Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Turn Gamergate from redirect to article?

I have been considering turning the Gamergate page from a redirect to an article. It's a pretty important 'gene' and is found in quite a few ant species (Myrmecia and Harpegnathos are examples). There are some pretty good and reliable sources in relation to it too. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I have begun making the article, there are some handy sources. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Second edit: Got some sources and some info about the Gamergate. Please expand the article. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation

I love the attention and growth this article has received in recent weeks. One thing missing from the article is: How is the word gamergate actually pronounced? Is it /geɪmə(r)geɪt/ or /gæmə(r)geɪt/? Or even /gæmə(r)gætə/? --90.212.151.123 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was wondering, too. I think a pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article would be a good addition.162.245.22.24 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the OED, it's /gæmə(r)geɪt/. AJD (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection please?

I like the attention this is getting after I firstly "created" this, though it started off as a redirect in 2012, but that doesn't count, I think? I know there is a discussion above, but can we please get a protection on this? An edit war could occur on this article, and it has already been vandalised several times, and I don't want further tension happening on this article because of a gaming controversy against feminists and gamers, and Hotwheels. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I know this article was JUST protected from what I have viewed in the history section, the vandalism immediately returned and I believe a much longer protection date is needed until the controversy subsides. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection can be requested at WP:PROTECT, but don't take it badly if the admins there turn down the request. They are often extremely resistant to protect a page unless it is seeing a heavy load of nothing but ongoing vandalism. Even then I've been turned down because the several hours old vandalism wasn't considered recent enough. PS - Sure your efforts count at "creating" the article. Everything that you included in the original stub is retained in the current version. :) -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ah cool, that was quick. Thanks, HJ Mitchell! -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I may leave it for a bit and see if anymore vandalism occurs, and if it will be continuous I will send a request for it to be protected. Sweet, at the fact my efforts count at creating this. I'll keep an eye on what happens. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell just protected it through the month of November so we shouldn't see renewed vandalism until December 1 at the earliest. I think that's a reasonable period of time. This vandalism appears to be a meme poking fun at those involved in the GamerGate controversy. So by the end of the month I assume they'll have forgotten this meme and moved on to the next thing. I hope so anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. I didn't realise he did that until I viewed the history. That is good news, and I too hope it subsides. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Myrmecia

The link to Myrmecia should instead be to Myrmecia (ant). (Apologies for the comment, I can't edit.) 160.5.104.194 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Thanks for alerting us. I've updated the link now. -Thibbs (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to protect this

I don't know how protecting an article works but this just got linked from Kotaku about a huge internet drama storm and protecting the article might be a good idea in the short term [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea to preemptively auto-protect an article that has as yet no history of severe vandalism. It would prevent potentially useful edits, with no reasonable expectation of any good effects. --TS 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just written a subsection about GamerGate, and shall install a disambiguation notice shortly, once I figure out how. kencf0618 (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(Needlessly inflammatory comment removed; sorry.)Dcoleman123 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, it is kind of funny and there are many ways to spin a summary of this article's content into a political statement about hive behavior, the role of the female in society, aggression, and sex. The Escapist recently joked about this topic here (without, I'll note, a lick of credit given to Wikipedia... Thanks, CJ Miozzi.). But please let's avoid turning this page into yet another place to argue about the contentious GamerGate issue. This talk page is supposed to be a place where we discuss ways to improve the article. We're trying to be a serious encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Anyway thanks for reading the article. -Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time

This is all just to give a little context for some recent edits. Content was added saying that the show Adventure Time had an ant called Lieutenant Gamergate without a source. A quick google search shows multiple folks discussing this, the actual video showing it, etc., and show writers confirming information on it as well on twitter, so I put a citation needed tag on it looking for any better sources than blogs, etc. The content is deleted now.[2] Some conversation on the topic occurred on a user talk page. [3] Personally, I'm not so sure there's really enough weight to include the content here, but it seemed like it would be something to check out a bit. If anyone finds anything additional on the topic, feel free to post it here if you want to revisit the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In Popular Culture - better sourcing available?

• In the episode of Adventure Time, "Dentist", Finn encounters an ant named "Lieutenant Gamergate".

Is there a stronger source that will enable us to place the above reference into an encyclopedic context rather than just "I seen it"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC) oops, i didnt see the above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

