Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ILIL (talk | contribs) at 06:52, 25 November 2014 (→Post-move discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

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: Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages prefers inaccurate, biased information. OneTrueLoki (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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)

"Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages. I'll get right on that. Straaado (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages 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/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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. These attacks reportedly forced some to flee their homes." 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.

Heavily biased sources being used for misinformation and broad generalizations & unsourced material

The Daily Dot should be deemed unsuitable for use as a source, as it contains falsified information written for propagandist purposes. Specifically, the article states, "On numerous public forums, 8chan users share graphic images of children, plus links to hardcore child pornography. No content is hidden. Thousands of posts are accessible within two clicks of the homepage.", which demonstrates an apparent lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, and 8chan.co as a whole. However, the article does attempt to inform their audience on the vast majority of the userbase, such as "The site’s biggest boards are not pedophile-centric. Instead, many of 8chan’s most active boards are political.", while failing to discuss the implication of many 8chan users actively and publicly voicing resentment to the 'pedophile-centric' boards, as made evident by daily discussion seen on the site.

Gawker being used as a source is completely laughable. Any research done by the article contributors will show that Gawker is one of the heads of the Gamergate controversy, so using them as a source would be comparable to vandalizing the 9/11 Misplaced Pages page with false information sourced to an article written by Al-Qaeda.

The line "On one such board, users dismiss any idea of complaint against said images, referring to users who disagree against sharing said material as 'moralfags', a term centered around dismissal of said concerns of misconduct or illegal content or plain objection." should be omitted. It demonstrates very strong Confirmation bias, as the majority of users give heavy complaint against those (legal) images. Not only this, the line also adds even more false propagandist definitions. A 'moralfag' is a user who's post clearly shows and represents their own personally held belief of right and wrong, also known as Morality, not "dismissal of concerns of misconduct or illegal content." Any illegal content on 8chan is removed immediately by moderators and volunteers, with reports speeding up this process.

Lastly, the line "The website also hosts boards where pedophiles discuss child grooming techniques and other such things." should also be omitted. This is completely false(ref)"Browse 8chan Boards". Boards on ∞chan. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)(/ref), and a fabrication by the contributor to benefit their stance, showcasing strong Disinformation. Straaado (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Daily Dot is a weak source to make such bold claims and linking people to pedophilia Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Dot is actually a standard source. If the link to Frederick Brennan is the issue, I'll promptly remove his name, but I believe hsi commentary on the matter (specifically relating the boards specficially) is relevant. Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written. I tried to stick pretty closely to the source. Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: His commentary is relevant. Most definitely. Although, "Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written." I'm perfectly accepting of not adding extra information. Theres still the issue of the already included unsourced misinformation, You can't leave in irrelevant, false, unsourced information, especially with the drastic weight they carry. It's showing very strong hypocrisy. Straaado (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you feel is unsourced? Tutelary (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: It's in the scary post right above you. Straaado (talk) 23:14, 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 Misplaced Pages titles the article. WP:COMMONNAME states Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines? And no, it doesn't. WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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/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 Misplaced Pages policy doesn't apply? Really? And no, it doesn't matter, per WP:COMMONNAME: Misplaced Pages 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 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"

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)

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

This edit request to ∞chan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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 Misplaced Pages! — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:01, 24 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/ ) 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)

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)

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

The request to rename this article to 8chan has been carried out.

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. Misplaced Pages 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}} 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)

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)