Talk:PC Master Race/Archive 1

Origin and Growth
I don't believe this is necessary as the origin is covered in the opening paragraph and growth is covered in the notable dates section.

Teaearlgraycold (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , keep in mind that intro paragraphs are supposed to summarize the article, not introduce new information that appears nowhere else. That's why intros don't need citations: the information's presumably cited where it crops up in the body text. Tezero (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , fair enough Teaearlgraycold (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone attempted to move this page to "PC master race" and lower-cased everything
I moved it back. That was completely unwarranted as were the intentional lowercasing of words within the article. Everyone should keep an eye out for over-complication vandalism in the future.Wikinium (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it was over-complication vandalism. I looked at the sources and about half of them use lowercase while half use uppercase so perhaps it could go either way. And the user who moved the page made the page much easier to edit (and vastly un-complicating things) by moving the references to the LDR format -- a cool thing to do -- maybe I'll learn how to use that tool too. Only one thing; about copyright rules about being careful not to over-quote, which is why I try only to use minimalist quotes, that is, just enough to make the point, without doing the whole quote which could be seen as violating the reporter's or magazine's rights to make $$ from the writing that they work hard to generate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it just appeared that way at first. They were doing it in good faith, but it was wrong nonetheless. When I moved the page back, it kept all the good work they did on the edits and stuff. Wikinium (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Image for the article
What would make a good image? Would a screenshot of a community do it, or should it be a fair-use example of Croshaw's original drawing?

Reddits /r/pcmasterrace may make a good screenshot. I'd dare say taken at 4K resolution, as it befits the subject151.224.187.161 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Screenshots (of websites) on Wikipedia don't need to be that big, especially if they contain copyrighted material (such as Reddit layout and logos). Dogman15  ( talk ) 08:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its also under copyright and doesn't add anything to the article. Keep that in mind. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Reason for belief in superiority"
Could there be a short section explaining popular reason behind the belief of PC superiority? As someone who's an active reader of gaming news, there's no shortage of reasons to believe PC to be advantageous over consoles. I feel the article should have a small section *explaining* the belief behind the cause. Wikinium (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the sources explicitly stating the words PC Master Race go into specifics about why the PC platform is seen as superior, then it can be added, with each sentence sourced. Problem is, if the article veers too much from being about the concept, veers towards being a debate about whether PCs or consoles are a better gaming problem, then there is a risk of original research and also risks another deletion battle, if the article gets topheavy with unsourced claims.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sources used in this article should be about the term, not the beliefs behind it. To include sources which speak generally of the merits of PC gaming would be synthesis and should be avoided. Sam Walton (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. The way you are writing seems like you don't know that PC actually is superior. Here is a source, that explains the superiority very detailed: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide 84.130.65.166 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

De-orphanizing
Can anyone think of any relevant pages? Internet memes and related pages... maybe Console peasant if it existed, but that'd be better as a subsection of this page.

Wikinium (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put it in a few "See also" sections, like that of PC gaming. It really doesn't fit in a whole lot of places, though. Tezero (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not point out that the entire PCMR community is satirical?
There has been controversy recently with an article from the magazine PC Gamer asking to the community to stop using the "Master Race" term due to the similarities with the Nazi ideology. As a member from the PC Master Race subreddit I can say that the entire community is satirical and I haven't met anyone who truly feels superior to other people. I think that my way to play games is superior to console gamer's way. I don't think I am superior to a console gamer. This should be clarified in my opinion.

--37.132.57.125 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide On the right side there is a box with General Information where it says: This is not a satirical or circlejerk subreddit nor did it start as one. This is a normal subreddit with satirical & circlejerk humor elements. Why do you think it is satirical? It is a fact that PC is superior to consoles in any way imaginable. Have a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide and you will see no satire, everything mentioned there is true. 84.130.65.166 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of it is satirical, and I think that's reflected in our article, but there is also a sizeable number without a single humorous bone in their body. — TPX 13:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * People in the PC Master Race subreddit are serious about their opinion when it comes to the PC vs console debate, but not that they actually feel that they themselves are better than anyone else. There might be a few people that think that but the entire group shouldn't be labeled as people that think that way.204.113.73.217 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding a picture to this page?
http://i.imgur.com/PMXCKOZ.png

