Jump to content

Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Further details about TFYC

While probably not a reliable source by itself, this blog post analyzed public information from the TFYC site about the group's financial structure. What it shows is that despite the group's proposal, they are not themselves a charity and the profits going to external charities do not actually help women get into the industry. Also, Zoe Quinn recently released the emails showing TFYC has deliberately lied about her. Arcadina (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, can't use any of this until a reliable, secondary source reports on it czar ♔ 19:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Vivian James character image (and moving to Gamergate Controversy page)

In the interest of keeping this page about the subject it is actually about, and not about Gamergate, I would like to propose removing the Vivian James character image that is on this page. Right now about half of this article is about Gamergate stuff, and seeing as this article is not Gamergate controversy, it should really be cut down quite a bit. The image is more illustrative of Gamergate than it is illustrative of the company. Thoughts? Hustlecat do it! 01:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This article should just be boldly merged into Gamergate controversy as their notability impinges on being part of the controversy. But there's no real use for the image to be on the other article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I was considering putting in a merge request/proposal but I'm hesitant to since I haven't touched the Gamergate controvery article yet (only the talk page). I also just recently filed an AfD for this with no consensus and I figured a merge proposal would have the same result. Also also I just did some bold, what-I-seriously-thought-was-neutral edits to this article and was reverted. I really do think this article should be merged- I don't think I'm a good one to do it, though. Hustlecat do it! 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No consensus means that you can come up with a new plan for the article without any problems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No consensus means that the article is by default kept. I oppose any merging at all. I also don't appreciate you trying to push this editor to do something that has just failed to be deleted by afd, and should absolutely not happen in the least. Tutelary (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No consensus doesn't mean "kept". It means "there was no consensus to do either" and that just defaults to keep. This group isn't notable outside of what they did to capitalize off of being hated by Zoe Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
They are notable as they met the WP:GNG. There is no similar rule regarding BLP1E except for organizations. You should just honestly drop the idea of trying to get rid of this article. It's getting annoying. Tutelary (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If I want to propose a merge I can propose a merge. GNG is barely met considering it's only notability for one thing. None of us would know anything about this group if 4chan hadn't given them money.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure you can, but I'm sure doing it right after the afd in which you voted in will be seen as attempting to game the system by getting rid of the article anyways in spite of the results. I'd just drop it, seriously. Tutelary (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I can see how that would be construed, but a few users who were for "keep" did suggest merging, as did a number of "delete" users. That is why I think it would potentially be OK to propose a merge now. Either way, the article is in pretty poor shape at the moment, so I am going to go ahead and boldly remove the image from the article in the interest of removing the excessive Gamergate content from the article. Most likely what will happen is the image will be placed on the Gamergate page as a creation that resulted from the conflict. Hustlecat do it! 04:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I severely doubt it. If you look at the discussion, people already say it doesn't belong there at all--even though that's the central page for it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Considering that she was a creation that TFYC accepted, and the like, she belongs on this page. Also, please don't. I oppose your edit. Tutelary (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will hold off on the edit until more opinions are in. But this article already consists of an excess amount of redundant GamerGate content, that seems a bit excessive for an article that is supposed to be about a company. Hustlecat do it! 04:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
An image drawn by anonymous people based on their perception of their perfect Manic Pixie Dream Girl gamer has not a thing at all to do with Gamergate. Tarc (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: The image seems to have stemmed from the controversy and is being used as a logo/mascot/what have you. But what about on this page? Is the image relevant to the company or no? Hustlecat do it! 04:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Use it on this article, sure. It has nothing to do with Gamergate; reliable sources have really not identified it as a GG mascot, nor does anyone outside of the FYC identify with it, as it was just a thing created in the wake of a beef between this group and Quinn. If GG ever did adopt it as their figurehead, I'd find that rather amusing, seeing how the color scheme of Ms. James' shirt is an easter egg shout out to an old and vulgar 4chan meme. Tarc (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural note that unless it would be repeating the same exact arguments and conversation (which would be dilatory), it's totally fine to initiate a merge discussion after a "no consensus" at AfD. Mind that that means "no consensus for deletion" and not "no consensus kaput" czar ♔ 04:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to note that the main GamerGate article is currently sitting at 120kb with a WP:SIZE tag. Merging in an article about an organization predating GamerGate, with news coverage prior to GamerGate, would not help this situation. 67.188.142.154 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, size is usually measured in prose, which is at 58 kB (anything over 50 kB is considered large). czar ♔ 16:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this article

This article is beautifully neutral and it conveys the topic at hand very well. Heh, just wanted to say something. This article is like a diamond in the rough. It's pretty reassuring seeing something nice amidst so much bad. Good Job. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Notability (evident lack of...)

