Jump to content

Talk:ND Stevenson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 58.107.138.10 (talk) at 13:28, 29 January 2024 (Doesn't need to exist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2022 and 2023.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Untitled

Nate is an artist for Marvel (on Thor and Runaways) and works on Lumberjanes too. He needs his own, non-Nimona page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeine (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeine 2A02:1810:858A:4100:30FF:E636:104C:AE2D (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nate Stevenson. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

I can't edit the page myself, but I've noticed that cite note 19, for "She identifies as non-binary and uses any personal pronouns", incorrectly has the same link as that in cite note 18 and gives the wrong Twitter handle. The "archived" link does go to the correct tweet. The main link should be pointing to https://twitter.com/Gingerhazing/status/1283210124081823744 but currently points to https://twitter.com/MollyOstertag/status/1175955520311545857 instead. And the text in the footnote should state Noelle's Twitter handle as @Gingerhazing rather than @MollyOstertag.

Thanks to whoever can make these changes!

89.36.64.76 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good work spotting this! Gehenna1510 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on gender and gender identity

Just a quick note: Stevenson recently released a comic called "the weight of them" through Gumroad, which touches on her gender and gender identity. In the work, Stevenson explicitly says that "using any pronouns doesn't always seem very practical, but I like it, at least for now." From my reading of this line and from the comic as a whole (as well as her Twitter, etc.), Stevenson is fine with being referred to as "she." I see that this is already touched upon in the "Personal life" section, but I thought it was something to be aware of and to note on the talk page in case anyone gets confused, is curious, etc.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to make a note of. I was going to add something from the new preferred pronouns template, but I think the page is sufficient for now. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 and Gen. Quon: just wanted to get back to you that I've added the {{Article pronouns}} template above in an attempt to deal with this, and wanted to get your feedback.
Historyday01 is correct in their note about "the new preferred pronouns template", but this template was renamed to "{{Article pronouns}}" for a few reasons, including "preferred" not being the best choice of words (see discussion), and also for cases like this one and other biographies where the subject was fine with more than one pronouns style but the article had to pick something to use for consistency.
So, the name "Article pronouns" suggests guidance for editors at the article something like: "this is what this Wikipedia article uses for this person, per source(s)", and not: "this person uses this/these pronoun(s)". For someone like Stevenson who might be fine with any pronouns, or Leslie Feinberg who uses she/her, zie/hir, and is also fine (sometimes) with any pronouns, the template merely states what the article pronoun usage recommendation is, and doesn't try to encapsulate all the subtleties of a person's entire attitude about their pronoun usage in a brief template, which can be better covered in more detail in the article itself, as is the case for example with Feinberg at Leslie Feinberg#Pronoun usage.
Does that make sense? Feel free to adjust the template above as needed. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After editing this article, I wanted to add my thoughts on what pronoun to use when writing this article. As noted before, Stevenson is fine with any pronouns, so when we write this article we can use whatever pronouns we think most appropriate, based on our goal of making the article the most useful and informative to a reader. Using "she" carries a risk that the reader will assume Stevenson is simply female, or even that Stevenson is cis. (Yes the article says that Stevenson is non-binary, but a reader might jump into the middle of the article.) To use "she" also requires answering the question "why she and not he?" Is the reason that Stevenson is AFAB? Is it that, when it was written, Stevenson's Twitter bio said "she/he/they" and we just went with the first item on that list? (If so, it now says "he/she/they".) The choice of "she" over "he" is also harder to justify given Stevenson's self-description of transmasculine.
I instead recommend "they". It prevents any assumptions about gender by the reader. It gently indicates that Stevenson is non-binary. And it dodges the "if you're going to use a gendered pronoun, then which one" question.
Again, given Stevenson's own "any pronoun" approach, our question is "what approach for this article is most useful for a reader?" I think it is "they". What do other people think? HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HenryCrun15, I think we should keep "she". It complies with Stevenson's stated preferences and has the additional bonus of not confusing readers, who may be used to reading about Stevenson as "she" in sources. We should follow reliable sources, see WP:NOR. Using the nonstandard pronoun "they" (or "he", especially accompanying a feminine photograph) would also foreground Stevenson's nonstandard gender identity in a way that would unduly distract from what this article is mainly about: her career as a creative professional. Sandstein 06:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, @Sandstein:. I just did a quick search for recent articles about Stevenson and they universally used "she". So you're right that it is consistent with the sources on the subject, which is important. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily disagree that it's appropriate to pick someone's pronouns based on their photo, or that someone's gender or use of pronouns might "distract" from the talk about Noelle's career. I agree with the person above pointing out the more recent developments of Noelle IDing as transmasculine and changing the order of pronouns on the twitter bio. I would suggest changing the pronouns to either "he" (to respect/reflect the ID as transmasculine and change of pronoun order on twitter), or "they" (to avoid the issue altogether). I think it's a terrible precedent/approach to use someone's physical appearance to justify which pronoun to use in cases like this. 119.224.38.150 (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for choosing someone's pronouns, my understanding is this was done based on those listed on Noelle's Twitter profile and reliable sources, not anything else. Anyway, wouldn't object to changing it the pronouns to he/him/his, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. Any more comments on this, @Sandstein, HenryCrun15, and Mathglot:?Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01, as noted above, I think that "she" is appropriate, because it matches her description in reliable sources and complies with her own preferences. Sandstein 15:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking too and I'm fine with it staying as "she," but I just thought it might be worth broaching the subject again. Historyday01 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would like to edit this page but it is not allowing me to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollypop2298! (talk • contribs)

