Talk:Jaiden Animations

"animated for other YouTuber channels, including iHasCupquake"

Hi, I'm wondering something. The article states that in the begging she "animated for other YouTuber channels, including iHasCupquake". Did she animate for any other YouTubers? If so, which ones? I thought she only worked for iHasCupquake, at least this is what I think she states in her YT vidoes. I would like to clarify it so it could potentially be corrected if it's wrong. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I've only heard about iHasCupquake personally ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 17:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The information that she "animated for other YouTube channels" is referenced. The source used states this:

Prior to working on her own channel, she had worked with other YouTubers on their channels.

Technically it doesn't actually say that she animated for these channels, simply that she worked on them, so saying that she animated for them could be WP:OR. I'll edit the wording in the article to make this clear. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop avoiding redirects

@Artemis Andromeda, please stop avoiding redirects/piping links unnecessarily. This is completely against Wikipedia guidelines.

WP:NOPIPE reads:

It is generally poor practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects

...

Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read.

Furthermore, the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page, and such links would also continue to work correctly after the spin-off.

WP:NOTBROKEN reads:

Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect".

As can be seen, there is no reason to do this, it is actually detrimental to do this, and it is completely against guidelines.

Please do not do this.

Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There's also no bloody reason to intentionally and forcibly introduce redirects, especially in so forced manner. Seriously, please stop, the article is good as it is. Can we please not have this be an issue? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: 1. Those are suggestions, not policies. 2. The text is clean and perfectly aranged, I do not see how introducing a few words into it will somehow make it unreadable suddenly. 3. You quoting the Notbroken lacks logic, since you are the one who commits to "a time-wasting exercise" by reintroducing redirects where there were non. Also this rule is for unexperienced editors, so they would spend they time writing and not looking for links, something they might not know how to do. And finally, 4. you are forcing wierd redirects like came out which is part of speech, and not even the name of the topic, that is coming out. Please, can we not start edit war here. I think, to qoute your quoute, it would be time wasting and detrimental, when both of us could just go write something else, and actually contribute something new to Wikipedia. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You added additional piped links when they were not needed. Read WP:NOPIPE. It is not needed and can be detrimental to the article. There may be new articles created, it helps with readability and keeping up with statistics. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It's only an issue when we break guidelines and MOS. You have been inserting piped links when they are not needed, which is detrimental to the function of the article, and to the editing experience of others. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The article functions just fine, and I do not see how a few more words can make editing experience worse to anyone. Really, there's nothing broken here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm just following guidelines as per all other articles. There's absolutely no reason to make an exception here. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse Those are not policies. On top of the page it reads "It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus." It's guideline to people learning how to write articles, to make it simpler for them. So, stop trying to enforce something wikipedia says is not a policy. Everyone can write a guideline, and put there whatever. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but WP:NOTBROKEN is official, and states "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply."

And yes, I see that this says "exceptions may apply", but I see no reason for having an exception here. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse "varying levels of consensus" says to me, this is clearly not the case for "all articles" as you claim. As I said, this is something some users do, and noobies are told to do, to avoid them introducing mistakes. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth actually reaching consensus, i.e. by waiting to see what others think. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines do not reach consensuses. And I do not see a reason to start entire big thing here. You are wasting both of our times, which could be spent on literally anything more productive. Regardles about not broke, I do not think I'm breaking the "rules" it states. One, I did not change it from redirect to proper link. They were proper links from the start. I know because I wrote most of this article. You are the one introducing redirects for the sake of introducing them, and as such breaking the "rule" here. Two, I do not see them as solely here to avoid redirect. They are here becouse they are proper names, than link directly to what article talks about, which it did from the beginning. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant reaching a consensus on this talk page about this page, seeing if we want to have an exception to guidelines for whatever reason.

I've not said that these are rules, so I'm not sure why you keep quoting that I am. I understand there can be exceptions. I just don't think there needs to be an exception on this page.

The guideline states we should not use piped links to "fix" redirects. Therefore, you are breaking it by piping links, or keeping them on the page. I am not breaking it by fixing this.

If you wrote most of the article, then you likely broke the guideline when you wrote it, or whoever added the piped link the first time did. I am following it by fixing these links. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines are not bloody "rules", ergo, I did not broke anything. Stop looking for drama, and please, go bother someone else, or go actually contribute something useful to Wikipedia, and write an article or something. Good night. Artemis Andromeda (talk) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I specifically said that they aren't rules. I agree. But all I am saying is that they specifically say they should generally be followed, unless we decide to make an exception, which I didn't think we needed to do.

