Talk:Neuro-sama

Subscriber Count is Misleading

The subscriber count is misleading, as it under the "twitch information" section when it's referring to the YouTube channel. Subscriptions do also exist on twitch, but require payment and work differently then on on YouTube. This might mislead people into thinking that her twitch subscriber count is much higher than it really is (I don't believe the vedal987 channel is partnered anyhow). Huhbilly (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I can sort of see where you're coming from so I made a few adjustments to the formatting which more easily delineates the boundaries between YouTube and Twitch stats. Most other streamers' and content creators' infoboxes on Wikipedia contain both types of formatting (and also use "followers" and "subscribers" together), so I believe that as long as "subscribers" is labeled specifically under a "YouTube information" header and "followers" is labeled under a "Twitch information" header, then there shouldn't be much, if any, confusion. Meteoric91 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

How about: "she reached 100,000 subscribers on her YouTube channel" or "she reached 100,000 followers on her Twitch channel"

Haram999 (talk) Haram999 (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Interaction, worth including?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKqBvNWxJFE has me perplexed. Should it be summarized as the sort of interaction which is typical for Jack's language model hyper-parameter, fine-tuning, and filtering selections? Sandizer (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neurosama's New Model.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Neuro-sama's Gender

A disagreement has arisen regarding whether Neuro-sama should be referenced using gendered pronouns, i.e. "she/her/hers", versus "it/its". Discussion surrounding gender and AI chatbots in general (with references to Neuro-sama embedded) can be found here. I'm hoping that this topic on Neuro-sama's page can settle the dispute. Meteoric91 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Neuro-sama should be referred to as "she/her/hers" and not be referred to as "it/its" for several reasons, which I'll mention in below (copied from my response in Wikipedia talk:Gender identity).

Some well-known chatbots such as ChatGPT, by default, are not designed with any specific attributes that would lead a user to believe that their interactions with the AI are synonymous of those with a gendered individual. Popular virtual assistants, such as Siri, Alexa, and Cortana, though presented with a feminine voice by default, are not designed to portray a gendered character. In these cases, the concept of gender is not a core, identifying feature of the product.

In contrast, Neuro-sama IS designed to embody a large set of gendered characteristics, evidenced by the feminine artistic illustration and aesthetics of the avatar, the feminine voice, and the feminine mannerisms. Thus, the manifestation of the AI system, in this case, is a female virtual character who engages with viewers in real time by responding to their messages or initiating a discussion on a particular topic (on top of singing and playing video games). In addition, the creator, the avatar's illustrator, the avatar's Live2D rigger, the community Neuro-sama is primarily associated with (i.e. the VTuber community), as well as Neuro-sama herself (self-identification) all utilize "she/her" pronouns when referencing said AI manifestation.

The concept of vocaloids, such as Hatsune Miku, was also brought up on that Wikipedia talk page. Miku is a clear example of a program that contains qualities reflective of gender, and her Wikipedia page even uses "she/her" pronouns. I also point out that inanimate objects, such as ships, can also be referenced with "she/her/hers" (predominantly) or "he/him/his" (minorly) pronouns.

So in conclusion, while referring to such gender-portraying chatbots/AI (in this case, Neuro-sama) as "it/its" or "they/their" would technically not be incorrect, the usage of such pronouns would diminish a key identifying feature that these chatbots/AI were explicitly designed to possess. Neuro-sama's feminine manifestation is such a key identifying feature and should be treated as such. Meteoric91 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll also copy my comment from the discussion for the record. I do think the original feminine pronouns should be restored:

The language in the article should reflect the language used in the coverage of the topic. On Neuro-sama in particular, the vast majority (if not all) of her coverage uses gendered pronouns (e.g. VTuber Neuro-sama terrifies viewers with her gruesome game concept, "As her name implies, Neuro-sama is essentially a neural network with a VTuber-style face.", "She acts like a regular streamer who plays games and interacts with the chat but she's AI.") I think deviating from the general consensus on the language used on the topic would violate WP:OR, so at least in this case, Neuro-sama should use feminine pronouns. Other AIs should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Another point from the MOS:GID discussion: we can usefully distinguish between the [feminine-pronoun] "persona" or "character" of Neuro-sama and the [neutral-pronouns] software and hardware maintaining her. – .Raven  .talk 15:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Vedal's name

I feel like this page should just refer to the creator's name as Vedal, as the reference for "Jack" ultimately refers to Vedal's personal website (an .xyz page which we can't link to) several years ago, and he has never outright called himself "Jack" to verifiable sources. I propose removing it altogether. Meteoric91 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Meteoric91:  Done. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There were these independent sources, apparently removed as unreliable under WP:VG/RS:

• Narita, Seiji (January 27, 2023). "AI VTuber Neuro-sama is back from its Twitch ban and acting as strange as ever". Automation. Active Gaming Media. Retrieved February 11, 2023.
• "The AI VTuber "Neuro-sama" collaborates with a human VTuber to confuse the other party. Curse developers themselves and talk about murder plans". News Directory 3. February 7, 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

The issue to me is that WP:VG/RS would seem to support those sources, both of which are translated from Japanese, as neither are mentioned specifically and the general guidance is explicitly permissive for corporate news sources on such topics. And if there was confirmation on vedal.xyz at one time which has since been removed, WP:BLPNAME should apply, but it is about as ambivalent as possible for this case, so it comes down to a judgement call. More opinions are needed. Sandizer (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Subathon stats

Are they needed, outside of maybe subscribers count? They are artificially boosted by a lot of people afking in front of VODs, and the "most viewed" part refers to watch hours, not peak or average viewers, which isn't obvious even to Twitch users if you don't mention it. SunflowerYuri (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Minecraft Hardcore

• An AI VTuber Is Trying To Complete Hardcore Minecraft, And All Hell Is Breaking Loose GameSpot made article on this stream. Should this be included?

fanfanboy (block_talk) 18:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Various thoughts about article improvement

I don't think it'll be controversial to say that this article has some serious problems with verifiability and being reliably sourced. I do, however, think there is an opportunity to make a pretty good encyclopedic article on Neuro. I have vague thoughts on the article better being structured as something like:

• Development and design
• History
• Content (e.g. collaborations, gaming and singing subheaders)
• Reception
• awards and discography and whatnot

I did something pretty similar with the Maru (cat) article, which was in a similarly unsourced/primary sourced article to this, with lots of its subjects merits being unmentioned in sources, but I was able to get that to a good enough state to run in recent deaths and still discuss the subject well. I think this has similar possibilities. I plan on adding new stuff before moving to delete any of the current stuff (though I won't have time for a week or two). I'd appreciate any thoughts on this and comments on what reliable sources we have.

