Colonel William A. Phillips

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was that there is NO CONSENSUS for the proposal.
If any editor desires a new result, make a new, fresh proposal.
Yellowdesk (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page now covers all the protests at the airports, how does this mesh with List of protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States? I've added a proposed merger tag at this article and the other. Please discuss. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Oppose per WP:SIZE, the list is simply to large for a merger. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this article is now about all of the protests rather than just the JFK event (with everything else under "other protests"), it'll inevitably be reorganized to reflect as much. The list could simply be listed in prose form (for those which are not covered in more detail), taking up a couple paragraphs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both articles are going to grow significantly. I know we've barely scraped the surface of coverage. London is holding protests related to the EO today, for example. Other cities have coverage we have yet to add. I think that size issues are at play here. I find that most people find prose summaries of long lists difficult to parse. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The airport protest is not protesting keeping terrorists out. It's protesting not letting legitimate travelers in. CorkyH (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All the airport protests are relevant to the EO so there is no need to have a separate list. In no way are these too long to consider together, and this is a disservice to readers to have materially related content divided between multiple pages. References do not count against WP:SIZE. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be ok with a merge only if all of the protests mentioned in the list are converted to prose form and mentioned in the article. Otherwise, if this is too much to include in the article, then the list seems appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm very opposed to putting lists into "prose form." They are difficult to read and use. The list of protests is very long and as I said above, I think it's going to get longer. I haven't found all of the sources yet (in non social media form) for the protests that have taken place. There's a lot more to add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to table form yesterday, that does make it shorter and clearer without losing any data. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have a feeling that this article will get too big to the point where it should be its own article. M.W.B.A.B. (Making Wikipedia Better And Better) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.W.B.A.B. (talk • contribs)
• Support, Or please split the protests in this article into the list article. It makes little sense to make two lists. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, however, that one article is a list and the other describes the events, who was there, the impact and more. They are not "both lists" so shouldn't be merged. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Merge the list into an "Other cities" section of this article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to get too big. I know I've said this a few times, but I've been working on both of these (as many of us have) and I can see that both are going to be huge articles. The nice thing about the list is that it accommodates the pictures well, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That list is about the international protests, while this article includes details about ongoing protests in the US airports and it's also growing significantly. Keivan.f^Talk 07:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: Take a good look: the list covers both domestic and international protests. — JFG ^talk 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, AHusain3141 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per WP:SIZE. As mentioned above, the articles are too big to merge and will continue to grow larger. Smartyllama (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some form of renaming and reorganising seems called for but proposed merge fails SIZE. Airport protests were the first US response, street demos possibly followed in UK and elsewhere, but other forms of objection are becoming manifest, such as this. There is also the unprecedented matter of the speaker of the UK parliament declaring his unwillingness to welcome Trump as a guest to UK parliament in response to the ban. These responses and actions need to be organised coherently. Would separate US/International response articles make sense? Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger proposal was that it has failed at this time, for lack of consensus. Yellowdesk (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yellowdesk: ?! I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but closing after one day when opinions are clearly split (assuming one doesn't just count bolded words) seems inappropriate. As it says at WP:MERGECLOSE: they're "normally one week or more". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, should have stayed open for a longer time. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopened to let the discussion play out for a week. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to re-opening, but I wonder how you'll get a consensus on what has been written so far. Yellowdesk (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS is forthcoming.
The proposal fails.
Yellowdesk (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think this should be renamed to Protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, given the existence of List of protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. The two articles are similar, except this is more in depth article, and the other is more like a simple list. epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The airport protest is not protesting keeping terrorists out. It's protesting not letting legitimate travelers in. CorkyH (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an RM so you don't have to oppose, but yeah, I see what you mean. Except these are protests about the same thing. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are many protests in Canada and the UK that should be acknowledged as well. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The protests started out in airports, and moved out to different locations. The thing that ties them together is the executive order. I like the name Protests against Executive Order 13769. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be too complex because I don't know how many people know executive orders by their numeral name. I suggest simply 2017 Donald Trump airport protests. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like 2017 Donald Trump airport protests, which was suggested immediately above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Protests against Executive Order 13769 seems to be a better title. Keivan.f^Talk 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Non neutral, unreadably overlong title, title does not even acknowledge that 'Protecting the Nation' is the name of the exec order, not an abstract, thus no one is protesting against 'protecting the nation', they are protesting against an exec order that they believe is unconstitutional and which they believe violates US commitments in Int. law. Title must necessarily be the number of the exec order, or a clear commonname. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.