Talk:Looksmaxxing

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024
change ”incel” to sigma male 86.114.211.209 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to start anything, but I don't see how they can be any more clear than this. Panini!  • 🥪 04:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I doubt many people take the whole sigma male stuff seriously, and certainly not enough to justify using this name for the whole incel subculture. Especially without reliable sources connecting the term to looksmaxxing in particular. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I probably should have specified that this was a ; this edit was mentioned in WP:DISCORD and I wanted to stop by and say hi. Hey there, Enby! Panini!  • 🥪 05:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey! Probably missed it in the Discord, my bad! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Loose connections between the two. Maybe it'll come up in the future. Sigma male should be a standalone article!!!! (maybe) TLA  (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024
add Melvin Pehrs, notorious Looksmax.me user Arvid Gustavsson to the page and Vinnie Hacker, a user formerly active on the now defunct Lookism.net forum. Imustbedreaming (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! Do you have any reliable sources talking about these individuals in the context of looksmaxxing? Forum activity alone isn't enough to justify inclusion. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this
I would like to see this article revised or even deleted. It currently reads like Urban Dictionary. I checked the address bar to make sure I wasn't on a Wikipedia parody website. I have read the entire article and talk section. Unless I am missing something, this article was made by group of friends to celebrate inside jokes and/or poke fun at each other. A sincere encyclopedia is not the place to do that. Haiku.Kireji (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As silly as the topic is, it has been covered by reliable sources such as the BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Dot and The Guardian. The article definitely needs improvement and cleaning out the less reliable sources used, but well-covered neologisms and other recent concepts definitely have their place here, if sourced correctly. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)