On reliable sources, I think we have the Bloomberg article, various things Cheri Faulkner has written for GameSpot and PCGamesN (such as the hardcore Minecraft run), and Futurism. I think this is one of the cases where Dot Esports, Vice and Dexerto can be considered reliable, and I think the Kotaku articles are also from the era where they can *sometimes* be judged reliable (and I think it is in this case). There are also a few other foreign language articles (and presumably many more) and a few that mention her as part of a broader article about Vtubers that will be useful. And presumably there are others I'm forgetting (I can't figure out what to make of tubefilter). I also think there's a good argument to make sparing use of primary sources, but we probably need to be much more precise (e.g., I don't think a RS talks about who made or rigged the model, but the article would definitely be incomplete without it... I would not say the same for breadsama). 1brianm7 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I did a bunch of major edits before I saw this thread.

The source I added was this. While preprints aren't the best source per WP:PREPRINT and WP:ARXIV, it's better than nothing, and the authors seem credible enough from a quick search. It's also one of the only non-primary sources I could find that explains Evil Neuro's role as Neuro-sama's twin. I don't like that the Creative Every Day video is still cited regarding Evil Neuro's voice, but I hesitate to remove without replacing it.

I'm aware of another preprint, and a Japanese article covering it (ITmedia is apparently reliable per WP:JAPAN/RS). Both of these preprints, and the article, are from September 2025. I note this because, unfortunately, Neuro-sama seems to have gotten a wave of media coverage in late 2022/early 2023, followed by much sparser coverage ever since. This makes it hard to correct outdated information - for example, Neuro rarely ever plays osu! anymore. This is also why it's hard to find sources that even mention Evil Neuro. Ultramoth (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Nice work on those edits and finding those sources. When those papers get published it is going to be a very exciting day. I do know that Faulkner mentions Evil Neuro as Neuro's sister in an article. I think a lot of the problems can be ameliorated with some reorganizing, editorial discretion, and fancy wordplay (i.e., I don't think a source mentions Neuro's success on Bilibili, but I think it would be perfectly due to say "On the Chinese-language streaming platform Bilibili, Neuro-sama has xxx followers", or something like that, citing the channel page). I've have time to try and execute those changes in about a week. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I just undid most of your most recent edit, so I'll explain myself here (I don't think this is worth creating a new thread for).

I think it's both more accurate and less confusing to refer to the creator as Vedal and the Twitch channel as vedal987. Most of the cited secondary sources refer to Neuro's creator only as "Vedal," including the articles from Bloomberg, Vice, Kotaku, Dexerto, and Tubefilter, as well as the Even More Kawaii preprint; the latter two make a distinction between "Vedal," the developer, and "vedal987," the Twitch channel.

An exception is Cheri Faulkner's articles, which do refer to him as Vedal987, but only when mentioning the Twitch channel or linking to it; otherwise, he's referred to as Vedal. The other exception is TechCrunch, which refers to him as Vedal987 in the context of the Twitch channel winning a Vtuber award.

For comparison, I checked the media sources cited in the Jerma985 article. Most sources call him "Jerma985" at least once.

Finally, the official Bilibili channel is called "Vedal and Neuro-sama," and the official vedal.ai website describes itself as "Official links for Vedal, Neuro-sama, and Evil Neuro."

I think it's enough to say that Neuro's creator's Twitch channel is called vedal987 (which, of course, means that this is his handle on Twitch). The numbers can be omitted when talking about the developer himself. Ultramoth (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't intend to change instances of Vedal to "vedal987", just have it as the first mention and then go "usually just called Vedal", which the rest of the article uses. But looks like the sources say he's just Vedal, which is better. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Man, hopefully somebody reports on the new hype train record soon. Crazy. Hopefully we'll get some new verifiable content out of it. I'm still planning to do this for the record, just got a bit distracted making Takanashi Kiara. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah! She mentioned us! Ahh! Regardless, I'm still planning on doing this, just got a bit distracted making Inugami Korone. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Development and Online content sections

(Disclaimer: I don't think any of this is as pressing of an issue as those already being addressed in one of the other threads regarding verifiability and reliable sourcing. These comments themselves rely extensively on my own assumptions just based on my time with the channel, and unfortunately I can't really back any of it up with anything other than clips.)

In the first paragraph of the Development section, it's mentioned that "a separate AI model controls [Neuro's] in-game actions when she plays video games," but this seems like an outdated generalization. We know the twins' osu! AIs as well as the original Slay the Spire AI and the movement AIs for Among Us (:o7:) and Abandoned Archive from way back when definitely are, as we've seen them be trained in real time in their respective streams. (There are probably more, too.) But all of the games they've played more recently (Buckshot Roulette, Inscryption, Liar's Bar, etc.) seem to have been controlled by their language models directly, similarly to the way they can create polls and change the title, as nowadays their gameplay in games consistently matches their commentary and they can adapt their actions in-game to what's happening outside of the game and vice versa.