From what I can tell, after Schmidt & Shattuck (2014) revised the ponerines, there are no Pachycondyla species with gamergates. What makes this update extremely tedious is that Pachycondyla berthoudi (mentioned in the article) may refer either to Ophthalmopone berthoudi Forel, 1890 or Bothroponera berthoudi (Forel, 1901) (now Bothroponera strigulosa Emery, 1895) AND that the major online ant resources have all updated their catalogs to a varying degree, but none is up to date. Any help clearing this up would be greatly appreciated. jonkerz ♠talk 19:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have access, but from the abstract the paper doesn't appear to be about gamergate behavior as such. I would recommend discussing it at Talk:Pachycondyla, but I see you had started a discussion there without any luck. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects would be a good place for further advice? -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamergate controversy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Just in case this doesn't show up on folks' watchlists (I had bots turned off on mine), best to go check the conversation out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC) The discussion has been closed, with a decision not to move the pages at this time. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) @User:Mudwater: Your wikilink rotted after what was likely (phone, no tabs, not easy to check diffs) a matter of hours, so I took the liberty of fixing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy-related move discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Move to Gamergate (zoology) and move Gamergate controversy here? I'm sorry, but is this a joke? Article titles are supposed to make navigation easier for the average reader of English Wikipedia, meaning that even if that other article is about a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic internet trolls and this one is about something actually encyclopedic, the article titles should aid in navigation. I was initially inclined to believe that maybe insectologists had been writing books and journal articles for decades about this ant that the non-specialist Hijiri88 just happened never to have heard of before, and so it should take precedence over the currently-prominent controversy about teenage boys sending death threats to Anita Sarkeesian per WP:RECENTISM. Then I noticed that this article only dates to last August. Seriously: is this a joke? I'm all for punishing internet trolls by trolling them back, but not at the expense of Wikipedia's value as a general-purpose encyclopedia... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC) This article has absolutely zero to do with "punishing internet trolls" or "trolling then back." Nothing in this article could be seriously construed to mock or belittle either side of the GamerGate controversy and the only people who interpret this as a political message are the ultra partisan. A quick skim of the article text should show you that the use of this word to refer to ants in fact dates to 1983 and has been in use within the entomological community since 1984 (more than a decade before the oldest of the "teenage boys sending death threats" were even born). I don't know what has caused you to question the fact that entomologists have used this word in academic journal articles for decades before the internet claimed it, but if you look at the article history you'll notice that the earliest version (a redirect) actually dates to July 2012‎ (again more than 2 years earlier than any Kotaku article's use of the term). Even the August 12 expansion of this article to stub form which you linked came 15 days prior to Adam Baldwin's first use of the term to refer to a video game controversy. So to answer your question: No. This is not a joke. And yes. This proposal is based on recentism. I disagree with the proposed move because I think the "GamerGate controversy" which has consumed the lives of so many on both sides of the issue these days is a historical flash in the pan. In fifty years nobody will be talking about the video game non-event, but the entomological term will still have the same currency it always has. Readers will be better served if we leave the targets of the links intact as they've been for the past several months. There is already a disambiguation hatnote at the top of this article directing lost readers to the article on the video game controversy. If you are really concerned with this then I'd recommend requesting that the article on the controversy be moved back to "GamerGate" which was its original title. Please don't use this talk page to vent about the controversy. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Umm... I am a 26-year-old Irish male living in Japan and I have a fairly average education level for someone of my demographic, and I had never heard of the type of ant until I looked up "Gamergate" on Wikipedia and was somewhat surprised. The word as used in this article is not, as far as I can tell, very widely known outside of specialists in the area in question. I did notice that a redirect appeared in 2012 -- so what? The present article itself was written after the "GamerGate" problem (which I need to specify again, since by posting here I seem to be inadvertently aligning myself with misogynists, I don't recognize as being about anything other than teenage boys trying to force women and minorities out of critical discussion) entered the popular culture. To say that my "proposal" (it was a question and I requested an answer) is based on recentism is simply ridiculous, and seems to be something of a violation of AGF, given that I specified in my post that it was about WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Okay, I don't follow this stuff so closely, and I noticed too late your assertion that an Adam Baldwin coined the term "GamerGate" to refer to the sexism controversy on August 27. If your assertion is right, then I guess it's just an unfortunate coincidence rather than a silly joke, but can you find me a source? Our article on the topic also attributes it to him, but gives no date, and neither do any of that article's sources (although one of theirs does). But even if I was wrong about the date, I still think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH probably favour a move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Like you say, it was just a coincidence (see for example this request to expand the article, dating back to October 2013). About the page title, you could add a move request at Talk:Gamergate controversy; from what I can tell, it has been unsuccessfully suggested a couple of times in the past, but I'm not sure how long ago the most recent request was, and consensus can change. Personally, I'd rather keep this article at its current location, but then again I'm an ant aficionado :) and it may be hard to argue against the guidelines you linked (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH). In any case, this page is not the best place to discuss matters involving the GamerGate controversy. jonkerz ♠talk 16:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry if you think I failed to AGF. The suggestion of recentism actually came from you, and even if it was just a question instead of a proposal, it seemed likely to me from this edit that you are aware of the reasons it hadn't been moved previously. Anyway the hatnotes currently used at the top of the article seem to satisfy WP:ASTONISH. WP:COMMONNAME really doesn't apply here - it would apply if you were arguing that "Gamergate (zoology)" is more commonly recognized than "Gamergate", but I suspect I could find many more instances of RSes discussing the "Gamergate controversy" than you could find RSes describing the insect as a "gamergate (zoology)". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the only real path forward if one were to propose a move. Feel free to propose a move if you like, but it's been proposed in the past and I don't think it has seen much support. -Thibbs (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Might be of Interest, if you want to comment I just wanted to let everyone here know that a discussion to rename/move this article has come up again at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Suggestion. Full disclosure: I'm quite opposed to the idea, but my knowledge in this particualr field of bio is limited at best. I just wanted to make you all aware, if you want to comment. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the heads-up. It was kind of surprising to see Scalhotrod's bold move only a few days after the same issue had been objected to (see thread immediately above). This is the third such thread we've had here recently. It's getting to be kind of a drag. -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) I just noticed as well after the page was moved without any discussion here. We've established multiple times that this is currently considered the primary topic over the controversy, so I'm not sure why it seems like we need to constantly revisit the question. I don't think we can impose a time limit on such related questions, but WP:SNOWBALL seems to come into play here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) My move had nothing to with the "controversy" article and entirely to do with the articles that come up in the Category:Ants list such as Gliding ant, Harvester ant, Honeypot ant, Leafcutter ant, and Queen ant. Keeping the average, non-expert Reader in mind, the title is inconsistent with similar articles about the same subject matter. Once I realized this, I felt the move was appropriate and within policy to do so. The move back to its original title just creates contention where there should be none. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Moves are considered controversial without any discussion at the article, especially when there has been previous recent consensus to stick with the current name. Considering what discussion you did have of your idea was at the controversy page, it's difficult to say it isn't related, but based on that conversation, you already knew that such a move didn't have consensus even there before the additional posts came in recently. That's why I mentioned WP:SNOWBALL above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Kingofaces43, WP:AGF if you want or not, but I did think the move would be considered controversial here at all. But you are correct, I was remiss in not checking the talk page first. My apology for that. I should have known better than to think that the muck and mire that is the Gamergate controversy article would not affect something as innocuous as an article about an ant! Go figure... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC) It's not a matter of AGF, but just simply describing the problem with the course of action you took even under good faith. Either way, I don't think most folks here really care much about the Gamergate controversy, so I'd just ask you to read through previous conversations here about why redirects and moves haven't gained traction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (Edit Conflict)I actually hadn't even noticed that a page move had already been made, when I left the note. Apologies! -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) No problem. You did nothing in the wrong at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for future purposes

