Talk:James Stephanie Sterling

Sources for Article

Somebody made one, but it was...poor. This is just a beacon for reliable sources on this person. Anybody have some to share? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was redirected to The Escapist article, but he promptly left that magazine and is now Patreon-funded. I've reverted to the article and trimmed most if the cruft from it. It's quite possible that we don't have enough about him from reliable sources to make an article, but perhaps it's worth giving it a try to see what happens. --TS 15:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Digital Homicide section - sources

I have taken note of the IP's request for 3rd-party sources. I can happily change the article to accomodate. It might however be better if in future, the editor in question notes these primary sources to be replaced, rather than erasing an entirely factual and relevent section of the page. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

All editors are certainly encouraged to find sources for unsourced statements and better sources for already-sourced statements, both statements of fact and statements of opinion/analysis/motivation/etc. I've taken some administrative actions to keep the IP from disrupting the article for a while, which shouldn't interfere with others' work on improving it directly or discussing various ideas for doing so. DMacks (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've not had the time to do so yet (work is eating up my free time), but I will be adding in the sources today. Though I feel this will not deter the IP that keeps erasing that segment.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There we are! all sources are in place. Got a fair few third-party sources sorted. Should satisfy our IP friend!--Kizzycocoa (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Using Jimquisition as a source

Article even states its a comedy persona of the real Jim Sterling, the show is made for entertainment. Seems weird so many things source it on the page or other articles taking quotes from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.39.65 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a comedy persona, but all opinions, do reflect Jim's personal feelings on the issues, even if they're inflated. That aside, Jim is a relatively big player for games critique, but it's very hard to source for him beyond his Escapist era. He's in a strange spot, but this was just his first year of no strings.

It's very clear though, that his Jimquisitions are very informative. the Homicide episode listed the entirity of a game developer's meltdown at Jim to the fine details. I don't think it's unreasonable to source from them.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I know we have a few more secondary sources now (thank you very much @Kizzycocoa: ) - but combining multiple primary sources, most of which are from a comedy persona with deliberate hyperbole, and then drawing conclusions/making definitive statements from them, smacks of original research and more obviously WP:SYNTH. This all desperately needs someone to take a weed-whacker to it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

_added I appreciate that Jim is someone who meets our notability criteria, even above GNG, but especially with this being a living person, we need to stick to the rules. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem! I certainly agree that the page could use more notable citations, but being in the position he is in, there isn't much of an alternative, especially for the finer points of some sections, particularly the section on Digital Homicide. Some of the finer points are simply not covered by third party news articles, even though the entire situation has been newsworthy.

As for his videos, I concede his main personality is over the top in the interludes, but that is rarely displayed within the videos themselves. The content is usually spoken in a much clearer editorial manner, sandwiched between two scenes of dramatic bolstering. Though I can see that sourcing from Jim, for Jim, is not the ideal situation here.

If we could get a list of citations that need replacing or addressing, I can try to go out and find alternatives. I'll be honest, I only have the barest of citation knowledge of wikipedia, so I'm unsure which of the citations fail to meet the guidelines. When I was writing the Digital Homicide section, I did so based on the knowledge and links the community had gathered, rather than a news outlet. But I am confident we could replace most of the offending references, though as Dmacks has said, some primary links are acceptable if referring to the finer points of the fued, which wouldn't be covered by the media outlets.

I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps for some sources for The Jimquisition, we could seek an opinion from Wikipedia users over it? I noticed a very beurocratic response to the IP attacker's sock-puppeting. Is there a similar system for reviewing references, where others can judge if it is good reference material? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't need a weed whacker.. It needs a sledgehammer. These "secondary sources" you say we have do not meet the credibility outlined in WP:VG/S. Go ahead, check what makes a credible source in video games media. There's a list there. Anyone can register a domain these days, call it "GameBlog" or another generic title, and then write stuff on it. That doesn't make what they say encyclopedic. Furthermore, using social media accounts, as in youtube videos, reddit comments, tweets, as sources borders on WP:NOR. The fact is, most of the current article simply isn't encyclopedic, and the lack of sources reflects on that. You can fight the truth all you'd like, but rules are rules and policies are policies. In any other page on Wikipedia you would never see an entire section devoted on someone who made a Tumblr blog. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources you simply disregarded in your sledgehammer attack. Destructoid is a credible source that covered the entire Digital Homicide saga in their article. The only potentially weak thing here is the blog threats, to which I concede that I cannot find many sources. I'll give it another whiparound to see what I can find to cite.

