Talk:Occupy

Untitled

not sure if double disambiguation is appropriate. Let's talk this out. Occupy disambiguates to occupation, which is itslef a disambig. MPS (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I still favor making "Occupy" a redirect to "Occupy Wall Street"; it's quite simple to fix navigation problems with a hatnote directing people to "Occupation" for other uses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse. One more data point for you... there are currently exactly four articles that link through to occupy...

‎:: Given that there are only four links that would be redirected (none of which have anything to do with OWS), I am not sure that this debate deserves much more thought. Let's leave this as a double disambig and move on to editing and improving other wikipedia articles??? Peace, MPS (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is obviously a developing event - let's see what happens as we move forward. (It's not just link-throughs but searches as well.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the links on the Gloucester County, Virginia ‎and Timeline of the War of 1812 articles per WP:OVERLINK. They seemed to be only used for linking plain English words. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013 discussion

Items currently under "Occupation (disambiguation), various meanings" about protest should be merged or moved to the occupy page. People have been doing sit-in or occupy protests around the world before it was coined to mean a specific movement initiated in the United States. The current content does not reflect history before the last five years. Alixos (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]