I want to see what others think regarding this, and that is why I said, multiple times, we should see what consensus comes to. Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page is nothing more than collection of notices about you engaging in edit wars, doing controversial edits against the rules, and having your articles deleted. So stop with this "guidelines need to be followed" mantra when you clearly do not follow them, and are only here to start yet another edit war and bother actual editors. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think my talk page is particularly relevant here, but what you're saying isn't true anyway.

I'll admit there are a couple of older posts on there talking about edit wars, but not very recently, and none of the other things you are talking about.

The majority of what's on my talk page are simply messages about pages. There's one about a potential deletion, and one about a draft that's not quite ready yet. I'd say this shows I'm trying to write articles, as you have wished that I do.

There is nothing about controversial edits against guidelines. You may be referring to "Introduction to contentious topics", but these clearly state that "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing."

There's more things on there about good things I've done, creating articles, or simply having conversations about articles.

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest I'm some terrible editor who never follows guidelines. I always attempt to, and constantly learn from my mistakes. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, you have similar things on your talk page. You have a number of warnings about not following MOS or other guidelines, you have warnings about edit wars, you have warnings about page deletions, and you have other arguments on your talk page talking about this exact topic, showing there are actually more people that agree with me that we should be following guidelines. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda Why do you insist on doing what you're doing?

You are allowed to disagree with me, but reverting my edits even after this discussion, making strange edits completely against guidelines, MOS and this discussion, and referring to my edits as "bullsh*t" is not the way to go about it.

We have had a discussion, and that should be the end of it. Stop reverting this, stop going against MOS, and stop with the personal attacks. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I conceded defeat didn't I? Do you see me reverting all your moronic redirects? No. I only reverted "came out" cause it's the king of pointless redirects. Its not a shortening or alternative name or a subsection. Its just a connugation of the name "coming out" used in a sentence. There's no reason what so ever to use it, and just shows your blind devotion to make everything a redirect. And same with the last edit, what you went out of your way to invent new redirect. And I removed it, becouse, it's just stupid. Just because someone uses an alias, does not make it a nickname that can be used in the middle of the name. People don't call him John "Jacksfilms" Douglass, the same way no one goes out of they way to say Jaiden "Animations" Dittfach, or by your logic Jaiden "Jaiden Animations" Dittfach. Maybe I shouldn't have used the wording that I did, but at this point, I'm genuinely tired of dealing with your edits, and with you in general trying to mess with actual editors work. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thought I unsubscribed from this thread but at this point this is crossing a line. Could you walk me through why you thought it was appropriate to state that Strugglehouse's edits are moronic or claiming that they are trying to mess with actual editors work (effectively casting aspersions of WP:VANDALISM) in response them telling you to stop making personal attacks? ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 00:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with LaffyTaffer. This is getting out of hand. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but what's the point of pointlessly keeping just one redirect? We might as well follow MOS throughout the entire article. There's no reason not to.

I had thought that the formatting to include the nickname in quotes was better as it contained the best of both worlds, having the name and nickname/online name in a simpler fashion, but I'm happy to have it how it is now.

What you are again doing, though, is attacking me: referring to my edits as "stupid", saying you're "tired of dealing with [me]", and claiming that I'm "trying to mess with actual editor[']s work."

All I am doing is following the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. If you disagree with this, you are more than welcome to, but doing so in a manner that is making personal comments about me and my editing is not at all the way to go about it.

As I've said, we've had this discussion, and it should be the end of it. Yes, you haven't reverted everything this time, but you are still pointlessly trying to revert some parts, completely against MOS. Reverting this is messing with editor's work, what I'm doing isn't. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @LaffyTaffer to gain their opinion on this topic. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As this issue is what drove me off the page in the first place, I would prefer to not be a part of rehashing it. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 17:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

On a quick glance through the second wave of this though, I will note that recent comments are veering much closer to WP:NPA than I would expect from two experienced editors. Both of you need to stay WP:COOL. I was unable to do so myself when such a lame issue escalated so explosively before, which is why I'm intentionally not watching this page anymore. If you're both dead set on your end of the issue and can't turn the heat down, you'll need to find someone else for a third opinion besides me or otherwise find some other method of WP:DR. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 17:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with LaffyTaffer that this is a pretty lame thing to edit war over. This won't have much impact on readers one way or the other, so let's not get too heated over this, okay? I'd like to ask @Artemis Andromeda and Strugglehouse to avoid personalizing disputes. Bringing up the contents of someone's user talk page is not helpful in a discussion about article content.