There has already been enough IP drama over this issue, please do not pile onto it. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As a note, I've since found a source for the Blog section. It comes from a news show hosted by Polaris, which is run by Disney.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To further clarify: the entire Digital Homicide section is cited by Destructoid, who is a reliable source under WP:VG/S. The Jimquisition is a situational source, a status that then covers the youtube videos as per WP:YOUTUBE. That section has solid reference.

As for the finer points, as Dmacks has said, they can be covered by these smaller non-notable sources.

As I have said, you could perhaps have a point with the Blog section, but the Digital Homicide sections are undeniably safe. Further, your edits, having solely been today and following the streak of previous IP users makes me suspicious that you are, once again, one in the same.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked out your source, it's a destructoid user, not a writer of the website. It's essentially the same as citing a facebook post from a person who created a webpage and claiming it's fact. If you can find an article by a writer, not a community member, then the source is valid. Blogs are not valid sources. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSE for more information. "Are weblogs reliable sources?

In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the s self-publication provision of the verifiability policy." 206.45.74.203 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The entire interview was right there, liked as a reference through Soundcloud. It was linked to within the references. It happened, and is a continuation of the entire saga. We have the direct link to the material covered to prove that it has happened.

As for other sources, we do of course have all the Jimquisition videos and articles that show that it has happened, which are listed as situational sources. Once again, I'll look for further sources for this section. But it is a fact that an interview was held, to which we have the very link to the interview. This isn't in dispute. They then used sockpuppets to create 10 further games within 2015, which is also documented in The Jimquisiton that ties this all together. I feel that, in this case of a fued between a developer and a journalist, the situational source of The Jimquisition, coupled with direct sources to the interview, are enough to keep the section, along with the further resources in the previous iterations of this page. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason the article has 4 warnings,

"This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (November 2015)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (November 2015)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2015)

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (November 2015)"

Everyone knows the interview happened, but it's simply not encyclopedic (Warning 4, undue weight)... Furthermore, you cite the Jimquisition's youtube videos or the site, which are primary sources (Warning 2). The rest of what you cited are community blogs or websites that aren't credible, such as GameRampage WP:VG/S. and you write it in a biased point of view hence (Warning 1). 206.45.74.203 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction, "consumer advocate"

"[...] is an English video game journalist, reviewer, consumer advocate" Consumer advocate? Really? That's not, well, neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:2100:580:484B:56E6:539:D3EE (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

While it's not my place to comment on the language, as I don't know wiki guidelines, I'd not say it's unfair to claim he is pro-consumer. With a steam curation page, commonly decrying season passes and fee-2-play models as well as his fights over Greenlight developers, I'd say it's a fitting description. But, I'm not an expert in wiki etiquette, and my view is likely coloured. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and sourcing

While I was reviewing a page protection request for this page I took a look at the article content. There is an awful lot of negative material in this article, and a large amount of sourcing is to YouTube. Additionally self sourcing is used for a very large portion of the material on the page. This isn't compatible with the BLP policy. I've restored the article as it was in February. There is no doubt material added after that date which complies with the BLP policy, and I have no objection to rewriting that material. I do not think any section of the article can be restored wholesale. Please ensure any additions to this page comply with the BLP policy. Prodego ^talk 23:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I......

no, you know what? screw this. I'm not even going to argue on this, I give up trying to help improve this page.

you have just removed almost an entire year's worth of content in one fell swoop. without any oversight, almost a year has been wiped from this page.