There are cases that don't fit cleanly into either category, like their integration with Minecraft and VRChat, which to me they seem more like they're piloted by the twins rather than directly moved. But we know for sure their language models at the very least have a hand in the gameplay since they can still base their actions on their conversations with chat and their friends. We saw this with Evil when she frolicked around in Minecraft picking flowers for Vedal (:EvilSoCute:), and also with Neuro in VRChat when she played charades with Vedal during her 3D debut.

On a somewhat related note, I also think the Online content section has some problems. Besides obviously being quite short relative to the variety of all the content on the channel (chatting with chat, their friends, and Vedal; game and AI development; dozens of different games, played either only by the twins themselves or alongside Vedal and others; singing; various real-life content, including cooking, exploring Japan, etc.; the competitive game made for chat to play during the sleeping sections of the subathon, if that counts; and probably some other things I can't think of off the top of my head), I think it overemphasizes the early content. It mainly just highlights chatting, osu!, Minecraft, singing, and Neuro's reactions to other creators, though admittedly Minecraft, chatting, and singing have remained prevalent on the channel since and the section does briefly mention the recent 3D content as well.

Another thing is that it seems excessive to me that it mentions how Neuro once defeated mrekk in osu! and the "notoriety" that her "adaptions to sandbox gameplay" have gained (I'm not sure what this refers to). Of course, these (the former, at least) are important events in the channel's history, but considering the relatively tiny size of the section as a whole and the fact it's mentioned in the very first sentence, which should surely be more so just a summary of the section, they come off as superfluous. I think the History section is more fitting for them.

Lastly, it mentions the 3D model is "controlled entirely with a large language model," but is this really true? I'm obviously not an expert by any means, but surely the LLM needs *something* that can actually carry out the movements it wants to make, not to mention Vedal himself implied on Discord regarding the 3D model that it has its own "training data" (someone said, regarding the 3D avatar, that "You're tellin me neuro pulled of multiple cartwheels near flawlessly without pre built animation," to which Vedal responded, "you'll never guess what's in the training data"). Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't this mean it's distinct from the LLM? CutieHotaru (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

With the Development section, the "separate AI model" is only the case for osu! and Minecraft, as well as the Among Us mod that never actually got used (or even finished? I'm not sure). Other games (at least, the ones that have been played since) have either started out as such and been rewritten, or have always been integrated with the LLM using a custom protocol that is publicly available. So that should probably be updated. With Minecraft and VRChat specifically it seems that their model says their action to the connected integration and said integration translates it into something concrete, though obviously I cannot say for sure how it works and what Neuro sends to the integration.

Some of the stuff you mentioned could be added to the Online content section hasn't really recurred since, for example, AI development hasn't been seen for at least a year at this point and game development only happened once recently and that was because Vedal was about to release Abandoned Archive and "needed Neuro's help". Also, the competitive game for chat I don't think should count because that's more of a filler so that the ~3-4k CCV people during subathon sleep segments have something to do beside chat in the discord server.

The excessive stuff you mention also looks excessive to me, but the Minecraft section should get at least something in to replace the "adaptions to sandbox gameplay" section (I think I have a clue as to what it's talking about). The section probably should be expanded on by having sub-sections for each part, so like one for IRL streams, one for games, maybe one for collabs? and the rest can be put into an "Other content" subsection.

The 3D model is indeed not controlled entirely by the LLM, that would basically be impossible given the LLM can only output text (after all, it is a large language model), so as stated above something has to control it on behalf of Neuro. Whoever wrote this probably just assumed what Vedal meant when he said that "Neuro can control it" was that Neuro's LLM controls the model as opposed to any one of Neuro's AI systems. KTrain5369 (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Now that you mention it it does probably make sense not to focus too much on one-off content or content that hasn't appeared on the channel in a while, though maybe they could respectively warrant some brief mentions in an Other content subsection like you proposed? In addition to the more recent AA dev stream I believe he did work on the game a bit in some older streams in order to hook up a neural network to it for training (which would presumably constitute AI development as well?), and there were also the two gamejam games he made on stream during the previous subathons, so I think game development has made up a fairly substantive proportion of the content overall, if not as of recently. The competitive chat game I definitely think does make sense to omit though since it doesn't involve anybody actually on stream haha

The subsections you suggested be added to the Online Content section also seem reasonable to me for sure. On top of those, there are some other types of streams that I think could warrant their own categories as well, such as the karaoke and YouTube shorts, and there are also some more niche but still notable subcategories of content I think would suit a hypothetical Other content subsection, such as the sponsored streams/shorts and maybe some of the more unique, larger events like the Minecraft marathon with Filian and Crelly, though those are definitely up for debate. One last point I think merits some discussion is whether streams with both of the twins or with Vedal should be considered collabs, since even if the three share the channel, I'm wondering if it could be a bit confusing for newcomers or even just other Swarm members who might have their own definitions of a collab if those streams end up in the subsections they do without it being clarified whether they're considered distinct from solo streams. I think it'll take some iterations to get the formatting of the section exactly right since there's quite a bit of overlap between the categories, but I'm sure it can be ironed out with time.

Regarding the confusion about the way Neuro controls the 3D model (and really just the way she plays games in general) and considering the article's general verifiability issues, maybe we should add a disclaimer at the top of the article that some information could be inaccurate or outdated? CutieHotaru (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding larger, special events that I think could warrant their own sub-classification in the Online content section, I somehow forgot to mention the subathons, but presumably those would be included as well CutieHotaru (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A lot of this speculation is simply due to ambiguity on Vedal's end. I would say "while details are kept on the downlow, it is known that x,y,z..." and only list things that are known on this article. We already have enough online "news" outlets spreading misinfo anyways (LULE).

(After I typed this I realised I don't really know how best to even cite the info lmao)

The AA dev stream has been relatively sparse in recent times so even if what you said is true, I don't think it really should warrant a mention specifically. Game development as a whole probably has made up an at least sizable portion of the channel content so it does deserve its own subsection probably, especially if you consider game modding for Neuro "game development", but that's specifics that I won't dive into right now.

