Talk:March for Science

University of Delaware Center for Political Communication survey

This study of march participants probably warrants a mention in the article. Neutrality^talk 07:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also The March for Science was a moment made for Bill Nye (Washington Post). Neutrality^talk 02:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And dumping an article from the Atlantic [1].Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And another one with info on temperature at the DC March [2]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

List of March Locations

I recently added a final batch of protest locations to the list of protests (I expect a couple more locations to trickle in over the next few days, but I doubt I'll be doing any more mass additions like I have over the last couple of nights). Going forward, I think that the lists should be branched off into their own article. They're taking up a lot of space, and they're quite frankly a pain to navigate through even on a desktop. I would personally prefer such a list article to resemble the List of 2017 Women's March locations article: with protests organized by state and country, and with images integrated into the table. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I support forking the list of participating cities to List of March for Science locations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I finally carried out the split; this should make the article a lot more manageable. Sometime in the future I'd like to add an expanded prose section detailing some of the largest or otherwise most significant marches. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great work! This article looks so much better now, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Cite 13 broken

cite 13 appears to be broken somehow. Sagecandor (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. The ref had all sorts of syntax errors in use of the cite template. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on March for Science. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413200036/https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/ to https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170318183426/https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision to https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://psmag.com/the-march-for-science-isnt-political-it-s-a-defense-of-basic-truth-4aaf89ebbd4b

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Split for 2018?

Organizers have announced plans for marches in 2018. I went ahead and redirected 2018 March for Science and March for Science 2018 to this article, but I'm wondering how we might start separating content related to 2017 and 2018. Should we move this current article to 2017 March for Science? Should we create a new article for the 2018 march? This would mirror what was done for the 2017 Women's March and 2018 Women's March. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be much more coverage of the 2018 Women's March in comparison to secondary coverage of the upcoming March for Science in 2018, so I'm not sure it warrants it own article, or at least not yet. Also I think that doing so would split the readership between the two articles and either readers would miss out on background information or the 2018 article would end up having redundant content.

The only thing is… this article does seem to focus exactly on the events in 2017. If 2018's events don't turn out to be very major, a "sequel"-like section could be created towards the end of the article and the lead amended. (Maybe held in the first sentence to "first held" and combining two of the paragraphs for the creation of a final paragraph with more recent information on this year's events?) Rhinopias (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has expanded March for Science 2018. I went ahead and added a link to the new article in the "Follow up" section here, at least until we decide what to do with the 2018 article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: Pinging you in case you care to revisit this discussion. Thoughts on March for Science 2018. Should we split this parent article, or move content to 2017 March for Science/March for Science 2017? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the standard is for these situations. I like how 2017 Women's March's lead still says "The Women's March was a worldwide protest on …" without the year because, like this article's subject, it wasn't referred to as the "2017" march. Also, since so much background information is located at this article, I think it's appropriate March for Science redirects here... is a hatnote enough to point readers to the 2018 march's article if they end up here looking for this year's details? Rhinopias (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So now March for Science has been moved to March for Science 2017, and March for Science redirects to the 2017 article. Should March for Science be converted into a disambiguation page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If it were to be a disambiguation page, it would have to include March for Science 2018, March for Science 2017, March for Science Portland, and List of 2017 March for Science locations. Great Great Grandson (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Despite the claims the article-mover made, I think saying the 2018 march is "as or more notable" than the 2017 march is highly questionable. There should have been a move discussion first. Master of Time (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I felt that since this is more of the first protest in a movement in support of science, the first protest should not be the only thing that defines the movement. [3] --- Great Great Grandson (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was at the most likely title a reader would search, and a hatnote can be added for one other related article rather than turning the term into a dab page. Also why is it "March for Science 2017/18" and not "2017/18 March for Science"? I'm not really sure if the movement itself has significant coverage to warrant its own article. A section could be created specifically to discuss the movement in this article as there's already background information here and the 2018 article is little more than a list. There was a discussion (albeit, lacking) taking place on the talk page about the article's title and possible move and you just felt like moving it? Rhinopias (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I recently created the article Brazilian Science Protests. This shows that there have been many different smaller events on different topics. The movement in support of science has been happening a lot in Africa and South America as well. Great Great Grandson (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The move has been reverted for further discussion per WP:RMTR. Please see the instructions at WP:RMCM if you would like to continue discussing a move. The change broke about 400 links and a consensus for the change is not readily apparent from this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 01:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of March for Science Seattle into March for Science

The Seattle march is not individually notable, as it has had no lasting and sustained coverage, even in The Seattle Times and other local sources. The second edition of the march had barely any coverage as well. SounderBruce 05:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article should be expanded. There's enough coverage to mirror March for Science Portland, with details about local organizers and planning/preparation, commentary, partnerships, organization formation, the 2018 event, etc. I've expanded the entry further and there are more sources to fold into the text. I support removal of the banner. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing stale June proposal, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)