Quite pleased that the amount of vandalism has diminished recently, even though some editors felt the need to make stupid edits resulting in a vandalised article. I have also noticed there was a discussion that this article should be renamed/moved, but it has been solved since. When the editor suggested a move, I hope they realised that reproductive worker ants were the primary topic of gamergate for over 30 years. Please READ more thoroughly.

Anyway, I needed to get that off my chest, but once this controversy and such has subsided completely, I reckon this article should be nominated for GA. Currently it wouldn't meet all criteria due to the fact it is still vulnerable or experiencing ongoing edit wars, making it unstable. Subsiding the main issue provided in my last sentence, this article has a lot of potential. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple vandalism doesn't constitute instability, actually, that would require genuine disagreements over content, which seem to be absent. Happy to help in a GA effort. But I wonder at the lack of discussion of haplodiploidy and worker policing, both of which seem to be closely connected topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I echo that sentiment, Chiswick Chap. If the article were to be expanded (as indeed might be a good idea for GAN) then those would both be key topics to cover. I'd be pleased to help where I could. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, I will try to help in these fields whenever possible. I think your suggestions are reasonable, so we'll cover them two topics prior nomination. I am not exactly sure how complete the list of gamergate ants is too, so that should be kept in consideration unless someone can confirm that all the ant genera listed are the only ants known to have this biological function. Also, there were mentions in this talk page on this page needing an update so that needs consideratin too. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that Burklemore1 is quite correct in saying that "reproductive worker ants were the primary topic of gamergate for over 30 years". I'm equally sure that the amount of interest in the Gamergate controversy on any single day since it erupted into the news has been many times greater than the interest in gamergate ants during the entire time since the term was coined, whether measured by people, inquiries, time spent in discussion, or any other measure you choose. And while it may be true that no one will remember the controversy 50 years from now (though I doubt it), Wikipedia's purpose is not for the ages, but for the present, as well as the future in some depth that cannot be stated precisely but is surely closer to five years than to fifty. The pages should renamed accordingly. --Thnidu (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We reached consensus quite awhile ago now on not renaming this. You might want to give WP:RECENTISM a read. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out by Kingofaces43, this discussion ended with consensus and it should not be revived again. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Further Gamergate controversy-related move discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Another move discussion Another move discussion involving this page for the Gamergate controversy article. — Strongjam (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the notification, Strongjam. The request was withdraw before I got a chance to weigh in but thanks all the same. Much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Name changing I have left a note on the Gamergate controversy talk page in regards to editors attempting to rename the articles. I am strongly against such change, and so I have voiced my opinion. Pinging editors who may be interested in the discussion. @Jonkerz: @Kingofaces43: @Thibbs: Burklemore1 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC) @Burklemore1: Your pings didn't work because you need to include ~~~~ in the same edit with the ping template. — Strongjam (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Oops, didn't notice that. Thanks! Burklemore1 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC) It didn't ping me (it will only ping if you specifically include the four tildes), but I have this on my watchlist. I pinged @Jonkerz: @Thibbs: for you. I think we overall reached a consensus in the last discussion that can be cited if the topic comes up again in the near future (can't find it in the massive archive over there at the moment). I don't think we absolutely need to do anything more right now, but it doesn't hurt to be proactive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for that, I thought it would have worked if I corrected my mistake. I think the comments from the most recent requested move shows that consensus is still very strong to not change names. I'd say good luck to the next person who will try and change the name. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the pings everyone. What I don't understand is why the GamerGate supporters over at the article on the controversy get so worked up about this. It's an interesting coincidence, not a bizarre and incomprehensible insult. Given the hatnote I would wager that not one single reader has become disoriented and failed to find what they were looking for. More to the point, in ten years (when both sides of the controversy have grown tired of it) cultural researchers won't have a mass of broken links to track down when the page named "Gamergate" is (inevitably in my view) restored to its pre-August-2014 meaning. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @Kingofaces43: this edit did not trigger a new ping, good to know. jonkerz ♠talk 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Strange because I actually typed the tildes in again. It might be easier in the future to just make a reply with a new sig instead (or just not mess up in the first place). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Cleaning up the talk page Why are we talking about something that has nothing to do with this ant? 73.22.119.252 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Some other admins might close this as "not moved", but in reading over the discussion I found the support votes to be generally stronger than the more numerous opposers (but not significantly so). Clearly this article does not meet the usage criterion of primary topic and there are a lot of viewers of this article who are searching for something else. But, equally clearly, the ant meets the long-term significance criterion. Generally in situations like this where the two criteria conflict, the usual practice is to have a dab page at the base location. However, there are exceptions to that standard practice (both in favour of usage and in favour of long-term significance) and, in this case, it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance. Hence, there is no consensus to move this page. On the moratorium question, I don't think there is a consensus to enforce a moratorium on this article, however if anyone is looking at making this proposal again I would recommend waiting at least a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Gamergate → Gamergate (biology) – First, please read this if nothing else: I am not going to make any value judgments about the Gamergate controversy here, and I strongly ask you not to do so either.