For the larger events, I would say they deserve a separate "Major events" section on the page, not just a subsection, though I'm also concerned this may clash with the History section so the subsection idea is probably best. Also, I don't think streams with the twins/Vedal count as collab streams for the same reason as a channel that has 2+ hosts isn't considered a collab stream (incidentally partially for the same reason as you describe). It does require a bit of iterating on the idea. KTrain5369 (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it should definitely be made clear that most of the backend details haven't been made public. Could we cite to his advice page for this? I'm not sure I'm allowed to post links here, so I won't direct you to it directly, but you can find it on the official VedalAI links website.

On second thought I think it makes more sense to bundle the AA, subathon games, and games integration development into a broader Software development category, since they've also made several websites the past year (ish) and probably something else I'm forgetting. And for these, could we maybe just link to the channel's TwitchTracker page (specifically the Games section) where it lists how much time they've spent in each Twitch category? According to it they've spent about 70 hours in the Software and game development section, which is definitely fairly substantial. I admittedly haven't waded through the Wikipedia rules too closely, but the page does state the hours quite clearly, so I don't see why it shouldn't suffice as a decent enough source. Whether or which of the things they've developed warrant specific mentions is something I think could use some more discussion though, like you mentioned.

Regarding major events, my gut feeling is that they probably do already suit the History section quite well, as like you mentioned most people would probably expect it to cover those kinds of things regardless and it already lists the subathons, although of course that last reason is very tenuous in and of itself. (ᵕ—ᴗ—) CutieHotaru (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The advice page isn't very much use here, it's just Vedal being very vague about what tech she's using. We just know for sure that according to a Discord message that was then posted on Reddit (since it was part of a Q&A), her LLM isn't on OpenAI.

A broader software development category makes sense, to be honest if we separated between game dev and software dev there wouldn't be much in the software dev part anyways, but we still need to keep the software dev section of making websites because in recent times, it's Neuro and Evil that are creating the websites themselves as opposed to Vedal. Though even the old Neuro site that had the lavalamp and vineboom still had interactivity between Vedal and Neuro.

Also, there was a good hour at least when mods forgot to change the category to Software & Game Development so while TwitchTracker tries its best, it's not accurate imo. Plus, I don't think we need to link to TwitchTracker unless we are making the claim that he "spends most of his time doing software dev" or something like that. After all, I don't think talking about raw hours makes sense.

Major events should include subathons, they are a very big event in and of themselves, and nothing makes it stand out more than any other subathon if it was done by any other streamer, so it's not too special to warrant having something separate for them.

Also, in a previous comment you said that there's a bit of confusion on how Neuro plays games in general. I see that the only people who are confused are people who are either new or just haven't been in the community for long enough, since the protocol for getting Neuro to play games is publicly available (so we can link it here as the source). The 3D model control issue is still a bit of muddied water though. KTrain5369 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry if I came off another way, I meant that maybe we could cite to his advice page to substantiate saying most of the twins' backend is kept under wraps, since he says "I can't give you an exact tutorial [on how to make an AI like Neuro-sama]."

Regarding TwitchTracker, I gave the number of hours in the Software and game dev category because I figured TwitchTracker's count was still substantial enough to work as grounds for the Software dev section itself and I don't know of any other sources (｡﹏｡") I agree it's probably superfluous to include the absolute hours in the article, though.

About the games integration, I assume you mean the SDK on GitHub, and you're right it's probably our best source on the gaming content. Although as far as I know all it does is allow the twins to make decisions in games and not necessarily carry them out, not to mention not all games have used them (osu!, Minecraft and Slay the Spire originally, etc.), and like you said there's some gray area, especially as to the 3D model. So while the SDK probably the most reliable source we have on the gaming integration, it doesn't cover all of it, which I assume would be a bit trickier to adjust for.

I also think it makes sense to include the websites in a potential Software dev section and integrate the subathons with the rest of the major events, as you said. CutieHotaru (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, that is a good citation, though I wonder what Wikipedia's citation policy is on .ai sites?

With TwitchTracker, I think it's superfluous to include it as a source since it can be inaccurate, however I do agree that it is the best citable source we have, so again if Wikipedia's policy allows for it, then I would say go for it, as long as you are not quoting specific numbers (e.g. "over 100 hours")

For the game integrations, Vedal has stated that a separate neural model controls osu! and Minecraft, and the API is used for communication purposes only. Slay the Spire has been retired I think since I haven't seen it be played in a while by Neuro/Evil.

Also, when I wrote that message, no official game integrations have been open-sourced yet, so it was a bit more ambiguous, but now that most of the big official integrations have been open-sourced (examples: Cyberpunk, Pokémon Neuro Platinum, Inscryption, Buckshot Roulette (somewhat)), we can definitely say (with citations) that most games on-stream use the Neuro API. It should probably also be mentioned that the coding stuff was also done through a Neuro API integration, since otherwise the impression would be that it is only used for games, but then there should be clarification that 3D model, Twitch chat reading, Discord, etc... are not confirmed to use the Neuro API, just to ensure there is no confusion there. KTrain5369 (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

jan 4th hype train sub count

need to add the sub and bit count for hype train, anyone know how to find it Lightingknight (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Are all these images actually appropriately licensed?