Lollypop2298!, that's because the page is set to allow only contributions by editors with some experience. But you can propose your edits here (remember that they need reliable sources). Sandstein 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

ND Stevenson is incorrectly referred to as "he" in this article, as he came out as transmasc, any references to him as "she" need to be replaced Trenchgun1 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Current consensus was to use she/her while Stevenson said that he used any pronouns. See talk page header. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ganbaruby is right. His Twitter account directly says he/him Historyday01 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

ND has changed pronouns. Smilingalpaca (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smilingalpaca, what's the source for that? Sandstein 16:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HisTwitter profile STILL says (as it has for a while now) "he/him". --Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories which may be outdated or misgendering

Stevenson is still listed under various female/women categories at the bottom of the page. I assume it's from prior to him coming out as transmasc. Time for removing/altering them? Mcc1789 (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so? Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

Under Career -> Animation, add the following sentences to the end: Stevenson was working on a film version of Nimona with Blue Sky Studios. However, as part of an acquisition, Disney shut down and laid off the studio's employees. The film, which was said to be 'roughly 75 percent' done, was reportedly being shopped around to other studios.

Sources: https://collider.com/nimona-movie-cast-cancelled-disney-blue-sky/ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/disney-nimona-movie-lgbtq-characters BubbleBub (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If he had a role in the film's crew (which is possible), neither of these articles says he had a role in the film's production, only that he wrote the Nimona comic and he comments of the film's cancellation. Also, the tone of his tweet ("Got to see some recent reels and art from Nimona today. Absolutely blew me away and I’m so heartbroken you won’t be able to see it. Blue Sky was making something really special.") included in the Buzzfeed article, seems to imply he was a consultant but not directly involved in the production. If you can find something more concrete showing that he had a role in the film's production, then please provide sources of that. Historyday01 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Can the article use only he/him pronouns for ND, since it state that he's transmasc and go by he/him :) 130.228.167.147 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done On her official Twitter profile, ND says he uses he/him, so only that's acceptable. This article (I hope no longer uses) she/her pronouns. This has been discussed over and over on this talk page, here, here, here, and here. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian categories

He was(I assume someone's changed it by now) in the lesbian artist and writer categories, but is there any source for that? It's not appropriate, because he's a man. Mcc1789 (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

ND Stevenson is transmasculine and this wiki page should be updated from using she/her/hers pronouns to he/him/his pronouns. Reference is his twitter: https://twitter.com/Gingerhazing?t=Qdq5NO6L1rsntA-LeBqolg&s=09

From a fellow transmasculine non-binary person! Slinkyfishy (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(His profile references states he/him) Slinkyfishy (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on pronouns

ND/Nate now uses he/him Pronouns. Source: https://twitter.com/gingerhazing?lang=en

Name?

Hello everyone! I have very little experience with wikipedia at all, just as a warning.

