the person and she is known for other things than the youtube stuff. But here that's just not the case. It would be like making an article about Henry Reich, only known for minutephysics.

I'd hapily make the needed changes. I just didn't want to do it without consensus from the rest of the contributors. Amphicoelias (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The CGPGrey channel is the notable thing, not the person C. G. P. Grey --192.43.244.42 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on his desire for anonymity

should this section be in or not? Please explain why you think yes or no.

Anonymity

He is very secretive about his appearance, often having his face blurred out or hidden when he appears in other people's videos. He also chooses to represent himself as a stickman with square glasses in his "thoughts from the screen" vlog-series. He has said that he "very highly" values his anonymity. He explains this by saying that he likes "being able to walk through the streets of London at night without being recognised and "not having my face in the videos forces me to me to concentrate much more on the visual side of an explanation for particular topic so I can't just shoot myself talking about it."

No. Article is about the channel. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinutePhysics and related channels to see how they are written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.224.169 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Creepers

In most of the videos that Grey does, he includes a hidden Creeper in the video game Minecraft. Should this be added in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredomJS (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. The edit I made was pretty messy, so feel free to alter it. 2.102.81.45 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

When I said 'alter' I did not mean 'remove completely'. Kindly notify me if you plan on deleting my work, or at least provide some justification. (The reason my I.P. address is different is that I made the first edit using my ipod.) 88.104.241.72 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your work was not deleted, it was relocated to the section above, where it was merged with existing text which overlapped with it. --SnorlaxMonster 07:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

I realise that the name is sourced to a news article, but i am unconvinced that it could be said to be his name as he has never stated it and has said multiple times that he values his privacy. Nor does the news article appear to have any source for the name, suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.140.138 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit to my own page with this comment: "I understand that people should limit editing their own pages, but I would like to prevent the use of my full name on the page to bring the article in alignment with the Wikipedia guideline on biographies of living persons." The section of the guidelines that I'm referring to is this one on privacy of personal information. --CGPGrey (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you state you don't want your full name on the page you can indeed remove it accoding to the guidelines for living persons. However i would like to point out that it will still be in the edit history of this page and since you are the person removing it it is likely people will still stumble upon it if they look through your edit history. The only way to prevent people from seing it is to hide all edits since the one that added your name. I know you are quite fond of your anonimity, so if you'd really like to do this you'll have to contact an administator (I would however like to warn you of the streisand effect). Amphicoelias (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the edit he made, and I would guess that he is aware of the complications involved in both using his personal initials whilst also remaining anonymous. Tis all good. –Quiddity (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the person who added his name. Sorry about that. Jinkinson (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be unhelpful to add that the use of his name falls into a Grey area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this appears to be being repeatedly added, would it be appropriate to add a hidden note that he has requested his full name not be published? --SnorlaxMonster 06:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, yes. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Internet

This article is about Grey's videos and to a much lesser extent Grey himself, so why does his HI podcast encompass more than half of the article? I understand that it is his podcast, but it also Brady Haran's podcast. They are collaborators on Hello Internet, yet there is no mention of the podcast on Haran's article. Any suggestions on what to do about this? Soulbust (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that Hello Internet had its own article, but was determined not to meet the notability requires for its own article so merged into this page. (Not that I think it is good the way it is now, but that's why it is that way.) I agree that it is not formatted very well at the moment, and the podcast should also be mentioned on Brady Haran's article. --SnorlaxMonster 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

An image of his face, spoiler alert.

Grey made a live appearance last month. We have an image of him at the event. He has held back on publishing images of himself so far. There are fans that have gone out to look for images of him, and regretted it.[4]. I don't think it would be prudent to post this image of him onto his wikipedia page. If there is some way of initially hiding the image, like was proposed for graphical content, that would be best I think. --1Veertje (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Were it up to me I would leave the photo off the page entirely and bring back to logo image. CGPGrey (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't why we can't respect the subject's anonymity in this case (for certain interpretations of "subject" - the article is currently written as if the title refers to the YouTube channel, though whether that continues to be appropriate as the HI section gets larger is a debate for another time). I don't understand the line of reasoning "I don't think it would be prudent to post this image. [...] If there is some way of initially hiding the image, [...] that would be best" - hidden content is still included content. I have restored the logo. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can respect this wish. We already keep your name off the page, don't think keeping a live photo off is any more of a stretch. I will see to it left off. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Internet

I know that the section is here because the content was merged rather than deleted, but I find it quite inappropriate to put the Hello Internet content solely on this article. Hello Internet is a collaboration between CGP Grey and Brady Haran, not a project by CGP Grey that features Brady Haran. It's certainly a good idea to mention Grey's contributions to the podcast here, but I really don't think the primary destination for Hello Internet should be this article. If it doesn't meet notability requirements for its own article, then it shouldn't try and continue to try to be a pseudo-article here. --SnorlaxMonster 15:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a collaboration, but it is (or was?) produced almost entirely by Grey, wasn't it? I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate article for it, but I think it makes more sense to have it here than remove it entirely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It definitely isn't yet covered in enough reliable sources to warrant its own article. As a listener of the podcast I've been interested in writing some content on it, but honestly have hardly found any coverage at all, so I'm not sure it even belongs here at the moment. Sam Walton (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the podcast is indeed edited by just CGP grey CR055H41RZ (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's important to notice, however, that there (probably) is a legal contract binding the to parts ( CGP Grey and Brady Haran ) to the project and dividing the rights and income to them somewhat equally. This is not confirmed facts, however it has been hinted to several times during the podcast.

