Jump to content

Template talk:Occupy movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 17 January 2014 (Substing templates: {{EP}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:"Occupy" protests - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant use of "Occupy"

Is it necessary to list "Occupy" for every city in the template? Perhaps just the city titles could be displayed (Ashland, Atlanta, Austin, etc.) unless the article does not begin with "Occupy"... --Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Other"

To the right of the purple "Protests" row there is a row titled "United States and a row titled "Other" that lists occupations in other countries besides the united states. Can we change that to "International" or similar. WP:WORLDVIEW Rachel librarian (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'International' is inherently far worse in my view as the ex-US protests are only 'international' if the reader is actually based in the US. 'Other' actually seems to satisfy WP:WORLDVIEW much better in this case.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I changed it to "Other nations". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the protests happening outside of the United States are referred to as "global" in two places on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_%22Occupy%22_protests Perhaps using "global" in the template would be more consistent. Rachel librarian (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dislike 'global' too as the U.S. is also part of the 'globe'. I find both 'international' and 'global' to be U.S.-centric, 'Other' or 'Other nations' seems to me more neutral in terms of location of reader, and more accurate.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

un-collapse?

I've just removed from Occupy San Diego two whole lists of "see also" links to other protests, duplicating much of this template (which itself was added twice to that article!). I suggest that this template should not be collapsed by default - that way the links to other "Occupy"s would be more obvious and it would be less likely for people to waste their time creating duplicate copies of the list! 85.211.13.188 (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that proposal, in view of the small size of the template and the issues you highlight. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or it should at least be expandable. I tried "expand=yes" and "collapsed=no", both fail. There's certainly a problem of user(s) adding a collapsed list of Occupy sites in the See Also list. tedder (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People section (group)

I have repeatedly removed the section on people. It contained one entry - [Giles Fraser]]. Having the link in the template give the wrong WP:BALANCE. Also, the objecting editor gave the reason that the Occupy movement is the only reason why Giles Fraser is notable. That is not a reason to be included in the template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing behaviour from a long standing editor with a very large number of edits. Having been reverted for good reason, discussion should have moved here, with the stable content remaining in the template. The current version is now not stable as a result of an attempt to force change through edit warring.
On the point in question, Fraser is intimately connected with Occupy London, both prior to his resignation, and more particularly as a result of it. His resignation, which was the direct result of the protests, attacted very large media coverage in the UK and has had significant repercussions which are likely to mean the St Pauls camp will not be moved. I am very open to the addition of other people to the section to add balance, if names can be suggested. His seems to me to be useful and relevant however.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the habit of edit warring but I felt strongly enough about it to revert multiple times. Links in a template have to have very strong relevance to the topic and as far as I can tell, and as you would expect from the nature of the Occupy movement, there is no one who has a strong connection that deserves a link in the template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognise that Occupy is a leaderless movement and one which involves a very large number of people. However from a UK perspective at least I would say that Fraser, whilst in no way a 'leader' of Occupy London, has become very intimately connected with it in a manner which has received very large third party coverage. Since there is no 'Occupy London' template (and shouldn't be - yet - it would be total overkill) it is useful to include him here.
However, on reflection and since I understand that my perspective may be influenced by the fact that I am UK based, lets see what others have to say on this.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created Occupy movement in the United States as an overview article. On this edit I consolidated all the US page links into one the the US article that I had created. It makes for better readability and avoids systemic bias. The protests did start in Wall St but there is no need to give undue weight to the subsequent protests. A prominent link to Occupy Wall St would be needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - having all of those links in the template is extremely useful for readers. The movement started in the US and is currently much larger there than elsewhere, it would actually be biased not to reflect that. As the movement grows outside of the US more non-US links will be added. A second, US only template, would be overkill and messy, and wholly unnecessary in view of the present small size of this template.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The community has determined through AFD (barring one currently going through an AFD) that most of the articles are worth keeping as a stand-alone article. As per my suggestion at the main Occupy protest talk page, I suggested that if consolidating is done, it should be to one state each, i.e (List of) Occupy protests in Oregon. Some 26 articles on the protests do not lower the readability of the template and undue weight is not given to the United States since there is a link provided to any Occupy protest outside of the United States. — Moe ε 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that the links within a template are very often not of completely 'equal' weight in one way or another. Although Occupy Wall Street might be a lot more important than Occupy Oakland, Occupy Oakland is probably - at present - more historically significant than Occupy Berlin. These are ultimately highly subjective judgements though. In the Michael Jackson template it could be argued - in my view erroneously - that some of his less well known works are given undue weight by being in the same template as albums such as Thriller, Bad and Dangerous. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on now, Dangerous is no where near as good as Thriller or Bad. — Moe ε 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I quite like it actually. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People ?

Jesse LaGreca is an emerging figure of the movement. Someone else ? Yug (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change template name to match article name

Could an admin change the template name to match the article name:

It looks like the template is protected from name change attempts by editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moves should normally be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead of using {{editprotected}}. But since this seems entirely uncontroversial, I'll just do it per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Anomie⚔ 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for deaths during the occupy movement disappeared

Has anyone else noticed that all 3 references to deaths during the protests are deleted? One of them was on washingtonpost , pretty sure they don't exercise deleting stories especially about deaths like that. Something fishy is going on or just a weird coincidence. According to someone 8 people died during the protests, think we should keep better track for who dies. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.1.187 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Occupy_movement&oldid=591106331"