Talk:Gamergate (ant)

Hatnote

Shibbolethink, I just saw this edit of yours.[1] What consensus are you referring to on this page? I don't believe the hatnote has been discussed recently here. KoA (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion linked directly above in the section above. We are discussing all the hatnotes at once on the talk page of Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you'd like to participate there, it would be more efficient than splitting the discussion here. I would read that discussion as a marginal consensus in favor of keeping the hatnotes.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the article about the ants, not the harassment campaign. That page can do as they want over there, but whatever consensus comes out over there still doesn't transfer over here. KoA (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

KoA, It is common practice to merge discussions that are extremely related from several related pages. Similar to how move discussions often involve several pages. This is why I put a notice here about that discussion. Why would we replicate this hatnote discussion three times, when it is about hatnotes which inter-connect these pages? That would make it more difficult to build a consensus about this question (regardless of what that consensus is), and therefore make it more difficult to advance the project.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not a merged discussion and was never treated or advertised as such. Even if it were, it's up to this page's editors to determine what is best for this article once we were outside of the move discussion, not the harassment article (and vice versa). If inviting editors to comment on the state of the harassment article did have a mandatory effect on this page, I sure would have participated. Honestly, part of the expectation with the recent move was that this page would be more disconnected from the harassment article and wouldn't have to deal with whatever is going on there dominating over here again.

With that in mind, I've at least partially undone that recent edit since there wasn't any talk discussion at the time to claim consensus. I'm perfectly fine removing the entire hatnote if anyone else wants to that given the new state of the article making it largely redundant, but at least for now I'm including the standard hatnote to the disambig similar to GamersGate. Especially with ant in the title, it's extremely unlikely someone is going to click on this article in the search while actually looking for the others. The second and third bullets of WP:HAT don't really apply here anymore because of that specificity. KoA (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

KoA, I just randomly chose that article's talk to host the discussion, it could have just as easily been put here instead. The issue is that hatnotes by their very nature involve the cooperative discussion of different pages' editors, for the sake of consistency and easy navigation. I understand why you feel the way you do. Others feel that way as well. however it appears you have simply decided to ignore the points made in that discussion, arguing it does not apply and is irrelevant. That's not very collaborative or cooperative! Can't we just work together to build a good encyclopedia? I have no idea if my "opinion" will old sway in that discussion either. But I would like to establish an answer to this question so we can all be done with it. Please don't continue to edit back and forth continuing this dispute while we're trying to figure that out. That's not mandatory, it's just a request.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I second KoA's points on the procedure here. I support Shibbolethink on at least considering the points made at the other talk page. Shibb, you may just want to copy over some of your points.

I'd push for no hatnote here. I don't think consistency is an important point. I think our guidelines, specifically WP:NOTAMB, recommend against a disambiguation hatnote. The situation here and at Gamergate (harassment campaign) differ because that page has an arguably (though I disagree) ambiguous redirect in GamerGate (note the camel case). There is no such case to be made here. I don't find the "accidental click on the dab page" argument persuasive. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, courtesy ping for @Martin IIIa: I agree with your edits but want to encourage more talk page engagement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this. The hatnote definitely appears to violate WP:NAMB and is unnecessary. See this talkpage conversation I recently had regarding the subject. Courtesy pings @Shibbolethink:@KoA:@Firefangledfeathers:@Kevmin: 162 etc. (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the hatnote had been reinserted some time ago, but I agree that at least based on the talk page discussion here, it shouldn't have been resinerted then or now (i.e., there wasn't consensus for it at least). As a side note few years ago, part of the issue was editors at others articles declaring consensus for things that would have required consensus on this talk page. That's part of the procedural stuff mentioned above. That's where mentions of consensus get confusing.

So for now I've removed the hatnote at least on the procedural side of things. Revisiting the content discussion though, I'd say it still looks like the hatnote isn't needed as mentioned above. If someone lands here or at the harassment article, they would have already come here with the disambig page or by direct search by title. It's the Gamergate page that does the sorting. KoA (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

When something has stayed on an article for a long time (in this case, ~ 3 years), and no one removed it, that's a de facto consensus.