@QuicoleJR, Sören ohne e, ~2026-11223-5, and Rose Abrams: (pinging those who've interacted with them)

I'm by no means an expert on copyright, but I don't have a lot of confidence that these images are appropriately licensed. If I'm reading this right, then they are all on commons because the copyright holder has sent an email releasing them under an appropriate license (a la how File:Celeste box art full.png) can go on Commons. I don't have a ton of confidence that (no offense) a person's first action on a Wikimedia project was to do that after they were able to get at least Vedal to send the email. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that when the email is reviewed (maybe mid-February?), it'll be insufficient and they'll be deleted and somebody will have to figure out how to request undeletion for the former fair-use photo 1brianm7 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, but I was AGFing that it was legitimate. I had been meaning to try to get a fair-use image of Evil anyway, since it would be useful for identifying a major aspect of the article's subject who gets mentioned frequently throughout the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, there is a huge upside if I'm wrong. If I am, it would probably be smart to crop the collage of the models to get a good photo of the 3rd model as the infobox photo. On other possible photos to add to the article, the fair-use image of Evil would be cool. There is also the "self-portrait" that might be deleted on Commons, but I think could be uploaded locally as a free file. I think there's even some related-prose for it in an as-of-yet unincorporated Cheri Faulkner article. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

New thoughts on article improvement

So, about a month ago I put forward some thoughts on improving this article. I have more or less not yet done that. I have been thinking on it, however, and here is my refined idea for article structure. I'll have some more time since I'm no longer distracted watching the subathon:
Lede (summary, pretty self-explanatory)
Overview; this would basically be "What is Neuro-sama?"

It would have subsections, the first being dedicated to how the AI and chatbot, discussion of filter and latency and whatnot. The second subsection would be talking about the models and voice. Then the third would be about online content, with there being a gaming subsubsection.

History; self-explanatory, the history of Neuro-sama. I think the year subsections really suck, they split up the subathons unnaturally and don't make a ton of sense beyond being simple.

The first subsection would be "Development and debut", covering pre-December 2022, and then December 2022 through at least January 2023. I think this has enough coverage to get three or four paragraphs. Then, I think it would make the most sense to go by first year of streaming, second year of streaming, etc. 

Any thoughts on this? 1brianm7 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. My only comment would that maybe Online content section should have a few more subsections. A lot of the content could presumably broadly be defined as either just chatting or gaming, but there are still some things that I think merit their own distinct categories, such as software development, singing, and IRL (cooking with Vedal/Layna/Onigiri, exploring Japan with Rob and that one zoo and aquarium with Toma, and probably something else).

Another somewhat related thing is that right now the article mostly focuses on the livestreams on Twitch, which makes sense insofar as they are supposed to be the main content, but still if the article is revamped I think the YT and B2 channels should get some more text. (There's also a TikTok channel and possibly some more still too, so maybe those should be listed next to the Twitch, YT, and Twitter handles and stats, also.) CutieHotaru (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the other channels stuff. I am currently going through the process of adding b2 to the social media infobox. We are limited by what sources we have (none from 2024, which isn't great), but I think there is stuff to be added 1brianm7 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to perhaps revive this discussion given that this article needs serious improvement (isn't there a template for this?) and that all the other discussions are a bit long and should be condensed. I'm willing to contribute in my off-time if that helps efforts to improve the article. KTrain5369 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My effort hasn't shown yet, but I have been working on the article. I just finished a good bit of work needed to hopefully get the bilibili added to infobox and I have made a massive list of every source that has the pretense of being reliable that has talked about Neuro-sama. There is no deadline here, although my work might not show for a few weeks because I have a few other deadlines 1brianm7 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping with the article rewrite part of your sandbox, sources I'm not entirely sure about since all the sources I found that are reliable are already listed there. KTrain5369 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Too 'timeline'-y

Hello, I've just done an "evaluate an article" assignment for wikiedu and I chose to write about this article. I figured I'd take my comments on the organization of the article and post them here:

As it, the article is basically a timeline wearing a fancy hat. I do think that timelines have their places, especially in articles like this one, but I think they inherently lead to disorganization. Related events that happened far apart are harder to clearly understand---I'm going to use the subathons as an example. In the early history section, the article mentions that Neuro debuted December 19th. Later in the same section, it mentions that Vedal started a subathon on her first anniversary December 19th, and notes that this has been called her "birthday." In the future sections, divided by year, her "second annual subathon" and "third annual subathon" are mentioned. At no point does the article say something like "Vedal has began subathon every year on the anniversary of Neuro-sama's debut, often referred to as her 'birthday.'" A reader can obviously get this information from the article as is, but the reader has to piece that together themself rather than it being plainly stated. This, I think, is part of the trouble with timelines. I think that we've wound up with an article that focuses more on specific events involving Neuro-sama rather than article that provides general information about Neuro-sama.

I saw other discussions about the organization of the article in this talk page and I support them. I'd like to see information taken out of the history section and into its own sections. RSCorundum (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with these criticisms and, ironically, this talk page message was posted in the middle of me taking a jackhammer to that timeline to make it less WP:PROSELINE-y. The sourcing is very thin in a lot of places, but my next effort will be to make overview a decent "what is neuro-sama" section. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have to ask here, why is there no devoted Wiki page for Evil? If Neuro has one then why can't Evil have one? I mainly ask this because I'm doing my research into Evil's "Stroke" 4-ish months ago. ~2026-16107-05 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources talk very little about Evil, to be honest. I can write a few sentences about her from this article, but not a lot. Most of the article would inevitably consist of us repeating a decent portion of this article.

