Talk:List of 2018 Women's March locations

Fork
I went ahead and forked the 2018 Women's March article's "Events" section. I am not opposed to select content being moved back over, but I figured making improvements to both articles would be easier following a split. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible template: List of 2017 Women's March locations
Just sharing a link to List of 2017 Women's March locations, which might be helpful for improving this list. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tables
I created tables based on those in the 2017 article. I first put them in the talk page, then moved them to the main article as suggested by ( Talk ). They can be modified in anyway that will help improve the article. Copies of both tables are in my sandbox. Worldwide Table United States

to add content


 * date of event
 * London
 * image
 * approximate attendance with ref
 * notes with ref
 * notes with ref

Oceanflynn (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Thanks for creating this template. May I suggest, as sources are added, we use appropriate secondary news sources and not Action Network links? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Action Network used the article to publicize future events so this is no longer appropriate. I think you were already replacing Facebook?Oceanflynn (talk)
 * May I also suggest a column at the front (before the state one) with the date? Since they all didn't take place on the same date this year? Are we copy-pasting the same for outside the USA too from the 2017 page?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if we should actually move these tables to the article space, and the current list in the article space over to the talk page. This way, editors can actively improve the table, and we can maintain the current list of cities as a record and for reconciliation purposes. I don't feel strongly either way, just throwing the idea out there. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest either throw the tables (the US and the International one) onto a sandbox or keep it on the article, and maybe start getting sources thrown here? I also don't feel strongly either way.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I moved both tables into the main space.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we just put Washington placed as it is on the 2017 locations page? Just kind of looks strange in a separate table at the top there.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Youtube sources giving crowd numbers, with aerial views

 * Youtube search: - Women's March 2018. Many videos showing the huge crowds at around 250 events worldwide. Uploaded by reliable sources, and other sources.


 * Many reliable news channels have put up videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this. YouTube provides the source but we can then go to the media cites, PBS etc for the actual citation. We are trying to gather the best reliable resources for these sister articles.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See Video links. Links to reliable sources on video sites are fine. Also, linking to the longer text articles is good too. WP:NPOV is better satisfied by linking to both.


 * A lot of these crowd size estimates are frankly pulled out of people's *sses. So it is better that people can SEE all viewpoints (WP:NPOV) and make up their own minds. I say this as someone who has organized international online compendiums of events for years. I trust very few crowd size estimates. Someone did a scientific analysis of the overhead photos of the 2017 Washington DC Women's March, if memory serves me, which was pretty impressive. That got linked to in the 2017 Wikipedia articles on the marches.


 * Police make much fewer crowd size estimates anymore, because they get criticized from all sides. And there is little that makes them any more expert than anybody else.


 * I wish we embedded Youtube videos in the right sidebar of many articles. But Wikipedia prefers to remain in the Stone Age, and only allows static images for the most part. Maybe because Youtube might contaminate the holy virgin nature of Wikipedia with some ads at the beginning of their videos. I say, so what. We link to all kinds of references with ads on their pages. People can choose to turn off the video if offended. Of course, all embedded videos should be click-to-play.


 * But until then, we can link to Youtube sources according to Video links. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Taking the discussion to the next level (embedding videos) here:
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 226
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Unindent. Here are some great overhead videos of 2018 crowds from reliable sources: Here is a Washington DC overhead video from an individual:
 * Chicago, Illinois. From NBC Chicago:
 * https://www.facebook.com/nbcchicago/videos/10160466013820725/
 * https://www.facebook.com/nbcchicago/videos/10160466111440725
 * Seneca Falls, New York. From FingerLakes1.com (a local news website) - . And see: Finger Lakes.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSrUASlFbYQ
 * Los Angeles, California. From Mayor Eric Garcetti's official Youtube channel. Set to 1080p, and pause it during the first 10 seconds with the best aerial views.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAux2tu6K_A
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cCAPgXAAhc

I don't see why the Washington DC video can not be linked to. It does not look like something stolen from a news site. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You've put a lot of thought into this. I agree the crowd size estimates are very frustrating and the images are very convincing, particularly in the Washington, DC rally. The videos are so useful in so many ways.


 * However, I agree with User:Seraphimblade that we need videos that are available under compatible free licenses. "Wikipedians can take videos and release them under free licenses, or we can ask the people who hold the copyright to release the video (or in a case like this, even an appropriate snippet of one) under a free license. Then we can upload them right to Commons and use them in the article, no issue. But free, reusable content is a part of the core mission of Wikipedia."


 * I noted that in this article List of most-viewed YouTube videos, none of the references link directly to YouTube.


 * We can reference YouTube videos, but without the url like this:


 * Wikimedia Commons requires Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (BY-NC-SA 4.0) with the Legal code here. Legal and ethical implications for using work that has not been released are consequential even for a small website; so much more for Wikipedia.


 * Other problems, as I see it, with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cCAPgXAAhc, for example
 * weyutome is not a reliable source
 * There are close-ups of individual faces. Normally, they would have to sign releases
 * It has a standard YouTube copyright license which limits its use.


