Talk:Wiki-furcord crisis

Why?

Other than MarketPliers permanently leaving, is there anything inherently going on in the wiki only that warrants a page instead of merging this to the Seventh Soysurgency page? I believe most of this is mirrored from a previous version too Rickert (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Whole original page of the Seventh Soysurgency was written by a crackhead stringing together very incoherent and inundated interpretations of events in the past few days. If you see for yourself the events are not at all correlated and have been hammed up to fit a grander perspective. It was either deleting the whole article or separating it into relevant sub-articles or editing sections into other relevant pages.

If your question comes from an internal confusion on WHY the article should exist in the first place, that's not a bad question to ask in general but you shouldn't ask me since I didn't write the damn thing. You should ask @TheCatalan1977, I'm simply filtering out the big page into relevant articles - the original page had sequences of events that were not relevant in the slightest to the topic of Soysurgencies, nor were they related to each other. That guy's a fucking moron. --Funnybenny18 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree the page currently is not well written, but from what I see it wasn't Catalan who reverted your edit to the page. Abandoning the original page in a bad form and splitting into sub-articles is a bad idea doe, either you should incorporate these changes into that page and discuss it in its talk, or start a discussion there for its deletion so that you can proceed with splitting it up to different pages. Rickert (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Wiki though or tell you what to do myself, this is just my advice. maybe staff should step in here, but the edit war wasn't that long before you called quits and split the page. ntm no discussion Rickert (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The topic of the thread is in some sort of quantum-limbo between being relevant and being irrelevant - it is hyperinflated janny drama that shouldn't have had a page on it in the first place because it is REALLY SNCA. Two pages got brapped up and a janny got banned for 2 minutes, whoop-de-fuckin-doo. The hyper-autist responsible for 50%+ of the edits on the original page has made it relevant for some reason when it's basically the wiki equivalent of gossip.

It's not just about the fact that it's horribly written, it's also considering 99% of the subject material is some shit that doesn't really need an article. We don't need to be following up with the latest two minute long shitflinging edit warring- if we did there'd be a hundred wiki crisis pages. I'm giving the article some leeway considering it's a high-activity article and other people have worked on it, but if you look at the version of Seventh Soysurgency before it was made to reflect the current leakage happening in the soysphere you'll find the page is a pseudo-happenings page that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Don't know how it got vetted through- don't know how some of the shit written wasn't double checked due to the quality of the writing. Beats me, and it's not my position nor is it my jurisdiction to criticize how this site functions specifically but @TheCatalan1977 is a plague on this site that must be curbed and neutered. It's nothing to do with an edit war or a differing opinion, or bias or whatever. His articles are complete dogshit, I'm just doing the best I can to keep the content of the articles around on this site, and have them actually be related to whatever is relevant in the soysphere currently. --Funnybenny18 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Most edit war drama don't result in a split page, that's why I made my comment, otherwise nophono cares till you break the rule on it. It's not gossip if it happened, and overdramatization on the first day is inevitable to some degree, true for any wiki. If you think the original page is busted and has false information, you shouldn't give it leeway, be bold. The Wiki should not promote false information. I don't intend to involve myself in any drama here, but the original page is the result of a lot of users edits like you said, not just Catalan. It's you against them, so you need to make your point clear and present your argument, otherwise you will be overwritten by said users almost immediately. The way you titled this page, we currently have two "wiki" narratives regarding the issue. Rickert (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright-right-right look, let's do a practical example. I want you to summarize Seventh Soysurgency (the pre-relevant version) to me using all the subjects and events in the article, and I want you to relay that back to me in your own words. Can be just a small paragraph or whatever- but I want you to read that article back to me exactly how the article phrases itself and communicates events and their relevance to you.

Okay, now don't actually do this because it's a waste of time and it'll just prove my point, and I don't want to waste your time over something so trivial. It's not about it being factually or literally incorrect, it being based on incorrect information, assumedly; it's about the fact that all of the events and topics discussed in the article- all they are is a metaphorical shopping list of things that happened in the last few days.

It's not about it being irrelevant or SNCA or gossip, it's about it LITERALLY being a page just full of gossip and SNCA with NO real point to keeping it, because to keep all of the written events together, in and of itself makes the article incoherent and ludicrous. The article jumps around from Furcord to Smuglet spam; soysphere outages to Boorubux being added, and it makes ZERO sense overall. It is infinitely benefited by the concept of filtering all the events and happenings into respective pages where they are more relevant, more informative and more related to such pages. I'm not against keeping this stupid SNCA gossip up on the site but I'm putting it in places where it actually is relevant to its own subject. Also fuck that retard @TheCatalan1977 --Funnybenny18 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We are not in disagreement that:

1. the original page is structurally bad, 2. something should be done about it, 3. the original page would benefit greatly from being unfucked. (while at it, soyvil war 5 is in dire need of unfucking too)

Nor is my concern here really the quality of the page (that is my opinion). I made this discussion to talk about the process. By splitting this "chunk" from the original page, while the original still has content about it, we have two pages covering the same event. I don't think a perspective split works either, if you are objecting to facts. Anyways, I don't want to waste your time either, but this current setup is confusing and won't work, but I won't involve myself further, let other wiki editors come up with what they think is best by their own edits and discussion. It's not my, or anyone else's job to be snopes, the Wiki is a consensus page; that page is the consensus. If you want to, start a discussion regarding the awful status of the original with what you think should be done about it. References are your friend, and I'll support you if you can point to the misinformation and edit them out this way. Rickert (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)