WikiCU talk:Notability - Revision history

Pacman: /* Renewed discussion 2013 */

2013-05-13T22:36:20Z

‎Renewed discussion 2013

Reaganaut: moved Talk:Notability to WikiCU talk:Notability: moving namespace

2013-05-05T00:29:15Z

moved Talk:Notability to WikiCU talk:Notability: moving namespace

PSterne: /* Renewed discussion 2013 */

2013-04-29T12:31:50Z

‎Renewed discussion 2013

PSterne: /* Renewed discussion 2013 */

2013-04-29T12:29:33Z

‎Renewed discussion 2013

Fbv2102: /* Renewed discussion 2013 */ also

2013-04-29T02:07:52Z

‎Renewed discussion 2013: also

Fbv2102: /* Renewed discussion 2013 */ new section

2013-04-24T23:54:56Z

‎Renewed discussion 2013: new section

Stephen.wang: /* General thoughts */

2007-05-23T04:59:58Z

‎General thoughts

Pacman: /* General thoughts */

2007-05-21T18:24:37Z

‎General thoughts

Reaganaut: /* General thoughts */

2007-05-21T05:32:03Z

‎General thoughts

Pacman: /* General thoughts */

2007-05-20T20:45:25Z

‎General thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 13 May 2013
Line 52:		Line 52:

	*I'd also add that, well, the problem that [[WikiCU]] currently faces isn't too many articles. It especially isn't too many articles about current students. Insisting on strict standards for notability and deleting pages that aren't considered notable isn't going to get more people to contribute. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:31, 29 April 2013 (EDT)		*I'd also add that, well, the problem that [[WikiCU]] currently faces isn't too many articles. It especially isn't too many articles about current students. Insisting on strict standards for notability and deleting pages that aren't considered notable isn't going to get more people to contribute. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:31, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
		+	:This position is basically how the debate came out last time. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 18:36, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 29 April 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:

	*I think that someone who holds a position for one year should get a page, even if it's something of a stub, so that we can make succession chains. So-and-so was [[:Category:Columbia Daily Spectator editors\|editor of Spec]], succeeded by so-and-so, succeeded by so-and-so, etc. Of course, these pages shouldn't be stubs. Everyone with that kind of position presides over some important changes, and those should be added to their page. But even if they are stubs, they're relevant to institutions that matter. If I want to understand Spec, it's helpful to have a list of every editor of Spectator and some of the important changes they made while editor. You could stick all that info on the main [[Columbia Daily Spectator]] page, but then the page would become bogged down in minutiae. Better to give a page to every editor. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)		*I think that someone who holds a position for one year should get a page, even if it's something of a stub, so that we can make succession chains. So-and-so was [[:Category:Columbia Daily Spectator editors\|editor of Spec]], succeeded by so-and-so, succeeded by so-and-so, etc. Of course, these pages shouldn't be stubs. Everyone with that kind of position presides over some important changes, and those should be added to their page. But even if they are stubs, they're relevant to institutions that matter. If I want to understand Spec, it's helpful to have a list of every editor of Spectator and some of the important changes they made while editor. You could stick all that info on the main [[Columbia Daily Spectator]] page, but then the page would become bogged down in minutiae. Better to give a page to every editor. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
		+
		+	*I'd also add that, well, the problem that [[WikiCU]] currently faces isn't too many articles. It especially isn't too many articles about current students. Insisting on strict standards for notability and deleting pages that aren't considered notable isn't going to get more people to contribute. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:31, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 29 April 2013
Line 47:		Line 47:
	== Renewed discussion 2013 ==		== Renewed discussion 2013 ==

−	Well, this hasn't been discussed in six years, so let's renew the discussion. What are the standards of notability for current students? For alumni? Do people who hold positions (of clubs, of publication, in student government) for one year get pages, or only if they do more than just hold that position? Usually these pages just result in stubs (and there would wind up being a ton of them)—so I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. --[[User:Fbv2102\|Fbv2102]] 19:54, 24 April 2013 (EDT)	+	*Well, this hasn't been discussed in six years, so let's renew the discussion. What are the standards of notability for current students? For alumni? Do people who hold positions (of clubs, of publication, in student government) for one year get pages, or only if they do more than just hold that position? Usually these pages just result in stubs (and there would wind up being a ton of them)—so I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. --[[User:Fbv2102\|Fbv2102]] 19:54, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
		+
		+	*I think that someone who holds a position for one year should get a page, even if it's something of a stub, so that we can make succession chains. So-and-so was [[:Category:Columbia Daily Spectator editors\|editor of Spec]], succeeded by so-and-so, succeeded by so-and-so, etc. Of course, these pages shouldn't be stubs. Everyone with that kind of position presides over some important changes, and those should be added to their page. But even if they are stubs, they're relevant to institutions that matter. If I want to understand Spec, it's helpful to have a list of every editor of Spectator and some of the important changes they made while editor. You could stick all that info on the main [[Columbia Daily Spectator]] page, but then the page would become bogged down in minutiae. Better to give a page to every editor. [[User:PSterne\|PSterne]] 08:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:07, 29 April 2013
Line 47:		Line 47:
	== Renewed discussion 2013 ==		== Renewed discussion 2013 ==