Now then. I propose moving this page and having the base title as a disambiguation page with the ant, the controversy, and a See also section for the online retailer. While I'm often among the first to recommend against a disambiguation page with two entries, I think it clearly represents an improvement over the status quo here. This article continues to receive over 10,000 views a month. It's wonderful to think of so many readers who want to learn about ants, but I hope we can recognize that, in fact, few of them are actually looking for this article. Indeed, this article didn't exist prior to the video game controversy. Based on traditional metrics, the controversy is about ten times as popular as the ant article, even if you make the ridiculous assumption that none of this article's views were intended for the controversy. While naming the controversy a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would undoubtedly benefit readers in the short term, it's been soundly rejected multiple times, on the reasonable basis that the controversy's importance will only diminish with time.

For now, though, it makes little sense to favor this article. Perhaps one day it will earn primary-topic status. Until it does, I think we should be more responsiveness to the needs of our readers. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

No. The ant will remain long after the harassment campaign is a mere footnote in history, remembered only by the fedora m'lady crowd.--Jorm (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't move. I think we've established time and again that the ant in the primary topic, regardless of recent page views. During the last discussion, I believe we also establish that there should be a moratorium on moving either the controversy page or this page. That was accomplished by locking move requests at the controversy article. We should be fine leaving this page as is given all the previous conversations even excluding the controversy aspect and just focusing on the ant. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you summarize the argument for the primacy of the ant? I looked through some of the talk page archives for the controversy, but obviously not all 40-something pages of it. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't move. I agree with the reasons above; moreover, as a general matter, where something is named as part of a systematic scheme, I think such names should take precedence over usages that are more idiomatic. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dumuzid, what do you mean by "systematic scheme"? --BDD (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it is part of scientific nomenclature for the members of an ant colony, and is derived from the Greek. That's the sort of thing I mean; gamergate as an ant is used as a recognized term of art in entomological texts. Gamergate the controversy was adopted from a tweet. That's all! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Personally, I don't see that as relevant under our naming conventions, but thanks for explaining. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's more my predilection than anything drawn from naming policy. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move - we might consider the disambig if a third thing comes along called Gamergate, but for now the hat note seems sufficient. Artw (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

user:SSTflyer may have a valid point below though. Channing my vote to support accordingly. Artw (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This suggestion seems like WP:RECENTISM; in the long run, it doesn't seem likely that an internet controversy will attract more attention than a scientific term. --Aquillion (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While there was nothing particularly remarkable about the year 300 as far as years go, 300 is still about the year, not about the 2007 movie (300 (film)). This is still the case even though the pageview ratio is over 18.6:1 in favor of the film (9393 vs. 174961 over 90 days) and the film's article is ranked #159 for traffic. There are plenty of other examples where long-term significance is obvious enough to overcome pageview disparities, but the numbers with the "300"s are the most overwhelmingly lopsided ones I'm aware of.

