Talk:OWS

Request for verification
From OWS at Requests for verification:

Is this citeable? --WikiTiki89 20:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Pass a Method (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it occur in publications not affiliated with itself? --WikiTiki89 17:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yes Pass a Method (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems real. Why wouldn't a long title like that be made into an initialism? Anyway there are two citations plus one in this discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth does the usage matter whether it is or is not associated with itself? That's a made up criterion.
 * Meanwhile, for an actual example of a NON usable citation, consider our very own WP:OWS. Choor monster (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is similar to WT:COMPANY and WT:BRAND. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar? Not similar?  It's not policy, and so it's irrelevant.  To be honest, they don't look very similar to me.  WT:COMPANY?  Well, there's no company.  And it's not a brand name.  Which is good, because we're including OWS: sources that explicitly refer to the movement, and not as some generic protest.  For what it's worth, we don't have an entry for Occupy Wall Street:.  Should we?  That's Names of specific entities, which leaves things mostly open-ended.  But we probably should have an entry for Occupy:.  And certainly not care a fig who authored the citations. Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And a cat's similar to a dog, so what? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I thought Occupy Wall Street was the name of an organization, if it isn't then I concede. @Mglovesfun, If I were going somewhere that dogs aren't allowed, I would ask before bringing a cat. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)