Talk:8chan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page protection

Yes, I'm skeptical about whether 8chan deserves an article. However, at this point, I think the best move is to create an article and see if there's enough material to show it's a notable website. The recent spate of vandalism is not helping with that process. As a result, I've taken the emergency action of semi-protecting the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did request protection at WP:RPP and I support it. I'll be expanding the article pretty soon based on RS. As I said before, there's a lot of them. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

biased.

This article is just all out f*cking generalizing. 8Chan has nothing to do with paedophilia in any way. Just because we have a few LEGAL boards made by other people, doesn't mean our entire f*%king website is about pedos. Just stop.

Pardon my french btw

Ajsihbdibidhbhdkjsijsbihbs (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, do you have a suggestion for the article? If so, provide reliable sources. cumguzzler (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a lack of sources for the article's inflammatory claims is the problem here Socialjusticewarrior88 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how so many users are appearing suddenly today, I suspect sockpuppetry. If you see a problem with an article, try to discuss the issue and support your arguments with reasoning; creating socks will only get you blocked. Dustin (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: It's not sockpuppetry, someone linked the page to 8chan and everyone there was (rightfully) insulted. You've made an entire community out to be pedophilic criminals when pedophiles are only a portion of the userbase (and staunch anti-pedophiles make up another portion equal in size) and nothing illegal is allowed on the website. The sources you use are one-sided and slanderous, happy to make mountains out of molehills for the sake of sensational journalism. OneTrueLoki (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you GushingGrannyFarts (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wrote the article. I was suggesting talk page discussion as several editors were disagreeing/reverting/vandalizing in a short period of time. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It should not be that much of a problem for the Wikipedia staff. It is clear that the vandalism needs to be removed, along with the suggestive information and misinformation. That includes all lines regarding the generalization of the entire community. (Also, GushingGrannyFarts, try not to edit out my post next time you contribute.) Straaado (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

so what? It doesn't matter if you didn't write the article. It's incredibly biased and you should fix it. As said in the OP, 8Chan has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. Just because it has a few completely legal boards for paedophiles, doesn't mean the entire website is about pedos. In fact, half of the entire site is also fighting against loli and shota pedo threads being made on /b/. Not only this but your sources are terrible! GushingGrannyFarts (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Allegations that a portion of the Infinitechan userbase had harassed and attacked notable women online within the realm of video game culture.[4] These attacks reportedly forced some to flee their homes.[6]" This is guilt by association. Someone reportedly had to flee their homes (no evidence). Those making them are from GG (again no evidence). 8 Chan is connected to GG. Therefore 8 Chan is somehow responcible. This kind of logic is what you'd expect from The Daily Dot, buy it is not acceptable in an encyclopedia.

Serious BLP

I'm extremely worried about the "free speech" part, it almost sounds like attacking Frederik Brennan and implying he allows pedophilia, this needs a serious rework and should follow website templates. One sentence in and it already states it has met criticism, the article should follow the 4chan article as guidance, as it is now it seems to have been made to attack Frederick Brennan Loganmac (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not my intention when I reformed this article. Feel free to reword things to your leisure. I was only trying to follow the sources. Tutelary (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead and added the websites templates to the right, I don't know how to include the criticisim. ALL sites' criticism usually goes in one section at the end. As in the case of reddit, 4chan. We have to be extra careful not to imply Brennan is guilty of what his users do, since we don't blame Mark Zuckerberg for everything happening on Facebook nor any owners on user-generated sites. Loganmac (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reddit

"a source of controversy however is the ability for users to create their own boards, a central criticism to the website" You mean exactly like reddit? That's doesn't sound like a source of controversy. 146.90.29.167 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/8chan-pedophiles-child-porn-gamergate/ <- Check the source. It's related to the pedophilia remarks. People create pedophilic boards and that's a source of controversy for the site by the site administrator for allowing them up. I don't mean to get too offtopic, but reddit allows people to create them, but has rules against them and actively takes them down. 8chan does not, owning to 'free speech'. Tutelary (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

By that explanation shouldn't the Reddit article also contain mentions of how it's user created boards host content like pictures of dead kids and holocaust denial? Weedwacker (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I should've mentioned that 8chan has also received media attention for such thing, whereas reddit did for the child stuff but they banned it since then. THe holocaust denial and pictures of dead kids have not received media attention as far as I know. If you have any sources for the most recent stuff, bring it up to at Talk:Reddit, not here. Tutelary (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found a source for that but I won't link it here, you're right it doesn't belong on this talk page. Still even with sources linking to controversy I hardly think it's appropriate for the lead on an article about a website to contain reference to controversy when it has it's own section for such information. Weedwacker (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The way that it is worded sounds like it is implying that endorsing free speech is endorsing pedophilia. Something should be done to change this. Weedwacker (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Prior deletions

• 09:22, 27 October 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page 8chan (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 06:26, 4 October 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page 8chan (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 09:22, 27 October 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:8chan (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
• 06:26, 4 October 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:8chan (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