Even though 300 wasn't an especially noteworthy year, it is still a year, and it is hard to think of a situation where any movie could be significant enough for a year not to be a primary topic over it. Likewise, even if the ant wasn't an especially noteworthy insect, I can't see how a news story of a rather specialist interest that will more likely than not be little-remembered soon enough could be considered significant enough to make this change. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support even though this is probably WP:SNOW. This is not a WP:TWODABS situation, as there are 3 articles with similar titles. I just created a disambiguation page at Gamergate (disambiguation). The page move ban on the Gamergate controversy article was somewhat unilaterally enforced by Gamaliel. Page views can trump long-term significance if the difference is large enough; examples I can think of right now include Anne Hathaway, I Kissed a Girl, Blank Space (moved to this title less than 2 weeks after its release), Shut Up and Drive, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Thinking Out Loud, etc. As for the comments saying that there has been prior discussion on this, please note that WP:CCC. You may want to post links of these old discussions. In this move request, the proposer isn't even wanting to move Gamergate controversy over this title, unlike most past discussions. Remember, WP:RF, and the majority of readers are clearly searching for the Gamergate controversy article. sst✈ 08:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The brief and apparently fading popular interest in the term (speculated, probably accurately, to reflect interest in the video-game-related term) shouldn't require Wikipedia to turn the much longer established and much more durable entomological term into a redirect. The Readers First essay is fully satisfied in my view by the hatnote. Nobody interested in the video game topic will spend more than 2 seconds reading this article before they recognize that it's not the topic they were looking for and then they will quickly find their way to the other article. And the number of readers coming here accidentally has fallen dramatically (>35x) since the glory days of the controversy (compare Sep 2014 pageviews with today's pageviews) and it will continue to fall. The significance of the difference in page views is not sufficient in my view to suggest that we should give up on the "long-term significance" leg of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose A type of ant will always be significant, while current internet dramah will be a forgotten footnote. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The above comment about "unilaterally enforced" is misguided—admins are responsible for keeping the peace following an Arbcom case, and WP:AE is the place to request comments about any claims of unilateral enforcement. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Indeed, this article didn't exist prior to the video game controversy." This is false. The article was created at 19:36 on 22 July 2012‎ as a redirect to "Harpegnathos" (a gamergatoid genus of ant). It was expanded into a full article at 02:27 on 12 August 2014‎. All sources I've seen indicate that the controversy only became known to the public after Aug 20th. As many have suggested above, the part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that must be considered here is the "long-term significance" leg. The ant will have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the flash-in-the-pan culture clash. -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles. But it looks like it does still predate the controversy article, which I can only date to 5 September 2014. So perhaps the ant article was created not long before the start of the controversy. Quite a coincidence. Apologies, and the incorrect statement is struck. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Redirects are not articles." Granted, but it seems clear to me that regardless of whether it was a redirect or an article, the term's entomological meaning on Wikipedia predates its video game meaning by a good 2 years at least. Thanks for striking that part of the argument. -Thibbs (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation. If ever a situation needed disambiguating, this is it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support—Could we please take the interests of readers-in-search into account? [Disclaimer: I'm stalking Dicklyon's contribs upon his recent return to the project.] Tony (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. When the ants finally gain world domination, I, for one, will support a restoration of their primary topic status. H. Humbert (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose My god, when will people ever accept that this article is the primary topic? Whether or not this article should become a disambiguation page, it is not necessary by the time everyone forgets about this childish controversy so no action should be taken anyway. It may be helpful for a short period of time, but it won't in the long run. My reasons are same to that of Aquillion's and Thibb's. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Where else to people accept that a topic getting less than 10% of the traffic on an ambiguous term is primarytopic? That's a clear sign that a disambiguation page is better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This lemma got only 125 hits a month before the Baldwin tweet, so over 98 percent of the current traffic is spillover. H. Humbert (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a bit misleading. As BDD already pointed out, the page was a redirect throughout the month of June 2014 so it's not too surprising that it received few hits (those would only have been internally-generated hits instead of search-engine-disoverable hits). Consider August 2014 before the controversy broke. If we subtract off the huge numbers of views generated on Aug 30 and 31 we see 414 hits and those represent only views on a stub article for 2 weeks (between Aug 12 and Aug 29). If we extrapolate this we might predict ~800 hits for the stub for the month. Since that time the article has been expanded into a full article and was featured on the frontpage as a DYK. It's probable that the hitcount is somewhat elevated by the name of the 2014 scandal, but 98 percent elevated seems like an over-exaggeration. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • In that case, I recalculate as 94 percent overspill. ((414/17)90)/35824. H. Humbert (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • The 35824 includes two interesting spikes. The most recent one is almost certainly related to this RM, not the video game controversy... I'm not sure what accounts for the other one, but it doesn't seem to match a similar spike at the GamerGate controversy article. For comparison's sake, if we look at the 3 months making up the 90-day stretch you're looking at, October shows close connections between the two articles (compare 1 to 2) but November (1, 2) and December (1, 2) (the two months that contain the spikes that skew the results for this article the most) do not. I'm not sure we can lay these hitcount spikes at GamerGate's doorstep. -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
            • OK I've redone the calculation for the last 30 days removing the skew-introducing spike related to this RM and using a simple DYKSTATS-inspired correction for background views. I see (414/17)30/(7965-1549+((233+313)/2)) → 89% overspill. Of course that still fails to take into account the fact that we are treating this version of the article as equally likely to receive views as this version - an assumption I find dubious. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I just made a few quick calculations to see what kind of effect a 5× expansion has on viewcounts. So far there have only been 7 DYKs on ant articles that correspond to 5× expansions and I compared the viewcount in the month immediately before the expansion to the viewcount for today. Effects ranged from a 164-fold viewcount increase to zero increase, but after knocking out both of these outliers, I came up with an average effect of ~2.76-fold increase in viewcounts after the 5× expansion. None of the other articles were as large as this gamergate article so the 2.76 average may be a little low for this article. Anyway with this figure one might predict that the natural view-count for this article without overspill views is around 2k instead of either 731 or 6.7k. So we're talking about a possible 70% overspill at present (assuming all of the previous assumptions are good). Now compare this to the views in Sep 2014 where we would calculate a 99.2% overspill based on the same 2k predicted "natural" views for this article. If we estimate another 30% drop in overspill for next year as people continue to lose interest in the drama topic, then we're now looking at a predicted overflow of ~40% corresponding to 3.4k actual pageviews (including 1.4k overspill). By the end of 2017 we might be looking at 11% of readers (as few as 244 individual lost souls) hoping in vain to find a discussion of Zoe Quinn et al. at this article instead of the controversy article. All of this is speculative, of course, but no more so than the speculations that 98 percent of current views represent spillover. -Thibbs (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but a pitiful controversy will never be the primary topic. Whether or not it gets more views, its true and actual meaning will always refer to a fertile female worker ant. Accept that. This has been the primary topic for over 30 years, and this controversy will easily be forgotten very soon. Perhaps it would have made more sense when more people were interested awhile ago, but why now? It's completely unnecessary and a waste of your time. A disambiguation page under this title is no longer relevant. If we do not want to waste our time this should be withdrawn, consensus seems to show a majority oppose this. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think we mostly agree that the controversy should not be primarytopic; has someone proposed that here? I don't think so. When usage and long-term significance are at odds like this, it makes most sense not to have a primarytopic, but to have disambiguation instead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well nobody here is seriously suggesting that disambiguation is unnecessary either. The hatnote currently located at the top of this article in fact serves to provide disambiguation. There was no real need to create a disambiguation page between "Gamersgate", "GamersGate", and "GamerGate" because they are all spelled/rendered differently (see WP:SMALLDETAILS and the title capitalization guidelines). -Thibbs (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's nice that we could be disambiguating by capital letter, but that's not the current situation. The consumer activist group is being referred to as Gamergate controversy. This is Wikipedia jargon, a world in which everything is a "controversy." It's not terminology you will find in the RS. H. Humbert (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It strikes me as a more elegant solution and one that does not require dismissing the "long-term significance" leg of PRIMARYTOPIC. The logs at "Gamergate controversy" and its previous iterations show that:
  1. 6 September 2014 - The article started life as "GamerGate"
  2. 21 September 2014 - Tony Sidaway moved the article to "Gamergate (controversy)" with the edit summary "As discussed yesterday. Implement our standard disambiguation policy (entomology article is primary as it's a well established scientific term)"
  3. 21 September 2014 - Sceptre moved the article to "Gamergate controversy" with the edit summary "Brackets are unnatural and should be used sparingly"