This article does nothing to indicate the notability of the subject, and instead seems almost entirely concerned with the ongoing GamerGate controversy. In short, the article is a coatrack, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, there has been plenty of sources talking about the subject, and it predates GamerGate Loganmac (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It's called WP:BLP1E.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, judging from the 'history' section, this subject is seriously inside baseball. Are there any sources which discuss TFYC without mentioning it in the context of Gamergate and Zoe Quinn? If not, it's not notable in its own right and should be merged into that article. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are sources mentioning it outside of the context of gamergate and they're already being used in the article. Out of the 13 sources used, sources 2,3,4 and (debatably) 7 make no mention of gamergate or Zoe Quinn, with sources 2 and 3 being news coverage of TFYC before gamergate even began. Please read the article more carefully.Bosstopher (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a WP:BLP1E case. This is the only given source that's definitely reliable and that discusses the group outside the context of "GamerGate", and that's pretty small beer. This is from the blog Gamepolitics.com, and this is from the group themselves, it's not an independent reliable source. This is about their relationship with 4chan, which is of course part of the GamerGate story.--Cúchullain t/c 21:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
How can it be a WP:BLP1E case when this article isnt even a biography of a living person? Is there something that should be really obvious here that I'm missing? Bosstopher (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It regards a group of living persons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It regards an organisation that like many organisations in the world happen to consist of living people, and therefore should surely be considered under the notability standards for WP:CORP? Bosstopher (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It really does seem to be one-event-ish here; all they received press for is being involved in the whole "gamergate" thing. This should really just be a redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
TFYC is not a person or a news event. It is a group and said group meets WP:ORG. Many details cannot really be included in the GamerGate article since they deal only with TFYC, including details from reliable sources months prior to the recent controversy involving Quinn.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If some entity is only notable for one event in their entire existence, then they really cannot be said to be that notable can they?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
They received coverage in reliable sources prior to GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
But was it substantial coverage?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Substantial enough to make them notable? I would say not, but it plays into their overall notability. We have enough reliably sourced coverage that does not mention GamerGate to make them notable and enough coverage that does not mention Quinn at all to make them notable. For the record, I am treating "prior to Gamergate" as "prior to allegations against Quinn" since the term GamerGate was not coined until after some of the pieces stemming from the controversy were published.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So we go back to the status quo of simply discussing they exist as part of the GamerGate event, and their fight with Quinn seems to have only been made known after GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
He's saying their previous history doesnt matter if the only reason everyone heard about them, in the first place, is because GamerGate and ms. Quinn. 187.13.105.48 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I just came across this article and am surprised it exists. It's not notable except in the context of GamerGate - That is the only context this organization has been mentioned in, and even then just tangentially. It seems like WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE, and kind of weirdly advertisey too. I think it should be deleted or merged into the existing gamergate article. (If it must remain, it should at least get a link to Fine Young Cannibals to explain the reference :) Hustlecat (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Per this section, I created an AfD discussion page for this article. Please feel free to discuss it there. --Hustlecat (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no lack of notoriety, it's very famous in internet culture, there's a lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:4D71:D80C:ADE9:EB02 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Transgender Policy Conflict?

Hang on a minute, the article paints TFYC as having always had their transgender policy use the "identified as" language, when this isn't true. The original wording presented in their original FAQ uses the "transitioned" language. If it was always "identified" then Quinn's original criticism wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever (as in: why would she have taken ire with the use of the word "transitioned", when it didn't appear? Why does the spokesperson for TFYC ardently defend its use if they didn't use it? (TFYC is SillySladar here.)). The creation of their "Transgender Policy" page and the uploading of their modified FAQ happened after her criticism. Unfortunately, due to it not being all that notable, there aren't a whole lot of sources on this. Not asking for anything to be changed, but it is concerning enough for me to bring it up. It seems that their changes are being used to discredit someone's criticism of them. 151.228.0.90 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The original rules on the website on Jan 8, 2014 [7 weeks before ZQ started tweeting about it] said, "Participant is of female sex and gender or is transgender but identifying as female in sex or gender at the date of submission of the Proposal." https://github.com/arangutan/thefineyoungcapitalists/commit/511196573794fcf43e9388cc234570b2a1b1774a#diff-d86cb69c9c073f1e2d7150be341cf010 . They never changed it after that. The article should probably mention this. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Afterlife Empire

Doesnt seem to have independent notability but has clearly received some coverage from gaming sites like gamepolitics. Should be merged with the TFYC article instead of being deleted. Bosstopher (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not notable outside of Gamergate controversy and spat with Zoe Quinn. More than half the sources aren't WP:RS, mainly blogs with no editorial policy, masthead, etc. in particular GamesNosh, GamePolitics, Cinema Blend are blogs without policies on corrections etc. Most of the sources are about Gamergate rather than TFYC. Two sources are primary (TFYC statement on how profits would be shared while not defining profits.). Several writers quoted were identified as being associated with ("of") publications they are not on staff with (Erik Kain writes for Forbes Community website, a group blog, not Forbes magazine; Alum Bokhari wrote only one article for TechCrunch and is a Breitbart writer, the epitome of non-RS). Article needs a rewrite with RS, which may be so thin it will indicate need to merge if not delete.

