Talk:Gamergate (ant)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Firefangledfeathers in topic Hatnote
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (ant) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | A fact from Gamergate (ant) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On 20 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Gamergate to Gamergate (ant). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hatnote
editShibbolethink, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)