This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Madame Necker (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 3 July 2022 (→Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:29, 3 July 2022 by Madame Necker (talk | contribs) (→Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for edits to a protected page". Before listing a request here, please make a request on the protected page's talk page. Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request a specific edit to a protected pagePlease request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit | |
Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)
Please add the following comment to the recent move request.
- Comment: Some users such as GorillaWarfare claimed that harassment campaign is not the primary topic. However, harassment campaign page has 10x more views compared to ant page. It also has educational value, because it teaches us about the misogynistic deeds other people committed and shows us how to take lessons from it. All these evidence indicate that harassment campaign is the primary topic. Accordingly, I disagree with their opinion. Madame Necker (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bluntly speaking, this argument is like to do far more harm than good to your position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I will modify my argument. Madame Necker (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be more specific, the "more pageviews" argument is a good one. It's the "It also has educational value..." sentence that would be the problematic bit, as that sounds like your goal is to use the article for some sort of advocacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I will change and repost it. Madame Necker (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be more specific, the "more pageviews" argument is a good one. It's the "It also has educational value..." sentence that would be the problematic bit, as that sounds like your goal is to use the article for some sort of advocacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I will modify my argument. Madame Necker (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bluntly speaking, this argument is like to do far more harm than good to your position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Please add the following comment to the recent move request.
- Comment: Some users such as GorillaWarfare claimed that harassment campaign is not the primary topic. However, harassment campaign page has 10x more views compared to ant page. Aquillion pointed out that move might cause problems with recentism. However, WP:DPT states that "...historical age is not determinative" when identifying the primary topic. I also think that the general audience would be more interested in the internet campaign compared to the ant species, which would attract the specific audience of biology enthusiasts. Ant species has more educational value compared to the internet campaign, but I think the other factors —particularly overwhelmingly more pageviews and appeal to general audience— outweigh it. Accordingly, I disagree with their opinion.--Madame Necker (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)