I'm done. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Kizzycocoa - in my post above I said "There is no doubt material added after that date which complies with the BLP policy, and I have no objection to rewriting that material." My reversion to February was to remove any BLP issues. It shouldn't be taken to mean all content after that date was a BLP violation. I would encourage restoring material added after that date which is appropriately cited, sourced, and in compliance with our BLP policy.

Some of the issues that lead me to believe a reversion was needed include:

• No source for the birth name "James Stanton"
• DOB sourced to a page referring to his name as "Sir James Eruvius Delacroix Sterling"
• Personal life story is self sourced, which is typically ok. However given the satirical nature of his blog, this is likely not a reliable source.
• Career before destructoid is unsourced.
• "Controversial... Assassin's Creed II" statement in career section not supported by source
• Majority of statements in career section unsourced.
• 9 of 11 sources in views section sourced to YouTube, Twitter, or Google Plus
• Very large criticism section which is again heavily sourced to YouTube. This section includes commentary about third parties. As an example: "Robert Romine took such offense..." sourced solely to Jim's blog, Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter accounts.
• Editorializing sourced to Twitter, such as "Digital Homicide threw insults."
• "The interview..." paragraph is a particular example of a great deal of potentially controversial statements made through summary of a single primary source.
• Blog threats section is once again sourced primarily to YouTube, Twitter, etc.

In aggregate these issues suggest a significant problem, and reverting to a version with none of this content was the easiest way to resolve it in the short term. Now - a great deal of this material is notable, and worthy of inclusion. However, the level of detail which was in the article would require much stronger sourcing than exists. I believe that a much shorter article which neutrally covers this information, developed from good, third-party sources is certainly possible. I would encourage anyone who wants to build from this clean February version and add that information to do so. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Since that post, I have gotten past the decision, though I still find it absolutely insane that an admin can, without consensus, revert a page and remove 9 months of edits. If I were to do that in my position on Gamepedia, I'd be demoted on the spot.

Still, I've since created a sandbox page, in the hopes to restore the page to it's former self by finding the missing pieces to substantiate each section, one by one. Obviously, the neutrality of the text is disputed. It is quite clear by now that I am here to better the page of a journalist I respect and enjoy, so no matter how much I try, my views will likely rub off onto the article. But that is then a matter of tone editing, which an outside observer can correct. It does not mean the content is invalid, more than it needs some rewording. Onto the list.

• The birth name was sourced in that interview, where Digital Homicide accused Jim of being related to Courtney Stanton. During that, Jim echos his legal name, and remarked that Stanton is a common surname in the UK (something I, as someone in the UK, would argue against). There are no third party sources for this information, but it is not sourced from the Destructoid article, despite "james" appearing in the namespace. speaking of-
• I contest that this article should be struck from the page. This article outlines all of Jim's career, pre-Destructoid. It is an invaluable source for this page, and Destructoid is listed as a reliable source. I would recommend using editorial discretion with this source to decipher the jokey language that Destructoid can use (especially with a comedian reviewer, this is the best we're getting source-wise), from the facts the article presents.
• So, you're saying that we can source from Jim for the personal life story?
• the pre-destructoid career was covered in the DOB source
• Agree, we need to find a source.
• partially agree. while there are little sources, how else can we build an accurate picture of his performances? I would like to draw a comparison between Jim and Steven Blum for the point of reference. you can see that a lot of his appearances go without sources. Why is that given a green light, but it is an issue with someone who doesn't have nearly the same exposure, though does have a history of video game acting?
• These are generally because those videos and media platforms are where Jim expresses his views. I am unsure where else we can get these views, beside interviews. I do take note that source 2 on the page is an interview, but Wikipedia looks on interviews as original research. Is it the case that interviews are not allowed to be cited on wikipedia or not?
• That is mostly due to it all happening on his youtube channel. There are sources to verify that he has targeted steam greenlight particularly for critique, especially since details on Youtube's new program has come to light, many comment on his involvement with greenlight trailer hopefuls. I will implement in my recommended changes once I have rebuilt the sources of the page.
• these are mostly to detail the finer points of the article. There is an established interest with Digital Homicide, which can be seen in Game Rant, Game Rampage, Trustinplay and Geek.com. Notably, many of these have been discussed in the sourcing talk pages for inclusion, and seem to be on tipping point to be accepted. I would go and make a case to try and knock that over the edge into reliability, though we all know, I'd be doing that for the sole purpose of this article, so I have refrained from doing so.
• see above comment, though the primary source was included to showcase that the comments did occur. My rationale was, as the interview was noteworthy, the finer details could use the primary source for quoting. Establishing notability, then using the primary source for the details of the interview. Is this not how that should have been tackled?
• this, I can agree with. the blog threats is the most recent, and least substantial part of the article. I had included it due to it's involvement with Digital Homicide, again establishing notability, then using primary sources to give further notes on the development. However, they have denied all involvement, so unless a strong source comes forth, I agree this section cannot be added.

