Talk:Timeline of the MicroWiki community/Archive 1

Yablokogate

"A brief return of Robert Lethler results in the Yablokogate Scandal, and the rebirth of the GUM becoming public knowledge. Lethler publishes a dossier (endorsed by several other GUM members) revealing Yabloko to be at best a non-serious micronation and at worst little more than a forum-based game, with senior figures within it plotting to control the community. Lucas attempts to refute some of the claims, but controversy remains over Yabloko and its position in the community."

Doesn't seem very neutral. Should be fixed to reflect no subjective point of view. --Gishabrun (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (BST)

This has already been fixed, I believe it was Wilary who took part in discussions to establish the current form of words. Message me on Skype if you want to further discuss it, though, as I'll reply a lot quicker than on here. Austenasia (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2014 (BST)

Update PLZ

Please update this I really want to know what is going on

Thank you kind sir!

-Baty1117

Resolving a Minor Edit Conflict

I have recently undone a couple of edits on this page, as following discussion with community members, there is no community consensus for a new era being made from my observations and dialogue with senior figures in the community. I gave a extensive note that may be viewed in the revision history. However, User:Austin Jaax has ended up reverting these edits once more. For the sake of preventing an accidental edit war, and reaching a dialogue/community consensus, I would like to discuss this here. I will be posting this on the #wiki channel on MicroWiki@Discord too so as to get a few more voices on board. To sum it up, there is no community consensus that there is a new era: in fact it is rather the opposite. Sertor (Chat) 22:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC

I would personally argue that while we are not in a new era, we are in a new period within the modern era. The April 2020 Micro Wiki community, and the October 2020 Micro Wiki community are quite different, which is something that I think that most people here would agree on. Austin (Chat) 6:58, 26 October 2020 (EST)

I quite concur with Austin, personally, the community changed drastically especially after Jon took a break, though personally, I wouldn't add Austin (as Microclub is still considered a very minor and new [in the terms of activity] server) to the leaders until Micro-Club gets really popular Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible  | 23:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

After discussion, we have reached a compromise and have edited the page accordingly to merge two eras together, and to put back the latest one to August. Sertor (Chat) 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Late Discord update

It is clear that MicroWiki@Discord seems to default back to its community hub position with Micro Club being dead. Should the section be updated or should this statement be contested? Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible  | 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MW@D is still definitely the largest community gathering place and hub (Compare the levels of activity), whether its admins admit it or not. Also, I feel it does seem wrong to label this current time period as the "Late Discord era", since there haven't been any signs of new communication platforms that will rise over Discord. For all we know the "Late" Discord era could go on for several more years, or perhaps never end. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Sez (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I shall concede that the title of the era is misleading, instead should have something like “Current” instead. However, the assumption that the era is solely focussed on the schism is false: that issue was resolved via editorial consensus last month. The start point of the era is in fact all the way back in August, with the general focus being akin to that of the events of June 2015.
I shall also note that this is not an era, but rather a subdivision of an existing one that has been ongoing since late 2018. Sertor (Chat) 19:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Bainbridge in Late era?

I do believe Bainbridge should be in the High Discord era instead of the Late era. He was debatably largely more influential during the High Discord, when he was GUM Chair, and served over and indirectly influenced the Morrisgate scandal which was heavy shock on the Discord. At the least add him to the High Discord era as well, as there is no reason for him to be omitted. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  8:32 p.m., 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Post-Jonathan Period

In the Discord era, I believe that the day Jonathan gave the operation of the Discord server to Karl Friedrich, Abrams Wiucki-Dunswed and Andrew Creed should mark the beginning of a new period in the Discord era, as it marked a drastic change in many parts of the community. • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CA

