Talk:McGill Redmen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Dispute

Factual info about hazing was removed. That's why I dispute it. Ardenn 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the University mascot/nickname, and has nothing to do with the insertion you make repeatedly, no matter how many other users object to it. You've already added it to the only article it's remotely relevant to; it hardly needs replication. Monicasdude 22:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The McGill Redmen are the men's athletic teams that represent McGill University... That's funny, the very first sentence sets out that this about the teams, not a name. Which means actual information about any of said teams belongs, don't it? --Calton | Talk 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If this little tiff is over, I'm gonna remove the disputed header. pm_shef 17:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not over. I think the stuff should be included. Ardenn 17:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Hazing issue is simply not germane to the topic of the article. This article is about the name of the University's Varsity Teams, not about the McGill Redmen Football team. If you want to create an article about the Football team, go ahead, though it's probably not noteable enough for one. Regardless, this article is not here to discuss the goings-on of each individual team. Do you see the distinction? -- pm_shef 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the name of the University's Varsity Teams. Not according to the very first sentence of the article, it isn't. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the mens sports teams, and this event certainly is relevant to that. Since the football team itself doesn't merit its own article, the event belongs in this article. Ardenn 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
He's already put this into every article where it's even remotely pertinent. He's got some kind of grudge against the university. Monicasdude 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Having looked over the pertinent history of the article, I have the following comments: one, the Martlets stuff is too much info as far as this article is concerned - the reader gets sidetracked for no purpose. The difference in names should be mentioned, but that's it. Two, hazing is a big problem on college campuses; this is why universities have specific rules against it. To thus ignore a reported rules infraction in the interest of school image (which is what it comes down to; if Ardenn is anti-McGill, the rest of you are pro-McGill) is POV and irresponsible. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. However, where the information should go is in a subsection on incidents and controversies - I'm sure you will find more than one to put in there if you look.
I hate to generalize, but from what I've seen, there are quite a few Canadian editors who seem to get far too engrossed in issues of personal and/or national pride within the articles to be able to write said articles effectively. I appreciate that you have vested interests, and that the articles you write are obviously the most important to you, but the whole point of NPOV is to allow for positive and negative viewpoints in order to give the reader a balanced view of whatever it is the article is about. MSJapan 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It's already in McGill_University, and I don't think anybody's seriously suggested removing it. It doesn't belong in an article explaining how the sports teams got their nickname. Monicasdude 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the little hazing blurb has any place in this article. If the football team itself doesn't merit its own article (to quote Ardenn) then an issue with only one source certainly doesn't merit mentioning either. If you could develop more sources and create a decent section it could probably find a place in the school's article - but it doesn't really belong here. --Hetar 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand why information about a university sports programme doesn't belong in an article about said university sports programme, but instead is farmed out to the university article. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Because this article isn't about the programme but about the name. If it were about the University Sports Programme, then there should be information on all the various teams, their histories, their records, their notable alumni, etc etc. pm_shef 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression it was on the teams, not just the name. So why not list that info? If you look at the other teams in the category, the articles on on the teams themselves, not just the name. (Not that any of them are much more than a stub.) Ardenn 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have we not already made it clear to you that this article isn't on the teams, but actually on the name? If you'd like to reach a consensus to change the purpose of the article to be about the teams themselves, I'm definitly open to that, but we'll need to find someone with enough knowledge of the McGill Athletics program to fill in the article. pm_shef 21:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you haven't, because an article on the name alone isn't notable and I'd afd it then. If it's on the teams, then that's another story entirely. Ardenn 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh for goodness sakes, you don't get your way so you list it for deletion? Unbelievable. I JUST said that I'm willing to work with you on making it into a page for the actual Athletic Programs! What part of THAT don't you agree with? pm_shef 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • By all means. :-) I honestly don't know how much I personally will be able to contribute since I don't live in Montreal or attend the University, but I can certainly try. Ardenn 22:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on dateOfNomination. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn.

[edit] Merge suggestion

I have to disagree with the merge proposal as it stands; it inherently implies that one title is subordinate to the other (and colour me unsurprised that it treats the women's teams as the subordinate entity).

These would be the real options as I see them:

  1. Leave both articles as is.
  2. Merge them into a new article at McGill Redmen and Martlets or McGill Martlets and Redmen; doesn't really matter which order they're in as long as they're both reflected in the title.
  3. Merge them both into McGill University itself, while ensuring that the team name redirects are maintained in Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport teams.

I have no personal preference; any one of those is fine. But the Martlets will most certainly not be treated as somehow subordinate to the Redmen. Bearcat 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/c/g/Talk%7EMcGill_Redmen_1a29.html"