Talk:Occupy South Africa
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy South Africa article. 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia."
editJust how many articles does it need to be linked to? I've linked a few already, but can easily do more if need be Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Occupyct1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
edit
An image used in this article, File:Occupyct1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Serious Quality Issues with Reliablity
editThe reference to Facebook and peoples twitter accounts violate RS. The only shock is this has page (which seems to be a promotional piece for a non-notable campaign) is even in existence on Facebook. It suffers heavily from many quality issues. An article which seems to be trying to give a group notablity is of no use to Facebook. Please balance the article with quality sources. I might just do a request for comments WP:RFC. Take for example this ref [1] which is trying to piggyback off of a general protest but the article makes no mention to the group "Taking Back SA" So why is it there? It could be in a general article but why is it there? It creates a false authority. --Inayity (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Name Change
editI am suggesting this article be changed to Occupy South Africa movement, which would include the broader overlook. As this article is trying to do. But because it is focused on one group (which is not that notable) it is turning into a stub. Comments appreciated. --Inayity (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this movement still active?
edit@Northamerica1000: Since you changed the article's first sentence from present tense to past tense, I'm still not sure if the Occupy South Africa movement has ended yet. How can we confirm that this movement is no longer active? Jarble (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)