Jump to content

Talk:List of 2017 Women's March locations

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

See previous talk too

[edit]

Some of the previous talk is relevant: Talk:2017 Women's March --Timeshifter (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country flags

[edit]
Moved from article talk page.

I was hard-at-work adding country flags (which, as far as I can see, is standard practice in lists and tables of countries, and also looks much nicer), when I got reverted by Ohconfucius, with a link to 'Do not emphasize nationality without good reason', which gives as an example not putting an English flag beside Paul McCartney. (I was not putting an English flag beside Paul McCartney, I was putting an Argentine flag beside Argentina, and so on; incidentally, this was NOT emphasizing Argentina's nationality - a person has a nationality, but Argentina is NOT a person). There are several other "don'ts" that follow, none of which seem to apply here, as far as I can see. Could others please decide whether the flags are inappropriate here, or normal Wikipedia practice which should be included? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the other examples of 'Do not emphasize nationality without good reason' also relate to individuals, not countries.
  • The next sections are:
    • Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available - this is about using flags as placeholders for people or for organisations such as the FBI, which I am not doing
    • Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance: I am not using sub-national flags. (The examples given are about not using the flag of Tampa, Florida. It doesn't say anything about not using 70 national flags because these might include one or two 'controversial' arguably 'subnational' flags such as Taiwan, Palestine, or in this case Kosovo. If it did that would indeed be a game-changer, but it doesn't)
    • Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance: This actually relates to organisations like the EU. The only such flag I would be using is that of Antarctica (which, if supernational, would be relevant given that the flag function for Antarctica is presumably for instances such as when it's lumped in with a list of countries)
    • Do not rewrite history: I am not re-writing history
    • Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles: This is not a genocide-related article or list.
  • In other words, none of the MOS don'ts seem to apply here, at least as far as I can see. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has commented yet, I propose to await comments and responses for a reasonable period of time (12 to 24 hours), and if I hear nothing more I will perhaps add back the flags (except that by then I may well no longer be bothered).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlhslobus: I don't have a problem with flags. It might be good to wait a few days though. The tables are experiencing heavy editing, and it is easier to scan the table wikitext without the flag wikitext. Looking for rowspan, etc. while adding new cities. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Timeshifter:, at least that's a clear and sensible argument. The only minor problem I'd have with it is that I suspect omitting the flags somewhat detracts from the quality (in the sense of visual attractiveness for our readers) of an article which is currently on In The News, and thus meant to be of as high a quality as possible, at least for the few days while it stays on In The News, for what may just be a very minor benefit to us editors (especially as I would have thought that scanning for "flag|" actually makes it easier to find countries). But if you feel it's actually a major inconvenience then it might make sense to wait, even though that might mean the flags will then never be added because the article is less satisfying to work on once its readership collapses after it stops being In The News.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. @Tlhslobus:. Good point. I have changed my mind. I was talking about visually scanning. But doing a page search with browser find for "flag|country name" would be much easier than visually scanning. Especially since the tables have gotten so huge in the last day. The rowspan wikitext is found right next to "flag|country name" or "flag|state name". --Timeshifter (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Timeshifter:. I guess I'd better re-ping my reverter @Ohconfucius:, since this item has now moved away from where I sent him my first ping. Meanwhile you appear to be suggesting that we also add state flags to the US, which I would also support even though they are subnational flags (about which I've now added a bit more above), but we would NOT be using them 'without direct relevance'. The question then is should we go ahead right away, and if not then how long should we wait? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: Having had to hunt for rowspan wikitext in these long tables, I say the sooner the better. State flags too since the rowspan wikitext is right next to "flag|state name". --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)--Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, @Timeshifter:, I'll get started right away (adding Per Talk in the edit descriptions). Hopefully it will only take a few minutes to complete. And thanks again for your support. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flag icons are usually pretty distractions ("nicer", Tlhslobus says?). They have to be hovered over to see what country they refer to, and readers have to know that you can do that—very few do know. They take up space in space-poor environments. They are often gaudy in combination. But worse, they emphasise nationality in places where is it just plain inappropriate. I will continue to remove them wherever I can (I tend to leave sports articles alone through sheer exasperation with the rah-rah nationalism of their keepers). Tony (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have to be hovered over since they are right next to the name of the country or state. Please do not remove flags without consensus, or you may be blocked. Flags are common on many lists. I don't normally care either way whether there are flags or not. Unless the flags mess up formatting. These flags are not messing anything up. I go with the consensus or majority view of the article editors. In this case the flag wikitext serves a very good purpose (see above discussion). So your removal of them would probably get you blocked eventually for awhile. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I recently removed the flags per MOS:FLAG and was reverted. Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion. I personally don't mind whether flags are displayed or not, I was just reflexively enforcing policy, whereby flags should only be used in contexts where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality; this is not the case in this article, which talks about private citizens from a country marching for a cause. That being said, the guideline also allows that In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. (a rather confusing wording of the guideline imho). Bottom line: if there is local consensus of editors to keep the flags, I have no further objection. — JFG talk 04:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more countries not yet on list