Is it possible to use this picture for the article? It is the original one generated by Yahtzee on PCMR. Can we go ahead and use this, or is there a process we need to go through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connstable (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure we can, but the image must be low res to comply with the Wikipedia non-free content policy. Hakken (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial content discussion
I've added a section to this article mentioning the controversy around the term, and added some references to the concept of master race in the introduction. I suspect this will be a controversial edit, but I believe I've done a fairly good job of presenting the information in a neutral fashion. (I don't think *anyone* is suggesting that the majority of gamers or people using this term are racist, etc). If there are tone issues or anything of the sort, I of course welcome edits. However, please don't remove this content just because you think the term isn't offensive. Disagreeing is of course fine, but I don't think the fact that the topic is controversial is itself controversial. If you **do** feel inclined to remove this content, please at least follow the internal wikipedia links and references; I believe they provide enough context to explain that this content's inclusion is warranted. If you remove the content, please discuss your reasoning below. --Overand (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than PC Gamer, are the other citations to reliable sources? Sam Walton (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Debatable. Of the three references I used, one was an existing reference in the article (twsLinusTechTips, which is a forum link, however it's quoting GameCrate, which is a site managed by Newegg.  Reliable?  I'd give that a "probably").  One was PC Gamer, which I think we can agree is reliable.  The third, LazyGamer, seems at least noteworthy.  It's tricky to get a 'reliable source' about a largely-internet-linked social issue, especially as it relates to gaming.
 * All this said, I think it's plainly apparent that it's controversial to name something (jokingly, of course) after the nazi belief that justified eugenics, the holocaust etc. Again, I'm not saying anyone has to agree that it's "wrong" or offensive or anything of the sort.  Doesn't matter if someone thinks rape jokes are funny or not, Daniel Tosh's article still warranted a discussion of the controversy that blew up around him on that topic.  Obviously this isn't as widely known or discussed, being an internet-related, gaming-related topic.  Overand (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, about the surest sign that a controversy is worth mentioning is febrile debate over whether it should be controversial. We're perfectly within our jurisdiction in mentioning it as long as we're not taking the position that people who use this term really are racist, or even insensitive. (Although I don't hold any particular affinity for PC gaming, I use "master race" as a general approval clause terminator all the time.) Tezero (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We do need reliable sources though; if we're having a term about controversy there should be a strong indication that the controversy is important, and not just a few postings by random people, so we do need good RS coverage. I'm not sure that the other two sources are reliable, and then we're left with just the PC Gamer source, already mentioned in the lead, which I'm not convinced warrants its own section. Sam Walton (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing to associate it with Nazism is also ignorant of the origin of the terms - which began with Nietzsche who described as a philosophical not genetic ideal. Pushing a controversy into the Wiki article which outside of a few editorials (which were thoroughly slapped down by the originator of the term himself) seems unnecessary, uneducational and trying to promote a fringe activist point of view. - Primal Chaos (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the history of racial supremacy is long and detailed, but in this article we must concern ourselves solely with the origin of PC Master Race. Ben Croshaw explicitly says he was parodying Nazi Master Race ideology, so that should be our starting point. — TPX 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Croshaw also states the origin is irrelevant. So let's use that as the starting point rather than using an encyclopedia to engage in a shaming and social engineering campaign, shall we? - Primal Chaos (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you take the necessary time to read and digest our policies and cut out the accusations of bad faith. — TPX 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as Wiki policies, and I'll note my account is far older than yours since you saw clear to bring that up, take note of this one: Don't_be_a_fanatic. Attempting to draw a digital swastika on the page of a group you are accused of having a COI on isn't very impressive. The topic should be given the brief singular sentence the controversy stirred up by a single blogger deserves, as opposed to attempting to overly associate a community of tens of thousands with one of the most deplorable political movements of the 20th century. The two sentence reference by ferret below is quite adequate, without leading to bias. Also, since we are talking about policy, I'm willing to escalate this based on the belligerence of your tone with other users alone to whatever level you care to. - Primal Chaos (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think I have a conflict of interest, set aside your hat and do something about it. Actions, not words. — TPX 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the use of the term by the Nazis (and to a lesser extent, Nietzche) in the article. Croshaw didn't pull the term "Master race" from thin air. Disappointing that members of this forum appear to be coming out of the woodwork to whitewash this information. Breadblade (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing implies that the members of the group did anything but take a criticism regarding their arrogance and reappropriate it as a group, which is clearly the case and Croshaw implies himself; and the group itself has no origins in Nazi ideology. Dragging Nazis into this at the behest of a few activist bloggers is hardly NPOV, especially since the Nazis didn't even come up with the term; especially since it is coupled with an ongoing activist campaign to get rid of the phrase. In short, share your criticism on social media if you want, but the reference does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Primal Chaos (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The term Master Race has been associated with Nazism long before "activist bloggers" started criticizing this community for using the term. Breadblade (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing implies people are trying to hide their hidden Nazi associations - as opposed to the terminology having hopped through a couple sources to reach its current point, whereby it was an comedic insult that was then appropriated as a point of pride by a group of hobbyists with no particular fascist inclinations. The articles should make clear that any objection to the use of Master Race is a topic of a small minority of bloggers' sensitivities, not a reflection on anything resembling the political views of the group in question. - Primal Chaos (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Outside persuasion from /r/pcmasterrace
Editors who are attempting to erase historical information, and use this article as a soapbox to demonstrate how much greater PC gaming is, by coordinating their efforts with members of /r/pcmasterrace, need to stop immediately. The matter has been raised on WikiProject Video games#Outside canvassing. The next step is escalation, and to push for topic bans. — TPX 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazism & Holocaust troll edits
TPX has been attempting to vandalize (or troll) this page by including references to Nazism and The Holocaust ever since discovering that some month-old threads on /r/PCMasterRace pointed to various Wikipedia pages. I've witnessed several attempts over the course of the past week. Of course, when realizing I reverted his edits, he quickly stood behind a "three revert rule" and added it to my talk page in hopes of using it as a weapon to prevent me from interfering with his edits any further. Keep an eye out. I will admit that some of his edits are good, but he appears to have been obfuscating and burying some of his troll edits by rapidly submitting multiple small ones after them. This is not the first instance of them vandalizing this page. Wikinium (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "PC Master Race" has absolutely nothing to do with Naziism, Aryans, Jews, death camps, or the Holocaust. It's a term coined by Ben Croshaw entirely within the context of gaming.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Master_Race&diff=669024659&oldid=669005776
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Master_Race&diff=668897676&oldid=668897571
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Master_Race&diff=668897178&oldid=668896984
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Master_Race&diff=668896395&oldid=668895851