--ElleExtreme (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Video References

It seems inconsistent what we are using for references. Shouldn't we just point to youtube itself like we do for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly. I understand that independent sources are important, but here we're citing, basically, that the video exists, along with basic information like title, right?. I'd think the actual video's URL would be much more effective for this purpose than waiting for a 3rd party (or in some cases currently, the content creator himself) to write a separate blog post or article about it... --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Independent source is needed because the video might get removed from the channel. Of course, it's very unlikely, but is possible. Why not have both a link to youtube and to independent source for every video? I don't know if it will violate WP:LINKFARM or not. — andrybak (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a list at all? Sam Walton (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was a no primary sources principle? There a lot of youtubers who have had there pages deleted for this issue. 131.227.165.186 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Article title

As 192.43.244.42 pointed out, this article is about the channel, not the person. For this reason, the article title should be "CGP Grey", instead of "C. G. P. Grey". The periods and spaces seem to be vestigial elements, from when the article was about the person, not the channel. User:Robsinden most recently moved this article to its current state, citing "per our MOS and per official website", though the official website is about C. G. P. Grey the person, and not CGP Grey the channel. The channel (and related branding) goes by "CGP Grey", so the article title should reflect that. If no one has anything to say about this, I'll move the article to CGP Grey in a few days. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If this article is about the channel then the whole "Podcasts" section would need to be deleted. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is quite clearly primarily about the channel. (Hence, the introductory sentence is "C. G. P. Grey is an eponymous YouTube channel featuring short explanatory videos." Judging by the article's form, it prioritizes the channel.) If framed explicitly and unambiguously, it can still include information on the creator's other work and related projects (similar to Mega64). If the title isn't changed, the contents should be changed, and the article should be made biographical. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that was my point, that maybe the article should be repurposed into a biography so it's inclusive of all his works. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's really about both the person and the channel (or "brand" as suggested above). The person and the content he produces are more or less inseparable, and attempting to treat the article strictly as one or the other just causes endless agonizing over these very issues - it's a grey area (see what I did there?). And even if we discuss the person first, why can't we use the channel/brand's puntuation-less name (per WP:COMMONNAME) anyway? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. The brand clearly transcends the Youtube channel (Grey uses it on Hello Internet, etc.), so the article can be a biography, while maintaining the common, punctuation-less name. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• If it is about the individual, then WP:SPACEINITS applies. I guess if it isn't about the person, then it doesn't. It does seem to be more about the contributor than anything else though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Article not moved

As the article stood, it was formatted to center on the channel, not the person. I've now gone and rephrased/reformatted things to turn it more biographical; however, the following issues have arisen:

• There is little sourced information regarding the person (due to a lack of third-party coverage). Some details (such as his degrees, career as a teacher, and Irish citizenship) are publicly available, but only from primary sources. Whether this is due to a lack of notability, or his refusal to be interviewed, is debatable; if anyone can find a third party source, they're free to add a "Personal life" section.
• The preferred article title could be argued to be "CGP Grey" (as per per WP:COMMONNAME and the above notes on branding).
• I've moved the CGP Grey (channel) infobox down to the "videos" section, causing some spilling over to the next section. Ideally, that can be ironed out with future content.

—Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of videos

Should the list of videos exist in its current form, or should the more notable ones be cherry-picked and made into prose? By "more notable" I merely mean the ones that have a significant amount of coverage (yes I know almost all do, but more significant). I'm more than happy to write it up myself, I just didn't fell like I had enough boldness in me to write something that may be discarded. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't have both. There's already a bit of prosaic coverage in the article, so expanding it should be fine. However, I don't think the current autocollapse table takes up enough space to warrant removal. I can understand removing it if the lack of references is a problem. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Internet

This has to be it's own article, it makes no sense at all to put it there. Brady Haran is as important to the podcast as his CGPGrey. It's very arbitrary to put in on Grey's page rather than his. This is confusing. You did that because it's Grey who edits it? Since when is that the criterion?

Now, there's no problem of notability as the podcast has been mentioned on many outlets, including Slate, BBC News, Tech Times and Tech Crunch. It was nominated for a Podcast Award.

Podcasts similar or lesser in their outreach and notability already have their own articles : 99% Invisible, Stuff You Should Know, Reply All, Grammar Girl, Song Exploder, etc, etc.

There's no reason to keep it as it is. There's a ton of stuff to say about HI and it would make a great article on it's own.

Docteur (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, especially since there has been a legal agreement on the co-owned rights of the podcast by the parts, C.G.P Grey and Brady Haran. The podcast is now also reaching enough significance (as mentioned in the article) that I find it relevant to separate it from the respective YouTube channels. This agrument is reinforced by them being different mediums, and it, through the podcast, has been confirmed that there are exclusive audiences to both. --ElleExtreme (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are sufficient to establish the podcast's notablity; they're all mere mentions of it. I'm not even sure it should have such a big section here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Outing Grey, again

@Moonsprite: Welcome to WP:BRD. You've been entirely too bold and I've reverted you. Grey doesn't want to be identified. While you may think you're improving the article, I don't think it's worth causing headaches for others. We need to come to consensus about this before this sort of information can be added. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Grey went to a public event called Random Acts of Intelligence where did a meet and greet with his fans, signed stuff, and took pictures with them and willingly let his pictures be taken. That doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who wants their "identity hidden." Some of those pictures are in the public domain now and on Wikipedia. What right do you have to say those pictures aren't allowed to be put here? Someone who "doesn't want to be identified" wouldn't go to a public event and get pictures taken. There is no reason his identity should be a secret anymore.