Talk:Timeline/August

Untitled
Re: Oct 29th/TFYC/Jon Ross- dunno how we want to fit it in, but it should be noted he did several high-profile reviews including Torchlight 2, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 --SoggyKnees (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

I will merge Timeline with History of GamerGate as my next step. Time to prove myself that I'm worthy. --Ganpur (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2014 (EST)

I think that History and Timeline should be separate. Timeline should include bare-bones information and act more as a starting point for links out to more involved articles. Also, there doesn't seem to be a page on the Zoe Post. Seeing as it's what sorta started this whole thing, I think we should probably add that. Direct link to the actual post, some analysis, etc. Right now any mentions of the /actual/ Zoe Post redirect to the KYM page on the Quinnspiracy... Also I think we should get a proper ref list for the page instead of the ugly mess we have at the bottom right now. Also GET RID OF THE EXTERNAL LINKS AND JUST USE REFS. --Chestnut Rice (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think the same thing, but I think that history of gamergate should be the overview, and timeline should be the list. Just like how a real timeline is very list-like. Psycho Robot (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Injection of opinion
Some points within the article veer much too close to the realm of opinion.

For example: "Ben Kuchera posts an audio clip[4] of David Jaffe and Stephen Totilo arguing over the way known social justice writer Kate Cox portrayed Jaffe in an article[5] where she wrote about Twisted Metal."

If Kate Cox is a social justice writer, "known" adds nothing to the discussion. Who knows it? Why do they know it? If there's a source, it should be expressed. If not, it's not useful.

Also for example: "Milo Yiannopoulos, Associate Editor at Breitbart London, publishes one of the first pro-GamerGate articles from the mainstream media."

It's questionable whether Breitbart (or, by extension, Breitbart London) is mainstream media. I'm not even sure that it's especially relevant to the discussion.

Also for example: "Ben Kuchera of Polygon took it upon himself to defend the blatant anti-consumer move"

It may be (imo) true, but it's also an unnecessary value judgment that isn't sourced. This should at least be rectified to reduce the commitment to it, saying something like "seen by many as a blatant anti-consumer move."

Formatting Issues
I just spent an hour correcting double and triple spaced sentences, spaces after bullet points, references outside periods, etc. Please avoid these formatting errors in the future, and also try and correct existing ones. I'm pretty sure I botched a reference, too, so look out for that. SKS45 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how these wiki things operate. I'm not sure how to participate in talk page discussions. I'll have to see if this is correct. Anyway, I fixed up a bunch of formatting problems last night as well. Is there a consistent style guideline somewhere for references/etc.? Personally speaking, I feel like references should be outside of punctuation. This is typically how Wikipedia does it as well (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales).


 * Really? Huh. I'm pretty new to wikis myself. I still feel that references should be placed within sentences, simply because it would get confusing with sentences that contain multiple citations throughout. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (like this: ~ ) SKS45 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Whoever's been making edits and putting spaces after bullet points, double spacing sentences, and not using the reference tag for references should take the time to learn how to edit a wiki. Also, no inline images in the article. We're not KYM. SKS45 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Stay calm friend. Spaces after bullet points doesn't affect the output at all. I'm not sure what you mean by double spacing sentences. Do you mean putting two spaces after a period? If so that can be fixed in one second across the whole document. WP has a policy about not biting the newcomers, and I think you ought to take it to heart. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overreacted. SKS45 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship date?
Hi. I was actually there at the beginning. The censorship on 4chan's /v/ was immediate so perhaps should fall under the 16th?

The Burger & Fries discussions were taking place initially on /r9k/ and then moved to /pol/ as threads on /v/ were being deleted on sight (even topics that only discussed Zoe's game Depression Quest) and countless users there banned. It was only when /v/ /r9k/ and /pol/ combined to flood /v/ with janitor topics that their mods finally relented and allowed a single active GG discussion topic to remain open until eventually much later all GG discussion has been banned.

Also Reddit users that upvoted Mundane Matt's and Internet Aristrocat's videos were also shadowbanned enmasse.


 * Could you please find some archives of the 4chan threads? We need verifiable links to back up all our claims. Ratalada (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unified timeline?
I think a separate, unified timeline where all months are transcluded on a single page would be an useful addition. It would recquire no changes on the existing timeline pages except for some invisible and -tags to keep the unified page from becoming cluttered. Anyone else in favour of it? --JTRetrogamer (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor. Merging all the months into a single location would make a HUGE page, but the sheer size of the timeline makes it hard to navigate for newbies anyway. I see the timeline more as a historical reference for gamergaters searching for links to old articles/tweets/videos/whatever. --mscomies (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (EST)
 * It wouldn't be merging, it would be transcluding. Essentially "projecting" the core content of the individual months on a single page, similar to how the same image may be shown on several pages of a website. --JTRetrogamer (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's like having a snapshot of each page on its own page. There's no reason not to do it, so I'll just go ahead and make it now. Psycho Robot (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's at Timeline/Full, which is linked in the timeline nav by clicking the title. Psycho Robot (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the pertinence to the topic of one LeoPirate
To condense a frivolously lengthy expounding, I'm of the opinion that his inclusion in the timeline is unwarranted. Now, don't mistake me: His videos on the subject are quite veracious, and I consider him to be a very venerable individual. However, let's call a spade a spade, shall we? He has, what, 16,000 subscribers? I'm sorry, I really am, but if we were to include him, we would also have to include a multitude of other similarly neglected pro-GG channels. Furthermore, his 60-second summary of Gamergate is the sole reason to so much as cite him as a source--ergo, we should not be dedicating an entire subsection of the timeline to him. When compared aside the preceding subsections, his comes across as an abject superfluity. Berke Stavoy (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)