Open main menu

Talk:Yellow vests movement

Contents

ManifestoEdit

Is it known, whether the manifesto with the list of demands, which circulates the internet, is authentic or not? If so, it might be good to add it into the article. https://i1.wp.com/www.lelibrepenseur.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/gilet-jaune-charte.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1 --178.255.168.11 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the demands but only in French. Are they "real"? I've only seen English translations on non-RS like Reddit. Is this something we can/should put in the article? Thoughts? Levivich? ! 05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Background, Context, Origin & Nature sectionsEdit

I don't know if it's just me or if any other editors feel this way, but I feel that the "Background" section, the "Context" section, and the "Origin" part of the "Origin and nature of the movement" section should be combined/reorganized. Specifically, "Nature of the movement" should have its own section, and then there should be one or two sections for "Background/Context/Origin." I could see an argument for a "Background/Context" section (about the political/social environment in which the movement exists), an "Origin" section (about the beginnings of the movement), and a "Nature of the movement section" (a description of the movement and its political goals). Does anyone else think it should be changed, or is it fine the way it is? Wanted to see what the consensus was before making changes in case it's just me. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, and I trust you'll find ways to improve the article! I'm always quite hesitant about arguments concerning "the nature of...", though. SashiRolls t · c 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I made these changes, lmk if you hate it. Levivich? ! 05:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the article doesn't mention protests in Australia and how mass media all over the world hides the topic, treating it as unimportant?!Edit

Questions as stated in the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.122.141 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Australia has been mentioned, with citations. There is no evidence that "mass media all over the world hides the topic" - as you can see by the size of this article, it has been extensively covered. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

whilst v. whileEdit

Not the most important thing ever, but often folks come along and change things to their local grammar, adding non-standard forms like "whilst" (see ngram showing that this is 12 times less common than "while" even in written British English). Similarly "made up of" is 5 times more common than "comprised of" (again, even in Island English). Wikipedia is the only place where these weird parochialisms have such pride of place. Is there a Manchester grammar cabal? ^^ SashiRolls t · c 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

MoveEdit

Suggest move to Yellow Vests movement as its a proper name.-Inowen (nlfte) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that the English RSes are pretty evenly split, with some capitalizing and other not capitalizing. The most common I've personally seen in French is Gilet jaunes but I'm not sure if that is in fact the most common, and what it means for an English title. I lean towards not capitalizing it because it's not like a legal entity or formed organization (it's not a non-profit or an NGO, for example). So "abolitionist movement", "anti-apartheid movement", "womens' suffrage movement", "civil rights movement", "gay rights movement", etc., are not capitalized, for this reason, I don't think "yellow vests movement" should be capitalized either. That said, I don't really have strong feelings on the matter. Levivich 04:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

ref-naming spreeEdit

@RTG: has made an interesting, not-so-minor edit that probably should be mentioned here, because it changed the referencing structure of the page. I've never seen this before, which is strange, because it does have a strong advantage: content is not completely buried by long references in wiki-text view. It should be completely transmutable. The only significant drawback I see is that it's not possible to check sourcing with ctrl-click while editing a section. SashiRolls t · c 20:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've started using this format also recently, I think it's better for the exact reason you said: content isn't buried by long references (and all the cite templates are in one place, so you don't have to go hunting for which section it's in, if you need it). It's true that this means you can't preview refs when editing only a section, and so for me that means two edits instead of one sometimes when I mess up on a reference. But, I usually mess something up anyway and have to do a clean-up edit, so I feel it's a small price to pay for the advantages. :-) Levivich 21:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, yes that's been a bug forever. There are some solutions in the comments of this request, but I haven't tried them and don't even know how to. :) o/ ~ R.T.G 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Spinout timeline?Edit

This article is getting long and it looks like it will continue to grow. What do editors think about spinning out the timeline section into its own sub-article? Levivich 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Yellow vests movement" page.