It would seem to be a true perversion of things that the renaming of "GamerGate" (the controversy) in order to further differentiate it from "gamergate" (the ant) would lead more than a year later when reader interest in the controversy is at an all-time and trending low to the renaming of the ant article under the theory that it is indistinguishable by readers from the controversy... I'm pinging both Tony Sidaway and Sceptre in the hopes that they might shed some light on the rationale leading to the renaming. How, for instance, was it decided that the CamelCase rendering (i.e. "GamerGate") was insufficient to disambiguate between the ant and the controversy? Were WP:SMALLDETAILS and the title capitalization guidelines taken into account? Was this the discussion leading to the first pagemove from "GamerGate" to "Gamergate (controversy)"? Would anyone familiar with the long history of page move requests at the controversy article be able to provide links to the previous discussions of this topic at the controversy article? -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: The main reason is IAR. Suppose the ant page was created a month later, would one ever have a discussion about whether to rename the page? This shows me that the current naming is largely a matter of inertia, nothing more. If one does not like IAR reasoning., there are other reasons. Firstly, it is perfectly clear that the majority of traffic comes from people wanting to look at something else. The fact that this is true that even at the low point of interest in the other GG is a point in favour, not against. Secondly, there is no, or little downside to renaming this page, except weird BURO guidelines nobody cares about. Thirdly it will have the side effect of removing the wholly pointless discussion about whether the other GG is a controversy or movement or whatever. I also agree with SST's comments. I would love to take the position of Michael Bolton in Office Space: "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks", but that was just a movie. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Firstly, it is perfectly clear that the majority of traffic comes from people wanting to look at something else" - I don't see it as perfectly obvious. Look at comparable articles: Queen ant (a similar but much smaller and less developed article) gets around 3k views in 30 days; Queen bee (closer to this one in size, though not in sourcing) gets close to 10k views in 30 days; this article gets ~6.5k views in 30 days. Nobody is arguing that "Queen bee" should be moved to "Queen bee (biology)" because of all the spillover views from the TV series. Readers numbering in the thousands do in fact read entomology-related articles. There is little basis to assume that the majority of the views come from video game fans interested in learning about what all this GamerGate drama means 16 months after the events took place. And we haven't reached the nadir of interest in the video game topic yet: the only reason we're currently at the all-time low-point is that it's not yet August 2016 or August 2017 when we'll see many fewer views at GamerGate controversy. -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Thirdly it will have the side effect of removing the wholly pointless discussion about whether the other GG is a controversy or movement or whatever." How so? If the "Gamergate controversy" article were restored to its original name (i.e. "GamerGate") then I would agree, but as long as it is called "Gamergate controversy" I think there will be continued calls to rename it. Moving this page to "Gamergate (biology)" would only increase those requests (move request bans notwithstanding). -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • We can bypass the oddities of Wikipedia article history by comparing the level of interest in the two subjects with Google Trends. The pre-Baldwin tweet level of interest in Gamergate was zero compared to four now. The related terms for gamergate are Twitter, Zoe Quinn, and Reddit. I'm no ant specialist, but none of those sound ant-related to me. The level of interest in queen bees is of course vastly greater than that in gamergate ants. H. Humbert (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The main thing I see from Google trends is that Google-wide interest in the term has faded by more than 20x since the scandal broke. Perhaps it makes sense to consider the long-term significance of the pagename rather than its fleeting association with internet drama. -Thibbs (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It is plain as the nose on my face that the vast majority of the page views on this page are people interested in the other article. For instance, see the huge spike near 10 Nov 2015. You can find a roughly similar spike in the other article. There are many other reasons already given by Humbert, which I don't want to reiterate. I have no idea why you keep harping on the decline in interest in the other GG. If even at the low point of the Internet drama, the situation is as I've described above, that's a point in favour, not against. Kingsindian ♝ ♚
          • I have no idea why you keep harping on the decline in interest in the other GG - Because the basis of the argument is that large number of readers trying to reach the drama article are unable to find it when they arrive here. I'm suggesting that the "large numbers" looking for drama are in fact small and growing smaller. The evidence is quite clear that one of these topics is something of immediate interest to people last year, of peripheral interest to people today, and of little or no interest to people at this same time next year whereas the other topic will continue to hold steady interest for people today, just as it did in the 1980s, and just as it will in the 2040s. That's a point against (not in favour of) changing name of the stable article so that it's more difficult to find only in the interest of assisting those who are already growing quite understandably bored of the flash-in-the-pan article. -Thibbs (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
            • I am sorry that I didn't get across my point twice, so let me try a third time. This time we use numbers. From the page view statistics, the ant got about 8-9k page views a month. As I said, the vast majority of them are actually for the other page, but let's say half. So 4-5k page views a month. The pageviews of the other GG page has been pretty consistently about 80-90k per month for the past 8 months (December was an outlier, but November was more than 100k for instance). How long do you think it will take 80-90k will become even close to 4-5k? And why do we need to wait for that day? We could just rename the page if it indeed became clear in the distant future. Recall WP:CCC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
              • I don't understand your point about waiting for the 80-90k readers per month to become even close to 4-5k. Nobody is suggesting that. All I'm saying is that the Google Trends link shows that interest in the topic has evaporated by more than 20x in the last year and I don't expect that it will suddenly start getting more traction. Rather I suspect that it is a flash-in-the-pan flare up in the larger culture war and that if ever it merited moving the article with clear "long-term significance" to another title then it was in September 2014, not now when nobody cares any more. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