I agree that the CA should get a mention on the article (which was long overdue in fact), but is "Basic law is consolidated in the Cupertino Alliance after the ratification of the Charter Act, 2020." really that notable for inclusion in an article of this nature? This is a history of notable events of the community after all. Also on that note, should Lycon, as Chairman of the CA, not be regarded as a community leader during the Splintering period? I believe he did a lot with CA activity and growth during August–November to deserve at least a single mention in that period. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(Note I have a conflict of interest) Yeah I have to agree here. The basic law statement is not really notable but the GUM did do it so I find it reasonable for the CA to state their basic law document. I honestly believe it would be best for the renaming of "Splintering" to "The Rise of the CA" since there wasn't a really notable "splinted" discord server (i.e. the alternatives had like 5-10% of Discord members and had no activity compared to the mainland) plus the GUM and OAM had their own sections to ("Return of the GUM", "Rise of the GUM", "OAM"). If I recall the person who manages the leaders is @Austenasia: so he'll have to approve that. Finally, personally I would remove @Austin Jaax: from the Splintering section as he was quite busy during the time with his work in the NDP and Iustus became just another micronation (in no offence) Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 19:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree. I think mentioning the ratification and the increasing prominence of the Cupertino Alliance would be a good idea. What I disagree with is renaming 'Splintering' to the 'Rise of the CA': this places undue prominence to the Cupertino Alliance when in reality, it there was a lot more going on during this time. I think the splintering name is very accurate, as the whole dynamic of the community changed, with the decreasing focus of everyone on one server, and people spreading out in droves to regional/national servers, MW@D Clones (MicroDemocracy, MicroPub; additionally, the resurgence of older servers such as Micro-Club and Micronation-Cord), Social Clubs (Micropolitan Club and Lounge) and private group chats (The Cool Chaps, The Fun Gang). Sertor (Chat) 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Leaders

this is nothing against John but I don't think he should be considered a community leader for this period. Just owning the wiki so he is a leader is a decent argument however this occured on the discord server and honestly I don't think owning the wiki itself should qualify him as a community leader, he was not notable to this specific event and was quite quiet actually. Most people would not consider him a community leader in this era and more just behind the scenes running of the wiki website. He had barely any notability outside of simply owning the wiki and running it as well as running Austenasia. Which is notable but not notable enough to make me think he was a community leader in this period in the MW Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiah David (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 March 2022‎ (UTC)

@Isaiah David: I am inclined to concur; but to which period are you referring? It is hard to act without a clear referent. /swέna/ 💬 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theodia: Sorry for taking so long to respond and I should have included this in the original message but I was referring to the Current Era. Isaiah (Chat) 00:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed redesign; thoughts?

This is a radical change, so I thought it best to consult the talk page before making any edits. The article in its current state is strangely formatted: organised like a timeline and offering only brief overviews, the template separating text into eras is unconventional, allows for little information, and does not allow for images. There are also several missing dates, inaccuracies, and several prominent events are omitted (there is no talk of the 2018 intake and everything that predates October 2008 offers barely any information). I believe the article could be greatly expanded to be more inclusive with newer information that is now available to us, hence why I have made such an article at User:ZabëlleNB/History of the MicroWiki community. Evidently, it does remove the 'community leaders' table, however I believe the meaning is too subjective and unclear (is a community leader someone who is influential, powerful, well-known, infamous, ubiquitous, etc??). Please give any feedback you would like, and let me know if my proposed article is better than the current one. Additionally, please do not take note of the red links in the lead of the article (the Eras), as those are to be converted into redirects before its publication. P.s., any help with expanding 2021 would be greatly appreciated ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 23:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, this article's organization has always bothered me. I actually came to the talk page now to make a similar proposal. I do think that the article you are working from is a much better start and is already an improvement on the current article.--parker (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Austenasia:, your thoughts? 🥺 ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 13:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. I think there's a need for this article as a relatively simplified and easy to navigate timeline, but you're right, we need a proper "History of the Community" page. I've therefore renamed this article accordingly; please update the redirect when your sandbox is ready to publish. Austenasia (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I, too, support this endeavour; I only ask that the timeline page be allowed to continue existing. This article has been the way we've recorded our history since the days of the old Wikia. /swέna/ 💬 19:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Notables of Modern Era