I’m not sure if it’s worth doing anything about at this point, but Stevenson has recently discussed issues regarding his name. On twitter, he’s changed his name to “ND Stevenson.” I obviously understand that changing someone’s name causes difficulties, especially since it seems likely that further changes will have to occur later, but I figured it might be worth discussing, at least. 2600:1008:B147:2D4D:8524:A7E2:549F:3C4F (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, unless there is a definite statement showing the name has changed, like ND pens a Tweet about it for instance (which I imagine would be covered on a bunch of LGBTQ sites), the name of ND should replace. Historyday01 (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stevenson is increasingly using "ND Stevenson" on their self-published online works, and there is at least one independent source noting that name. We could change the article's title and rewrite the article accordingly. If you think this is appropriate, have a read of Wikipedia:Article_titles (particularly Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Self-published_name_changes. HenryCrun15 (talk) Note that, if the title is changed to "ND Stevenson", then the article will need to keep some brief reference to the name "Noelle Stevenson", as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity – just enough that a reader can understand that this person is the person who used to go by that name and that their name has changed. 03:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: In a new comic by Stevenson they said "I chose a new name, and one day I will tell you what it is." So, I'm guessing Stevenson will announce what that name is in 2022. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! It looks like Stevenson has changed their name to both ND Stevenson on Twitter and Substack, but not Gumroad. IMHO, until a definitive and more pronounced statement is made, I think this should probably stay where it is. (This isn't to say that Stevenson's change on Twitter, etc. isn't important; just that it is unclear what name, exactly, they want to be identified with.)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they have changed the name to ND on Twitter and Substack, but my guess is that it will be something else different... I have no idea what it will be either. I agree, the page should stay where it is until a definitive and more pronounced statement is made as you put it. Historyday01 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Maddoraptor, if you'd like to take part in this discussion, feel free, but unless ND says otherwise (which I imagine they will at some point this year) and there is a definite statement about a name change, the article will stay at its current name. Historyday01 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has announced his new name, Nate Diana Stevenson, on his substack newsletter (https://www.imfineimfine.com/p/nate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyeri6702 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that in Critical Role's Guest Battle Royale from tonight, in which Stevenson played, he introduced himself as ND (pronounced basically like "indie" to my ear, without much effort to separate the letters), not as his dead name. This was when all of the guests were introducing themselves, using their names, so it wasn't a joke or character or anything of the sort. I get the appeal of waiting for a concrete statement as a green light, but it's becoming increasingly clear that they are using the name ND now and no longer use their dead name. At some point, even without a formal statement, the mountain of evidence ought suffice. Most things are done by doing them, not by saying they've happened. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I nearly forgot. The host/DM of the game, when facilitating the guests introducing themselves by prompting them each time, addressed ND as such before he referred to himself using that name, so it's something his colleagues and friends are aware of and are honoring already. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, Dfsghjkgfhdg. I would still say we need more of a concrete statement and more reliable sources showing a name change. Knowing Stevenson, I could easily see a concrete statement in a tweet or even in an interview. He is NOT shy about his identity, not one bit. In fact, his are very open about it. Historyday01 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfsghjkgfhdg, I did find a recent tweet from Critical Role noting the same that you put it and a tweet recently where Stevenson called himself "some dude." Then, there's an October 19, 2021 comic Stevenson put out, saying "...I'm becoming increasingly aware of the practical need for a new, less gendered [name]...right now I don't really feel like I have one." I've seen chatter on Twitter saying this "proves" Stevenson is calling themself "ND Stevenson" but I wouldn't say the comic directly says that, however, as it seems more about exploring what name is right for them if that makes sense. The name has been changed on Instagram, noted on LezWatch, Out Magazine, CBR, ComicsBeat, Bleeding Cool, and Xtra Magazine so far. What does everyone else think? Does it still make sense to wait until a definite statement is made? Historyday01 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before people do chime in, I'll note that this idea of waiting for an "official", explicit announcement is not any broadly accepted, codified policy, and as such, it should not serve as a default behavior in anyone's mind. Even the above-linked section on self-published name changes says "The determination of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelihood the new name is going to stick – while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name.". They've changed their own name basically everywhere they have the ability to. Their colleagues and friends are honoring the name, including in professional contexts (such as the aforementioned credits of the CR guest battle royale episode). Whether they stick with this name for another week or the rest of their life, it is clear that their dead name is no longer in use. As such, I propose the leading name in the article be changed to their currently used name (ND Stevenson), with a "formerly known as" appositive mentioned the once at the beginning. In line with that, I'd change the name of the article to "ND Stevenson" with a redirect placed on the old article name. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point Dfsghjkgfhdg that waiting for an "official" and explicit announcement is not codified policy. Take River Butcher's profile (the profile lists two previous names) for instance, which cites a tweet as a source for a changed name. That's one example I can think of off hand (since Butcher voiced a non-binary character in one of my favorite series), although I know there are many others. I am leaning toward your position, Dfsghjkgfhdg, but I also want to hear what the others that have contributed so far have to add. I would propose we possibly use a similar format to Butcher's page, so it would read "ND Stevenson [citation here] (formerly dead name; born December 31, 1991)"... then on with the rest of the sentence. @Gen. Quon and @HenryCrun15, it would be great if you could chime in this. Historyday01 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Dfsghjkgfhdg's idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the idea as well. Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change in the lead, and I also support moving the article to ND Stevenson. That said, I think we have reason to suspect that this would be a 'potentially controversial' move, and we should therefore hold a request move discussion. Firefangledfeathers 18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RM is for when consensus cannot be reached. It seems everyone paying attention to this Talk page is in consensus so far. I do not think behaving to to appease imagined opposition is needed, and frankly, the increasing rate at which people are afraid to be bold (which RM recommends you do in the presence of consensus) is a problem with the culture of Wikipedia that people should actively strive to eliminate. Unless there's someone specific who made clear they have an opinion in this discussion that's been up since November that you haven't seen chime back in on the most recent proposal who you'd like to see comment, I say simply move it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. I'm not sure how the change would be "potentially controversial." I can agree there is definitely a rate in which people are afraid to be bold. I've certainly fell victim to that myself sometimes, I'll admit. I'd say a move makes sense in this case and I support it. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 asked me to contribute to this, and my position is to support the move. There is no hard policy on how or when to recogise a name change - it is subjective. I think that having six recent sources using the new name, plus a name change on Instagram and references elsewhere is enough. If Stevenson later announces a name, we can change again. Agree that the article needs to make brief reference to the name "dead name" as per the guidelines. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that was my thought too. Stevenson has changed their name to ND Stevenson on Instagram and Twitter currently, and I believe there is enough sources to support the change. I'd recommend using the formulation I floated earlier, "ND Stevenson [citation here] (formerly dead name; born December 31, 1991)", at the beginning of the article, adding in the appropriate sources as needed. And if Stevenson announces a new name, it can be changed, at that point, I agree. Update: I thought it was also interesting that in a recent comic by Stevenson's partner, Molly Ostertag, she described Stevenson as a "boy." Historyday01 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, support a bold article name change.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, with all the news about the Nimona film, the articles mentioning ND Stevenson are rushing in... one by one... so it is even more accepted by the name than back in February. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenson released a (paywall exclusive) comic today that indicates that they changed their name to Nate. Note sure if it's too early to change the page title since the new name isn't entirely public yet. --2600:1700:D0A0:26D0:7099:8A37:7F7D:7C3F (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be too early at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some comics which make it worth opening this discussion again, maybe. Stevenson's wife, Molly Ostertag posted a comic today referring to Stevenson as "him". However, in a comic posted by Stevenson, also today, referred to her previous self with they/them pronouns if I'm reading it right. An IP user previously said that a paywalled comic by Stevenson noted a new name of Nate, although I haven't seen that shown anywhere else, as Stevenson's Twitter account, Instagram, and the aforementioned comic still uses "ND". My guess that Stevenson would change them all to the same name once that happens. Jade King, who writes for The Gamer, used he/him pronouns for Stevenson in a recent article (and also in this one), as does Aimee Carrero, while others still use they/them. So, its still in contention and I don't think we should make any further changes until there is further clarification. Historyday01 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ND has finally publicly clarified everything: - He exclusively uses "he/him" pronouns now. - His new name is "Nate Diana Stevenson," changing his first name but keeping his middle name and last name. - He goes by "ND Stevenson" professionally as a way to stay tied to his old works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D0A0:26D0:50A0:2F66:4C00:1DD6 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct his name is Nate Diana Stevenson and not his dead name as was written in the previous reply Musetomon (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I was expecting something like that was happening, I was just waiting until ND announced it publicly. I'll update it later today if I have time. Historyday01 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected request