Making a note of these, I am re-creating this page not to talk about the website/forum but rather as a disambiguation page, as this is the name of a character and anime series. Ranze (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan the website is the primary name of the website 8chan.co, and as a result I am going to expand the article in this direction. If the 'anime' or the 'character' is really notable, then I implore you that you create an article for their page. If not, then I've no doubt that 8chan as the website is the primary usage and has its establishment in reliable sources, whereas the anime does not. Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But is 8chan the website a notable website deserving of coverage, or should it just be mentioned within the context of the Gamergate controversy? If the latter, then a disambiguation page is serving the purpose just fine. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

C.fred, if you can't see the multitude of reliable sources for 8chan, then I can't help you. Additionally, there is no equivalence for WP:BLP1E except for websites. It's notable in its own regard. Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.fred:, before I draft up the initial page, do you have any hard feelings about if I just use this page for the website? I can't find much about the anime. Or do you really want me to create 8chan (website) because one anime just happened to match its name? Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: (Sorry have to ping again, doesn't work if you just edit it in.) Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: No objections if you create Draft:8chan; you'll need to prove notability before it gets moved to main article space, though. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. I guess you'll just have to see what I do, then. Tutelary (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: - the source in question (The Daily Dot) does not take into account the active anti-pedophilic side of 8chan, the fact that Brennan and board volunteers only moderates for actual illegal activity as described in US law (specifically Californian law), or the actual kind of discussions present on the site concerning pedophilia. What I am doing is not white-washing, but ensuring accurate information and not unfounded, biased slander is what is seen on the page. OneTrueLoki (talk) 14:23pm, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@OneTrueLoki: What source are you getting your information from? —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: https://www.8chan.co/faq.html - specifically section two which reads "Are there any global rules regarding content? Only one: Do not post, request, or link to any content illegal in the United States of America. Do not create boards with the sole purpose of posting or spreading such content." Pedophiles are allowed and discussion of pedophilia are allowed as the only illegal aspect of pedophilia is the actual practice or explicit photography of it. If such things get posted, they get removed as per US law. The point of the website isn't pedophilia as the Daily Dot makes it out to be, it's free speech governed only by what is legal and illegal. This allows for pedophiles to discuss their orientation on there, but does not represent the personal beliefs of the site owner, moderators or even over half of the userbase. It certainly does not mean that things such as child pornography and the like are allowed as they are not - the only standard 8chan has is US law. OneTrueLoki (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@OneTrueLoki: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, such as the Daily Dot, over primary sources, such as 8chan's own FAQ. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Well then, Wikipedia prefers inaccurate, biased information. OneTrueLoki (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers what sources say, rather than the truth. If you have reliable sources, you can present them. Else, I don't believe there's much to discuss here. Tutelary (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to understand at least where we at 8chan are coming from with this. That article is completely slanderous to the website. "Anti-feminist crusaders"? "Gamergate has been described as a modern culture war between left and right"? "some of the Internet’s right-leaning political activists made 8chan a cause celebre"? Equating harassment of a minor to 'freedom of speech' by assumption? Slandering an entire subreddit as 'dedicated to a celebration of bigotry'? Your honor, this article is slanderous, assuming, biased, and filled with half-truths. The notion of trusting what others say about something to be true falls apart when it is not actually true; and it is clearly not if the (vast, though this is opinionated) majority of the userbase are not pedophiles, if 'Gamergate' is not a "culture war", dubbed by its critics, if the we at 8chan are not 'right-leaning political activists' that 'made 8chan a cause celebre', and if the harassment of Jessi Slaughter is taken out of context to form a half-truth on a matter that the writer of the article wants to bolster up against. Downer77 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia prefers what people are saying, fabricated or not, not what is actually true." In other words, I can say Hitler was best friends with Tutelary, just as long as I post it on a blog. Thanks, Wikipedia. I'll get right on that. Straaado (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia prefers what sources say, rather than the truth." Did you just say that with a straight face? --Eekumbokum (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As a correction to the initial statement: Robot 8chan, while a Japanese series, the 52-episode long (per http://ishinomori.wikia.com/wiki/Robot_8-chan ) weekly debut of the Toei Fushigi Comedy Series was live-action, not an anime as I initially stated. I mistakenly figured because it was about a robot that it was like Astro Boy, but it's actually a robot interacting with people IRL. Ranze (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

∞chan validity

People seem to be under the impression that this is not a common name used for the site, in spite of it being the only name used on the site itself. I believe we should defer to what the site calls itself and not misquotes and misunderstandings of the site title by organizations who do bad research.