Also missing is number of TFYC staff and that the founder, the only named staffer, works for or owns Autobotika, the Colombia-based game studio creating Afterlife Empire (winning game entry). Raises question how independent TFYC is from Autobotika.

Finally, if this article stands, Gamergate sanctions apply and should be posted here. 70.197.8.213 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rappard has stated he is not being paid by Autobotika or anyone else for producing this game. Autobotika is a contractor for TFYC. http://www.seethrureview.com/home/the-fine-young-capitalists-indiegogo/ I remind IP that BLP applies to talk pages too. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section - Autobotika

Fellow editors, I have reverted a recent edit which included mention in the lead section of Autobotika; as a general production partner for TFYC. The reversion is based on a) the lack of prominence given this aspect in the main body of this article; b) that the inclusion appears to imply a general partnership between the two organisations; which may not be supported from TFYC Tumblr[1]. I have also corrected the spelling, and bolded the term Autobotika, in the main body, per MOS on redirects. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense, as Autobotika's partnership with TFYC was only for their game jam. They've also done separate work with Mercedes Carrera that didn't involve Autobotika. I'm also guessing their failed comic book scheme didn't involve autobotika Brustopher (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That's essentially the details as I understand them from the sources that we have available. On review, I'll also add c) the inclusion appears based on "production partner" being a commutative relationship - that is, if Autobotika is TFYC's production partner then TFYC is also Autobotika's production partner. Looking at the website & Tumblr sources, I do not believe that this is supported. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, after thinking about it, I have requested to G7 the Autobotika redirect, since it is not really mentioned in depth in this article. sst✈ 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit - phrasing may not align with WP:BLP & WP:NPOV

Fellow Editors, Please note that I have just reverted this edit, because I am concerned that the phrasing included does not best meet our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. Notwithstanding these phrasing concern, the material at the core of the edit seems largely verified* by the source referenced. I have suggested to the editor making the edit that we workshop the phrasing here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC) * NB: verified that the claims were made; not as to the veracity of those claims.

Concerns are briefly: Claims are sourced to an interview with an interested party, we should position all claims not independently verified as claims - e.g. After neglecting an offer to work with The Fine Young Capitalists as a consultant needs to be identified as a claim; then ostensibly bribed TFYC, in their own words identifies this as a claim, but would be better phrased with the positioning upfront, rather than after the contentious claim itself. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say your proposed changes make sense. In fact, as long as the information remains intact, I would be open to virtually any change to the wording. Oobooglunk (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: The edit above has now been revdeleted. So that editors can effectively make comment on any proposed content, the source referenced was, to the best of my knowledge, this from APG Nation. NB: The inclusion of this link is made under WP:BLPTALK. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For some history, APGNation isn't treated as a reliable source and we're using it for primary sourced information about TFYC not for controversial claims about Quinn. It's a mistake that's been made before though, so I'd suggest that we replace all APG interview citations with Cathy young's reason piece[2], that mentions the basic story but doesn't repeat any of the more extraordinary claims of the interview. Brustopher (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The article mentioned above directly cites Know Your Meme as an authoritative source. Does that make KYM a reliable source for this article? Oobooglunk (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No because this is just one writer's opinion. KYM doesn't have the form of editorial oversight and recognised expertise which would make it a reliable source. Brustopher (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kiyoshiendo (talk · contribs) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put the rest of my review on hold, as I have one major issue with this article:

  • The good article critera requires that a Good Article be "Broad in its coverage", addressing "main aspects" of the subject.

As far as I see it, there are many bits of information that need to be addressed, such as:

  • Group philosophy
  • History and founding
  • Notable members of the group
  • Legal status
  • and reception and critcism of the movement.

Not all of these subjects need to be included, and as the article stands, it does not have enough information to be of significant use to readers seriously interested in the group, especially compared to other Good Articles. It is, however, summary and well-formatted, and what information is there is well-written.

As always, please put your comments down below, and be proud of what you can accomplish.