--Kizzycocoa (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt Prodego has the time and ability to respond to all your nonsense so I'll explain this: Regarding you wanting to include sources that aren't credible, "Game Rampage" and "Game Rant", those are more likely to be included if it's sourcing trivial information. You want to use them to source an entire attack piece on this "Digital Homicide" group. It's clear you have an axe to grind with your editorializing, but this isn't the place to do it. Controversial sections (Ones that could be considered defaming) have to be sourced much better than sections that are trivial in nature. And that's where your links wouldn't work for what you want to include. You can touch on the takedown strike from Digital Homicide, as it is sourced here:, but not have an entire section devoted to them. That's the policy of Undue weight. 206.45.83.147 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm trying to piece this page together. Stop trying to put down these attempts by trying to paint me into a small box of "oh, he must loathe Digital Homicide, and decided that a greaaaaat idea is to do so on the one site where it won't slide".

It is true that I have a negative opinion of Digital Homicide, as will nearly everyone familiar with their behaviour. But this is not an attack piece. Digital Homicide has been a major topic of Jim's weekly show, podcast and also some less-notable news outlets for just over a year now. It is something that is notable, and as such, deserves to be on the page. I believe the timespan deserved is from the first takedown, beyond the interview, and to the point where Jim exposed the extent of their shovelware being put onto steam through sockpuppet accounts.

If I wanted to create an "attack piece" on Digital Homicide, I would rather make their own page, and use the sources to back up it's creation. I'd not want to use the wiki page of Jim's as a battlefield, particularly as I respect him a hell of a lot as a critic.

That is not my goal. My goal is to try to make this page as up to date as possible.

I'll thank you to also not trivialise this company in respect to Jim's coverage. They have released 20 games, over half of which have been covered by Jim. They have had three episodes over the past year focused entirely on them (with many, many others mentioning them as part of episodes, such as "The Asset Flip"), as well as a 1 hour, 40 minute interview. By any standards, this is an abnormal amount of time spent on an indie developer from a reviewer and critic, and the relationship between the two is notable.

Will I be able to type it neutrally? most likely not. But the issue here is not yet neutrality, it is sources. When the sources are gathered, it can be written up, and reviewed for neutrality by other users. I do not care how it is worded. Hell, go the other way and paint them as poor, misguided children for all I care, though that would be factually wrong. What I care about, is that the detail is in this page. It has been a long-running situation, and it deserves coverage. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Destructoid is not entirely an independant source when it comes to Jim Sterling.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This article was written well after Jim had left Destructioid. Between his time at Destructoid and that article, he has also been hired by Escapist, and left to go solo.