Please replace (remove) the text

  • X "as noted by CBR, Out Magazine, ComicsBeat, Xtra Magazine, and Bleeding Cool."
  • with Y "."

They changed their name. Sources reported it. There was clear consensus to change the article. That's all fine, but there is no need to write "as noted by CBR, Out Magazine, ComicsBeat, Xtra Magazine, and Bleeding Cool." The references are clear and the consensus is clear, there should not be any need to highlight the names of the references in the text of the article, that's just poor writing. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying but I think noting the specific publications supports the consensus, which is why I added them in case someone tries to come along and challenge it for whatever reason. Historyday01 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where it was reported is almost never notable in and of itself, this wasn't reported on the front page of The New York Times. At the very least you could make it more concise and limit it to the most notable publications like "as noted by Out Magazine, and others". I think the retroactively changing the past in an encyclopedia is Orwellian at times, but this is trivial and the only thing I am challenging here is bad writing. Even in the unlikely event that someone else does challenge the name change, having the names of the sources written out directly in the article does not do anything to improve your argument, the discussion above has already shown clear consensus that "ND Stevenson" is now their WP:COMMONNAME. I think it is inevitable that Stevenson will soon be credited onscreen with their preferred name, it they haven't been already, so the only question should be when not if you are going to fix the poor writing in this encyclopedia article. Sooner or later you are going to have to fix it, so make it sooner. -- 109.78.200.214 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, "Orwellian"? It makes sense to respect someone's name if they change it per MOS:NB, WP:SPNC, and WP:NAMECHANGES (to a lesser extent). I will say that part of the reason the sources ARE named is that they range in dates, as the one is in August 2021 (an article in Out Magazine by Mey Rude, one of Stevenson's friends I believe), and others are in months afterward. And Stevenson has ALREADY been credited on screen as ND Stevenson, specifically in a Critical Role episode (which is noted on the page already), and a recent Polygon article named them as "ND Stevenson" too. Would you accept the change of the current text ("In August 2021, Stevenson changed their first name to ND, as noted by CBR, Out Magazine, ComicsBeat, Xtra Magazine, and Bleeding Cool.") to this?:

"In August 2021, Stevenson changed their first name to ND, as noted by online entertainment and LGBTQ publications."

There isn't going to be "someone else...[who] does challenge the name change." This just seems like a strange discussion to have. Historyday01 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: This appears to be a content discussion that is ongoing, thus the usage of the semi-protected edit request template isn't appropriate. Such requests should either be non-controversial or be made after a consensus has been established. IP, I would advise continuing your discussion with Historyday01, in which it is possible you just made a break through. —Sirdog (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how ongoing it will be, though, as these IP address discussions kind of peter out over time, though, and 109.78.200.214 has not made any comments since Feb. 15... Historyday01 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware the discussion is just a tad stale, to put it lightly. My main motivation was to extend compassion and helpful advice should the IP return and remove the edit request from the currently high queue. In my (albeit still amateur's) opinion I'd say this discussion has resulted in no consensus, and I'm not particularly invested enough to form or enact my own opinion, which was also a contributing factor to the request's denial. —Sirdog (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And that motivation makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! New here, so apologies if I'm formatting this incorrectly. ND has announced on his newsletter (www.imfineimfine.com/p/nate) that his name is now Nate Diana Stevenson and his pronouns are he/him! Looks like I can't update this myself just yet, so it'd be cool if someone else could do that when they have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyeri6702 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Before this, it had been said in a locked newsletter, but this one is open, so it can definitely be cited in the page itself. If I have time this afternoon, I'll update it. Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

possible incorrect pronoun

just wondering if, in the last paragraph before the 'bibliography' section it should read '...their wife, Ostertag'. not sure if I'm just misreading/misunderstanding 50.101.243.19 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That was probably my bad on that. But, it has been corrected now. Next, going through the pages and changing "Noelle" to "ND" where I can. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an edit to the profile picture

ND Stevenson's picture is very old, and depicts them pre-transition. He has since started taking testosterone, and had top surgery, so he now looks very different to how he used to. See here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CP_SNeEDjPs/