 * Wikinium, please assume good faith. These were not vandalism edits nor is ThePowerofX trolling. In fact this source says quite clearly that "It began as a joke from Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw, who was mocking our elitist attitude with the internet’s favorite analogy: the Nazi analogy" and "I obviously realize that no one is actually saying that PC gamers are the preferred people of Hitler." While I think that outright stating what the 'master race' was isn't something that should be in this article, I think it's worth making it clear that this is what 'master race' refers to. Sam Walton (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith stopped as soon as it became clear that he has a vendetta against the page. The reference to the origins of the term "Master Race" may belong here, but that doesn't mean that a summary of Naziism and the holocaust should be shoved in right at the beginning. Why not make a Misconceptions section and add the information there? A lot of people think that's what the term is about, which SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED. However, that's not what it's actually been about (or ever been about since Croshaw coined it), so it should also be included that it's a misconception. That way, the information is present, but not in a way that could confuse readers into thinking it's actually about Naziism or anything related to it. Wikinium (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These are sourced statements. I'm sorry you take offense to them. Please be neutral in your edits of PC and console related articles, and avoid the appearance that you are attempting to create bias towards one or the other. -- ferret (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assure you I don't. What I don't like is that it's in the wrong section. It should be placed somewhere that people can easily distinguish it as a misconception rather than an actual origination of the term. Wikinium (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You still do not seem to understand that we are discussing linguistic context alone. This is entirely appropriate under the section heading 'Origin and usage'. There is no misconception to correct. — TPX 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make an edit to clarify that, then. Wikinium (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us keep the sentence concise and straightforward. "In linguistic context..." should be enough to satisfy any concern you have. Nobody else appears to have a problem with this. And please build consensus for future revisions here on the talk page first. — TPX 07:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to do it in context, it would be proper to do it in the context of the heading of the section. Therefore, it would be proper to first describe the origin of the term which would be to strike the whole "In linguistic context..." sentence and keep the rest of the first paragraph intact. The rest of the paragraph already has a sourced reference to master race ideology and the whole "In linguistic context.." is therefore entirely redundant and doesn't add to the actual content of the article. --Aaronspink (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says no such thing, the only reference to "Nazis" is the writer plainly stating that "It began as a joke from Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw, who was mocking our elitist attitude with the internet’s favorite analogy: the Nazi analogy." and continues stating "I obviously realize that no one is actually saying that PC gamers are the preferred people of Hitler. That’s absurd, and it’s supposed to be absurd. It’s a joke." There is no reference implied or otherwise to a belief in genetic superiority, Nazi ideology or trying to "justify the holocaust", all of this is original research that TPX is trying to insert and frankly seems like an attempt of defamation towards a community. This article also isn't about master race ideology, but about the proper noun "PC Master Race", it would be equally unhelpful to refer to the linguistic origins of "rolling" and "stones" on the The Rolling Stones article. 79.247.114.233 (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The subsection is titled Origin and usage. That makes PC Gamer's comment on the subject, and those you omitted, entirely relevant. — TPX 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This incident, and others in which User:Wikinium is involved, has been brought up on the Administrators' noticeboard. Outside persuasion and canvassing from /r/pcmasterrace — TPX 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I nuked the mention of Naziism. Given that the article already links to master race ideology, it is not needed or appropriate. In addition, the ref name chosen, "cringe," suggests a bias on the part of the editor who added it. KiTA (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit makes zero sense. Might we also delete all reference to Ben Croshaw providing we retain a link to the magazine he works for, The Escapist? No, a piped link alone is no substitute for reliably sourced content. You need to provide a valid reason for your deletion. Implying that the editor of PC Gamer is "biased" is not an acceptable reason. — TPX 11:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I was editing an article about say, "Feminist philosophy," would I include the phrase, "Feminism, which is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women" at the start of the article? No, why would I?  A link to Feminism is just fine.  Similarly, just linking to "Master Race" is enough for this article.  KiTA (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Feminist philosophy" would be a daughter article to "Feminism", which is where background definition is provided. Moreover, feminism is a common unit of the English language. PC Master Race is not.  It has been described as a neologism and ideology. I'm not sure which is closer to the truth. This article is missing well sourced context, in any case.  — TPX 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "It has been described a... ideology." Citation needed. Where is this described as an 'ideology' beyond simply an enthusiast group has an 'ideology' favoring their preferred hobby? And no, the PC Gamer blogger doesn't count, since he's trying to make political hay. - Primal Chaos (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I find both of your arguments weak, TPX. 'Feminist philosophy' being a daughter article of 'Feminism' makes no difference and doesn't refute KiTA's argument. If a reader wants more background information he can click on the link provided and get that background information. That is what links are for. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says anything about background information in an article versus links to background information, but I do believe very strongly that there should be no overlap between articles, otherwise that would make information redundant and articles more tedious. Don't add more information than is required. Having a link to the background information should be enough. And again, your argument that Feminism is a well-known term but PC Master Race is not holds no water for the same reason. If more background information is needed, that information can be found through links. Why are links not sufficient for providing context? Omegastar (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I did not bring up this apples to oranges comparison. KiTA did. Of course backgrounds links are useful. Nobody has said otherwise. I'm struggling to understand why you would peruse this train of thought any further than that. Again, we have reliable sources with more logical relevance to the matter at hand. These sources discuss the controversy and present different points of view. A more pertinent question to ask is: "What good reason do I have to ignore them?" — TPX 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing for ignoring it completely. They are arguing against undue weight being spent on a minor controversy and a 'short history of the Nazis' being included in the article, when links to the pertinent information are already available. So, the question to ask is: "Does the article cover this minor aspect in proportion to how relevant it is to the topic at hand?" And the brief mention of the controversy and response is all that is necessary. If someone wants to read up on the Holocaust and Blood and Soil politics, they can do it in the relevant sections. - Primal Chaos (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That 'undue weight' and 'short history of the Nazis' consisted of "The master race concept is a Nazi ideology based around their perceived genetic superiority to all other races", before it vanished once more. Not exactly book length. One other thing that has been clearly demonstrated today, is the number of people who were blissfully unaware of the terms origin and what Ben Croshaw was intentionally parodying. Which is all the more reason for its reliably sourced inclusion. — TPX 23:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be explained in the 'master race ideology' link, which also goes into the various nuances you seek to deprive the article of, including its historical concept. And previous edits also included an entire paragraph that went into detail about the Nazis and the Holocaust, which was obviously unnecessary. Nothing you want is being excluded, other than longer attention than is due to the vileness of one common usage of 'master race', which is hardly necessary and seems, like others have noted, as an attempt to defame a group of people that others have sought to actively shame, whom are the only source for this 'controversy'. - Primal Chaos (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the full text that TPX wants to include, I really feel the need to insist people assume good faith and stop making accusation such as "attempts to defame" or suggestions of an agenda, or some sort of a conflict of interest. If you truly believe there's an agenda or COI at work, take it to ANI. There's already a section open there by TPX regarding him and Wikinium, you can post your position and evidence. Otherwise this page needs to focus on the article content only.-- ferret (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, your first sentence here isn't supported by you reference. Nor is it relevant to the topic.  If someone wants to know more about 'master race' and its history, there is already a linked reference to that term which contains generally appropriate information about the sources and origins of that term.  Second, as pointed out, your ref_name=cringe shows a considerable lack of wp:npov. --Aaronspink (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, the reference to Nazi ideology was composed by User:Tomwsulcer in September 2014 (diff) and not myself. I merely observed that people were deleting sourced statements and therefore restored the material, as have other editors before and after me.