At the end of it all, Wikipedia's goal is also to educate people on a topic. Even if Evil had a ton of sources talking about her, a page would probably get deleted because it makes more sense to talk about both her and Neuro on one page. This isn't a point against her, it happens on tons of topics. The Wright brothers literally discovered flight, but Orville Wright doesn't have a page, and neither does Wilbur. The Optimares and Populares were Ancient Rome's two political parties, ten of thousands of pages of research have been dedicated to talking about them, but Wikipedia concluded that it is beneficial to talk about them on only one page. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that Orville Wright isn't covered on a page titled "Wilbur Wright" and the Populares aren't covered on a page titled "Optimates." In general, when a Wikipedia page covers multiple topics, it's title reflects that. This article's title and lead indicate that this is Neuro's page, and the fact that it covers Evil and Vedal as well isn't really indicated. Now, I'm not sure this can be resolved. Evil could maybe get her own page if she eventually has sufficient coverage, but I think it's more useful to have Evil and Neuro share a page. If we want this page to cover both of the twins more properly, the lead section should be rewritten at least. That said, I don't think there are enough sources about Evil to justify that yet. RSCorundum (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

What would the name of the article even be if Evil recieved enough of her own coverage? Neuro and Evil? Problem is that Neuro's name is "Neuro-sama", while Evil is "Evil Neuro". How would you combine something like that as an article name? The Neuro Twins? fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Two thoughts

@Guninvalid: on the recent edit I reverted and then you re-reverted, it is correct, although the reason 1 mil on Twitch was hit was due to a bot raid on Friday's stream. The bot followers will be removed eventually. I suppose it's fine keeping it as it is now.

Now since I'm here, I've been sorta avoiding the talk page here since I felt it was hurting my productivity. But, when in Rome. I am too busy right now to dedicate any substantial time to this article, and will probably have more time in a month or so. I have a more-or-less complete list of every source that could be utilized here, User:1brianm7/sandbox/Neuro-sama sources. The recent Hu and Freeman paper talks about Evil a decent amount, which is useful. I am fairly certain it underwent peer-review, sois reliable. Onto my theory for how the article should be laid out. The first heading is overview. I think it should basically explain what Neuro is and that's it. So, her systems, how and what she says, her online content, who Vedal and Evil are, and that's it. So, if somebody reads it, they would be able to pop into any random stream and more or less understand what is happening. The next section is history. It's more or less self explanatory. I removed the year headers a while ago because they made all the text prose-line, but I never replaced it. If headers were to be added, the logical place is with the introduction of the V2 model. We have 4 or 5 paragraphs before that, and 4 or 5 after that. And then the final section is reception. Basically, what do people think of Neuro, what does it mean, the various attempts to explain her popularity, all that jazz. So... what do people think of that organization structure? When I started working on this article, I really did not expect a way to solve its problem with primary sources, but at present they are mostly window dressing. Besides the fact that, in all the talking sources do of Neuro singing they have never mentioned a song name, the only thing particularly important in understanding her that relies on primary sources is the V3 model. A lot of everything else is just dates that are slightly important. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vedal

An editor has requested that Vedal be moved to Vedal (village), which may be of interest to watchers of this page. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

In an above section there was talk about the scope of this article and how it pertains to this title. Interested editors may want to chime in 1brianm7 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wu & Lingel 2025 provides contradictory and unreliable information

I've noticed that their article includes multiple unreliable pieces of information that are contradictory to information that was provided to us by Vedal, Anny or the actual state of the streams. I think they should not be included in this page as a reliable source.

Wu & Lingel mention that "Neuro’s character is presented as a 14-year-old girl". There is no source for that provided in their article. This information is incorrect as Vedal and Anny never stated the exact age that their model is supposed to be. When Anny was asked about this, she mentioned that the model isn't supposed to be underage but, once again, no concrete age was stated. This information is currently present in the notes section and it seems to be spreading misinformation, as I saw people citing this Wkipedia page as their source when claiming that Neuro being 14 is canon. Hiyori Momose is not a reliable piece of information for a claim like this, as it's a different character, and one that Vedal made sure to separate himself from. I think that this piece of information should be clearly clarified, it it's gonna be included on this page.

Other questionable pieces of information I saw in their article, which fortunately aren't included in this Wikipedia page, is them claiming that "Neuro’s love-seeking behavior reinforces heteronormative gender roles, where feminine desirability is linked to emotional neediness, dependence, and persistence in securing male approval Neuro’s love-seeking behavior reinforces heteronormative gender roles, where feminine desirability is linked to emotional neediness, dependence, and persistence in securing male approval". This information seems to be based solely on the article's author imagination, as the actual state of the streams doesn't reflect that at all, with Neuro and Evil behaving the same way with both male and female collaborators.

The article authors also seem to struggle with comprehending who Evil Neuro is. They don't refer to her as another character on the channel even once in the entire article, but instead they use statements like "Dual personality modes (“kind/evil”)" and also later describe a following situation. "Vedal deliberately provided Neuro with flexible ethical boundaries, coding dual personality modes—“kind” and “evil.” This dual-mode personality underscores critical themes of autonomy, control, and safety in human–AI interactions." This statement is wrong no matter the interpretation. If it is meant to refer to Evil Neuro, then obviously the author doesn't understand who Evil is. If it is meant to refer to Neuro, then this statement is also wrong as it was never explained or even implied by Vedal, that he programmed Neuro to switch personalities like that.

I hope that this is enough to show that this article shouldn't be used as a reliable source of information. If it is decided to keep it as a source, I would at least ask to properly fact check any information provided by them, as to not create any more misinformation among the readers. TTsuyuki (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

So, I disagree with the thrust of the argument and think the journal article is a reliable source.

14 year olds

I'm guessing Wu and Lingel's thought process was something as follows: Hiyori is canonically 14, Neuro-sama originally used the Hiyori model, Neuro-sama got a new model made to resemble the Hiyori model, ergo, Neuro is presented as 14 years old. When I first added the 14 year old tidbit I was confused on its origin, but that seems likely. I don't think that's an insane line of reasoning. If people are citing this Wikipedia page to claim it's true, then they're misreading us; the page says Wu and Lingel said that, we aren't saying it. Most sources don't deal with the specificity Neuro's age at all, and so I summarized it with young relegated all discussion of it to a footnote so as not give it a WP:UNDUE presence in the article. I guess you could make the argument that its presence in the article is undue, even in a footnote, and so it should all be removed. I've not really thought on that whenever it popped up since there is still a large amount of info on Neuro to add and I'll get to concision when I've added it all (which will happen! At some point!)

