Talk:2016 House Democrats sit-in
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 House Democrats sit-in redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The contents of the 2016 House Democrats sit-in page were merged into 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Sources
editInternational media
edit- http://kurier.at/politik/ausland/us-kongress-sit-in-fuer-strengeres-waffengesetz/205.939.861
- http://www.n-tv.de/der_tag/Mittwoch-22-Juni-2016-article18008546.html
- http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2016/06/22/etats-unis-des-elus-democrates-occupent-la-chambre-des-representants-pour-demander-un-vote-sur-les-armes-a-feu_4956143_3222.html
List of legislators
editShould the article include a list of legislators involved in the sit-in? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Image
editWhat is the legality of using a screen grab from a Representative's Facebook live video? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
NOTNEWS concerns. Redirect?
editI have strong concerns about this article conflicting with WP:NOTNEWS. It's WP:TOOSOON at the very least. A redirect to Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting would seem appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully disagree. WP:NOTNEWS means only that something is not necessarily worthy of a Wikipedia article merely because it is in the news. This is clearly noteworthy—for members of a legislature of any nation to stage a sit-in in their own legislative chamber is rare, and is probably unprecedented in the United States. It is also distinct from the nightclub shooting, even if it was motivated in part by it, and so redirecting this article is probably not beneficial. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I completely disagree. I should also note, I am the article's creator, so perhaps my opinion carries less weight here. But, this protest is receiving widespread media coverage and is being called unprecedented. I agree with User:Delta1989 -- this event is clearly notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Posting this article at noon would have been WP:TOOSOON. But this is an unprecedented, historic event of major proportions. The only thing I might suggest is a change in the title to something more fitting a world audience, perhaps 2016 U.S. House of Representatives sit‑in. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am definitely open to other titles. I titled the article based on the words I was seeing most often in coverage: "House Democrats" and "sit-in". ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Posting this article at noon would have been WP:TOOSOON. But this is an unprecedented, historic event of major proportions. The only thing I might suggest is a change in the title to something more fitting a world audience, perhaps 2016 U.S. House of Representatives sit‑in. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Title is horrible, and absolutely must be changed (at minimum to change the mis-punctuation which indicates Democrats are BEING PROTESTED, rather than the protestors) but the editor who suggests this is not notable enough for an article is unequivocally wrong. Add my vote to those who say this deserves its own article. There isn't a natural or even correct alternative place to put it anyway. Reactions to the Orlando nightclub shootings would be manifestly inappropriate as this is a reaction to a number of events that have transpired over a number of years: Newton, Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, Columbine, Aurora, Binghamton, Fort Hood, etc. So this clearly cannot go in the Orlando article as if this is simply a reaction to a 1-time event. That's just wrong, and the Democrats' rhetoric clearly indicates otherwise. (My suggestion, as you will see below is that the article be titled: "House Democrats' gun control sit-in" which is how it is referred to in the sources, and which actually explains WHAT is being protested. Someone mentioned the issue of worldwide 63.143.192.105 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone mentioned the issue of worldwide perspective: if so, I'd suggest "U.S. House of Representatives' gun control sit-in." It does not make any sense to omit WHAT IS BEING PROTESTED from the title of an article about a protest. Also, you must use the possessive, or you imply that the House is what is being protested, so please fix that forthwith.63.143.192.105 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. Seems I'm alone in that opinion. I won't push it further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Title of this Article is Awful
edit1. Democrats is mis-punctuated; what you mean is Democrats' with an apostrophe to indicate possession, as it is referred in the sourcess.
2. More substantively, this title is unncessarily non-descriptive. People are far more likely to search for this under "House Democrats' Gun Control sit-in" than "2016 House Democrats sit-in." Why would someone enter this as a string? It's totally non-descriptive.
This brings us to my proposal: the article should be titled "House Democrats' gun control sit-in", precisely as the Times refers to it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/house-democrats-stage-sit-in-to-push-for-action-on-gun-control.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Alternatively, I'd accept the compromise solution:: "2016 House Democrats' gun control sit-in"-- There is no need for us to be so vague, but I don't really see that the 2016 descriptor adds much, unless one is expecting a bunch more of these in the years to come.
At minimum, I request someone fix the punctuation of the title to properly indicate possession. As it reads now, the title sounds like House Democrats are the thing that is BEING PROTESTED. Grammar is important, friends!63.143.192.105 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Most appropriate article title?
editWhat is the most appropriate article title?
- 2016 House Democrats' gun control sit-in?
- 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in?
- 2016 United States House of Representatives gun control sit-in?
- House Democrats' gun control sit-in?
- United States House of Representatives gun control sit-in?
--Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The shorthand of "Democrats" doesn't seem to be widely used in article titles - the full "Democratic Party" seems to be the preferred usage. Ditto for "House", it's not a very informative shorthand in the title, so the full "United States House of Representatives" should be used. OnionRing (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Merged
editI have merged this article to 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in, following a discussion at Talk:2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in#Merge proposal. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I support your merging the shorter into the longer article on the same topic, but you have copied text from here into the other article123 without giving the origin, what is of great disrespect for the work of fellow Wikipedians and against our policies, please fix that asap. --SI 05:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Schmarrnintelligenz: I attributed using {{merged to}} and {{merged from}} on the corresponding talk pages of the shorter and longer articles respectively. That is sufficient, I believe. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)