 * You say the sentence accounting its historical context is not "supported by you[r] reference". On this second point you are also mistaken. Its etymology and origin was elucidated by Tyler Wilde, the executive editor of PC gamer, when he wrote:




 * Our article does not use the precise same words as PC Gamer, as that would constitute plagiarism, but the meaning is fairly conveyed. The second piece was written by Nick Scibetta:




 * In addition, Ben Croshaw is unapologetic about coining the term. The reference, he says, is deliberate and purposeful:




 * Kindly stop saying the historical context has not been established—it has. Asserting irrelevance ad infinitum is circular and unhelpful. — TPX 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To start with, why are you using Archive links for said articles? The first and third article by PCGamer and The Escapist make it clear that it is a joke and has absolutely nothing to do with "Nazi ideology", they actually state the opposite, PCGamer says "That’s absurd, and it’s supposed to be absurd. It’s a joke.". The only one that makes this claim is the second article, and I'm not sure that I've ever heard of "GameCrate" or that it is considered a reliable source. 79.247.114.233 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * TPX's assertions here regarding sources here seem valid. I think we should consider restoring the mention. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that sources exist that specifically tie the term to the Nazi ideal of master race originally, which has now been completely removed from the article. However, I would also agree that the explanation of the origin is a bit out of order, and the inclusion of Holocaust, not mentioned by the linked source, is a bit much. I'm going to work on a proposal, based on sectioning that introduced. Will post back here with a proposal in a bit. -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The location of the information and *some* of the information was out of order. There must be a more appropriate section to include this. Maybe a Controversy section? One came up last night from a random IP, and I think another random IP nuked it. Wikinium (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to create a dedicated subsection that describes the contrasting viewpoints regarding its usage, quoting extensively the passages above, with clear attribution, in order to avoid the accusation of bias and inapplicability. — TPX 21:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The 'controversy', which consists on a single blog post along with echoes, and a single response, deserves maybe three sentences in total. Those interested in the topic can read the referenced articles, without us giving a history on Nazism and Nihilism. - Primal Chaos (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The use of the term master race is more than established as being popularized by the Nazi party in English during World War II. A way to examine this objectively is to look at the Google Ngram of the word in English.  There is a clear spike near WWII when the term is established, with a minor small spike near the Civil War: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.170.37 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin, Usage and Critique
To help things from 'blowing up' due to some troll edits that have been picked up and have been circulating and considering just how large the associated PCMR community is (420,000 subscribers on Reddit, 170,000 curator follows on steam and lots of other independent groups on Facebook and similar); I have split the article into clear 'Origin' 'Usage' and 'Critique' sections to allow any new information that surfaces to be added to the article without conflation and/or aggravation. If there is little content added or others feel this is inappropriate, please feel free to revert in good time. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this you? "I removed it for you. Hopefully the dumbass admins understand why." Please seek consensus for future revisions here on the talk page first. Thankyou. — TPX 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is not, but I've seen a few of those kicking about on numerous boards and forums. In fact, I hadn't even seen that one! 77.97.24.152 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ferret's proposed version
Please see this proposed version, a diff between the current version of the article and my proposed additions. It's a lot less than I thought it would be, after digging through the article's history to see what various sources have been used before and what wording had been previously used. There's no doubt that the "mainstream publications" meant Nazism when they referred to negative associations, but this puts it in context without any fluff about the holocaust, etc. I've also added Croshaw's rebuttal, and adjusted the name of the PC Gamer reference, back to what it originally was a couple of weeks ago. Please do not edit my sandbox, leave suggestions here. If no one voices major objections and we can agree on this version, I'll put up an edit request. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice: I made one small typo correction after first posting this, "changed" to "change". -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It treats the issue with all the brevity and balance it requires. Though I might prune it back to a single sentence. - Primal Chaos (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. An improvement over the current revision, though in my opinion the connection to Nazism is made a little bit vague. A short statement such as "In linguistic context, the master race concept is a Nazi ideology based on their perceived genetic superiority to all other races" from a past revision could help to bring that into context. Breadblade (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be inaccurate, as noted above. The 'master race' concepts origins are associated with Nietzsche, so any 'quick summary' linking it exclusively with Nazi ideology would be less accurate and biased, rather than trusting the reader to click the link and read the extensive details for themselves. - Primal Chaos (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ben Croshaw has stated that he was referencing the Nazi master race ideology specifically. Nobody is proposing that we accommodate earlier concepts of racial supremacy; only the brief description above, through reliable sources that have precise logical relevance to the subject matter at hand. I already know that you object to this concise explanation, I merely wanted to point out that we need not delve any further than is necessary, per Breadblade's comment. — TPX 23:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Primalchaos on this one. We simply don't need an involved description of Nazism or master race ideology. The wikilink should suffice for anyone seeking more information. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused why it would be at all controversial to explain succinctly how the concept of master race relates to Nazism, especially since the revision we are discussing acknowledges that this connection exists. Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well .... I mean, there's pages and pages above this section where people are arguing about that very thing. The idea in this proposal is to reach a middle ground that ensures the topic is broached, without giving it undue weight. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there is no actual connection except through a single joke, and people rightfully object to there be any ambiguity that a group of PC enthusiasts are condoning or supporting Nazi ideology, which is not the case. The reference into it being a joke, and the existing quotes that do call out the Nazi connection in context, suffice plenty. Drawing unclear and unfair connections between the actual group's ideals and the Nazis is defaming and damaging, and a clear line should be drawn. (Edit: Ultimately, if this article was making a small aside about an ideology related to Mother Teresa, no one would care much. However, we should take a bit more care in drawing connections between a group of harmless enthusiasts and what many consider the greatest villains in all of human history.) - Primal Chaos (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The words "In linguistic context," were added to address those very concerns. It's impossible to understand how anyone who read the complete sentence could walk away puzzled. It was further suggested that we quote PC Gamer at length, including "I obviously realize that no one is actually saying that PC gamers are the preferred people of Hitler. That's absurd, and it's supposed to be absurd. It's a joke" to ensure there is no confusion, but some editors have a visceral reaction, seemingly incapable of reading the word "Nazi" in its objective form, and deleted the sentence regardless. — TPX 12:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep assumption of good faith. Rather than speaking of the 'incapability' of certain editors, consider that your attempt to address those concerns were insufficient rather than defending it. While it is good you attempted to address their concerns, this attempt obviously failed and other steps must be taken. As have been proposed below. I urge you to address the proposed neutral edits as they stand rather than defending your previous ones, which will at this point, likely not be reinstated. (TLDR: please stop insinuating that people who don't agree with you are mentally deficient.) - Primal Chaos (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Would it be acceptable to the opposition if the prelude to Yahtzee's quote about the origins stated instead of only 'master race ideology', we said: 'Nazi Germany's master race ideology'. He specifically cites in it that terms: "And yes, I suppose I'm iffy about the call to change the term because it's a Nazi Germany reference and 'someone might be offended'" - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/12882-The-PC-Master-Race-Discussion-Political-Correctness-vs-Language- It makes the origin clear, succinct and fully within an unambiguous context of it being part of the joke. - Primal Chaos (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If that was insufficient, we could expand to, 'Nazi Germany's master race ideology of genetic superiority' while keeping within the same limits. - Primal Chaos (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As such? I would be ok with this. -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, though a friend points out that technically, the genetics were only part of the philosophy so it would be properly termed 'ideology of racial supremacy' rather than 'genetic superiority'. But I feel it's a good compromise even with that change. - Primal Chaos (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that, but will wait to see what TPX and Breadblade think. They can state their preference of racial vs genetics when they review this latest proposal. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick grammar edit: It's should be just 'Nazi Germany's', not 'the Nazi Germany's' - Primal Chaos (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tweak. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The original proposed change seems to be a reasonable compromise between the positions and gives due weight to the sources.--Aaronspink (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , how opposed would you be to the slightly expanded text in the second version below? Seeing as Yahtzee himself made note that it was a Nazi Germany reference? This version still lacks any expansion on the actions of the Nazis, i.e. no holocaust mention or similar detail. -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , the "of genetic superiority" part is effectively in Croshaw's voice but isn't sourced nor does it appear to be . Secondly, "term's reference to Nazism", Croshaw explicitly says "it's a Nazi Germany reference" which may or may not mean its a reference to Nazism and as such we would probably be better off using the exact phasing that Croshaw used.  With those two changes, I think it is reasonable.--Aaronspink (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Either seem reasonable to me. The only way I'd add 'of genetic superiority' would be if the opposition believed that the point of this being a vile racist attitude isn't made clear enough, since they seem to want a wider exposition, it seems a good compromise. It's not inaccurate though - Nazi Germany's ideology of the master race was one of genetic and racial superiority, so it is an accurate descriptor. - Primal Chaos (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the latest full diff, which incorporates the suggestions from Primal Chaos above. Is this something we could move forward with,, ? -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This version incorporates some suggestions and comments from above. It expands slightly from the original proposal to include that the master race ideology in question is specificly (Per Yahtzee's own statements) a Nazi Germany reference. I believe this version would be acceptable for myself, Primalchaos, and Aaronspink. TPX, Beardblade, can we consider moving forward with this version? -- ferret (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This version looks fine to me, though this sentence took me a few reads before I understood what was being said, it might need tweaking: "While Ben Croshaw acknowledged the term's reference to Nazi Germany, he countered that those who use the term without knowing of the association can be viewed positively as a sign that those ideals had faded from the public." Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit that I had a difficult time with that sentence. I believe it provides the correct intent/meaning of Croshaw's statement, but if someone has a better suggestion for wordsmithing it a bit, I'm all ears. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. One small change though, we should probably strike the "and usage" part of the first heading as it deals only with the origin atm.  The usage seems to be adequately addressed in the Popularization section.--Aaronspink (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since TPX has been active but has not commented on the proposed edit as it stands (preferring to insist on his original edits and defend them), I suggest we wait for Breadblade, and if he has no further commentary, we move forward with the current version since we have a consensus of four editors. If he doesn't comment by tomorrow, we will assume he will not. Further edits to adjust against the consensus on this particular aspect of the article should be treated as vandalism thereafter. - Primal Chaos (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - As it stands, two out of the four paragraphs in the Popularization of the Term section have to deal with its ties to Nazism. Either various assertions made by culture bloggers that the term promotes Nazi ideology (Scibetta, Wylde), or other acknowledgements that the term was originally a loose joke play on Nazi terminology. While I don't think that these references should be removed from the article, I don't see how it's appropriate to include them in this section. The vast majority of this term's use in popular culture is entirely detached from Nazism, and by having a majority of the word count in this section devoted to said ideology implies otherwise. Rekov (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , it had been proposed at some point in the above sections that a Controversy section contain these comments. That would remove it from the section of "popular culture". That said, you say above two out of four paragraphs, but only one paragraph mentions the tie to Nazi ideology in that section. I could see moving that paragraph from it's current position as the 2nd paragraph to being the last paragraph as well, to improve the flow. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Urg, you're right. I completely misread the last paragraph. My bad. I don't know if know if moving the paragraph or creating a new subsection is really necessary. There might be a better way to title the Popularization of the term section, but even that doesn't strike me as particularly necessary. I don't think anyone here thinks that the 418k+ subscribers to the reddit have anything to do with Nazi ideology. ZeroPunctuation's comment that many of the term's users are unaware of its links to Nazism helps to an extent, but in my experience people are aware of the link, but think it's ridiculous to suggest that it has any significance to its modern usage. It's a nuanced distinction though, and I doubt there will be a good source for it. Modern journalism doesn't care about benign things as much as it cares about controversy. Rekov (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I personally agree, this is intended as a compromise to balance those who think it is irrelevant to the group at hand, and those who believe the Nazi connection bears a more extensive mention than others are comfortable with. And the question is whether we can support as a compromise. - Primal Chaos (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with Ferret's version of the article. It's not nearly as outlandish as some of the TPX edits. That said, I think it's a little silly that the old "the truth lies in the middle" adage is still being used. Let us remember here that all three sources cited with reference to the term having links to Nazism are labeled as opinion pieces by their respective organizations. I am referring here to Wylde, Scibetta, and Croshaw. These articles can be used in claiming that these opinions exist, but cannot and should not be used to suggest that these opinions are an accurate reflection of the PCMR community. Croshaw, as the originator of the term, is of course qualified to suggest what he based it on, but not necessarily its current widespread usage. Rekov (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the cited authors imply that Nazi ideology is embodied by the PCMR community. Wylde, Scibetta and Croshaw are wary of misinterpretation and articulate their positions intelligibly. It's essentially a disagreement about the (unwitting) reappropriation of the original term, which Wylde and Scibetta think inappropriate, and Croshaw who basically says 'Nah, enough time has passed. Stop being so sensitive.' There is nothing "outlandish" about wanting to define the origin of the term, articulate a clear distinction, and account the opposing viewpoints of with careful attribution. — TPX 11:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TPX - do you support or oppose (with useful suggestions on how to further alter) ferret's standing 'compromise' edit? You have been asked for your input as the main voice of opposition by several parties, and your concerns about identifying the source have been incorporated in the proposed edit by myself and ferret. We are awaiting you and Breadblade's input in that manner, or else we will move forward and further edits (by yourself or others) to alter the article will be considered vandalism of a consensus edit. - Primal Chaos (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to drop the baseless accusations of vandalism. It's tiresome. In regard to the proposed edit, it's workable I suppose. If there is room for improvement we can discuss the matter here on the talk page. — TPX 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you commented on the proposed consensus. And I didn't accuse you of vandalism, but rather that any attempt to restore your old edits (which you were still defending) would be effectively vandalism. We should move forward with it then. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a brief comment, but wanted to note that accepting the current proposal does not preclude further edits or proposals from moving forward as well. It's not the final edit ever allowed if we move forward with an improvement, and then continue working towards further additions or improvements. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have the advantage of being the one currently proposing an actual compromise as opposed to defending or attacking the old edits, however. If we move forward on the consensus edit, it will likely be yours. - Primal Chaos (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Notice I plan to submit an edit request in approximately 12 hours or so asking that my current Sandbox be implemented. There have been no direct opposes voiced and I believe suggestions from various editors have been implemented in a reasonable manner. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Major voices of opposition have been active on the Talk page but have not supported or opposed. We should move forward if they do not comment then unlock the article. If further vandalism occurs, active editors on this compromise should move for an appropriate ban on the vandals. - Primal Chaos (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really need to stop referring to editors that you disagree with as being vandals. Editing against consensus is generally viewed as edit warring, but is not considered vandalism. Frankly, none of the preceding sections should ever have referred to the recent edits of this article as vandalism: it was edit warring. I know GamerGate has a ton of sanctions wrapped around it and regularly sees editors article/topic banned, but that's not typical of most articles except in extreme cases. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One, this isn't a GamerGate subject. Unless GamerGate includes all gaming articles and enthusiasts interested in their hobby's articles on Wikipedia now, which would be unfortunate. Two, I didn't call you a vandal, I said if anyone moved against the consensus edit, including restoring TPX's old edits, it would be effectively vandalism. However, since TPX has agreed the existing edit is workable, I don't see that as a problem unless someone else decides to take up the banners and go to war over this again. I'm glad TPX responded to the standing proposal. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my point, this is not a GamerGate article, so the concept of jumping to article bans and such is a bit beyond what typical articles see, except in extreme cases. Nor did I mean that I had been called a vandal. I wanted to make sure it was understood that suggesting someone is a vandal for edit warring or going against consensus is incorrect, and can be viewed as assuming bad faith. It isn't a good behavior, but it isn't vandalism in the sense that Wikipedia uses, as can be read at WP:Vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Keep in mind my comment was at a point when TPX and other opposition editors had been active but had not commented on the consensus edit, so the idea that a change would result in a further edit war was not unthinkable. And yes, vandalism was the wrong term to use. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the main voice of the opposition has consented to the proposed compromise edit, I do not think any further delay in submitting it is necessary. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that it would be somewhat improper to move before the time frame I originally stated, which will be about 8pm EST US time. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. Agreed. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Please replace the content of the article with the content located at this sandbox diff, and remove the user sandbox template. This update to the article has been supported and commented on in the preceding subsection, 'ferret's proposed version', with no direct opposition. The edit includes the contested edits that the term "PC Master Race" was a satirical reference to Nazi Germany, without the more elaborate details such as directly mentioning the Holocaust. There are other minor tweaks such as typo correction, section name, and reflist parameters. All statements are sourced. A diff between the current protected article and this version is here.