                • "Nobody cares" is simply snobbery. 80-90k people care. And Google Trends actually shows that the interest in the last 8 or so months has been basically flat, or declining only a little. Extrapolate from that trend, not a wildly misleading claim based on arbitrary endpoints.
                  • Let's be specific, then: 60k/779k = 7% people care today compared to the time of the event. I would have understood this proposal then. Today it makes only 7% as much sense. -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • Yes, 7% of a lot of sense is still a great deal of sense, for high enough values of "lot". I also noticed that you picked the number for cherry picked endpoints, instead of looking at the trend, despite me warning explicitly against it. So it is rather useless to argue about this more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • Cherrypicked endpoints? Give me a break. They were 1) the first available full month of viewcount totals and 2) the latest available full month of viewcount totals. Sure there is some variation between months and viewcounts have sometimes even increased, but the overall trend is really pretty clear. Fewer people than ever are coming to Wikipedia to read about the controversy. The ant is the primary topic and the controversy is a drama-blip of limited or no significance to future generations. Maybe it seems inconceivable right now in the present but do you really think it is more likely that your grandchildren will be reading about #GamerGate in their history textbooks than that they will be reading about gamergate ants in their entomology textbooks? And let's not imagine that it will take that long either. You can already read about gamergate ants in entomology textbooks whereas you can't read about #GamerGate in any history textbooks. Take the long-view and the primary topic is obvious. -Thibbs (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I feel there's a sufficient reason to rename the page, if only because the controversy is currently more important. This is similar to the Palin edit war, is it not?  ONR  (talk)  18:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, note the word "currently", yet the popularity is diminishing fast. I don't see your sufficient reasons though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The Google trends link strongly indicates that the coverage of the video game topic is decreasing rapidly. I can see a case to reevaluate if something happens and the video game controversy is still being covered on a fairly regular basis a few years down the line.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The ant is primary and durable. The news coming out of the controversy has dropped off significantly over the year. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The ant has lasting significance. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I have nothing additional to add. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think this move would make more sense in the event that an actual "GamerGate" article is made, rather than the propaganda-tier "Gamergate controversy" spin that is used for that article's current title. Now I would assume that most of this article's traffic comes from people searching the term "gamergate", so there's clearly a demand for such a summary of what gamergate is instead of the "controversy" surrounding it. Until such an article is made however, a disambiguation of this established scientific grouping seems perhaps a bit premature.173.242.20.132 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of the ant's long-term cultural significance. At the risk of WP:BALL I think it's useful to ask, will the controversy even be the long-term primary meeting of gamergate in even a restricted field such as video gaming? It's such an obvious nickname that once this controversy fades, another will take its place... giving us a three-way DAB with more to follow. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely BALL territory, Andrewa, but isn't that all the m/ore reason to disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To the extent that it is WP:BALL territory, it's not a reason to do anything, at least not so far as Wikipedia article titles are concerned. That's why I based my vote on another argument rather than that one. But it does give me a little extra comfort that in this case the rules produce a good result. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the "ethics in gaming journalism" movement was only notable for the controversies that erupted from it; it requires controversy or a similar natural disambiguator in the title to meet NPOV requirements, notwithstanding the ant. So it can be Gamergate controversy or Gamergate dustup or Gamergate ruckus or Gamergate wifflewaffle, but never Gamergate - that's a species of ant. There is no ambiguity to resolve here. People searching for the donnybrook by that name will find it through the hatnote on the ant's article, that's what hatnotes are for. And frankly I find it a quite pleasant thought that people who come here looking for information on a sustained campaign of vicious sexual harassment learn something about ants instead. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, me too. Again, what that last sentence says may not be a compelling reason to rename or not to rename, but it does confirm for me that the rules are right on the money in this case and so we don't need to even consider an appeal to WP:IAR. It's important we cover both topics with due weight, but our focus as an encyclopedia is towards on the more useful bits of human knowledge. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You are claiming that the current setup is regular under the rules? Seriously? "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No way is this topic primary by that standard. The current setup is steering thousands of readers to the wrong article every month. If I understand the above correctly, this is feature, not a bug -- a fact you take malicious pleasure in. H. Humbert (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well then you didn't understand at all. We only have one topic about a thing properly titled "gamergate", and that's a species of ant. The bunch of dudebros that got together on the internet to promote and celebrate their fear and hatred of women were never themselves known as gamergate, they just caused a huge controversy and we decided to call it the "gamergate controversy". We could just as well have called it the "gaming journalism controversy" or the "parents' basements controversy" - some time in the not too distant future we probably will give it a lasting neutral descriptive name. "Gamergate" is not a thing in that sense, and never will be. So WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favours the thing that has always existed and continues to exist, the ant actually known as gamergate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Moratorium?