I see that you are a new user. I understand that you may want more information to be inserted into the article, but unfortunately there is insufficient coverage from reliable sources about these aspects of the organization. GA does not require comprehensiveness. I believe that at its current state, the article does address the main aspects of the topic. sst✈discuss 04:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a difficult problem for you to solve. As that means there is not enough information to put into the article, then it means that the article will never improve. Until new sources exist, it is not broad enough to be considered a good article. This is a very curt explanation, we both understand, and I am sorry this is so. The upside is that you have about a week to look up sources. Good luck. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just my opinion here. I don't think that's possible. The group has been notable primarily for it being involved with controversy rather than its only game. I do not think there are anymore sources to be found for it. Might need to hear an outsiders opinion on this. GamerPro64 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with GamerPro64. The topic meets WP:GNG, but there are not that many reliable sources that address the topic outside GamerGate. sst✈discuss 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you suggest? A peer review? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think opening a peer review during a good article nomination is a good idea. sst✈discuss 08:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think a second opinion from a more experienced editor is needed. GamerPro64 13:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. This big concern of mine is that the good article criteria will be cheapened if we apply it to articles that are skimpy on the content. Would you like to recommend another editor? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Made a request for a 2nd opinion. It makes sense that this might take a while due to how controversial the subject is but hopefully someone will answer the request. GamerPro64 19:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cloning my comment from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1: I find Feminist Improvising Group interesting, because it manages to be a good article with proper references by stretching out its limited citations for all they have. The article has a lot of content despite what little has been written about the group. I think a similar length can be achieved with The Fine Young Capitalists. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, a major difference would be that Feminist Improvising Group is much older than TFYC, and has scholarly sources, which TFYC does not have. Since TFYC is clearly involved in GamerGate, almost all sources are going to be about GG, with not many sources focusing on the organization itself. When improving the Depression Quest article, another topic associated with GG, to good article status, I too was asked for video game aggregate scores, but simply could not provide them due to the low number of actual reviews. I am afraid that the article in its current state has already utilized the available reliable sources on this subject, but I may be able to take a fresh look at the sources themselves later to see if anything else can be extracted. sst✈discuss 00:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a question. Is there any information on the game they made? From what I heard it was finished and is on Steam. GamerPro64 01:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The article has covered this; it has been released on Steam. I think there may be sufficient coverage to create a separate Afterlife Empire article, but that is irrelevant right now. However, looking at this article from a website called GamerGate Wiki, it seems possible to expand this article using the APGNation source. Thoughts? sst✈discuss 02:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the APGNation interview, question one might be helpful. They talk about their mission. Guess that can be considered their group philosophy. GamerPro64 05:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • W.r.t the aspects Group philosophy; History and founding; Notable members of the group; Legal status; and reception and criticism of the movement, suggest that the TFYC Tumblr might contain some information that we could use - even as a primary source for the first four aspects. The Tumblr appears to contain additional information to what is provided on the website. I will endeavour to find something there, but appreciate any efforts of other editors. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion, since this nomination seems to have stalled: while we always are bound by the sources available, I do think that this article is missing some required information, and has structural issues. It talks about the projects that the group has done, and the results/controversies associated with them, but it doesn't talk at all about the group itself. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, containing no information that is not present (and cited) in the article body, but this article lead/infobox contains what little information about the group the article has (founded by Matthew Rappard, founded in Toronto, calls itself a radical feminist group)- none of that is in the body. It's even cited in the lead, since it's not present anywhere else. Even if there isn't a lot out there, this article would need a section in the body saying "TFYC was founded by blah blah in blah blah at blah blah date. It calls itself a blah blah, and its stated aims are "blah blah". I don't think an article that doesn't have even a few sentences on the article's nominal subject can be considered a GA. --PresN 03:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer, PresN, and Kiyoshiendo: Trying to get this wrapped up so pinging both of you. Hopefully everything will and can be all settled here. GamerPro64 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think Kiyoshiendo is inactive, so the GA review would have to be closed by another editor. sst✈(discuss) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Kiyoshiendo has edited on Wikipedia within the past four days, so it would be premature to give this over to another editor. I've just posted on Kiyoshiendo's talk page, asking whether the review here will be resumed or if a new reviewer should be found. PresN's second-opinion comments are significant; has anyone addressed them yet? If so, the person doing so should note progress on this page. Thanks to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
At this point I am in no position to close this. Please find a significant reviewer, one who is capable and kind. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PresN's comments, and I think I have somewhat addressed them. sst✈(discuss) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset asked if I could take over as the reviewer here; I'm fine with that if no one has any objections. Bit busy at the moment catching up after the holiday, but I'll look over the changes later on today. --PresN 17:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PresN. I've taken the liberty of updating the GA nominee template on the article talk page from "2ndopinion" to "onreview" since you'll be taking over. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Review #2

Okay, rather than just continue the review above, I'm going to start over here. A lot has changed with the article, and I don't want to restrict myself to what the original reviewer said. Here goes:

  • "after independent game developer Zoë Quinn criticised the group’s women-only game design contest." - the wording implies that she criticized it for being "women-only"; would be better as just "after independent game developer Zoë Quinn criticised the group's initial design contest.", and leave the details to the more nuanced discussion in the body.
  • The lead doesn't summarize the new history section; add a sentence about the founder/mission.
  • "the inspiration from the group came from the underused ideas due to a lack of interest from business communities" - wonky ("from" the group) and hard to parse. Maybe "the inspiration for the group was the prevalence of underused game ideas due to a lack of interest from business communities"
  • "The group noted [...] from socialization, noting" - repetition of note; you also use the word again in the next sentence
  • "The group attempts to increase awareness of the men that support women, and noted that they accept donations from people of different backgrounds, by focusing on the game itself instead of the feminist ideology" - this reads like two sentences ran into each other and interleaved; the first and third clause seem to go together (though should start with "in addition" or something similar, since it's a separate idea from the previous statements), while the second clause (the donations one) has nothing to do with anything, really. Maybe it should be "The group accepts donations from people of any background, and refused to reject donations from 4chan users because of their perceived ideology.", or something like that.
  • "The group's first project is an initiative" - was an initiative, since it completed
  • "Five nominees were selected and the nominee to receive the most crowd-funding would have the game" -> "Five nominees were selected and the nominee who received the most crowd-funding would have their game"
  • Autobótika should not be bolded; bolding is not used for emphasis.
  • A little more details on what the Greenlight program is would be helpful
  • "TFYC stated that the winner would receive a portion of the profits with most of it going to charity, while all rights would remain with the women who submitted proposals, and that their transgender policy only said someone had to have identified as female prior to the contest as a means to prevent men from lying about their gender identity in order to participate." - this sentence is super long and kept jarring me as I read it; would be smoother as "TFYC made a statement in response reiterating that while the winner would receive a portion of the profits, most would go to charity, and that all rights would remain with the women who submitted proposals. They also clarified that their transgender policy only required submitters to have identified as female prior to the contest as a means to prevent men from lying about their gender identity in order to participate."
  • "After some delay to review the inclusiveness of their policies and finding nothing wrong, they opened the project" - a little editorializing, would be better as "After a delay to review the inclusiveness of their policies, TFYC decided not to change the wording and opened the project"
  • "SNless is another project being pursued by TFYC, which concerns the representation of minority groups in science fiction and allows those who identify as black to submit a black character with five winning entries being reproduced in a graphic novel." - another winding sentence, and a single-sentence paragraph; should be chopped up as perhaps "Another project pursued by TFYC is SNless, which concerns the representation of minority groups in science fiction. SNless is a contest in which submitters who identify racially as black propose a black character design. The five winning entries will be reproduced in a graphic novel."
  • The lead should mention that they have two other projects going on
  • Does the porn/STEM project have a name?
  • When did the SNless/STEM projects start? What is their current status?
  • "After the Gamergate controversy began" - when was that?
  • Did the other 4 videos after the Roberta Williams one ever get released? The article just says they were planned.
  • "that would not let 4chan take part in a project" - unless they specifically stated it this way, would make more sense as "that would not let people take part in a project because they participated at 4chan", since 4chan didn't do anything, people who go there did
  • Did the Reddit character ever get made?
  • "an entirely ordinary, non-idealized female role model." - period goes outside the quote, since you're not quoting a full sentence.
  • Don't link Afterlife Empire here; not only would the first link be way up above, it just redirects here
  • Hmm, I seem to remember a blog post or something by Quinn where she talks about why the agreement with them fell through; would probably be good to include that if possible, though only in brief. I think it was something about them stopping communication with her and making disparaging remarks in public? There's always a ton of context missing in any discussion about their interactions, since so much else was going on at the same time involving both of them.

Okay! Mostly grammar and flow issues, only a few content bits needed; the addition of the history section really helps. --PresN 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Accidental DDOS and transphobic claim

I've removed the bit about the "accidental" DDOS for a couple of reasons. One, stupid scare quotes that seem to imply intent. Two, it's not a fair summation of the source, which is basically saying because she tweeted about it a lot of people went to the website. Basically the Slashdot effect. And finally, it's sourced to a WP:NEWSBLOG, which isn't good enough for a claim with WP:BLP implications.