On his Instagram, there are some headshots that were recently taken of him, perhaps these would be suitable? https://www.instagram.com/p/CQex3YNjicn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joec90 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Pictures on Wikipedia articles need to be free of copyright restrictions, with only a few exceptions. It would not be allowed (nor legal) to simply take a photo from an Instagram, since the copyright for that photo belongs to someone. If someone were to take a more up-to-date photograph, or if a copyright holder of a photo (including Stevenson) made an image explicitly available, then it could be used. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, exactly. Until that happens, then we should stick with the current photo. I imagine that if Stevenson appeared at a Comic Con or some other public event like in the past, there would be photographs taken... Just a guess. Historyday01 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm new to this. Thanks for the info. Joec90 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise! I agree that the article would be better if it had a more recent photo. But for legal reasons, Wikipedia is really strict on copyrighted photos. If you want to learn more, you could read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. One thing we could do is ask Stevenson to make a photo freely licensed; the details of doing this are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: We badly need a new lead image of ND Stevenson as per MOS:IDINFO. One thing we could consider doing is using an image of some of his better known work as a lead image instead, and reserving the pre-transition photos for later in the article. What would be best, though, is actually having a more recent photo of him... Please appear at Comic Con, ND Stevenson! *clasps hands* Birdsinthewindow (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I totally agree, we need a new image for sure. Maybe someone can message Stevenson and ask about making on an image posted on his Instagram freely licensed like HenryCrun said? Just a thought Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here’s the headshot he uses for his literary agency https://inkwellmanagement.com/client/ND-stevenson 79.107.59.130 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that image is that it isn't freely licensed. Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those would be good but it needs to be freely licensed, as HenryCrun15 pointed out that Wikipedia is strict when it comes to copyrighted photos. I know this personally as I've almost given up on trying to post copyrighted images on here, only doing so very infrequently and only under the right circumstances. Historyday01 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically Wikipedia’s policy is forcing a trans person to continue appearing in Wikipedia pre-transition no matter how hurtful this is to both the subject of the article and, frankly, trans readers who are learning that Wikipedia’s policy on copyrighted photos would rather continue to expose an identity they don’t wish to use anymore? And it’s the responsibility of the trans article subject to provide Wikipedia a photo they’re happy with so they’ll stop displaying pre-transition photos of someone who has transitioned?

Like I’m sorry, is there REALLY no other option than “the article has to be invited back to ComicCon so post-transition photos can finally be used?”

If this is seriously the policy, the policy is bad and needs to change. Rebochan (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative is to remove or move the image, so that the infobox is unillustrated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it at the time, but MOS:GIDINFO states "Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image. If no other photos are available, it is generally better to have no lead image at all". I still remain hopeful that an image of ND post-transition CAN be added in the future, especially if his shows air in the coming year and he appears at a conference or something. Anyway, I hope that helps. Historyday01 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone tried asking Nate if he has a photo he'd be willing to compatibly license for use in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time, maybe. I do recall, some time ago (I think it was last year), someone posted a photo, I think of Molly Ostertag, and it seemed like it was Nate posting the photo, but, the photo was deleted not long after because it didn't have the proper licensing. Historyday01 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Minor Error in Reference to The Fire Never Goes Out

The header of this article suggests that Nate wrote about being transgender in The Fire Never Goes Out, which was written before he came out and does not reference his being transgender in any explicit way. Though obviously one may read the experiences he writes about as transgender experiences in light of his coming out since, I believe the way the memoir is referenced could be misleading. Pandaaubre (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd support revising that so it isn't as confusing. Historyday01 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

On the Wikipedia page for ND Stevenson, an out of date photo is used. Given this artist's transition to non-binary transmasculine a more up to date image (such as the one on Inkwell Management's page) might be better Kate(hearts)Sandwiches (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that some new images of Stevenson are released this year, and am glad the previous image was removed, as MOS:GIDINFO states "Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image. If no other photos are available, it is generally better to have no lead image at all". Historyday01 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kate(hearts)Sandwiches, I agree that a more up to date image would be better. However, it would have to be one that Wikipedia has the right to use. Images such as the one you mentioned are protected by copyright and so can't be used. (There are some exceptions for fair use, but this wouldn't meet those.) If Stevenson were to make a photo available, either under Creative Commons or simply putting it in the public domain, we could use that. Or perhaps someone could take a photograph, say at a convention or other event, then the photographer could make that image available to use. HenryCrun15 (talk)

