Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OWS (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS articles

Archives

1

Occupy Albany resource

Protesters arrested in Albany for defying curfew NOVEMBER 20, 2011, 4:59 A.M. ET Associated Press via WSJ excerpt ...

Protester Sheldon Dodson estimates that more than 50 people were arrested. Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo has vowed to have anyone arrested who violates the park's curfew. The park land is adjacent to the city-owned Academy Park, where demonstrators protesting economic inequality and corporate greed have been allowed to camp since Oct. 21. Before Sunday, more than 60 Occupy protesters had been arrested for defying the curfew, most on trespassing and disorderly conduct charges.

99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

A {{split}} tag was inserted onto this page. The editor who did this did not start a discussion. I'll note that I split this article off of the wider List of Occupy movement protest locations that was far too large. The other editor created pages based on states. On the largest one, California, failed to copy the sources for this and apparently doesn't understand the structure of inserting this material back in. I'm not sure I can accomplish it properly, what I will attempt will affect the layout of the article once again

To the discussion: I agree the United States article is still too large. It would be good to do a split, if it works. The question is how to make it function? Other editors designed the table format that appears on the site now. I have expressed its design alone is too cumbersome, as evidenced by the fact that this editor and many other editors have not even figured out the three tier referencing system. Perhaps we need to solve that issue before spitting the article up but I'm going to make some attempts.Trackinfo (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the split for now. If you decide how to split it up before tearing up references like this editor did, then I support splitting it. However, he didn't do it correctly. — Moe ε 16:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the Alabama split and redirected back into this article, however Occupy movement in California looks alright for now. If that is expanded with all the proper templates, external links, and all that, then we can take California off this list and keep it separate. — Moe ε 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will express my objection to the way this has resulted. Instead of presenting the information in a visible table, as I had attempted to do, this version now just send the user off to an extra link. If they don't click it, they don't see the state with the largest number of protests. It becomes an insignificant single line. I also object to that reduction on the main global List of Occupy movement protest locations‎. While consolidating article size is nice for our ability to function and edit, when it turns into an exercise in hiding that information I have to draw the line. WP is an information source. This new table format makes for easy reading but adds 25% more code. It also prevents us from being able to merge articles for unified display. If that limitation prevents us from being able to properly present the information, then all of this, including my own creation of this article (though I didn't create the table), should be reverted and we go back to the original look where things can be seen from one place. Trackinfo (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Having a single line in the table is fine. If people want to find California, it's in alphabetical order and they can click the link to see all the protests in California. I understand the need to keep it visible on the main article to an extent, but I don't think it is too much to have a reader click a link. While it is our job to make information easily readable and able to find, it isn't our job to make it so the reader doesn't have to click a link. Besides, I have made this information easily accessible now that I have linked California to the main template, the main protest location article and from the U.S. article. — Moe ε 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costs

I removed the costs column. See this version of the article, and this diff. The costs column was not discussed first, and I don't think costs merit a separate column. Costs info should go in the notes column. We could have separate columns for arrests, date when protests ended, and much more. There is not enough room because then the notes column starts wordwrapping to 2 lines. Set your screen resolution to 1024 by 768 (a common setting for 17 inch-or-less monitors and laptops) and increase your font size. Then you will see the problem. Too many cities then take more than one line, and the page takes longer and longer to scroll through. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved info to comments section per your request. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland and Salem merger requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. Looking at the AFDs, the RFD and this discussion, there is clearly no consensus to merge Occupy Salem and Occupy Ashland into this article. Jafeluv (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the smaller-scale Occupy articles have either been deleted or redirected here. I propose the same treatment for Salem and Ashland. Both articles are short; half their text is Occupy boilerplate found in all articles. Both have been AfDed before, with the general vibe being a "wait and see approach". That was three or four months ago; enough waiting and seeing for my money. In the last two-three months, Ashland's hardly been edited and Salem's actually lost content. Yes, the articles have a few refs, but they're all news articles and we're not news. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The AfD discussion for Occupy Salem had a strong consensus to Keep, and resulted in keep. The first AfD discussion for Occupy Ashland resulted in No consensus, and the article's second AfD discussion had a strong consensus to keep, with only one !vote to merge. The nomination to delete was withdrawn in the second AfD discussion for Occupy Ashland, based upon this consensus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Anything can be nominated for merger regardless of an AfD outcome; and the consensus for the second one is unclear as it did not go seven days. Also, why didn't you comment in the week that the merger discussion lasted? BTW, I have reverted it to merge Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: no valid rationale for merge. The events seem to be as notable as the movement they originate from. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24 – Occupy article redirects, an additional three users opposed the redirection of these articles to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article, and one user (the proposer User:Purplebackpack89) supported it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever worthwhile there is about these two non-events can easily be merged here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the articles were to be merged, Occupy movement would be a better target, because it's in prose format. The list article List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States is not. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These smaller protests are alive and well. In my state the Occupy group receives TV coverage almost daily. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's been eight days since the second redirect occurred on 23 February 2012 (UTC), and the consensus (including the three oppose !votes and one support !vote from the same nominator to merge here, at the separate Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24 – Occupy article redirects discussion) is to not merge this article to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

As an involved user, you can't close this. Therefore, I have reopened it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that at Talk:Occupy Salem#Re: Merge there is additional discussion that has transpired regarding a merging of the Occupy Salem article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Texas State merger request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. Looking at both the RFD and this discussion, there is no consensus to merge Occupy Texas State into this article. Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially same rationale as merger for Ashland and Salem...NOTNEWS, not really notable in and of itself, small-scale protest, references are all news or primary sources (in fact mostly primary sources) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Occupy Texas State article is well-developed and documents an historical event. Furthermore, the article was redirected to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article without merging any of the information. I've restored the Occupy Texas State article. It is important to WP:PRESERVE valid information in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've reverted it back because the merger discussion ended several days ago Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, WP:NOTNEWS would override WP:PRESERVE, and furthermore, the article was almost entirely sourced from primary sources Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: no valid rationale for merge. The events seem to be as notable as the movement they originate from. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24 – Occupy article redirects, an additional three users opposed the redirection of this article to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article, and one user (the proposer User:Purplebackpack89) supported it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All these small separate articles only serve to trivialize the whole event. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the article was to be merged, Occupy movement would be a better target, because it's in prose format. The list article List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States is not. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These small Occupy group's articles do not trivialize the event, they are the event. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean we need to have articles on all of them Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because these small groups are not making national news does not mean that they are not locally very well-known. Our state's small group made the evening news nightly for many weeks. Since they closed the group to over-night camping it still is on the news several nights a week.

Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It's been eight days since the second redirect occurred on 23 February 2012 (UTC), and the consensus (including the three oppose !votes and one support !vote from the same nominator to merge here, at the separate Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24 – Occupy article redirects discussion) is to not merge these articles to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

As an involved user, you can't close this. Therefore, I have reopened it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. 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:

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) 00:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. 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:

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) 18:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]