Template:Did you know nominations/Morgpie

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 01:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Morgpie

(

)

... that Twitch streamer Morgpie went viral for using her buttocks as a green screen?

Source: The Verge

ALT1: ... that Morgpie was banned by Twitch after hosting a "topless" charity stream for Doctors without Borders? Source: TechCrunch
ALT2: ... that Morgpie was Pornhub's "Top Squirting Performer" in 2023, before later going "topless" and using her buttocks as a green screen on Twitch streams? Source: XBIZ; The Verge
ALT3: ... that Morgpie influenced Twitch trends in which content creators would go "topless" on stream and censor themselves with black bars? Source: Forbes
ALT4: ... that Morgpie went viral on Twitch after projecting gameplay of Fortnite using a green screen overlaid on her buttocks? Source: The Verge
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Terraria
Comment: I think the article's content provides a lot of different routes to go. QPQ to be done soon.

Created by Soulbust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 41 past nominations.

Soulbust (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

@Soulbust: Not a review, but 'butt' is probably too colloquial (I'm using 'buttocks' at FUFN (Fuck You for Now)). There are a lot of sources that are not good for sensitive BLP content; WP:FORBES and WP:TECHCRUNCH are probably alright, but what makes WP:DAILYDOT (and its derivative Passionfruit), and WP:KOTAKU, and the Indy100 reliable? Also, QPQ needs doing.--Laun chba ller 12:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I use buttocks in the article, though figured the DYK hook could be a bit more relaxed or colloquial. It's not a hill I feel any need to die on though, so I've tweaked the hooks to use buttocks instead.

Forbes, highlighted in green to denote its general reliability is definitely alright here as a source here, especially since it's written by staff and not a contributor (a distinction noted at WP:VG/RS).

TechCrunch sources also check out since both the ones used in the article are written by Morgan Sung. Her bio on the site lists her as a senior writer, meaning her pieces aren't for a personal blog. The TechCrunch listing you linked says Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, which reads to me as similar or analogous to the staff/contributor distinction for Forbes pieces.

The Daily Dot is listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS, and the WP:RSP link you provided says it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. I've tweaked the Morgpie article since reading your message here to use the source 3 total times, ~~the first 2 of which, are definitely non-contentious~~ (here I'm using it in the "Twitch metas" section to cite that meta is Twitch community lingo and that she used the green screen in a Fortnite stream; that this latter point inspired other streamers is also being sourced by the Daily Dot citation. I don't view that as contentious, but in the off-chance it is, there is another source present for that). The time I use the source in the "Reception and influence" section is in line with the WP:DAILYDOT blurb listing about following community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased. Since I'm citing the writer's opinion on Morgpie, I do properly attribute her. The writer's bio lists her as the Deputy Editor of Passionfruit. There hasn't been WP:VG/RS or WP:RSP discussion on Passionfruit but I believe since it is under Daily Dot, all the rules about Daily Dot here apply. I had used the source twice in the Reception and influence section to first cite that Twitch received criticism for policy updates and then cite exactly what that criticism is (unfair application of the policy updates to only female-presenting streamers). I believe this is fine for inclusion and I just tweaked the firs time I used it to be in line with the attribution clause from before or to just replace the source with another one; I replaced the second usage with Sung, so that any attribution to Passionfruit or the specific author wouldn't make the sentence clunky.

The Kotaku source has been removed and replaced both on the article and in this DYK nom's hook sourcing.

Indy100 is a sister site of The Independent, (relevant link here is WP:THEINDEPENDENT). It's highlighted in green as generally reliable at WP:RSP. I do note that the entry says some editors advise caution for articles published after the publication went fully online in 2016. I also couldn't find any assessment or deep-dive discussion on Indy100 specifically. There is a comment here from just over a year ago in March 2024 that calls it a tabloidy clickbaity spinoff of The Independent. I have removed the Indy100 source to err on the side of caution here, and while I don't necessarily think it would be assessed as reliable, I think a proper discussion on it is warranted.

Thanks for the feedback, I've made some further edits to the article that I think strengthened it considerably. And hopefully the addressing of the sourcing concerns have been helpful in regards to this article's DYK viability. Will do QPQ soon. Soulbust (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've stricken out some out-of-date info that I forgot to make up-to-date as I was in real-time editing along with my editing of the actual article. The Daily Dot source is used 3 total times still: the one time in the Twitch metas section to cite the meta lingo. Then twice, in the reception to cite that Morgpie influenced copycat streamers and then the attribution to the writer's opinion. The copycat streamer thing should be fine to be cited by this source, but I can look to adjust that if there is any objection to it. Soulbust (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

QPQ completed at Terraria Soulbust (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Full review needed. (For what it's worth, my preferred hook is the first half of ALT2.)--Laun chba ller 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This article, created on 15 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. QPQ done. No copyvio or BLP issues. QPQ done. I think ALT0 is the best (and least likely to violate WP:DYKGRAT). ALT0 is in the article, cited, and citation checks out. GTG Tenpop421 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 and ALT4 (and probably ALT3) shouldn't really violate that as well. I honestly think ALT2 should be fine but I can understand if that one does perhaps? Definitely will defer to the promoter here though. Soulbust (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)