Unfortunately the ∞ character does not seem to co-operate with Google-searching so there is a bias in being unable to use Template:Findsources for it, so even though ∞chan does exist in reports, we can only easily search out the 8chan ones. Ranze (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a vast majority of sources for 8chan, far more than 'infinitechan' (just google that) and go to the news section of Google. '8chan' yields a lot more results than 'infinitechan'. Ranze, also what the website calls itself and its logo is not appropriate to what Wikipedia titles the article. WP:COMMONNAME states Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Thus, your argument of 'what do they call themselves' does not hold weight. Tutelary (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That text only applies to article titles, not contents.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can call a source reliable if it can't even get the name right. The ∞ symbol actually IS used on the majority of these news reports anyway, they just show it in the form of the logo (sideways 8) rather than use the text character because most people do not know how to casually type that on keyboards and don't want to go to the trouble of finding it and copying it. Considering most of these reporting sites are clickbait generators, their laziness does not morph 8chan into the common name instead of a circumstantial URL, because they still represent the infinite symbol in pictoral form, which overrides their misquote. Ranze (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The terms of 'infinitechan' and '8chan' are used interchangable in some reports, but do note that the majority of them only mention 8chan in the capacity of the site's name. (they list infinitechan as the 2nd choice'.) Due to technical restrictions, we can't have two titles for an article. Also, where does 'clickbait generator' fit into Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? And no, it doesn't. WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gawker and the Daily Dot are not valid sources

They're clearly biased as f*ck. Why the hell are they being cited here as if they're completely impartial and factual? Just by looking at their titles one can tell how unreliable they are.Copulative (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean in the "media response" section? Because I agree that they violate WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:STICKTOSOURCE somewhat.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

"Frederick Brennan" should be "Fredrick Brennan"

"Allegations that a portion of the Infinitechan userbase had harassed and attacked notable women online within the realm of video game culture." is not a valid sentence. It should read "There are allegations that a portion of the Infinitechan userbase had harassed and attacked notable women online within the realm of video game culture." or something to that effect.

"As a result of Infinitechan's loose content restrictions, numerous user created boards have been made to discuss many varying topics, one of them is pedophilia." is very awkward sentence structure. Split up the sentences, or better lead into the pedophilia, such as "numerous boards have been created to discuss controversial topics such as pedophilia." Peeves22 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan is called 8chan

source: i own 8chan (or is that WP:Original research?)

anyway, I am not trying to create a WP:conflict of interest so i will of course not edit the page myself, I just want to point out that the site is called 8chan by every source you linked to and by me personally in IRC, email and in streams and also by users

the site has two names because the logo features an 8 on its side to make an infinity sign. But the primary name of 8chan is of course 8chan.

I hope that you will rethink moving the page and maybe move it back. You don't have to take my word for it either, every source linked calls it "8chan" because that's what my site is called.

https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/536699104189882368 https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/536698515699671041 https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/536697681393901569

Best, 8chan.co (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I think that clarifies it for me; this article should be titled and referred to as "8chan".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Also, the Japanese BBS mentioned is 2channel (source: http://fox.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/poverty/1413115502/ [OP is in English, but many posts are in Japanese]) and we also offer the site in Japanese at http://8ch.net ) Other than that, I see no glaring errors in the article. Thanks for bothering to write one! 8chan.co (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the wording was so vague on the 2channel line is because the Daily Dot reference never stated which Japanese imageboard it was, and forum posts can't be used in the article, but still, thanks again. I wasn't aware of 8ch.net.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Now to file a technical move request. You can do the honors or I could. WP:RM Tutelary (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan vs. ∞chan

I'm putting this here for people to discuss what we should use. I'm fairly certain it should be "8chan, stylized as ∞chan, pronounced Infinitechan" or a similar wording per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL and WP:STYLE, you might want to look at further discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11

Not that familiar with rules regarding this but I'm fairly certain the titles and brand names should be written in "plain english" and its special characters written in the lead. Examples of this are Client (band) instead of CLIEИT or Korn instead of KoЯn Loganmac (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "8chan" a stylization if it's literally called "(Infinite) chan"? !!! is not called "Exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark" or "Chk chk chk" in its article space.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing that this article title should be "Infinitechan".

• Symbols (avoid them): Symbols such as "♥", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles. This includes non-Latin punctuation such as the characters in Unicode's CJK Symbols and Punctuation block.(WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the notion that this article be renamed to "Infinitechan" Copulative (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've heard Brennan used both names when talking about the website. This might be unorthodox but maybe we should ask him what name he wants it to be officially referred to as? Weedwacker (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Where has he named it "eight chan"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources have, and per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the article should be 8chan. Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan is a stylization of Infinitechan, so no, that doesn't apply here. If the site actually were called "eight chan" there would be a case, but that's only limited to the domain name.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia policy doesn't apply? Really? And no, it doesn't matter, per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. - WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter what they call themselves, the vast majority of RS use '8chan' and that's what the article's title should be. You don't get to ignore policy. Additionally, link me to where your arguments are supported in policy. Tutelary (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: ...inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. MOS:TMRULES: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules

None of the reliable sources say "eight chan" anyways, because they lack the luxury of audible pronunciation. Again, 8chan is a stylization as much as the albums m b v or SMiLE, yet those articles are entitled MBV (album) and Smile, respectively.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an in accurate name. Frederick Brennan uses infinitychan and 8chan interchangeable and somewhat confusingly on the website itself. On Twitter, the name is '8chan.co' yet the other name is 'infinitechan'. Hence, they are both equal given to Frederick and should be decided with reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME. (Plus, if it was an incorrect name, would the owner of the site be using it?) And it's not a characterization flaw, so WP:MOS:TMRULES doesn't apply. If it was '8cHAn', then we would not title it as that, but it's in all effect all lowercase. That's what that means. That part of WP:COMMONNAME also only applies to 'ambiguous' or 'inaccurate' names for the site. '8chan' is neither of those so WP:COMMONNAME still applies. The vast majority of the sources disagree with you. I can only find a scarce amount of sources for 'infinitychan'. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally against renaming the article "8chan" if anyone can prove it's how it's formally referred to and not just shorthand invented after the fact. Again, none of those sources state "8chan pronounced eight chan". For all intents and purposes, I believe you're supposed to be pronouncing every instance of "8chan" as "Infinitechan". The domain name is "8chan.co", yes, but maybe only because it rings better than "Infinitechan.co" and more convenient than if "∞chan.co" were possible.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not just see how those sources listed it? It doesn't matter how it's 'formally referred to', we ultimately stick to what the sources say when it comes to article titles. And none of those sources need to state '8chan pronounced eight chan', that's original research and an undue and unsubstanciated burden trying to deflect WP:COMMONNAME. The domain name is "8chan.co", yes, but maybe only because it rings better than "Infinitechan.co" and more convenient than if "∞chan.co" were possible. Irrelevant, again. Find sources that demonstrate 'Infinitechan' to be the common name. Sources are what you should be arguing with, not based on how 'convenient' a certain spelling is. WP:COMMONNAME is actually probably done via convenience. Does 'Lady Gaga' roll off the tongue better than her real name 'Stefani Germanotta'? I don't doubt it. Hence, more sources refer to 'Lady Gaga' rather than 'Stefani Germanotta' and similar in this instance. '8chan' rolls off tongue better than 'infinitechan' and more sources refer to it as 8chan, and as such, it should be the article title. Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources need to state '8chan pronounced eight chan' WP:STICKTOSOURCE would disagree, especially since numerous editors so far have disputed the use of "8chan". Find sources that demonstrate 'Infinitechan' to be the common name. The only one is the site itself, while there are no reliable sources I see that unanimously and unambiguously refer to it pronounced "eight chan". So far, 8chan is not an alternate name so much as it is a spelling derived from the trademarked domain name "8chan.co", unless you can prove that "eight chan" is how everybody is calling it, and they're not just typing "8chan" in place of "Infinitechan". When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources and then choose the style that most closely resembles standard English (WP:MOSTM)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate my point: 8chan is not correct English because "8" is never pronounced "infinite". "8chan" is a trademark -- its its domain name. I'm not sure how MOS:TMRULES couldn't apply here.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Then is '4chan' not correct English? Are you going to go there and boldly move it to 'Fourchan' just to make a point? Trademarks and nearly everything else you've mentioned does not matter. The only thing that matters is what do the sources overwhelmingly call it? I've also already explained why it doesn't matter, WP:MOS:TMRULES doesn't apply because it's not in some weird case like 8cHaN. That's all that MOS rule applies to, and is since as a result of that not relevant. Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

4chan is fine because it's not shorthand for "Fourchan" nor named "Fourchan" on the site itself, and is also pronounced "Fourchan". There is no discrepancy. Meanwhile, "8chan" resembles "∞chan" as much as "peabody" resembles "bæpody" while also being pronounced "bizzbuddy".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Didnt Frederick himself say that 8chan is the name and that ∞chan is just a stylisation? Seems really gimmicky for a wiki to have it as ∞chan, not to mention search engine optimisation doesnt include the character and its not supported by every computer. Seems a bit silly to me. EEEEEE1 (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For pronunciation, in The David Pakman Show [1] Brennan himself refers to his site as "eight chan" throughout, and since that is the common name cited among the few sources available, it should be noted as that, and we should retitle this article. And on a Huffington Post interview he said, "Believe it or not Brianna, eight chan is not all about you" [2]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014 - Unwarranted mention of pedophilia

Change the sentence: As a result of Infinitechan's loose content restrictions, numerous user created boards have been made to discuss many varying topics, one of them is pedophilia.
To: As a result of Infinitechan's loose content restrictions, numerous user created boards have been made to discuss many varying topics.

