Revision as of 01:35, 9 March 2008 editPaddy Simcox (talk | contribs)378 edits →Student Union merge proposal: note← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:38, 9 March 2008 edit undoRedShiftPA (talk | contribs)1,731 edits move comments to main discussionNext edit → | ||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:::::There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why ], among others, would fail ]. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails ], feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. ] (]) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | :::::There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why ], among others, would fail ]. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails ], feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. ] (]) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::::The sources ] removed were all links to wustl.edu internal sites or the organization's own site. Unfortunately, these aren't the sort of sources that are required. If it makes you feel any better, very few people ever look at the article; , especially when compared to the main page . ] (]) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ::::::The sources ] removed were all links to wustl.edu internal sites or the organization's own site. Unfortunately, these aren't the sort of sources that are required. If it makes you feel any better, very few people ever look at the article; , especially when compared to the main page . ] (]) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::All 9 of the sources you refer to were self published sources. Every single one was published from wither WSU or the Student Union itself. According to ], self published sources "are largely not acceptable." They may be used sparingly, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article was based entirely on self-published sources. As far as accusing me of "gutting" that article, I got rid of the ] and organizational fluff. I only left the justifiable material. | |||
:::::::I did tag the article with a PROD, which was contested. Now I am advocating a merge with the main article. This topic is not noteworthy enough for its own article. See ]. In general, an organization has notability "if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." The Student Union of WSU doesn't have that. Therefore, it should be merged into the main article.--] (]) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 9 March 2008
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
|
Archives |
April 2005 - July 2006 |
Merge proposal
I think that the article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be merged into this article because that article is too long and consists almost entirely of unencyclopedic lists. Jolb 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with that. - thank you Astuishin 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I vote against merging. The article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be edited for encyclopedic quality. Merging it does not solve the problem mentioned. Additionally, items such as residential colleges, campus clubs, etc. have the potential to become quite numerous and should have their own page called "campus life." --Lmbstl 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This page has potential for a lot of content, precedent exists for pages like it, and the WUSTL article is long enough. Oren0 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Although there is room for improvement most of what is written is either copied from Washington U's web page, or a jumbled list written in first person account. Unless the WUSTl Wikiproject is willing to devote some time to cleaning up the article, it should ne merged. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- The list definitely needs reform.thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can we do away with this merge proposal yet? It is better to concentrate on improving mediocre content, instead of transferring the mediocre content to another place. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Per veritatem vis
I feel that the latin "Per veritatem vis" should be translated "Through truth, strength," as opposed to "Strength through truth." That translation is closer to the literal meaning, and the interjection of "strength" is a powerful poetic device that should not be ignored. There is a precedent for translating Latin in this way: "E pluribus unum" is not translated "One from many," it is translated "From many, one." Jolb 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have thought this as well, however "Strength through truth" is on some of the university documents that reference the Latin motto.thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So big deal just because Danforth has a lot of money he was involved with the worlds fair project a few years back but unlike him i am continuing in my great project to bring back the geat fair it must and can be done today nothing is impossible!
Jay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleventhdr (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Subtle changes
Subtle changes
modified the number of fraternites on campus as one is currently not recognized by the university.
additionally deleted MR. WU from traditions as the event has only been around for a four years and has seen declining numbers. Would argue that if it gets it own section, so should diwali and LNYF.
Washington University is in University City, Missouri!!!
I uploaded a U.S. Census map to the University City, Missouri which clearly shows that Washington University is outside the city limits of St. Louis. The name of "in St. Louis" is accurate from a county perspective. A discussion on the mailing address/physical address discrepancy would be of interest. Americasroof (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I should probably revise my comment since Wash U is in a not clearly defined checker pattern. In any event, the geography is unique as it would appear to be outside of St. Louis proper. There was probably some accomodation made to include it in the city. Those quirks are always fun to track down. Americasroof (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it was included in the Danforth Campus article about being in unincorporated St. Louis county. We should probably include it in the main article. The location info on this article is misleading. Americasroof (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The university's mailing address is St. Louis Missouril prehaps brookings hall and the area of east of it are in the City while most of the major campus buildings are split between ucity and clayton. thanks Astuishin (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could be wrong, but I believe one can send mail to anywhere in SL County using "St. Louis, MO" instead of the proper municipality name. Maybe a resident of the County could chime in to confirm? Ropcat (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added a geography section to the article explaining the situation. Wash U is an island into itself in St. Louis County. Americasroof (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could be wrong, but I believe one can send mail to anywhere in SL County using "St. Louis, MO" instead of the proper municipality name. Maybe a resident of the County could chime in to confirm? Ropcat (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Student Union merge proposal
I propose a merger of Washington University Student Union into this article. The Washington University Student Union article suffers from WP:Original Research and is generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose a merge. I suggest that the article be improved, not merged. Merging won't solve the problems you identified.--Lmbstl (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sourcing for the student union is pretty much non-existent. The only way to save any of the content is to merge it with the main article,--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Failing WP:Notability cannot be fixed. I don't understand what is behind this effort to have articles on student unions, but without sources, these articles won't survive. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before RedShiftPA gutted the article, it had 9 sources. Now it has 3. Someone please explain how deleting referenced material corrects the WP:Original Research issue!
- Failing WP:Notability cannot be fixed. I don't understand what is behind this effort to have articles on student unions, but without sources, these articles won't survive. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sourcing for the student union is pretty much non-existent. The only way to save any of the content is to merge it with the main article,--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the article needs improvement, then let's improve it. If it fails notability, then let's discuss which aspects fail. It has only been tagged since this month (not even 2 weeks), and now it has been essentially deleted, so course it will fail notability if it has little to say. If the article deserves deletion, then tag it for consideration. However, removing the majority of the article's material (along with references), creates the situations you have labeled without allowing debate, and I oppose that. The tag itself states: "Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."
- I suggest that the article be restored, and its problem areas given a chance to be discussed and reviewed. --Lmbstl (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why Student Life, among others, would fail WP:RS. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place {{cn}} tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails WP:N, feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The sources User:RedShiftPA removed were all links to wustl.edu internal sites or the organization's own site. Unfortunately, these aren't the sort of sources that are required. If it makes you feel any better, very few people ever look at the article; , especially when compared to the main page . Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why Student Life, among others, would fail WP:RS. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place {{cn}} tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails WP:N, feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that the article be restored, and its problem areas given a chance to be discussed and reviewed. --Lmbstl (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All 9 of the sources you refer to were self published sources. Every single one was published from wither WSU or the Student Union itself. According to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), self published sources "are largely not acceptable." They may be used sparingly, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article was based entirely on self-published sources. As far as accusing me of "gutting" that article, I got rid of the ] and organizational fluff. I only left the justifiable material.
- I did tag the article with a PROD, which was contested. Now I am advocating a merge with the main article. This topic is not noteworthy enough for its own article. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies). In general, an organization has notability "if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." The Student Union of WSU doesn't have that. Therefore, it should be merged into the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)