Talk:Gamergate 2.0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This article basically already exists
I made an article covering the Sweet Baby Inc Detected "controversy" that already covers everything in this article, and it's a lot more in-depth. We should probably just turn this page into a redirect.
LOLDONGS★ 00:08, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
- If I were you I'd merge the Sweet Baby Inc Detected article into this one because gamergate 2 is probably gonna spread out further like the first one and the sweet baby stuff is just gonna be a part of the whole scenario. JB | **(SQUARE UP NIGGA)** 00:35, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
- Stubs should go into the full articles. Especially since the Gamergate 2.0 article honestly kind of sucks. Right now there's nothing in the Gamergate 2.0 article that isn't mentioned more in-depth in the other one, so it'd be as easy as turning Gamergate 2.0 into a redirect. We can always rename Sweet Baby Inc Detected to Gamergate 2.0 down the road if the drama actually expands beyond that. LOLDONGS★ 21:07, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
- alright that sounds good I'm convinced JB | **(SQUARE UP NIGGA)** 21:40, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
- Stubs should go into the full articles. Especially since the Gamergate 2.0 article honestly kind of sucks. Right now there's nothing in the Gamergate 2.0 article that isn't mentioned more in-depth in the other one, so it'd be as easy as turning Gamergate 2.0 into a redirect. We can always rename Sweet Baby Inc Detected to Gamergate 2.0 down the road if the drama actually expands beyond that. LOLDONGS★ 21:07, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
- Yeah that's fine; I started this article because I did a search for "Gamergate 2/2.0" and nothing came up. I had planned on filling it out, but since your article about Sweet Baby already exists, I'm cool with "Gamegate 2" and "Gamergate 2.0" just redirecting it, at least until it gets bigger than just Sweet Baby alone... but I doubt that'll happen. -- Fleacollerindustry2 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2024 (EDT)