Pedophilia has no relevance whatsoever and its mention is unwarranted. PPotatoChips (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Pedophilia is specifically mentioned in the source referenced. Sam ^Sing! 12:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sam, the source referenced provides no evidence of this pedophilia, such as which board it is, and it's also clearly a biased source. Copulative (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked him about a forum called /doll/, which hosts provocative photos of barely clothed little girls. “If you want /doll/ shut down,” he countered, “you should instead focus on the studios who are producing this content. Some of them are even legally based in the USA. That’s the real story here, not some perverts posting them online after the fact.”

From source. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the entire Media Response section is terribly written and seems to just be multiple editors trying insert personal agendas upon the page, when it is clear that harassment, pedophilia and 'attacks' have hardly any relevance to the site whatsoever and should not even be mentioned outside of a brief footnotes. I would also like mention that the source material referred to is The Daily Dot, a source which is clearly unreliable. PPotatoChips (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Considering the title of the article linked to in the source is "8chan, the central hive of Gamergate, is also an active pedophile network" I'd say that "pedophilia" is of relevance. Once you can provide multiple other sources that say that claim was dismissed and can gain a consensus to make your change based on those sources, please reopen this request in a new section below with all of the details and a link to the consensus. Thank you for your interest in editing the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

Since I'm under obligations, I will not revert Ranze. However, he has made an edit blatantly disregarding the WP:RM requested move and attempting to edit against satisfied consensus for the article. The WP:RM was done and satisfied and as a result, there should absolutely be no quotes around '8chan' or be using 'Infinitechan' in any context beside as another name for 8chan. He's also disregarded the actual owner of 8chan's thoughts on the matter. Tutelary (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit does not oppose the move, 8chan is still the first title mentioned, proposed as the primary due to media common-naming. The actual owner's RECENT expressions do not rule out the clear history of it being called infinitychan. If ∞chan or infinitychan were actually based on the 8chan.co URL then we need to find evidence of that, not just believe a tweet. I will look at the Wayback archives to check. Ranze (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting '8chan' into quotes as if to cast doubt on the originality and notoriousness of the name is making a point. And I never said it did, but your edit also amounts to original research. Where is the source citing it as originally 'Infinitechan' or the caption changed from The 8chan logo to The ∞chan logo of "8chan" Again casting the same quotes as if to imply heavily that 8chan is not the correct name for the article. Tutelary (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The earliest I can find logged from February 7 says:

Welcome to ∞chan, the infinitely expanding imageboard.

There are currently 126/∞ boards.

On ∞chan, you can create your own imageboard for free with no experience or programming knowledge needed.

Until some logs prior to February become available, evidence should be supplied to support an 8chan-became-infinitychan theory. An owner-tweet is not historical evidence. Quotes do NOT cast doubt on the notoriousness. Yes, it does cast doubt on the originality, which is perfectly fine, because no actual evidence has been supplied supporting the assumption that it was called 8chan before ∞chan. Calling it `the ∞chan logo of 8chan` is describing the design of the logo, which uses a ∞ symbol. 8chan is the correct name for the article due to media notoriety, but not the correct name for the site. Kind of like how The Undertaker is the proper name for an article but not the person it is about, Mark Calaway. --Ranze (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure putting quotes around the name is improper style.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW moved to 8chan. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Infinitechan → 8chan – Proper site name per discussion. Disambig page currently at 8chan only lists two pages, this one and a television character also called 8-Chan that has no actual article but instead a link to Toei Fushigi Comedy Series, and if needed would work better as a header disambig for the article proper. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as it is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources, even if people prefer other names. You know, some call it fullchan with 4chan called halfchan. It's their own little way of ragging on 4chan for being lame. Only one name should be favored, though, and that is 8chan. Should reliable sources adopt infinitechan with more regularity than we can revisit the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment ∞chan is certainly the wrong name per guidelines, since the infinity symbol fails naming guidelines on using English and not using special characters. Also isn't part of the chan's URL. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – As per above. Wikipedia pages are not titled based on how the name is stylized or intended to be read aloud, but rather how reliable sources refer to them (usually in writing, though there's rarely a distinction in most cases). As per above, "8chan" seems be to the common name. (Though I should point out that the page itself is currently titled "∞chan" and not "Infinitechan".) --V2Blast (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – "∞chan", "Infinitechan", "Fullchan" and "Cripplechan" are all nicknames of 8chan. Zoef1234 (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I have no objections to stylisations when they are supported but, in this case, "8chan" is prominently used. the wordings "infinitechan" and "infinite chan" hardly appear on the website. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support The site owner himself has clarified the name of the site for us. The current article name is incorrect and it should be migrated to the correctly named page. Weedwacker (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• SNOW support because %E2%88%9Echan is not an appropriate page name and may cause accessibility issues. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per all of the above Loganmac (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support Per WP:COMMONNAME and site owner deference. Also in case of this, this article was originally at 8chan but a user boldly moved it, and as a result of a copy and paste, I was not able to move it back. There needs to be better procedure and WP:BRD followed in case of moves at all times. Otherwise, I'm glad to see a consensus for this name change, and is suitable. Tutelary (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• The out-of-process move to ∞chan happened after the move request from Infinitechan was opened, and has now been reverted. !votes based on the technical restrictions related to ∞chan are no longer applicable. If there was also a cut-and-paste move as suggested above, please list the page at WP:REPAIR. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move discussion