I mean, are all credible Destructoid references to be rejected because Jim worked there two years ago? the article itself is written 1 1/2 years after he had left. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't have the time to wade through this - however, I would say that the weight given to the DH episode in the last version of the article was very much undue. Jim's career is not defined by one controversy and we shouldn't devote so much article space to it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative source for lawsuit

Given the fact that the source appears to be written by Digital Homicide themselves, it is highly unlikely to be an objective source suitable for inclusion. Other outlets have covered this, so should we switch out the source with one of these?

http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317 http://www.destructoid.com/indie-developer-digital-homicide-sues-jim-sterling-349283.phtml

Gistech (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Switched -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's all the detail I had cobbled together for another article. gameplanet, gameranx computer games magazine, TechRaptor, Geek.com via NextLevelTech, MMOfallout, Attack on gaming, kotaku and Destructoid all have articles on the filed lawsuit. Here are the Court Documents, Justia Page and Information from Digihom Themselves. SPACKlick (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Its now $15 million

In one of his most recent Jimquisitions, Jim stated that the lawsuit is still ongoing and it's gone up to $15,326,000.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dfB8BMrjc0?t=13m33s

Gistech (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit Dropped

Jim said the lawsuit was dismissed but we can't use his website so keep an eye out for the third party reports. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.thejimquisition.com/a-statement-regarding-romine-v-stantons-dismissal-with-prejudice/

Sterdust

He's wrestled in a small indy wrestling promotion called Pro Wrestling Ego under the name Sterdust (based on Dustin and Cody Runnels characters of Goldust and Stardust from the WWE) and is listed as a "wrestling personality" in this article but it doesn't list Sterdust as another name he's performed under in the infobox and there's no section on his current wrestling career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9800:5C0:1585:FE1A:84D5:4A22 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Italics or inverted commas

The names of Jim's various YouTube series are in italics in the lead but in inverted commas for the rest of the article. Which should be the correct format? I guess the constant use of inverted commas across the prose wouldn't look good, but then I always think italics should only be used more for titles of professional things. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Originator of Name of "Big Chungus" Meme

Are there any objections to adding a sentence or two about how he is credited with creating the name for the Big Chungus meme (https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/big-chungus-memes/)? DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is a solid source. It often reports very niche things, so if TDD is the only source for a claim, it is recommended not to give too much WP:WEIGHT to TDD. A sentence or two is usually the limit. In this case, however, I'd say that TDD would be one of the stronger sources so far on this page, so feel free to not only add a bit about the meme, but also see if you can glean any other details. The Help:How to mine a source page is something I found useful when I first starting ramping up my content additions (rather than just the grammar fixes and the like I worked on initially). If you're interested in adding more content, consider looking at that help page. Jlevi (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'll do that! Thanks for your help. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gender and pronouns

Sterling has updated their Twitter bio to say "He/They/Anything. Pansexual Gendertrash". I am not sure how we should handle that beyond pointing out that they are clearly OK with still being referred to as "he" so there is no urgent need to change the article in order to avoid being cruel or offensive. We can't tell whether they have a preference for "he" over "they" or vice versa. (I am using "they" here because that is the most neutral term and because it falls within the range they have specified as being acceptable.) I am not sure if we need secondary sources for any changes to the article. We should accept a person's self-description of the their gender at face value (unless they are very obviously being an insincere dick about it, which Sterling clearly is not) and respect their choice of pronouns. I expect that they will talk about this in an upcoming video, and maybe explain what they mean by "gendertrash", so maybe we should wait for that? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. Give it some air first. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The current twitter bio update doesn't suggest we should be changing anything at this time, as an "un"preference of the existing use of "he" is not given. Although it would be best to have some sort of secondary source if possible, the twitter update is enough to note that Jim is ok with "they/anything" pronouns, but on it's own does not indicate that he has any issue being referred to as "he" (How could it? "He" is right there as the first in the list of pronouns) or that we should be trying to change all pronouns in the article in any way. -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Jim uses They/them pronouns as a personal preference. This has been mentioned repeatedly in podcasts and on twitch but for written reference, see here while they will accept any pronouns, it is disrespectful of them to prioritise their amab pronouns over the ones they prefer used. Non binary people are non binary, not their birth assigned gender and as such that should not hold weight over how they are presented or perceived. I've been advised to review the conflict of interest page and while neither 'personal relationship to a third party who is then is a colleague' and 'volunteer/unpaid twitch moderator' aren't explicitly covered, I'm happy to advise here and step back if someone else prefers to make edits. BeckyToothill (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Jim Sterling has updated their twitter bio to they/them pronouns exclusively. Pronouns are inherently personal and therefore getting secondary evidence isn't as simple as other information. Any continued use of "He" now that this pronoun has been removed from their own social media is mis-gendering, especially as they have come out as non-binary. I would ask anyone who disagrees with this change provides compelling reasons, to prevent accounts bent on passive transphobia reverting them for their own bias. NikoTheMod (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Think the ambiguity that existed at the start of this thread has been resolved. The article is now using they/them and I think that is correct. I think the article overuses "Sterling" in a few places where it seems more natural to use a pronoun. That's not a big deal but it might benefit from a bit of light copyediting. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Middle name