 Not done for now: Needs a copyright free image. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It would be simple enough to ask Stevenson, right? Either that, or we can wait until some convention, or something. Historyday01 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there was evidence it was freely licensed (either evidence accessible on a public page or submitted to whatever OTRS on Commons calls itself nowadays) then asking could work if one could actually open up an avenue of discussion with the person in question. The image currently in the infobox at Dylan and Cole Sprouse is one I discussed with the adult(s) in charge of the webseries Piper Reese hosted at the time (as they owned the image) to be sure it was freely licensed and thus uploadable to Commons and used on articles in that way. That's not always possible in every situation but it's not impossible either. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for responding to this over a year later, but I'd just like to add I'm a bit hopeful there will be a freely licensed photo of Stevenson this year. Historyday01 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picture needs an update

He came out in 2020 and 2021. Why does this article use a picture from 2019? PBZE (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the most recent picture that is freely licensed that is on Wikipedia, as HenryCrun15 notes in a below comment, and Purplewowies in another comment. I fully support having a new image, but there is no point in uploading a non-copyright free image and then have it be taken down and deleted. That wouldn't help anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, MOS:GIDINFO states "Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image. If no other photos are available, it is generally better to have no lead image at all". Anyway, I remain hopeful that a freely licensed photo of Stevenson can be added this year. Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, this is the most recent picture for which Wikipedia has a legal right to use. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct reference to The Fire Never Goes Out in Introduction

The introduction references Stevenson as having written about being transgender in his book The Fire Never Goes Out, however, he was not out at the time. Though one may read many experiences in his book as being transgender retrospectively, it’s quite confusing to say “[he] writes about being transgender in works such as The Fire Never Goes Out” when he did not consciously reference being trans in that book. I’d suggest a change that modifies the sentence to reference his substack comic, I’m Fine I’m Fine Just Understand, where he does talk about being transgender as is very similar to The Fire Never Goes Out in terms of format, or to exclude the reference entirely. Pandaaubre (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I mentioned you in my change, but I think what I changed addresses your concern. I probably should have revised it back in July when you first mentioned it, but... better late than never I suppose. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography does not use Gus Allen’s name

I just created a wiki account and because it’s protected don’t know how to change this but in the Bibliography section of the comic Stevenson worked on called Lumberjanes, it references the writer Allen under the name they appeared as when those were originally published. They go by Gus Allen now which is reflected on the Lumberjanes wikipedia. Oakmar23 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that can be updated. Simon & Schuster says its "Gus A Allen" so I'll change it to that. Probably that information was added a while ago, when Allen used the previous name, and never updated since then. Historyday01 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect pronoun

The last paragraph in the section "Education and Nimona" has an incorrect pronoun - could someone fix this? 120.16.39.4 (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadname

I'm unsure about how my fellow trans people in the autobiographical side of Wikipedia feel about this, but to me, having someone's deadname displayed feels really disrespectful to me. Is there some policy that states someone's deadname 'has' to be displayed? Or am I allowed to get rid of it out of respect for Stevenson? 123.243.187.115 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to MOS:GENDERID "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page...even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name...In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. " Stevenson was CLEARLY notable under his old name. In fact, most of his career (including Nimona and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power must prominently), he has been credited under the previous name. Historyday01 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

At the end of the section 'Education and Nimona' there is a link to the wrong Nick Bruno. Where it says "Nick Bruno and Troy Quane" it should instead link to the the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bruno_and_Troy_Quane for both of them. 65.129.54.47 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

Um, how is this relevant? (below)

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting and fun to read. But nonetheless, you won't find the latest interview statements of people quoted as milestones of their personal life in other articles. And what does capitalism have to do with any of that, or the power of love? Anyhow sommebody announcing a new phase without telling what it is, is rather no info at all, is it not?

Admit it, One of you obsessed fans who has been infected with "the Gay" put this here:

{{ In a November 2023 interview with Out, Stevenson said he was entering a "new creative phase" in his life amid "turbulence of late-stage capitalism" and added that "the world is so much bigger and weirder than we know — when you love someone for who they are, the understanding will follow." }} 93.241.196.105 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about it, and moved it to the "other work" section. Historyday01 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cool, thanks 93.241.196.105 (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Credited by deadname"

Is the note "credited by deadname" necessary to have in the article? idk if there is a policy about this but it kind of just feels weird there With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:ND_Stevenson&oldid=1200428760"