As miffed as I am that the move completed before I could weigh in, based on the overwhelming support for it above I can see it would not have made much of a difference. The site owner's recent tweets may simply be an attempt at a retcon, they only speak for present opinions and not the site's history, which uses ∞ and we can see by the twitter handle used as evidence that this was for "infinite" and not "eight". We should resist being trolled by Fredrick Brennan's tweets which run contrary to the evidence on the site and his twitter as to the actual original primary name. If 8chan is now the primary name, that is a new change, and should be noted. We should not pretend as if it were the primary all along. It is not "just the logo" as claimed, as the slogan also included an infinity symbol. He also admits in the tweet that it "has two names". Ranze (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The only thing Brennan said was that 8chan-pronounced-eight-chan was a valid name, which was not clear before, when the only occurrence of "8chan" on the site is the domain name. Even if you are right, and it was backed by reliable sources, the fact that it was first only called "8chan" is a minor footnote in the site's history that deserves at best two or three words of explanation in the background section. "∞chan" is a trademark and a stylization of the alternate name "Infinitechan".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

This whole article seems to be written from a particular slant that many of the article's editors have felt is missing from another particular article on the project. I also don't see how this is in any way notable on its own when it has only become known through its tangential existence to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete this article when there are more than enough secondary sources to demonstrate notability. It's also out of the question to merge the contents with Gamergate controversy, an article that is already tagged for being "very long". What is the particular slant that you are speaking of? About three quarters of the article concern the history, background, and objective of the site. Less than ten sentences are based on somebody's opinions or beliefs. Are you suggesting that Howard O'Neil's implicit (and non-notable) accusations that Brennan harbors a pedophile site should be expounded? That may be a violation of WP:BLP.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not said that. I just don't think this should be on a page on its own when it is at best a footnote to the whole of Gamergate. And the slant I refer to is the description that people only "reportedly" fled their homes due to harassment and doc dropping that happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried clarifying the use of "reportedly".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term is correct - people have reported to media (and less so, to police) fleeing their homes due to harassment and "doxxing". However, the reports are all which are confirmable, to date. None of the claims have been verified as threats by law enforcement agencies, while at least one has been declared "no threat" by both the FBI and Utah State University (according to USU's own press release on the subject).Calbeck (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources include Al Jazeera and The Guardian. I feel your claim that the website is non-notable is fairly spurious at best. --LordCazicThule

Comments should be focused on article content, not personal opinions regarding individual contributors. Concerns about individual editors should be brought to their user talk page or a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
what happened to your stepping away from gamergate stuff? Guess r/gamerghazi's getting its money worth after all. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC) lol, You actually think this article is not neutral?, This coming from the guy who calls Gamergate supporters "faggots" and has taken donations from an anti gamergate forum? Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Ryūlóng, with warmth and kindness in my heart, I would like to suggest that with all the stress that this whole topic has given you, and given the full circumstances including you being doxxed and the donation controversy, you should interpret your self-imposed topic ban very broadly and not get involved in any way with any gamergate related discussions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) The broad interpretation was not an initial announcement. And Pepsiwithcoke needs to step off. I find it odd he hasn't been given the Gamergate sanction warning as his edits over the past several hours certainly breach the standards. I still feel that this article has a POV issue and notability issues. So Pepsiwithcoke, who has been attacking me, should not be the one to remove it. Also that IP is rude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Ryu, I am not attacking you, You HAVE taken donations from the anti-gamergate side of the argument, And you HAVE resorted to name calling, Quit vandalizing this article with your own biased POV, Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I am not vandalizing the article. I am merely stating my opinion that it is not notable on its own and the POV needs some work. And you've misquoted me and such, not to mention your messages on my user talk were completely out of line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) There is no POV problem, If you asked any person that is completely uninformed in Gamergate or 8chan if that article is biased one way or the other the answer would most likely be "No", Also, My comments were not out of line, Just because you don't agree with something does not mean that it is out of line, You taking money from /r/gamerghazi and continuing to edit Gamergate related articles IS out of line Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint has addressed my initial concerns with the neutrality of the page for the most part. However, I think that the "Media response" section is still a little wonky and that we need to be clear that the "allegations" are related to Gamergate, which the section currently does not address at all.