I've also removed the tag on sentence sourced to AGP nation "called TFYC transphobic and exploitative towards women.". The AGP nation source does not support that claim. First of, it's an interview, so you'd have to attribute it, then they are attributing it to another person, so it would end up becoming "TFYC said that Chloi Rad said that Zoe Quinn said...". — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I have solved this problem. As for "accidental DDOS", I can always use Quinn's Twitter as a source. If detailed descriptions of the threats received by Quinn is acceptable (e.g. on the Gamergate controversy article), I don't see anything wrong with adding detailed descriptions of threats received by TFYC. sst✈ 02:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against including details, just that the source is not sufficient for the claim, and the adding the quotes took it well passed being a BLP violation. Strongjam (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy hell, this article passed GA in this state? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Vivian and Lilian dates

Does anyone know the earliest known dates of these names and their characters being invented? Ranze (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilian? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
Hi Rich Farmbrough, This looks to be Lilian/Lillian Woods, an "anti-Gamergate" analogue of the Vivian James character. See: [3]. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm interesting. http://i.imgur.com/IZwPMpL.png is a (slightly redacted) screengrab of the original tweets, which answers half the OP's question - 29 October 2014. Not sure that LW is significant in terms of FYC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
There also appear to be a bunch of other characters (not recolours). I now recall I had seen Lilian in some web comics while researching other GG stuff, never realised she was created as an "anti" mascot - probably why the comics didn't make as much sense as they should have. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
Concur that there appear to be a number of different characters. Within the context of TFYC article, and the Afterife Empire game, we mention Gilda Mars, created for the Reddit donors. Likewise not certain if inclusion of LW as a derivative of VJ is significant in this article. I also have a vague recollection that there have been other characters created for various aspects of the wider GG controversy, but don't have a list of Who's who?. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Open source

Should mention that the game is open-source, and moddable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

If we have a reliable source, then I would support the inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

RS for TFYC article

Way back when an IP commented "More than half the sources aren't WP:RS, mainly blogs with no editorial policy, masthead, etc. in particular GamesNosh, GamePolitics, Cinema Blend are blogs without policies on corrections etc." We should sort this out. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Good lord, those were some bad sources. I've gone over it and removed several. Rationale for reach:
  • apgnation appears to be a personal blog with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy; their 'editorial policy' is vague and doesn't mention any editorial controls, only a mission statement. They haven't posted anything since November, and this particular article is still on their front page. The fact that this is their top story, combined with the combative nature of their policies and the way they seem to have went quiet, makes me suspect that they were created specifically in order to participate in this controversy; but either way they clearly don't pass WP:RS.
  • Gamesnosh.com, same deal. Blog with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and, again, very little activity.
  • Numerous cites to TFYC's personal website for statements of fact.
  • Cinemablend. No editorial controls on their gaming section - they're glorified blogs. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. A WP:NEWSBLOG at best.
  • Forbes contributors. No editorial controls, essentially a WP:NEWSBLOG.
  • Cites to Steam and Youtube. Citing Steam for anything important is original research; while Youtube doesn't exert any editorial controls, so it's not WP:RS unless the video has been published elsewhere.
  • Gamepolitics. It's a blog, although a higher-profile blog than some of the ones listed above.
I left in most of the stuff that these things cited to give people a chance to find better sources, but eventually we're either going to have to source it better or remove it - this article's sourcing is pretty awful. Even the sources that remain are, by and large, not what I would consider high-quality - I just removed the ones that I felt clearly failed WP:RS or which it was clearly original research to cite in the way we were. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
What you did makes it hard to figure out which bits are poorly sources... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's my take on these sources:
  • APG Nation: interview from a source not considered reliable by VG/RS discussions; WP:INTERVIEWs may be used as primary sources for a subject's statements about themselves, but should not be the main source for an article. See my further comments Below.
  • Gamesnosh: Not considered reliable at VG/RS.
  • TFYC page: may be useful as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for uncontroversial claims about themselves, but yeah, generally not a good source to use.
  • Cinemablend: Not considered reliable for video game topics per WP:VG/RS.
  • Forbes contributors: Forbes citations are listed as "situational" sources by WP:VG/RS, which says to avoid pieces by "contributors" if possible, as they are effectively just bloggers with no real editorial oversight. Eric Kain is a "contributor".
  • I didn't see anything cited to Steam. The cite to YouTube was to the subject's own channel for material that didn't seem noteworthy (just stating they made videos on Corrinne Yu and Anna Kipnis).
  • Gamepolitics: WP:VG/RS has apparently not come to a conclusion as to whether this is reliable, after multiple discussions. Probably better to discuss this one on its own merits.
--Cúchullain t/c 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
we should probably restore http://store.steampowered.com/app/367710/Afterlife_Empire/ ref for description of the game ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Artw (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A review of current sources