That being said, I think the links should be unpiped per WP:NOTBROKEN. It isn't a policy, but it's still a guideline that should generally be followed unless we have a good reason to ignore it. I don't see anything special about this article that justifies ignoring the guideline. I especially object to piping bird sanctuary to animal sanctuary. In the future, we could have a separate article on bird sanctuaries, or a section at animal sanctuary about bird sanctuaries. If we do, then it would be easier to edit the one redirect than to edit a dozen articles to retarget the piped links. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"It isn't a policy". I think this should end the discussion. And I'm tired of this turning into such a big discussion becouse for one user not condoning to what's not policy, but some random person's guideline for editors, who apparently get overwhelmed with links. It's not policy, and it's not even a good guideline. And I do not understand why you all insist on removing redirects, just to follow some random guideline. I already listed a lot of reasons why I disagree with it so I won't relist them in this comment. But I'm so annoyed at this point that this constantly has to be a discussion. Article should be a finished product someone can use. Using redirects, makes it look unfinished, making users use some strange rerouts for no reason. Sure, maybe bird sanctuary could be created in the future. But I don't see a reason to remove the rest, to force strange stuff linking like "came out" instead of "coming out". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I had trouble parsing ... for one user not condoning to what's not policy, but some random person's guideline for editors, but guidelines aren't just the work of one person. Above, you say that [e]veryone can write a guideline, and put there whatever. This is not true (you might be thinking of essays, which often are the work of one editor). Per WP:GUIDES (which is policy, for what it's worth), they're best practices supported by consensus. We can ignore them if we want to (we can ignore all rules if we really want to), but not without good reason. I read your reasons, and I disagree with them. I don't understand how wikilinking redirects instead of piping links makes it look unfinished. I don't understand how these are strange rerouts.

• I do not understand why you all insist on removing redirects – Because we don't? We want to unpipe the links, which would leave the redirects in place.
• It's not policy, and it's not even a good guideline. – If you disagree with the guideline entirely, then you might want to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. If it really is bad, then it should be removed from Wikipedia:Redirect so it doesn't apply to any articles, not just this one. That said, it's a good guideline in my opinion, and I don't think you'd have much success in repealing it.

Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"I do not understand why you all insist on removing redirects" I was tired. I meant the opposite Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

I apologise for the personalised disputes, I think I just got worked up during the original discussion. For this, I'm sorry.

Aside from this, I'm happy you understand and agree with the points I was making in relation to redirects, guidelines, etc. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Canada

Why remove "they emigrated from" and replace it with "are from". To live somewhere in a county you do not originate from is to emigrate. Emigrate just means to move somewhere. I understand, if she said, my family or my ancestors, then it would not be clear if her parents emigrated or does she have some Canadian ancestory. But, "my parrents are from Canada" verly clearly means they were born in Canada, and at some point had to move (emigrate) to the US, for them and Jaiden to live in Arizona. I really do not see issue here, or what else "from Canada" could mean here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It is "from Canada" because that is what the source says. While we could probably reasonably assume that they moved to the US from Canada, the source does not state this.

She could technically have lived with other people, or her parents could have moved somewhere else before moving to America, etc.

We need to follow WP:OR, which states:

Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

and WP:SYNTH, which states:

Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.

If the source doesn't say this explicitly, we don't include it. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse Ok, I see the point here. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda Great, thank you!

I'll also add, for the sake of having additional information, that the source that was used to state she "grew up in Arizona" doesn't actually say she grew up in Arizona, just that she was living there in 2016. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but it's well established that she grew up in Arizone, by now. Though, maybe a second, more precise source could help clarify this. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, but yes, we would need an actual source which states this, otherwise we risk breaking OR and/or SYNTH as above. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we delete Jaiden's photo from Commons?

ın my opinion, we should *not* delete the photo from Commons.

Reason 1. It is the only photo of her in Commons.

Reason 2. It has almost been a year since she said she wished it should be deleted.

Reason 3. It makes it easier for people to find royalty-free photos of Jaiden. Laserman-69420 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)