So James has taken "Stephanie" as a middle name, so now its James Stephanie Sterling. No idea how to integrate that politely. Staring around minute 21: Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Name

This is not probably not relevant to the article because we go by what reliable sources are saying over anything else, but is "James Stephanie Sterling" a name that Jim has legally changed to, or is it just "This is my new name that I would like people to call me" (considering they said they're fine with people continuing to call them Jim Sterling). Do we just accept whatever it is that they want to call themselves? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Sterling" is just a stage-name anyway. Their name was never really "Jim Sterling". ApLundell (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME does not clarify what, exactly, "full name" means, but it's usually not taken to refer exclusively to legal names. (There's also not really such a thing as a "legal name". I have different names on different valid IDs.) Given that Sterling is nonbinary, there's also MOS:DEADNAME to take into account. While that doesn't necessarily apply to their surname, there's also WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns there. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it time to consider renaming the article? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We need a definitive clue as to what their name is clearly. As they aren't exactly responsive on twitter to when I asked them stuff before, might be an uphill battle. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel like "referring to themself as James Stephanie Sterling in literally every single video since naming themself that" is -just a hint of a clue-. 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.107.59 (talk)

Personal life - marriage

Stephanie used to have a wife with whom they apparently split up in 2018. (source) -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"better source needed"?

I'm sorry, why do we need a better source than JIM STERLING for details about Jim Sterling's early life?

--2601:2C6:47F:985A:6806:BD88:3DB1:21AC (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the tag was [added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Sterling&diff=1034590542&oldid=1034365541] by an IP with the comment "Sources should be 3rd party".

Normally, 1st party sources would be allowed to fill in biographic details, but I suppose you could argue that this fails Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB because it it not technically a statement about Sterling themselves.

There's not ever going to be a 3rd party source for this, so either we need to accept that this is really a bit of autobiographical trivia despite technically being about another person, or we need to just remove that fact. I think either resolution would be fine. It's interesting trivia, but not really critical to the reader's understanding of who Sterling is or what they're all about. ApLundell (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the more trivia-like parts of that sentence and removed the template, as I agree with what ApLundell says. Anyone else can make further improvements though. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrestling

@DanielRigal: For past history here, see Special:Permalink/978472712, removed by Devonian Wombat for sourcing reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a smaller section than that and I think it is validly sourced. I didn't rely on Twitter at all or go beyond what the sources say so I hope it is OK this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Rename article?

I think the time has come to rename the article to James Stephanie Sterling, reversing the redirect. They have been using this name for a while now. Any objections? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Hmm. Their YouTube channel is still under "Jim Sterling", which would seemingly make this a personal name vs. stage name question. Is there evidence that Sterling has a gender-identity-based preference for "James Stephanie" over "Jim"? If so, I'd say that MOS:DEADNAME would control, but otherwise it's a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Very much so. They always refer to themself as James Stephanie Sterling or sometimes just Stephanie Sterling on YouTube. Their name on their website and Instagram is James Stephanie Sterling. On twitter they are currently Commander Stephanie Sterling. As far as I can see the only two places where the old name is being used is Facebook (Nobody cares about Facebook) and, more significantly, on YouTube as the channel name but, even then, not in their channel description which says "It is James Stephanie Sterling...". The subject here is the person not the YouTube channel specifically so I think there is a strong case for the rename. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering the links provided by DanielRigal, I think moving the article to the proposed name is fine. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also support a rename. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Belated support for this, then. Jim being the channel name seems a reasonable way to view this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