Femininity

The reason it's not currently in the article is because I've not gotten around to adding it. Maybe it is worthy of concision and will not be in this article in its permanent state. I think that's a bit unlikely and it's probably worthy a sentence or two in reception. It's an analysis of the streams published by a reliable source. It's not alone in this analysis; Coen Collins also does it as well. You can disagree with it or think it irrelevant, I sorta do given Neuro's origin as a female anteater, buts it not an uncommon reading by academics.

Evil

Yeah, it's not great on Evil. No source really is. I think that's a symptom of the difference between why fans are interested in Neuro and why researchers are. In general, fans are interested in Neuro because they find her entertaining. In general, researchers are interested in Neuro because they want to figure out why fans find her entertaining. That is, why do fans watch on AI streamer. The audience these researchers are writing for have never and will never see a Neuro stream. The important thing to convey is that Neuro is an AI made with this tech, that speaks with an AI voice, has a model of a young girl, and viewers think she has a personality. There is nothing unique about Evil in this context. Evil is an AI made with the same tech, that speaks with a slightly better AI voice, that has a slightly different model of a young girl, and viewers think she has a slightly different personality. For most researchers, spending more than a few sentences on her would be pointless. The best discussion on Evil is in "My Favorite Streamer is an LLM...", and it's not a coincidence that what they find interesting about her has absolutely nothing to do with Evil. Wu and Lingel absolutely know who Evil is, they spent 15 months in the Neurocord (god bless their souls), although the fact that their period of research ended over two years ago explains why it feels a little outdated, with it being unfortunate that it took 18 months for them to publish. For their purposes, Evil, an AI that is almost exactly the same technically and which during their study had a nearly identical model, explaining her in any way but "Neuro but evil" would be a superfluous extravagance. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Those are some good points, thanks for the reply. I don't necessarily think that the age tidbit should be removed, but I definitely think that it shouldn't be included without having another piece of information stating that their actual age was never disclosed by Vedal, to make sure that the readers don't come to the wrong conclusions.

I haven't realized that their frame of reference was only for the streams over 2 years ago, but even then, the interactions Neuro had with Vedal and the female collab partners back then definitely wasn't distinct enough to justify their whole argument about gender norms, at least when referring to Neuro. I don't think that it should be included in this article, if you are indeed thinking about adding it, as it seems highly opinionated and not relevant to providing information about Neuro-sama. TTsuyuki (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll look around for a primary source a bit and think on ways to rephrase it to be more clear. The problem is that Vedal hasn't ever given an interview after Evil was created and most of his statements are given via Twitch or Discord, which have no proper way of citation, or hopelessly vague posts on Twitter. If their thoughts on gender is added, it would be probably be in the last sentence of reception (miscellaneous opinions that aren't organized into its earlier paragraphs) and a sentence along the lines of "Wu and Lingel blah blah interpreted Neuro-sama as blah blah". I think what people think of Neuro-sama is fairly important encyclopedically, like how articles on albums talk about a reviewers opinion or state what awards they received, but so few sources talk about anything related to her femineity that it is undeserving of more than a sentence or two of mention. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

What should or should not be included in the history section?

I was going through the article today and noticed that the History section is both quite dense and yet lacking some topics I think are important or at least need to be consistent (why is there no mention of the newer Twitch global emotes?). Additionally, there are some topics that I don't think necessarily warrant its inclusion on this page (for example, the CDawgVA canvas I don't feel like was necessary enough to include, given that Neuro herself did not participate in the canvas itself anywhere except talking about it on stream, and the stuff she did do was more adjacent to it, like drawing "art" via SVGs or making a website "exposing" Connor)

There's also (in my opinion) a little bit too much news commentary inlined into some of the history items, but I feel that it's a little bit awkward to move to the Reception area given that it'd need a bit of extra words to imply when each comment was made.

(Also, as an aside, I'm really starting to want to plan around revamping the Online content section, but I'm not sure how citations would work there.) KTrain5369 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to use reliable secondary sources, see WP:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. There is just simply not enough information which cite-able sources have put out there, so we have to add anything we can from the sources that do exist in order to get a decent article size. Would also note that the new global Twitch emotes have not (at least to my knowledge) been covered by any source. The only reason the second subathon portion of the history section includes a mention of the new global emote is because GameSpot mentioned it in their article about breaking her own hype train record during the third subathon (first sentence after the clip).

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide for a good list of sources which consensus has determined to be reliable. fanfanboy (block_talk) 04:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The article cites tweets though, and Twitch did put out a tweet about the new emotes (that was also retweeted by Vedal but I assume that's a little complicated). Given this, wouldn't that be enough? or am I really misunderstanding the policies here (most likely happening)? KTrain5369 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Citing social media isn't really something that should be done a lot, although the Twitch tweet would be useful if it is ever added there. I wouldn't put a ton of emphasis on it presently being in the article, since the only criteria it went through was me going "could somebody familiar with Wikipedia policies conceivably support including this, which casts a wide net. My overall philosophy on primary sources (besides songs existing which is completely fine for primary sources IMO) has been to help with chronology and to not insist on anything in the article. For instance, one of the Tweet's cited is to say Abandoned Archive released on 24 November 2025. If that Tweet wasn't used, we would say "late November 2025". Reliable sources talk about Evil, I figure it would be somewhat jarring for the Overview section to say Evil exists, and then she is just unmentioned until the 3rd to final sentence in History, so I added her first stream to say when it happens. And we have reliable sources that talk about each subathon, an event famous for having a start and an end, but uuh... none of the sources mention any of the ends, so I added primary sources saying so because it would be mildly confusing without. And again, plenty of editors would disagree with my above decisions, and I'm not super-confident that they were correct. Still, I'd need to think more on citing the Twitch tweet. It certainly isn't the most unrealistic thing. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree in general with the "social media citations" thing, but for the fact that something exists, I think it should be enough. However it's not as easy to verify directly on Twitch because not everyone has access to the emote and to get access to it you need to contribute to a hype train that breaks the record. So in other words, not easily verifiable. Sticky situation, but I think it should be given some fair treatment considering the emotes were added and acknowledged. KTrain5369 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to acknowledge firsts more than it does seconds or thirds, except under specific circumstances like breaking a record because of those seconds and thirds. Something like "First X to receive Y, a Z amount of times (in a row)^Optional." fanfanboy (block_talk) 04:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