−	Well, this hasn't been discussed in six years, so let's renew the discussion. What are the standards of notability for current students? For alumni? Do people who hold positions (of clubs, of publication, in student government) for one year get pages, or only if they do more than just hold that position? Usually these pages just result in ~~stubs—so~~ I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. --[[User:Fbv2102\|Fbv2102]] 19:54, 24 April 2013 (EDT)	+	Well, this hasn't been discussed in six years, so let's renew the discussion. What are the standards of notability for current students? For alumni? Do people who hold positions (of clubs, of publication, in student government) for one year get pages, or only if they do more than just hold that position? Usually these pages just result in stubs (and there would wind up being a ton of them)—so I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. --[[User:Fbv2102\|Fbv2102]] 19:54, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, 24 April 2013
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)		:*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
	:*Some of the vanity pages are extremely ambitious. I'd like to have a criteria for keeping pages, but it's sad to see some of them get deleted; other ones, like the College Boxes guy, wow, I was ready to delete that sucker the second it went up. [[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 00:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)		:*Some of the vanity pages are extremely ambitious. I'd like to have a criteria for keeping pages, but it's sad to see some of them get deleted; other ones, like the College Boxes guy, wow, I was ready to delete that sucker the second it went up. [[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 00:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Renewed discussion 2013 ==
		+
		+	Well, this hasn't been discussed in six years, so let's renew the discussion. What are the standards of notability for current students? For alumni? Do people who hold positions (of clubs, of publication, in student government) for one year get pages, or only if they do more than just hold that position? Usually these pages just result in stubs—so I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. --[[User:Fbv2102\|Fbv2102]] 19:54, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:29, 5 May 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 23 May 2007
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* While I like the relatively informal nature of this wiki, some standards are necessary for it to be taken seriously by the student body, in my opinion. I think the criteria set out above are a good metric to use for gauging notability. [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]] 13:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)		* While I like the relatively informal nature of this wiki, some standards are necessary for it to be taken seriously by the student body, in my opinion. I think the criteria set out above are a good metric to use for gauging notability. [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]] 13:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
	:*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)		:*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
		+	:*Some of the vanity pages are extremely ambitious. I'd like to have a criteria for keeping pages, but it's sad to see some of them get deleted; other ones, like the College Boxes guy, wow, I was ready to delete that sucker the second it went up. [[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 00:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 * Nonsensical's standards would be fine if there were a space crunch and we really had to limit the number of articles on WikiCU by imposing a filter like notability. But is there? I don't see how extra information about any student or an alumnus hurts the site in any way, whereas Nonsensical acknowledges it could help bring in more users. [[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 00:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 :*How many of the users we've seen create spam-ish biographies have actually gone on to improve other articles? {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 01:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
 * While I like the relatively informal nature of this wiki, some standards are necessary for it to be taken seriously by the student body, in my opinion.  I think the criteria set out above are a good metric to use for gauging notability. [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]] 13:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 :*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 20 May 2007
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* Nonsensical's standards would be fine if there were a space crunch and we really had to limit the number of articles on WikiCU by imposing a filter like notability. But is there? I don't see how extra information about any student or an alumnus hurts the site in any way, whereas Nonsensical acknowledges it could help bring in more users. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 00:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)		* Nonsensical's standards would be fine if there were a space crunch and we really had to limit the number of articles on WikiCU by imposing a filter like notability. But is there? I don't see how extra information about any student or an alumnus hurts the site in any way, whereas Nonsensical acknowledges it could help bring in more users. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 00:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
	* While I like the relatively informal nature of this wiki, some standards are necessary for it to be taken seriously by the student body, in my opinion. I think the criteria set out above are a good metric to use for gauging notability. [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]] 13:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)		* While I like the relatively informal nature of this wiki, some standards are necessary for it to be taken seriously by the student body, in my opinion. I think the criteria set out above are a good metric to use for gauging notability. [[User:WhatYouKnowAboutThat\|WhatYouKnowAboutThat]] 13:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
		+	:*I can see it being taken less seriously if the articles have a joke-ish quality, as some certainly do. But well-written bios of recent (if non-completely-notable) alums shouldn't be deleted for this reason. I still find it useful to find out who certain people from '05 were, for example, when reference is made to them. And if someone does strike it big, we have a record of their activities at Columbia that may not exist in easily accessible form elsewhere. [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 16:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)