Now regarding notability. The article is heavily reliant on the Daily Dot piece (which IIRC is an interview). The Al Jazeera America piece doesn't even have "chan" written in it once. Le Monde is French and I haven't had any French language study since I was 11. NY Mag is...weird. The rest is unnecessary (IMO) citations to the main 8chan and 8ch pages. I think these should be addressed somehow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm French and I can attest that Le Monde is a reputable source, it's often refereed as "le journal de référence". You can use an online translator if you have trouble reading it, they are pretty good nowadays. Jbieler (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean as to its content on 8chan and whether it constitutes major coverage. At first glance it appears to be about all chans.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan (Software)

8chan runs on a software of the same name, perhaps an article on the software itself is in order? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 09:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the software pass WP:GNG?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be worthy of its own article. I have heard some about this but I don't remember where I read it; if i recall correctly 8chan uses a different imageboard software from most other similar imageboards, this is what allows user created boards. I think I remember this also being part of the partnership with 2channel, as they were interested in the software. If you can find a source talking about it, some small mention of it could be added to the article. Weedwacker (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From the site (8chan.co) and Fredrick's GitHub, its apparently a fork of Tinyboard+Vichan. I couldn't find any articles on it, but perhaps we should add a section or two about software and features. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no point adding information if it's not stated in an RS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Destructoid article

This Destructoid article wears its bias on its sleeve proudly, but does anyone think it could be used to cite some info? Shadowrunner^(stuff) 09:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Just at a glance, the user migration seems like a obvious thing to ass an extra source for. I don't see anything else though. HalfHat 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Edit: actually that looks decently sourced. HalfHat 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lolicon

It makes no sense to have the inclusion of pedophilia, considering other major sites like reddit, 4chan, and even twitter have had problems with it. As for lolicon, other sites have it as well even 4chan and reddit. Shall we include in other articles that they have had such content on it before?- or is this a special thing only for this article on a site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.145.144 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral aggregation of reliable sources. If you can find several publications which refer to Twitter, Reddit, etc. in the same fashion, thus demonstrating notability, nobody will stop you from adding the information.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As Ilovetopaint said, it can be on Wikipedia if a reliable source talked about it. Reddit's article for example, had so many controversies that a spin-off article exists for Controversial Reddit communities. Anyone familiar with reddit will know that there are many controversial communities that are noticeably absent from that article, either because they have not been reported on by reliable sources or because they have been but nobody has taken the time to compile them and add them to the article. In its current form i'm happy with the article's brief mention of criticism for board content and the site owner's response. It's somewhat in line with the reddit main article actually, which has only 2 small mentions of jailbait and underage content that was removed or banned. Weedwacker (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

moar sources

8chan has been in Ars Technica twice since this was written, just FYI. http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/01/8chan-related-sites-go-down-in-lizard-squad-powered-ddos/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/8chan-tries-swatting-gamergate-critic-sends-cops-to-an-old-address/

I'm sure it was copied to other places as well. Fredrick Brennan (ayy lmao) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the DDoS article: I question why Arstechnica would think it's a good idea to link to a paid DDoS service and give it publicity. I've seen opinions raised that whether or not the group the article names is responsible, their claim of it is to advertise their services, which Arstechnica seems to have helped them with by describing the service and linking to a link for it. Beyond that, i'm not familiar with how often other website articles mention DDoS attacks against them, so i'm going to do a look around and see if it's a common thing. He insisted that users not believe rumors spreading on Twitter about who might have been responsible. This is a quote from the article that myself and others should keep in mind if this source gets included in the article. Also this one: In a public statement posted late Wednesday, Brennan said "no one knows" who perpetrated the attack, "and there is no way to know." The article states a group has claimed responsibility for the attack but also says others would have a motive to.

The other article is pretty open and shut, but may need a new section because it's not exactly a "media response". I may not get around to it all tonight but i'll look into adding these two articles tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Weedwacker (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless either of you are planning on incorporating information regarding the DDOS or the SWAT onto the article, this is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I said i'm going to put it into the article. Secondly, and seriously, how? I stated my opinion on a source, still said i'd include it if there's precedent on other websites articles for this sort of information, and suggested a new section hoping others would join me in a discussion about how to properly incorporate the sources into the article. If i'm violating something please tell me how, but i'd prefer we took that to my talk page. Weedwacker (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems more like discussion of the topic itself rather than improvements to the article. My mistake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong, I can throw around Wikipedia project pages too. Like, I don't know, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BITE. Don't have to be so salty that there are more sources so therefore more reason to have an 8chan article on Wikipedia kiddo, I know how badly you want this page deleted :^) (no WP:PERSONAL meant) Fredrick Brennan (ayy lmao) 08:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the swatting article. Gonna hold off on the DDoS one because as far as I know from non-reliable sources, it's still ongoing. The ArsTechnica source is only from when it began and therefore doesn't include the full length of downtime. We should wait and see for developments and new sources but the ArsTechnica article can still be useful. Weedwacker (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Domain Seizure

8chan's domain has reportedly been seized by some company. http://techraptor.net/content/just-8chans-domain-seized-now Possible article for citation? Shadowrunner^(stuff) 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While that isn't a reliable source, one known reliable source is now covering this story:

• Ars technica

--TS 03:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post has today covered 8chan situation including the domain seizure, in reasonable depth:

• Washington Post, 13 Jan, 2015: This is what happens when you create an online community without any rules. --TS 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That article insinuates that Frederick did drugs before opening 8chan, Please remove it RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

He said he did on a KYM interview, my bad --RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. If you think a link posted is suspect, don't hesitate to remove it. --TS 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gameranx

This seems to be a point of contention. Gameranx has a fully posted and public editorial team. This website is used extensively on Wikipedia already. And just because it's not listed at WP:VG/RS doesn't mean anything because this article is not on a video game. The only apparent reason that Weedwacker appears not to want to use this source is because the author is an established critic of Gamergate and also one of their targets of harassment and such. If there are any actual valid reasons for not using this source, bring them up here. Otherwise, you're just trying to proxy war over Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable subforum?

So when I read this article, I noticed 2 names pop up: 'gamergate' and 'baphomet'. It got me thinking: why doesn't this article have something highlighting these forums instead of making readers look through the 'media attention' part of the article to find the information?

Would it be out of line for me to suggest the creation of a 'Notable subforums' section on the article listing these forums with short descriptions to explain the purpose/activities of each forum? IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be warranted. A single section with a bulleted list of the most notable boards (/b/, /v/, /gamergate/, /pol/ etc.) would probably suffice. - Also, the technically correct term is "board", as there is no "main forum" on this imageboard from which "sub-forums" could branch. --Skyrock84 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the section is needed, but if it's going to be there it needs at least one source. At a minimum a primary source of server stats if it's available. — Strongjam (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: So this piece on BoingBoing about baphomet/gamergate doesn't qualify as a valid source then? IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For the fact that /baphomet/ is notable, yes, but for the whole of the Notable boards section we have no sources. I'd be happy if we just cited wherever the "top 5 posts by hour" data comes from, as it stands now the section's data is not verifiable. — Strongjam (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, should we replace the term 'subforum' in the Media attention section be with 'board', if for no other reason than to have the right terminology in the article now that SkyRock has pointed it out? IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fine with me, always a fan of being more correct. — Strongjam (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have grabbed the top 5 from the sortable board list, which is unfortunately dynamically generated at each visit and has no direct link for sorting by PPH. Should I create an archive.today dump or a screenshot, so that there is a static, linkable source along with the dynamically generated link? --Skyrock84 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a <ref>{{Cite web...</ref> with an access date should be good enough, you can fill in the archive url param (see Template:cite web) if you like but isn't strictly needed. Secondary sourcing is always ideal, but at the very least a primary source is better then nothing. — Strongjam (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the current version of the section for now because it was completely unsourced. A case could be made for the "notability" of the gamergate and baphomet boards, perhaps, as they are indeed discussed in reliable sources. --TS 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this move. There are two reliably sourced notable boards but even then they may not warrant a new section for mention. Weedwacker (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially with all the recent hubbub surrounding gamergate and wikipedia in the news the last few days. Might as well have this page well-sourced as possible, given how 8chan is indirectly tied to that particular controversy. The gamergate board gets referenced (at least indirectly) each time that the gamergate controversy gets mentioned, so there should be reliable sources for that board somewhere. However, the only article I've seen discussing baphomet is the BoingBoing article I linked to earlier. IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One edit and proposed edit

"In January 2015 the site was used as a base for several hoax reports to emergency services intended to provoke police responses directed at individuals, known as swatting, in Portland, Seattle, and Burnaby, most of them tied to the victim's criticism of Gamergate and 8chan's association with it" - /Baphomet/ isn't in any way or form aligned with the /GamerGate/ board nor movement (yes, I know that's OR but that's the goddamn truth. Since when is propaganda and slander allowed on the wiki?) I removed the Namibia link, since it's really WP:UNDUE - if you want to report on every idiot on an anynomous messageboard, I wish you luck - you'll have to update each hour. MicBenSte (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

/Baphomet/ may not have any connection to GamerGate other than existing on the same site (with the only article claiming the two groups are linked coming from Buzzfeed, which I shared earlier on the talk page), but the unfortunate truth is that a lot of GamerGate's critics end up as /Baphomet/'s targets, and the article wouldn't be accurate if it wasn't reported as such. As for the Namibia part, I agree with its deletion, since that article seems like VICE was deliberately trying to paint 8chan in a bad light.IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Board name format?

I only bring this up because of this edit by an IP user [3]. Is it necessary to have the "/" at either end of the board names, or can we just leave it at having the board names in quotation marks? A quick check on 4chan's wikipedia article shows the "/" format being used for talking about its most notable board, "/b/", so having the boards mentioned in the 8chan article follow a similar format would make sense, but I'm curious what other editors think on this matter, if for no other reason than to use for future reference. IncenseofCthulhu (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're consistent about it. 4chan seems to use the "/board/" format as well so it would make sense to me to use it here. — Strongjam (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)