why is there no mention of the newer Twitch global emotes? What fanfanboy said is correct. I am pretty sure that they have not been covered by anyone. It's possible I missed something while making a list of every source that has ever mentioned Neuro substantively, but I don't think so. Only two sources have been written since the emotes were released. the CDawgVA canvas I don't feel like was necessary enough to include I can see this and to a lesser extent Minecraft subathon. Until the surge of academic sources released in the fourth quarter of 2025, I think arguing that something was to trivial to add was insane since we were missing a lot, but that has changed a decent deal. Still, I am hesitant to remove something talking about Neuro, and I think the Minecraft subathon has a decent claim to inclusion regardless. Cheri Faulkner, it seems, was the only writer to conclude that writing about Neuro made a news article do well. a little bit too much news commentary inlined into some of the history items you're talking about the Seinfeld bit, right? Yeah... it is a bit awkward. I added it sort of because I was annoyed that a bunch of early 2023 AI-generated Twitch channels were in the See also section, and because it is is fairly amusing, but I can very easily see the argument for removing it. I think the stuff in the Holocaust denial paragraph is fine; its always going to be long enough to be a paragraph, so might as well make it decently long. I could see the argument for moving a bit of it to the Reception section, but while it is the first or second thing most sources mention about Neuro, none of them say anything substantive about it.

My "grand theory" for the article is to talk about Neuro as little as possible in the History section, because the coverage was always going to be inconsistent and unsatisfying, and instead frontload all talk of her in the Overview section, only leaving "firsts" or notable events (e.g., Subathons, Bilibili debut) in the History section. The overview section is a not great right now and I know I have been saying I was going to get to it for three months, but I am really going to get to it soon (two weeks, ish; I've written seven articles in the interim, and I need to stop putting it off). The stuff sourced to primary sources is the most ripe for cutting in the History section, and I wouldn't be particularly annoyed if the only talk of music in history was "Life", leaving the rest to the Discography (there is some stuff that can be added to overview as well, on karaoke, original songs (I think? The source doesn't talk about it a ton and I would need to reread it to be confident a sentence can be written on it), and whatnot). The most logical history structure, it seems to me, would be:

1. Pre-19 December 2022
2. Pre-12 January 2023
3. Holocaust denial and ban
4. Pre-V2
5. June 2023-December 2024
6. 2nd Subathon
7. third year of streaming (that's complicated if we cut Cdawg, leaving only the Minecraft subathon sourced to a secondary)
8. 3rd Subathon
9. Future

1brianm7 (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the Minecraft subathon can stay because if I remember correctly there was more media coverage on that, so maybe that might indicate that it's more popular to the point it's worth talking about there?

Otherwise agree with your grand plan.

(side note: wasn't there an article rewrite you did in a sandbox once? can't seem to find it now) KTrain5369 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

the article draft you might be thinking of is at User:1brianm7/sandbox#Neuro-sama draft, it's mostly just a more outdated version of my grand plan. it used to look bigger because I had the source notes and the notes for getting Bilibili added to the social media infobox next to it The Minecraft subathon and CDawg canvas are sourced exactly the same, that is, Cherry Faulkner of Gamespot wrote articles about it. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought the Minecraft marathon had more coverage, hm. Must be misremembering then. KTrain5369 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It had plenty of YouTube and other social media coverage, but mainstream news articles? Probably not so much. fanfanboy (block_talk) 04:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I made a draft of this page with some formatting changes and taking a total jackhammer to all but the most defensible primary source uses (current link, perma link. It's an interesting look at what this article may look like in the future (albeit without some additional content in overview and reception I haven't found the time to add). It's only 9,000 bytes shorter and I wouldn't call it worse at all. And I say the article may look like this in the future because I have some visions (delusions?) of taking it through some of the content review mechanisms, although there are some primary sources I removed in this draft that I would fight for. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

In the mean time, you could try promoting the article to B-Class. fanfanboy (block_talk) 01:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Various thoughts

Per MOS:DISCOGRAPHY, for discographies The exact format chosen will depend on the discography and the amount of verifiable information available, which may vary greatly between musical acts. In all cases, the format should follow from what's best for the article, and not vice versa.. Under this, I'm wondering whether it would be smart to have a "Creative team" header in the discography section. I think, without it, there's a decent chance readers think the songs are AI generated, and I'd be glad to get the song info mostly out of the body. Perhaps just leaving "Life", and maybe "Colorful Array", as they could have fairly quick mentions on the 2nd and 3rd subathon paragraphs. Perhaps also changing the cites to the music videos instead of musicbrainz, whatever that is. Example:

Title	Year	Creative team	Ref.
"Life" (Neuro-sama)	2024	Lyricists: ... Composer: ... Mixer: ... Music video: ...

References

I have also expanded and reorganized the lede. My general thoughts are first paragraphs on Neuro-sama's speech and whatnot, the second and third on her content and history, and the fourth on her reception. And perhaps, OffKai and OpenSauce (maybe?, I haven't been able to find any OpenSauce thing saying Neuro would be attending), and Bilibili World could be moved to a "appearance at live events" section, sort of like what Gawr Gura has. Thoughts? 1brianm7 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This all sounds great! I think you should just not worry about it because I don't think there is single person better suited to handle this article. fanfanboy (block_talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)