  1. Vice
    1. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/these-porn-stars-are-getting-naked-for-charity-823
    2. "These Porn Stars Fisted for Charity"
    3. I can't believe we're using this article...
  2. gamesindustry: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    1. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-28-new-game-design-content-for-women
    2. New game design contest for women: The Fine Young Capitalists want your pitches by April 14
  3. campusreform: http://www.campusreform.org/
    1. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6228
    2. Students encouraged to apply for porn-funded scholarship
    3. That headline...
  4. Techcrunch:
    1. https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/indiegogo-campaign-hacked-this-weekend-but-wasnt-part-of-a-widespread-attack/ -
    2. Indiegogo Campaign Hacked This Weekend, But Wasn’t Part Of A Widespread Attack
    3. RS, but related sentence in article is not correct.
  5. crowdfunderinsider
    1. https://www.crowdfundinsider.com
    2. https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/08/47715-indiegogo-reports-recent-campaign-hack-considered-widespread-attack/
    3. Indiegogo Campaign Hack Due to Compromised Password
    4. Is this RS? And related sentence in article is not correct
  6. DailyDot
    1. https://www.dailydot.com/
    2. https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/fine-young-capitalists-women-video-games-4chan/
    3. 4chan is actually behind this educational video about women in gaming
    4. Is DailyDot RS?
  7. TFYC self tweet
    1. https://twitter.com/TFYCapitalists/status/510137763161968640
    2. The question I have is if this amount was verified. Per: primary source
  8. Vice:
    1. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-the-female-gamer-mascot-created-by-anti-feminists-828
    2. Meet the Female Gamer Mascot Born of Anti-Feminist Internet Drama
  9. Techcrunch
    1. https://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
    2. Techcrunch may be RS, but why consider Allum Bokhari RS?
  10. TFYC self tweet
    1. https://twitter.com/TFYCapitalists/status/506646353607667712
    2. The question I have is if this amount was verified. Per: primary source
  11. Gameranx
    1. http://gameranx.com/
    2. he Fine Young Capitalists' Seemingly Noble Goals Don't Excuse them from Scrutiny
    3. Is Gameranx RS?
  12. Slate
    1. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/08/zoe_quinn_harassment_a_letter_to_a_young_male_gamer.html
    2. Letter to a Young Male Gamer

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a good idea to review the sources. Some of them are unusable on their face. I'll go through each of the ones you've identified:
  • Vice (#1 and 8) - Vice is a reliable source for news topics; author 1, Neha Chandrachud,[4] and author 8, Allegra Ringo,[5] appear to be established writers on relevant topics.
  • Gamesindustry.biz (#2) is a reliable source for video game topics according to WP:VG/RS; the author, Rachel Weber, was a senior editor at the publication.
  • Campus Reform (#3): definitely not a reliable source, it's merely a conservative online student publication. This needs to be removed, stat.
  • TechCrunch (#4 and #9): Recent discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard determined that TechCrunch is not usually a reliable source; this follows many ambivalent discussions as to whether it's reliable for video game topics specifically. Articles by staff writers as opposed to guest contributors or articles based on press releases are more likely reliable, but with this publication each source should be should be discussed on its own merits. Here, #4 is by a staff writer and thus may be reliable, but it says effectively none of what was attributed to it. #9 is an op-ed piece not identified as such in the text; the writer is not TechCrunch staff and isn't so prominent that he's a "significant viewpoint" on the subject that should be included. This should be removed.
  • Crowdfunderinsider (#5): No indication that this is reliable; it appears to be a PR site for the crowdfunding industry.
  • DailyDot (#6): Past discussions summarized here have apparently determined Daily Dot generally reliable, but that some authors or topics are not. It would appear to be fine for the sentence it's used for, though the noteworthiness of that sentence isn't clear to me.
  • Tweets from the subject (#7 and #10). It's probably fine if we say "The Fine Young Capitalists stated..."
  • GameRanx (#11): Not reliable per WP:VG/RS.
  • Slate.com (#12): Written by David Auerbach; this is clearly reliable for Auerbach's opinion, though the quote doesn't really capture what he's saying here. He's saying that the cause of helping women in video games is good, and if it works, it moots criticism that young male gamers were only donating out of spite.
Overall, this is pretty troubling to find in a WP:GA, where one of the criteria is that statements must be attributed to reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 15:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I don't believe this article is a 'good article', so I'm listing it for reassessment. That is to say, I will, as soon as I figure out how. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: and @PresN:, what do you two think? —Torchiest talkedits 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
That while the instructions are way too wordy, that they're at WP:GAR? Anyone can put a GA up for review, it's not a big deal. It appears that a bunch of changes got made in the month or two after I reviewed this article, and then recently someone's gone through and ripped out a bunch of sources and replaced them with cite needed tags; without looking further into it if those tags stand then yeah, it's a problem re: GA status. Not going to do more than glance at the cites that were removed right now, though... really? A cite needed tag for Afterlife Empire getting released, because you removed the Steam listing that includes the release date? That's... well. Also, above, someone mentions that APGNation is a blog without real editorial controls, just a vague mission statement. Well, 2 seconds popped up their editorial policy, which includes "The Editorial Board, including the Owner, reviews all article content — including news topics, profile interviews, and opinion articles — for accuracy and consistency before publication.". So... maybe the whole citation removal should be reverted as vandalism, if this is the level of checking they did beforehand. --PresN 03:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha, no, the sources were garbage and this article is likewise crappy, so clearly something went wrong in that process. I think probably this is a deletion candidate if it cannot be merged. Artw (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: The APGNation source was an interview with TFYC. So that's acceptable to use. I honestly don't see any issues with the sources, especially with the people calling for its GA removal not giving out any specific reasoning to remove it from GA status without it looking like a vendetta. GamerPro64 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Googling APGNation [6] I get a mostly dormany Twitter handle, a Gamergate wiki and a dormant YouTube channel as top responses. I do not think it is a very high quality source. That it sprang into existence in 2014 is also suspect. Artw (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, interviews are allowed as sources. It doesn't matter what website they're from. If they're interviews, they can be used as sources because its a direct source from the person they're interviewing with. GamerPro64 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the interview source should probably be added back in, see WP:INTERVIEW. It should be treated like a primary source, and it was definitely over-used. Looking at the history it was the most-cited source. Typically we don't want our most used source to be a primary one. — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
As I noted below, I think how the interview is used should be examined carefully. It is used to make two kinds of claims one that are ok for self information, but also claims that need outside verification. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, I completely forgot about this. Sorry guys, I've put it up now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The APG Nation interview is a very troublesome source. Per WP:INTERVIEW it may be used, at least as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but we need to consider what WP:INTERVIEW actually says:
  • The interviewer: Is this a recognized journalist?
No, the interviewer appears to have no background in writing outside of this site (where they are one of the primary contributors) and similar game blogs.
The interviewee is the subject of the article.
  • The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about her upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?
The main subject is the subject itself. This is acceptable for capturing the subject's own statements about themselves, but it isn't acceptable for it to be the main source used in the article.
The publication is a video game blog, and isn't considered a reliable source by VG/RS discussions.
--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