• Additional comment. Seeing the still general opposition to moving this page, maybe it's time to put a moratorium on move requests? It's been mentioned in the last few rejected requests. This was essentially done over at the controversy article to after many proposed moves being rejected and people trying to move this page without conversation by protecting the controversy page from being moved. It looks like that since that page can't be moved, some people are trying to get around that by trying to get this page moved in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support 6-month moratorium - I hope you don't mind I broke this out into its own section. I agree, there's a consistent consensus that the titles are as they should be, evident from various moves having been rejected by consensus many times over just the last year ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], I probably missed some). Gamergate controversy is already under a 6-month move request moratorium, this page should be too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's actually perfectly fine as it gives the thought more prominence. 6 months at a minimum sounds good to me. Both pages probably should have been originally protected, but the ongoing requests since with the previous history would seem to justify adding the moratorium here at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Those RMs are all on the Gamergate controversy page. They shouldn't be lumped together with this one. H. Humbert (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but all of those requests also had to do with this page, and any request on this page will have to do with that one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

On review of the RMs linked, I find only 2 or 3 which would have affected this article [11], [12], and potentially [13] if capitalisation is not sufficiently distinct. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support moratorium (at 6 months) per Kingofaces' reasons. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support and only if it is of limited duration. I think the problems here spring mostly from the contentious title of the #GamerGate article, and from recentism. My hope is that some kind of an agreement can be reached regarding that article's title but I know that will take time. Also for the record I'd like to note that I think User:BDD's motivations as proposer are unimpeachable. The discussion may have had some crossover effects, but the proposal itself wasn't in my view a backdoor effort related to #GamerGate. -Thibbs (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Since this discussion is on life support until someone closes it as not moved, and since my call for a neutral discussion free of value judgments lasted all of eight minutes, I'll go ahead and say that personally, I actually do find the Gamergate "movement" rather vile and think any reader is better off learning about the lives of ants than getting into that mess. But as a professional Wikipedian, I feel an obligation to respond to what our readers choose. Perhaps this is a fine case to appeal to PRIMARYTOPIC's rather squishy "educational value" provision. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that my comments were directly pointed at you, but rather than the gamergate controversy just tends to hijack discussion involving it as happened above. That being said, many of the things you mentioned have already been discussed to death in previous move discussions mainly centering on WP:RECENTISM. That's going down a road not really relevant to this section though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There has indeed been a series of RMs in which anti-recentism has trumped the primary topic guideline. But WP:RECENT has nothing to do with the issue of how to select a primary topic. (Please read it, everyone.) What do the people who cite it think it says, anyway? What it seems to mean in practice is, "Never make anything primary topic, unless you can seriously screw up traffic patterns by doing so." H. Humbert (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ambivalent on moratorium of finite duration not in excess of 6 months; Oppose moratorium in excess of 6 months or of indefinite duration. I am not convinced that this justifies a moratorium; but could conceive that one of finite duration might be within the realms of reason. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamergate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030302185140/http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/fourmis2.htm to http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/fourmis2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback requested

It has been proposed that Gamergate controversy be renamed and moved to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)