-- ferret (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider Deletion
If this is going to be a battleground, perhaps it should simply be deleted. Not notable, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary 216.160.193.179 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If a topic is notable, then it should exist on Wikipedia, regardless of controversy or people rallying around it, etc. This is not an endorsement of whether or not the article would survive an AFD, just saying that the fact people will argue over it is not a valid deletion rationale. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its seems a reasonably notable enough topic generally, in addition, it appears that the actual main battleground/disruption is 1 editor's belief that the article should explicitly include information/references to Nazism and give it priority at that. In fact, looking through the revs, this initial sentence is really the only thing that is being added/reverted.  Pretty much everything else appears to be various editors working together to improve the article.--Aaronspink (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my belief, it's Wikipedia policy. Context is crucial to understanding both the reference and the subsequent debate weather or not to drop the label. I'm not here to advocate one or the other (unlike some) but I am going to insist we respect Wikipedia policy and fairly describe the discussion in our article. — TPX 18:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * True. The only dispute, really, is how prominent the references to Nazism should be. It's kind of a silly theme to be discussing on an article about a group focused in PC technology, but due to the controversy itself it should be featured on an article base, not with full-on text paste from the nazi master race article on wikipedia.--Saganstar (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This really seems more fitting of Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. But maybe that's just my opinion. TyTyMang (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, just belongs on Urban Dictionary. It's not particularly notable. That's coming from someone who actually posts to the pcmasterrace subreddit. I'd also suggest someone looking into ThePowerofX for their advocacy and POV pushing. Too lazy to Login, FlossumPossum 65.29.77.61 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely notable enough for Wikipedia. Or, at least it was. A lot of sources were deleted recently. I think even if some of these sources were brought back and put in more appropriate areas of the page, they would be more than enough to prevent a second attempt at deletion. Wikinium (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The removal of the overlinking in the lead doesn't affect notability. If someone DID send this article to AFD, those articles would pop back up with even a curious search for sources. Every available source doesn't necessarily have to be used by the article in order to prove notability, especially if they all say the same thing. -- ferret (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually agree. This is just a slang term used by a small faction of Zero Punctuation fans of PC gaming.  This, combined with TPX's repeated vandalism, means it's just not worth having around.  The only reason it's notable at all is a small faction of trolls have found a new thing to be professionally offended at (for example, the PC Gamer article).  KiTA (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's constructive to casually accuse other editors of vandalism in this discussion. Breadblade (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. If we are going to write articles about every slang word in every online community ever, we'd need a second Wikipedia. The PC Master Race term is only relevant to a single community on Reddit and Zero Punctuation fans (who overlap a great deal). Not enough by far to warrant a Wikipedia article. Omegastar (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The term is of wide use beyond just 'Zero Punctuation' fans. The PCMR subreddit alone numbers in the tens of thousands, and the history and ascension of the term is valid material. Allowing a single editor effectively hound an otherwise solid if niche article out of existence doesn't seem the best solution. - Primal Chaos (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the idea of deletion, however, if anyone really believes that an AFD will result in the deletion of the article, they should go ahead and open one. It's a bit moot to discuss deletion here. If you open an AFD, please post an edit request for an admin to add the AFD notification since the page is currently protected. Understand though that "people are trolling it" or "its just slang" are not proper deletion rationales. (To be fair, 'The PCMR subreddit has lots of members' would not be a valid keep rationale either) Note that a previous AFD (See top of the talk page) did not result in deletion. -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: a magnet for trolls with little or no encyclopedic value. The page offers little benefit to the project and abundant hazards. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The community is in the process of creating a consensus edit. The existence of one troll, and one opposition editor, hardly counts as a magnet. - Primal Chaos (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would lean towards keeping it, but some much clearer mention of the fact that 'master race' is a reference to the Nazis must surely be included. (Personal note: I realise it's quite a funny name, but people may wish to rethink comparing themselves positively to Nazis.) Blythwood (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please consider reviewing the proposed edit above with that in mind. - Primal Chaos (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree: This topic is more than notable. It has more sources and coverage now than it did when it passed its FIRST AFD. Troll edits are no reason to delete an entire article. That just means that its a hot topic of discussion and debate. For all we know, the vandalism could be intentional with the hope of eventually getting the page deleted. Thus far, one single IP address and a user that was banned from editing anything GamerGate related and then violated those bans have voted in favor of deleting this page - a page that happens to be something that GamerGate-related places often discuss. Wikinium (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with MarkBernstein's position, he was not banned from all gaming related topics and this is not a GamerGate article. He's allowed his opinion, just not the only opinion. - Primal Chaos (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Article is brief but describes a fairly large polity. The PC Master Race subreddit has over 400,000 subscribers and receives millions of hits every month.  When 'gaming issues' become news the discussion often reaches the front page of r/all which means that uninvolved people need good information on its origins.  For example: During the recent 'paid mods' debacle, Valve made official statements on addressing consumer concerns directly to it.  Its owners also operate a number of 'official' groups on Facebook, Twitter, Twitch et al.  More importantly it has a curator account which sits 4th in the follows list of steam with 170,000 followers, by comparison Jim Sterling has only 120,000 followers and has a more complete article.  Essentially the topic is live, popular and people need and will be searching for information about it. Although I do not have the statistics, I imagine this page receives a surprisingly large number of hits given the massive involvement in the topic. Kind Regards. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article gets 300-500 views a day according to its Page information. Wikinium (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Popularity and page views are not valid keep rationales. That said, I really don't think the article is at any risk of being deleted. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just adding to his last sentence. He mentioned the traffic the article must get. Wikinium (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New source - EuroGamer interview
http://www.eurogamer.pt/articles/2014-10-31-entrevista-a-pedro19-o-homem-por-tras-da-pc-master-race (Currently source #6 in the article)

