| Revision as of 20:41, 16 April 2023 edit2603:6010:ae04:d461:800a:a810:521c:6111 (talk) ballsTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:42, 16 April 2023 edit undo2603:6010:ae04:d461:800a:a810:521c:6111 (talk) it is a peak video game 👺Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → |
| Line 46: |
Line 46: |
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> see ] and ]. Also this just looks like nonsense ] (]) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> see ] and ]. Also this just looks like nonsense ] (]) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
fortnite is on top |
|
== Requested move 13 February 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ''']''' (]) 11:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|GNAA}} – I want to be clear that this RM is not born of any desire to censor this title. There are plenty of articles where including the N-word or another slur in the title is the correct thing according to policy and guidelines. I do not think, however, that this article is one of them. I'm hesitant to reach that conclusion after the massive amount of attention this article got in yesteryear, but it seems pretty clear to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Avoid_ambiguous_abbreviations}} advises, {{tqq|Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided '''unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject'''}} (emphasis added). The latter is clearly met here, given that {{slink|Talk:GNAA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move}} found consensus to redirect ''{{-r|GNAA}}'' to this article. As to the former question, that of {{tqq|known primarily by its abbreviation}}, here is an assessment of the English-language independent sources cited in the article and available online (omitting dupes and ones that don't name it at all). "Full name" includes censored variants, and typos etc. are counted as their intended meaning. |
|
|
;Full name (2): ; |
|
|
;Full name in quote, not mentioned in source's voice (1): |
|
|
;Full name 1st reference, "GNAA" thereafter (2): ; |
|
|
;"GNAA" 1st reference, with expansion; back to "GNAA" on later refs, if any (3): ; ; |
|
|
;Just "GNAA" (7): ; ''BuzzFeed News'' ; ; ; ; ; |
|
|
This comes out to 10–5 or 12–3 for the acronym, depending how you count it. Beyond this, most relevant Google News hits are emphasizing it in the context of ], not treating that as the name used in general discourse. Almost no one called this by its full name. Not today, not then, not in casual discourse, not in reliable sources. I remember getting into an argument with another Wikidata admin in 2013 about whether it made sense to revdel the letters "GNAA"... the takeaway from that being, even GNAA trolls were just using "GNAA", not the expanded acronym. So is the {{tqq|subject ... known primarily by its abbreviation}}? I would say yes. And in that case ] says we should move. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' <b><span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"><span style="color:#FC0">❯❯❯</span>]]</span></b> 09:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:'''Support''' per these RSes, ], and just plane common sense, i.e. ]. We can spell it out in the body of the article but it doesn't need to be the article name. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ] and the strong preference for natural disambiguation. The MOS states that "Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes." There are other things that use the acronym, as found at ]. They're not as well-known to average readers so the move would be allowed per the letter of the policy, but given that "strong preference" we should avoid moving against it absent a compelling reason. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:This page is already the redirect target for ] as the ], so I'm not sure that argument holds much weight. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I did say it would be legitimate within the MOS to have the article at either location. I just believe that given this unique circumstance a page move wouldn't be the optimal resolution here, and that since there isn't anything wrong or confusing with the current title this is a solution in search of a problem. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose'''. Far too obscure to be denoted by its acronym alone. ] (]) 17:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose move.''' Although it's the primary topic for GNAA, I don't think it should be moved there. Many sources using "GNAA" appear to do so to avoid writing the N-word. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
** I don't think it matters why sources don't use the full name. Maybe it's to avoid the slur. Maybe it's because the full name is fairly long. Maybe it's because they think "GNAA" is simply the better-known name. That's not really part of the ] analysis. The question for us to answer is <em>what</em> is the commonly-used name here, not <em>why</em>. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''LOL''' It's not a censorship proposal, but well actually it kinda sorta maybe is. Uh, '''no'''! ] (]) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{re|Jtbobwaysf}} I beg your pardon? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::In addition your comments in which you admit "maybe its to avoid a slur" here appear to be ]. Remember, ]. Thanks! ] (]) 20:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Well I sure can't argue with that logic. As in, actually can't, because I have no damn clue what you're trying to say. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::You are here advocating for the removal of a slur name from an article that is about a slur, because you perceive the slur to be offensive. This is SOAP. ] (]) 01:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I am advocating for using the more commonly-used name for a group primarily known by its acronym, which happens to expand to a string that contains a slur. And I am acknowledging that the presence of that slur may (or may not be) part of the reason that sources prefer the acronym, but don't see that as relevant, since sources' motives for using a name, ], aren't pertinent to a COMMONNAME analysis. So if you'd like to actually participate in this RM rather than make things up, perhaps you would like to address the question of which name is more commonly used? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::] is a good example to counter your argument. We use the names, not the abbreviations. ] (]) 06:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*'''Oppose''' per ] --- <span style="font-family: 'Verdana';"><span style="color:red"><span style="font-size:120%">'''Tbf69'''</span></span></span> ] • ] 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do modify it. 🙀 |
|
Not done: see WP:RS and WP:SPS. Also this just looks like nonsense Cannolis (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)