this campaign has been hacked image

Wanted to double check. I don't know the image policies about copyright on Wikipedia well enough. Is this image ok to use? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

RS question 2: crowdfundinsider

"Crowdfunderinsider (#5): No indication that this is reliable; it appears to be a PR site for the crowdfunding industry." [sic] (https://www.crowdfundinsider.com) per Cúchullain. I looked at the website, and they don't have a good editorial policy. And looks more like a newsletter/PR website. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree on this.--Cúchullain t/c 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed this source. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

One RS topic at a time: APGNation

Is APGNation an RS? Their editorial policy has been cited, but that's different than following it. And Cúchullain has identified the problems aside from whether or not they have followed that policy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference, this is the article. As I said above, APGNation was discussed at WP:VG/RS here and the discussion found it not reliable. It was also discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard here with similar results. The author also doesn't appear to have a background in journalism; according to their bio on the interview, other than writing for this blog they have mostly written fiction. I don't find anything else more recent besides similar blogs. Per WP:INTERVIEW we are able to use interviews for uncontroversial WP:PRIMARYSOURCE material, but we are expected to consider whether the publication are reliable. It's also a problem to rely so heavily on primary sources for basic information about a subject.--Cúchullain t/c 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Even if we allow the APGNation cite as an RS, the claims made in this WP:INTERVIEW go way beyond what we can include via WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. e.g. that claim that someone withdrew $10,000. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it again. They flatly fail WP:RS on several counts. Their "editorial policy" is a statement of their beliefs rather than a commitment to editorial controls; more importantly, though, they have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. And as I said above, based on their history and the fact that they seem to have gone dormant, I suspect that they were created solely to weigh in on this specific controversy (notably, the interview is still on their front page despite being three years old.) An interview someone threw on their blog isn't, I feel, something we can legitimately cite for anything at all. --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Aquillion's assessment in addition to the stuff Cúchullain identified. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the bits that an interview cannot be used for RS. I left the rest; waiting on final consensus for APGN RS status. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone going to support keep APGN as RS? I'm going to remove soon, otherwise. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Quoting Brustopher above:

For some history, APGNation isn't treated as a reliable source and we're using it for primary sourced information about TFYC not for controversial claims about Quinn. It's a mistake that's been made before though, so I'd suggest that we replace all APG interview citations with Cathy young's reason piece[7], that mentions the basic story but doesn't repeat any of the more extraordinary claims of the interview. Brustopher (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

verification

  1. Reddit users raised $3700, making them eligible to create a character.
Can we use TFYC's own claim for this? There is no independent verification of this.
  1. Scholarship awarded.
Can we use TFYC's own claim for this? There is no independent verification of this.
  1. amassing over US$23,000 total in funds for the group.
Can we use TFYC's own claim for this? There is no independent verification of this.
  1. US$5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign
Can we use TFYC's own claim for this? There is no independent verification of this.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists/Archive_1&oldid=1146511512"