[edit]

Hi, I don't want to interrupt better, ongoing updating efforts by finagling with the tables to add more countries, but here are other countries to be listed (and eventually given headcounts when available). All are sourced from not "fake news":


Bahamas (Northern Bahamas): https://witness.theguardian.com/assignment/587923bfe4b0f10ba20b7f33/6003679
Belarus (Minsk): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/womens-march-aims-start-movement-trump-inauguration/96864158/
Bulgaria (Sofia): http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/womens-march-on-washington-across-the-us-around-the-world/125/
Malawi (Lilongwe): http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/trump-women-march-on-washington/


Will add more as I find them 205.128.224.6 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added title "2017 Women's March / Women's March on Washington" to infobox

[edit]

To mirror the infobox on the main page, added title "2017 Women's March / Women's March on Washington" to list page infobox.Bjhillis (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 to 5 million worldwide. Article and Google Docs spreadsheet with many cities, numbers, and references

[edit]
This started at Talk:2017 Women's March.

A Google Docs spreadsheet lists hundreds of cities worldwide with attendance numbers and references:

It is linked from this article:

US cities are listed first. Followed by a list of cities outside the US. Use your mouse scroll wheel to move up and down. Or click on the page, and then use your page up and page down keys.

The low and high total attendance numbers at the top (3 to 5 million) are for the USA only.

There are also total attendance numbers for cities outside the USA. They are at the top of that worldwide (outside USA) table at the bottom of the spreadsheet. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated a large amount of the content from the Google Docs spreadsheet in to the US section, and checked many of the references. Justin Ormont (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin Ormont: Thanks! I guess others will need to add the references. I noticed a lot of "citation needed" notices. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:RS articles all reference the Google Docs tally of cities and numbers:

Articles:

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati--14k or 7k?

[edit]

The table lists 14,000 participants for Cincinnati. I added 3 sources saying "more than 7,000" and "thousands" attended. I have not yet adjusted down the 14,000 figure in the event there is a source for it. I left the cn flag for now.Bjhillis (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalised?

[edit]

Hi, I'm very glad to see the creation of this list. But I query whether it shouldn't be downcased as a generic term ... they just happened to be held in 2017, which is quite sufficient as a descriptor. It's stretching credulity to imply that these are one-offs; I'm expecting them to become, generically, a part of the protest landscape. So are they all going to be called "Women's March", capped? Compare: 2017 workers' protests (there isn't such an article—just an example). Tony (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary count of marches at top of list

[edit]

I suggest we add a summary count of the marches in the list. The main page says "408 marches" around the U.S. Do we tie out to that figure?Bjhillis (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added this: "Listed below are 675 marches in the U.S. in support of the 2017 Women's March."Bjhillis (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bjhillis — Feel free to do the same for international marches. We will be able to enter the text "At least 8xx marches have been reported worldwide in the media" with a note ({{refn|See [[List of 2017 Women's March locations]]}}) directing to this page for a full list of sources. As long as each march is sourced we are not engaging in original research by simply counting them. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF Here's the count: "At least 770 marches have been reported worldwide in the media, comprised of 633 marches in the U.S. and 137 outside the U.S." The U.S. number of 633 derives from 676 marches, less 43 that have "citation needed" flags. The international number of 137 marches would go up if we sourced 10 U.K. marches listed, and 20 in India mentioned but not sourced.Bjhillis (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, let's give it a little while to see if those can be sourced and then we can add it to the main article. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of 2017 Women's March locations. 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) 13:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 2017 Women's March locations. 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) 09:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 2017 Women's March locations. 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) 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of 2017 Women's March locations. 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) 06:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March in Hayward WI

[edit]

Hello! Please add the Women's March that occurred in Hayward, WI on January 21, 2017 to this list. There were about 80 attendees. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womensmarchhaywardwi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_2017_Women%27s_March_locations&oldid=1241038072"