 * I know you contribute a lot and this means a lot to you. So if you would really like to see some awesome videos of the 2018 Women's March in related Wikipedia, these are some things you could try if you haven't already.


 * Encourage more people to use the BY-NC-SA 4.0 Creative Commons license. Tell them how it works and why it is important. Promote it on Twitter and Facebook. Put the license on your own photos and creations. Professionals use the license to make a living, so of course, not everyone will want to release their work.


 * Use the contact section of the individual YouTube User who holds the copyright, and ask them to add the required (BY-NC-SA 4.0) Creative Commons license, thereby releasing the video to their YouTube videos here (or as suggested by User:Seraphimblade, a snippet.


 * Find and download copyright-free videos yourself, then upload them to Wikimedia Commons, acknowledging the content creator.


 * Use "creative commons" in your search


 * Try Flickr too. It has photos and videos of Women's March photos. A number of people have added the BY-NC-SA 4.0 Creative Commons license to the Women's March photos and they can be used in Wikipedia. The only videos I have found there so far are copyright protected.


 * Upload your own appropriate photos/videos (not just related to these articles) to the Wikimedia Commons using Wikimedia Upload Wizard so you understand the process.


 * The effort would be worth it. According to Ed Erhart. December 22, 2017. "Media, politics, and the most-viewed YouTube videos: 2017 as seen through the lens of Wikipedia Ed Erhart, Wikimedia Foundation the "2017 Women's March was "one of the most-edited articles on the English Wikipedia in 2017. The photo by Mobilus In Mobili in the article has a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Mobilus In Mobili has contributed a lot of photos of this year's March and releases many of them.


 * I am a visual artist, so indulge me if I am too enthusiastic about the proper use of CC. Bon soirOceanflynn (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unindent. I have 21,000 edits on the Commons. I have uploaded many images.

To save time please see the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Here is part of my last overall summary comment from there:
 * I used my snark to try to get through the almost religious nature of some Wikipedia beliefs. We have had this video discussion many times, and we never get anywhere. People say, try to get more CC video. Dream on. People say Wikipedia can handle the server and bandwidth costs if we truly were able to get lots of CC video. No it couldn't. That is way more expensive than Wikipedia's budget will ever be. Oh well, I tried to lead the sheep to new pastures. But no luck. /snark.

To reply to some of your specific points. I don't see why we can't link to videos from individuals. We put up photos from individuals. What makes a photo more reliable than a video? Nothing. Both are not news channels. We allow the photos because it is obvious whether they are what they are. A tree is a tree. A rally is a rally. We have the same problem with rally photos as we have with rally videos. Are they photos or videos of this year's rally? Are they stolen from news sites. Exact same criteria.

Why cite a video, and not link to it. Illogical, and near useless.





Links to Youtube are allowed already. See: Video links. And List of most-viewed YouTube videos DOES link to the Youtube videos directly.

"There are close-ups of individual faces. Normally, they would have to sign releases". No they don't. It is a public event in a public space, and the news media do it all the time. So do we with the thousands of rally photos on the Commons and in Wikipedia articles.

There are not going to be many individuals renting a helicopter and putting out CC videos of rallies. News organizations are certainly not going to do it. It would be giving away all their hard work to the competition. BY-NC-SA 4.0 is not accepted by Wikipedia. NC is "non-commercial". That would probably be the only way most news organization would realize their valuable product to the world, and not give it to their competition. But Wikipedia requires that all media uploaded to the commons be freely released for all uses including commercial uses. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0


 * My suggestion for a YouTube reference without the link. It is easy to search for this.


 * Thanks for pointing out the NC typo error.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't Video links, WP:ELPEREN, and Videos respond to most of your concerns in a very clear and reasonable way. Anyhow, I want to get in a few edits. Your many years and thousands of edits are appreciated.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Manually added some signatures to clarify the discussion.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit within the contents of other people's post other than basic indentation corrections to help separate one post from the next post. Please see WP:TALK. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it makes things very confusing to me and other readers. I pulled out your comments from within my comments and moved them to your post. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * YouTube may be the only source other than the march websites in some cases. Here is more info on why you don't always get standard WP:RS coverage on this event:
 * --Montanasuffragettes (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Date column in table
Is the repeated inclusion of "2018" necessary, given the entire article is 2018-specific? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, IMO. In fact I don't think it needs more than e.g. "1/20". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I missed some, but I've started removing appearances of ", 2018". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ThanksOceanflynn (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Add content here
If you have not edited Wikipedia before and you want to suggest a link that provides numbers, notes, etc on a rally, demonstration, etc on January 20 or 21, but you don't want to add it directly to the article, you could paste it here. Thanks.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fairbanks

Replacing references to planned events with references reported the events that actually took place on the 20 & 21
I've been working away at this slowly. I do a Google image search for [place name] 2018 Women's March. The search often comes up with images from the 2017 march but usually it works.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)