Talk:2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge proposal[edit]

A merge has been enacted by me (non-admin closure). Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest that 2016 House Democrats sit-in be merged here. The title is more appropriate, and the article is already more detailed. OnionRing (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Agreed, merge. The article with the longer title is more in depth, and encyclopedic.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merging "2016 House Democrats sit-in" into "2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in": The 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in article is more thorough, and the title (while subject to change) seems more appropriate in my opinion. I'd like to hear more opinions though. --Ministre d'État (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The appropriateness is self-evident. KConWiki (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Bummer. Newer articles should be merged into older articles, especially when older ones are more integrated into Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I have no opinion on the "from" or "to" of the merge, but we need to get consensus on the article title. Once that's done, we can rename the old one. On the other hand, the older article seems to have gone dead, and all the editing is going on here now. OnionRing (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
We're only talking about a couple editors here. And the older article is more integrated in terms of categories, WikiProjects, wiki links, interwiki links, etc. I think we should move the older article once we decide on the best article title. But, obviously, a merge of some sort is needed here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – This is obviously a case where two similar articles on the same subject were created independently and simultaneously. No need for both. Please merge.    → Michael J    14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge as we don't need to duplicative articles but also merge article history to the point we can, because I believe the other article was created earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Ultimately, we only need one article and the best title is still to be determined, but as the creator of the older article, I would certainly appreciate an article history merge. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Per everyone else. Parsley Man (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support - See above Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just merge the thing already! Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: No one is against a merge. The only thing to be debated is the ultimate title of the article and whether the older one is merged into the newer one, or vice versa. Can an admin go ahead and merge so we can focus on improving a single article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Article title discussion: Talk:2016_House_Democrats_sit-in#Most_appropriate_article_title.3F. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I support your merging the shorter into the longer article on the same topic, but you have copied text from there to here123 without giving the origin (thus claiming you were the author), what is of great disrespect for the work of fellow Wikipedians and against our policies, please fix that asap. --SI 05:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Schmarrnintelligenz: I attributed using {{merged to}} and {{merged from}} on the corresponding talk pages of the shorter and longer articles respectively. That is sufficient, I believe. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately that isn't sufficient, those templates are not replacing the necessity to give the source of any text that is not your own work simultaneously when and where clicking the "Save page" button. This could have been done via difflink in the edit summary. If that didn't happen, it can only be fixed via history merging (afaik). --SI 17:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2[edit]

Can someone change the title? All the sources use the possessive as in "House Democrats’ Gun-Control Sit-In " your title implies the House itself is being protested. Grammar![edit]

Can someone change the title? All the sources use the possessive as in "House Democrats’ Gun-Control Sit-In " your title implies the House itself is being protested. Grammar!

I'll suggest "United States House of Representatives' gun control sit-in." Why? 2 1. 2016 serves no informational purpose (we don't call it the "1865 American Civil War" since there was no other American Civil War, the same applies here.) 2. the possessive is needed to avoid implication that the House is being protested, rather than protested. We should save "House of Representatives sit-in" for a future possible protest of the House of Represenatives, not by them. 3, A descriptor of what is actually being protested is plainly rationally required. All sources refer to this as the "House Democrats' gun control sit-in"; there is no reason for us to be the outlier leaving everyone in the dark about what is being protested. . Q.E.D. (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the title can be improved. I believe that we should carefully seek a consensus on the issue though, and in the meantime the current title is fairly agreeable. I do believe that including United States in the title is a must, as something like "House Democrats'" is too broad (i.e. we could be talking about Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons, or any number of US states who refer to their lower chamber as a House of Representatives).--Ministre d'État (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Error in last paragraph[edit]

"At 2:30 AM on June 23, the House again convened...despite this, Democrats remained on the floor, insisting that they would remain there through at least June 22.[2]"

On June 23, they insisted they would stay at least through June 22? Can someone check this? KannD86 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


I propose this article to be removed, it is no more of note than every filibuster in the Senate (how many of them have their own articles?). Yes the House Democrats had them a cry and sit in because they couldn't vote to abolish parts of the Constitution, but even though the tactic was through a sit-in, that doesn't make it encyclopedia level information. (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

cute picture[edit]

It's ironic that a photo illustrating an article about a sit-in shows people standing around. Is there some better word than "sit-in"? Filibuster? Occupation? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)