She/Them Pronouns

Stephanie recently changed her pronouns to She/Them on Twitter. As far as I can tell, she has yet to comment on which of those two pronouns she prefers to be used, if indeed she has any preference. The use of they/them pronouns throughout the article still adheres to MOS:GID and MOS:SINGULARTHEY. However, I think it's at least worth considering making she the default pronoun used, at least until Sterling clarifies if she has any preference between the two. It may seem like a lack of clarifying preference should lend itself to remaining with they/them, but considering that "she" was placed first (as opposed to "they/she"), the first mention of her new pronouns placed the word "transfem" immediately preceding it, and that articles of non-transfeminine people that use she/they tend to use she as their default pronoun, it's at least worth discussion. I do think that there's merit to saying that since Stephanie has been known by they/them for the longest and those are still correct that it shouldn't change, but given the framing of the change it seems like an intentional change in how she wants to be perceived and identified rather than saying "oh, she is okay too"—especially considering she already had when her pronouns were still listed as they/them.

To my understanding of MOS:GID neither pronoun would be "incorrect" for an editor to use, but I would imagine the page should use one consistently for the sake of clarity in the same vein as the previously linked she/they figures. I won't be so bold as to change the entire article's pronouns myself, especially while we've yet to hear anything on her pronoun preference as of yet, but even if she doesn't have any particular preference between the two (really, if it's anything besides her still specifically preferring they/them, which seems unlikely to me as a second listed pronoun) I still think that using "she" as the default pronoun in the article should be discussed and considered. 76.33.16.134 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I did end up changing the pronouns for all the reasons I listed above because this isn't the most actively watched/edited article. Given everything, it seems very clear to me that 'they/them' is an auxillary pronoun, not the preferred one. I think special care should be given considering this is a transfeminine person and transphobes WILL often default to 'they' in order to refuse to call someone who identifies as a woman or transfeminine by any feminine terms, even if they're not necessarily calling them a man, which is why I think there's some minimal level of urgency here. If someone with more authority to me and my random IP account wants to change it back until this receives a consensus then that is fine. 76.33.16.134 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If we take her bio literally then their pronouns are

Subject: she

Object: them

Possessive: her/their

Maybe I'm overthinking this. Lotofeffortfornothing (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how "she/they" works. "she/they" means someone uses both "she/her" and "they/them" pronoun sets. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Their bio doesn't say she/they but thanks for the irrelevent comment. Lotofeffortfornothing (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, try to be less abrasive when talking to other editors or you won't last very long here as an editor. We are all here trying to work together to make an encyclopædia; don't be a dick to other editors.

Secondly, it's a stretch to suggest that "she/them" would not work the same way as "she/they". OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/James Stephanie Sterling

 – * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Change pronoun notice from "They/Them" to "She/Them" (or "She/They", if that's clearer) in accordance to Sterling's updated twitter bio and a tweet posted at the same time. 76.33.16.134 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Another name update

Early in this podcast, Sterling says that while she keeps the "Jim" for some branding purposes, her "dinner name" is James Stephanie Sterling and she otherwise always goes by Stephanie Sterling. More discussion of Steph's preferred name happens at this point where she says that hearing "Jim" is weird. I add these as the most recent declared preference, but also to ask if the lead should be rewritten to say "formerly Jim" rather than "aka Jim". Something like James Stephanie Sterling, also known as Commander Sterling and formerly known as Jim Sterling... etc. Or even just move the Commander Sterling to later in the paragraph since that's not exactly the same level of import. Alyo (chat·edits) 06:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are not RS sources but I think this is OK as it is just reordering the existing things and not introducing anything new so I've made the change. DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 19:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Itch.io tasty" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Itch.io tasty has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § Itch.io tasty until a consensus is reached. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)