I still think the hatnote makes sense here, but if there develops a clear and obvious consensus against it, then that's fine. otherwise it should remain as something that was here for multiple years untouched. That is the very nature of WP:BRD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How is the hatnote useful? I fail to see how anybody reading this article could have been misdirected. 162 etc. (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I highly suggest self-reverting your most recent revert, we can't flip the burden for consensus like that. Consensus is needed to insert that at this point, so please follow WP:BRD. We discussed this already in the above conversation. If you felt strongly about it, there was plenty of time to get consensus for the change when it was clear on this talk page the edit hadn't gained consensus back then (or now). This isn't a heavily trafficked page, and the hatnote hadn't been edit-warred back in by an IP against the talk page discussion when I looked at the entire page outside of my watchlist at least. Thanks to 162 for noticing it, it can be fixed now at least.

As I looked over this conversation to get back up to speed, it looks like this started back in 2021 when Shibbolethink declared there was consensus to put the hatnote in after the move discussion.[2] you are now editing against the consensus established on the talk page. The problem was is that there was no discussion on this talk page until I asked you about it days after that opened this very talk section.

Already, that was a problem in terms of BRD and trying to declare consensus based on an entirely different article's talk, as well as the last IP edit going against BRD to insert it. If I had caught it, but was instead wanting to have a hatnote, I sure still would have reverted the IP per BRD/on-going discussion. The main problem I'm seeing looking over the article history is that edit warring continued despite the eventual talk page conversation clearly showing no consensus to add the hatnote in. When something is repeatedly edit-warred in until editors tire or don't notice it despite talk discussion not supporting the change, that just gets messy, especially on top of trying to claim some kind of defacto consensus due to that. At the end of the day, it's the talk page that rules the roost for changes like that.

This is getting more procedural than content-focused than it should be since even just based on the talk page alone it shouldn't be reinserted at this point. However, given the additional layer of that history, there really needs to be a hard reset where if someone really wants to include it, they actually have to get consensus for it for once rather than restoring it simply as as preferred version. KoA (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The status quo (of something being on the page for 3 years) is a form of consensus (the lowest level). If someone felt it was important to not be there, why not remove it at any point in those 3 years? At which point the discussion on this page had stalled. See also from WP:BRD: "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing."

My recollection of this page/discussion is that we discussed via edit-notes and on this page what form of a hatnote would be feasible, if any. I proposed one, someone reverted it, I changed the form of the hatnote to be less intrusive and shorter, and then no one did anything to it. For approximately 3 years.

All that said, such a status quo would be overruled by any actual consensus via discussion here. It seems more people are against the hatnote at this time.

@162 etc. My interest in having a hatnote originally was due to my own accidentally arriving at this page while trying to find the event.

I searched for gamergate, and this is the page that popped up on wikipedia search as the first result at the time (I assume alphabetically). My overall argument is based on the number of clicks it takes to get from this page to the "right one", if you end up here like me. clicking through a disambig page via hatnote costs two more clicks. Without a hatnote, it requires backing up, re-searching, and finding the right search result, something like 10-12 more keypresses if I'm counting correctly. That's the only reason for my interest in the hatnote. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't replicate this result. Typing "gamergate" in the search box instantly brings up Gamergate.

A Google search for "wikipedia gamergate" pulls up Gamergate (harassment campaign) and Gamergate as the top two hits, not this article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed. This seems like straightforward WP:NAMB stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion

Just a heads up that there is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) (over 7 days ago) proposing that that article is the primary topic over this one. I just found out about it, and it looks like this page was never notified of that yet.

For those not familiar with the history of move requests related to this, this article was recently moved away from Gamergate and a disambiguation page was put in it's place in this previous move discussion. KoA (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)