Talk:Washington University in St. Louis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Washington University in St. Louis: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

If you are a part of the WUSTL WikiProject, you can add this template to your userpage:

{{UserWUSTLproject}}

to display the following userbox on your userpage:
This user is a member of the Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject.


This will also add you to: Category:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis participants


If you attend or have attended Washington University, you can add this template to your userpage:

{{User WUSTL}}
to display the following userbox on your userpage:
This user attends or attended
Washington University.


This will also add your page to: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington University in St. Louis



Archive
Archives

April 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - December 2006
December 2006 - May 2007
/Deletion discussion



Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I thought it meant through vietnam vis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.146.40 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (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)

[edit] Subtle changes

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)
Main campus is in unincorporated SL county. The South 40 is in Clayton. The Med school and other areas (North campus, etc) are in St. Louis city. Oren0 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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!
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; [1], especially when compared to the main page [2]. Paddy Simcox (talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 [{WP:Original Research]] 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 Wikipedia: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)
Coverage in Student Life is extensive. Also note coverage in Washington University Magazine and more minor mentions the local media [3] [4] [5]. Note that WP:SPS doesn't mean that publications from the University (such as StudLife or the magazine) can't be used as sources for this any more than we couldn't use the New York Times as a source about New York. It only prohibits us from using the Student Union's own site. Whether or not the Student Union is notable enough to warrant its own article versus being merged into the campus life article is a matter for debate, but SU clearly meets WP:N (PS: It's WU or WUSTL, not WSU) Oren0 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 raises some valid points that should have been discussed already, had debate been allowed. Initially, I said I opposed a merge because merging an article does not necessarily improve its content. Instead of discussing the issue, (or waiting for other comments), Paddy Simcox jumped in and, in essence, stated that it is impossible to improve the article. I don't see how Paddy Simcox's view provided license to skip over debating the issue. If you want to discuss a merge, then let's do so. However, the suggestion that a merge repairs inferior material is nonsense, and no one has addressed that.
Also, we all know that it is generally decent to debate changes so broad as the ones instituted by RedShiftPA. I am not defending the quality of the Student Union article so much as I am contesting the lack of respectability demonstrated in the way it was tagged, scarcely discussed, and then promptly edited, as I described above.
Since RedShiftPA and Paddy Simcox apparently work as a team, I would like to know:
1. How has your methodology been ok so far, in light of DELETING, MAJOR CHANGES, Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, and PRESERVING INFORMATION?
2. What does your team work to accomplish, since you have not worked on other any other WUSTL articles?
Since I assume good faith, I will not jump to the conclusion of sockpuppetry. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should not come as too much of a shock that two people can come to the same conclusion about the lack of reliable sources and the failure of this organization to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. As I mentioned above, the WUSTL main article gets more than 56 times as many page views as the WUSU. More people will get to know the WUSU there than at its stand-alone page, especially since there will be a redirect. Paddy Simcox (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Please read the previous discussion. --Lmbstl (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:ORG
1. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
2. Washington University Student Union has no independent secondary sources. Any mention in the press is incidental
Therefore, it FAILS WP:ORG.
This article would have a hard time passing an AFD, and the best way to save the material is to merge it into the main article. I am glad you're not accusing Mr. Simcox and I of being sockpuppets, because I would hate to accuse you of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There's nothing wrong deleting original research from a non-notable article. Look, would you rather we send this to an AFD?--RedShiftPA (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a merge. Briefly looking over the article, it seems to be notable unto itself. Yes it needs some reliable sources, but Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I keep saying the same things and you're just not listening. I'll walk you through my logic step by step and you let me know which step you disagree with. 1. Student Life easily meets WP:RS. 2. Student Life has written numerous articles primarily featuring SU (see the link above). 500+ search results, and I'm sure many are in depth regarding SU. I could find these if need be. 3. Student Life is independent of both the University and the Student Union, therefore it is a "reliable, independent secondary source" as called for in WP:ORG. 4. Coverage in Student Life therefore is enough to make SU pass WP:ORG. If you disagree, I suggest an AfD. As I stated above, I'm sure that the organization is notable, but I'm not sure that means that it deserves its own article. That being said, dismissing its notability outright and deleting so much content (including sourced content) that the edits border on vandalism is far from good wikiquette. Oren0 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RedShiftPA posted updates to my talk page here: User_talk:Lmbstl#WUSTL_Student_Union I reccommended that he post his comments here, but he is too busy scrambling to get the article deleted. The article has formally been recommended for deletion. I will suggest that it be merged.

For the record, I do not agree with the implicit objective that the article should be deleted without an opportunity to be improved. --Lmbstl (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)