Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States/Archive 1

Merger closures
I disagree with the closure of the above mergers (by an involved editor, no less) as "consensus not to merge". With 3 opposes and 2 supports (all 5 votes citing reasonable policies, just different interpretations of them), the appropriate close would be "no consensus". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Important note: There was an additional discussion that occurred, which included an additional three oppose !votes and one support !vote (from the same nominator to merge in the above discussions), at the separate Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24 – Occupy article redirects discussion. Perhaps you didn't check this link? It's clearly listed in the closing comments. This equates to a total of 6 oppose !votes and 2 support !votes, (when including the nomination itself as an !vote, and not double-counting the nominator's !vote at the redirect for discussion). The consensus is very clear. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice! So there was a parallel discussion going on at the same time (and in the wrong forum to boot). And someone like you with over 47000 edits still doesn't know that it is bad form closing discussions in which you yourself are involved? And perhaps somebody can remind me again what the exclamation mark in front of the word "vote" means? Somehow I faintly recall something with not simply counting the ayes and nays? Could that have something to do with the fact that it is frowned upon to close a discussion in which you yourself participated? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I echo Guillaume. Because you're involved, North, you shouldn't have closed it.  Therefore, I'm reopening it.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At Help:Merging it states that nominators can perform merges if there's consensus or silence, so I figured that since the consensus at this time is to not merge it would conversely be all right to archive the discussion. It doesn't state otherwise at Help:Merging. However, as being involved, it is reasonable for someone else to close the discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ventura entry not presenting properly
Looking at the code, I can't figure out how to fix it. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is: If you add a city to a state, you have to go to the state name and add one to the number next to rowspan.  It is confusing because the problem manifests itself at the bottom of the state even though it is caused in a completely different area of the wiki text.  This extra formatting step is missed often by all of us.  Its a hassle to have to do it for each one.  That and having to make the reference at the bottom of the page makes this page much more inconvenient to edit.  It takes locating and editing three different places to add one location.  IMO, bad design. Trackinfo (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Generally I like the look, though inserting sources has become an even bigger hassle. Making the editing process more laborious never encourages people to contribute more content.

I think the column for numbers of participants is not only a waste (note the majority of them are empty), but I think its a useless effort. Even if we were to get some sort of number, with the wide variety of sources and an assumed wide variety of their journalistic abilities particularly to the skills of crowd estimation, this will never be an accurate number or a comparable number from source to source. There isn't even a time stamp on when each estimate is made. This page is getting quoted in media worldwide, we would be responsible for spreading misinformation. Pointing out single digit crowd estimates could become a favorite target of people with an agenda, both in the quotations and as a target for vandals inserting the misinformation for it to be quoted. Trackinfo (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the column heading for crowd sizes. Many tables on Wikipedia have lots of blank cells.


 * People who depend on Wikipedia alone for facts are noobs. Same is true for any page on the web. People need to check the sources for info on any page on the web. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but it did that without the table, with random numbers and dates everywhere in a basic list format. Also, the references for single digit protest numbers say there was only 1. Go look at references for Bethel, Alaska and Cumberland, Maryland for example. They are really small protests, almost to the point where they don't meet notability anyways. The references document single numbers so if they quote that in the media, then so be it. Misinformation from people with agendas will be made with or without this. — Moe   ε  13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)