The link provided is an interview done by Eurogamer. In the interview, the creator of the PC Master Race subreddit is interviewed and talks about the rise of popularity of the term, the subreddit, and the ideology/information behind the people, companies, and gamers that use the term. It has quite a bit of usable content that could be used in this article - but the interview isn't in English. Does a source have to be translated by something before it can be used in an English article? Wikinium (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reply, no, sources don't have to be in English. However, if there were a version on the English Eurogamer, that would be preferred. -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I speak a few languages fluently including portuguese. I've translated a quote I find important, and am available to translate others if needed. Just let me know and I can help. Saganstar (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 July 2015
'faded from the public' should read 'faded from the public mind'.

Primal Chaos (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 July 2015
Source 8 is from a blog/forum post about an article that was removed/deleted. Please remove source and text referencing it.

73.19.69.127 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be replaced. The source is archived here — TPX 16:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support archived link - Primal Chaos (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific about what exactly needs to change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We don't remove sources just because their links become stale - see WP:DEADLINK. On the other hand, we aren't allowed to use archive.is on Wikipedia either, due to Archive.is RFC and Archive.is RFC 3. If another archive can be found then it should be added to the article, but otherwise the status quo should be fine. (Note, however, that this does not prevent the removal of the source or the text that cites it for other policy-based reasons.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)