More notable people are needed for the modern era section, as there are many notable people, I was thinking of adding Amelia I . 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is she particularly "notable" in the current period? No offence intended, I just don't see her around much. We will all have different ideas regarding who's notable/popular/influential based on the servers we're in and the different groups we interact with. I honestly think it's best we just scrap all together the idea of some particular people being "officially" prominent in some way; if they've done anything really noteworthy, it'll be mentioned in the time period's description. Austenasia (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Jonathan's proposal to entirely scrap the list of notable people. I am fairly active and known but still won't classify myself as "notable" unless someone else who has observed me and my activities classifies me as notable. The entire "notable" and "non-notable" will continue as everyone known or unknown will try to popularize themselves. Even I noticed that Devin Purcell was mentioned on the list until someone removed his name. He is rarely active and even if he is active, it is only at certain places. Oritsu.me (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps from here-on-out, we limit the Notables list to just people explicitly mentioned in the time period's descriptions? That would give us an actual definition for what "Notable" means, and make it harder for people to just randomly add themselves to the list. /swέna/ 💬 14:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should also look at trimming the Notables/Leaders sections in previous eras, as well -- there are a lot of people that have been added, and some maybe shouldn't be there. /swέna/ 💬 15:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Who do you have in mind specifically? Austenasia (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have many particulars. Especially in recent eras, there are quite a few people I've not heard of (which is of course not in itself reason to remove them!); I was hoping someone with greater involvement in the community (such as yourself) could review them, and ensure the lists are not overpopulated with minor characters and irrelevancies. Shamus I is one of the ones I had in-mind specifically: I've never heard of him, he doesn't have an article on MicroWiki, and his micronation's article leaves much to be desired. Did he play a large-enough role in 2015 to deserve enumeration? Shiro is another one I'm curious about. /swέna/ 💬 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Random, but I do not really see how Jaax is there either. He held no notable positions nor any influential ventures, and neither was he ubiquitous outside of a few nations such as Abelden. I would much rather see Lycon there for his work in the CA, which was the first organisation to challenge the GUM since the OAM. ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A comment on community "leaders": I think you make a good point; I'd rather they were renamed to "Notables", or something along that line. @Austenasia: Even though there is a consensus that community-wide leaders have not really existed since maybe 2020, it is nevertheless the case that certain individuals can be identified as playing notable roles even in MicroWiki's recent history. I would like therefore to re-introduce that column to the Late Discord / Modern Era, just with the name "Notables" instead of "Leaders". /swέna/ 💬 19:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Late Discord vs Modern Era

@Austenasia: Since we've entered into a bit of an edit skirmish on this one, I figured I'd bring it up here in the talk page. I view Black February as an era-changing event; and 2020-2022 is sufficient time for an entire era to pass. If "Stagnation" is sufficient as an end to the Early Discord Era, then I argue that "Black February" is sufficient as an end to the Late Discord Era. Why continue to combine this completed era with the presently-unfolding one? Especially with the old MicroWiki@Discord dead and completely replaced with one of rather different inclinations. /swέna/ 💬 17:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As a temporary (but possibly permanent) compromise, I've renamed the "Modern" era to "Late Discord". Apart from this change, it's mostly as you left it. /swέna/ 💬 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theodia: That's fair. It's certainly sufficient time, but I feel that it's usually best to decide an "Era" has ended with quite a bit of retrospect, not just a few months. My main objection is to the term "Late" Discord, as I see no reason to think that we won't still be using Discord several years from now. Austenasia (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Austenasia: Yes, I have the same qualm with that term when used for a combined period. My main reason for using it as opposed to "Modern" is as a differentiator to the pre-existing "Early Discord" era. If we end the "Late Discord" era with Black February, then the moniker is more-reasonable, as it then functions as a shorthand for "Late MicroWiki@Discord". I do echo somewhat your concerns around a need for time to retrospect; but should the need arise, we could easily edit the page once again to make it reflect new understandings and insights. /swέna/ 💬 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this leaves us with 3 main options: (1) Rename "Late Discord" to "Modern" and wait for several months to a year before separating it into a different age; (2) separate "Late Discord" and "Modern"; and (3) combine "Early Discord" and "Late Discord" into "MW@Discord", rename "Post-Influence to "Late Discord", and separate the current period into a "Modern Era". /swέna/ 💬 19:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and selected option #3 for the time-being, as it [1] uses objective starts and ends (being the full history of the original MW@D server) and so should be unlikely to be refactored given further retrospection; [2] avoids our concerns around names; and [3] separates the Modern Era out. I'm happy to revert, change, etc -- just let me know. /swέna/ 💬 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this does actually make the most sense. Only change I'd make would be putting Black February in the Current Era. It makes more sense to me for the MW@D Era to end with the destruction of the server than with an admittedly somewhat arbitrarily chosen conversation in the GUM Lounge. Austenasia (talk)

I 100% agree -- I just included it in MW@Discord, since you'd moved it out of Modern previously. I'll make that change now. /swέna/ 💬 02:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Amusingly, this puts us basically back at 1162454, the edit right before your refactor. XD Granted, the names, event descriptions, and leader lists are better now, so it's not the same-same. But the grouping of events is, at least. /swέna/ 💬 03:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)