Talk:Whidden Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on February 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This deletion discussion was closed too quickly IMO.

What needs to be done with this is what we should be doing with every college-dorm article: they can be covered as sections of larger articles devoted to the campuses of the universities in question, á la Campus of Michigan State University. If need be there can be daughter articles like "Residence Halls of X University," although I would be careful as, like separate articles about individual high schools, they will likely be vandalism magnets and prone to the inclusion of unverifiable information.

So, I would invite those behind this to immediately, now that you've won a (dubious IMO, but the consensus or lack thereof carries), move this to Campus of McMaster University and start editing thusly.

In any event you should be working diligently to improve the article. If you just leave it as it is, it will probably be nominated for deletion again, and will not be kept. Daniel Case 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "wins" or "loses". We're all here to write an encyclopedia. A decision that defaults to keep does not endorse it. You are free to be WP:BOLD and just go ahead with merging and redirecting, although it'd be best if we could obtain consensus for this beforehand. Johnleemk | Talk 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I thought I responded, but apparently that got lost. I've gone ahead and put the merge tags up; the appropriate place for a merge discussion is on the article to be merged to. I support this merge, and if such information crowds McMaster University, then the "campus" article is also a great idea. After merge, this page should probably be turned into a disambig, since there are multiple Whidden Halls at other universities. Peyna 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not favor a merge. The Univ article is too long. The article should remain as is. -- JJay 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few people gave reasoning for outright deletion of this article on the AfD. There is essentially no encyclopedic information at this article that is not already at the university article. That it became co-ed in 1982 is pretty much all I see there. The entire second paragraph is merely over-description of a standard dormitory. That John Candy went to McMasters is encyclopedic, which residence hall he lived in really isn't. The Animal House bit is entirely conjecture, and conjecture that is heavily rejected everywhere else. That it was built in 1961 at McMaster is already in the McMaster University article. Since I've just added the 1982 conversion to McMaster, I'd say this has been sufficiently merged without substantially increasing the university article's size. Therefore, I'm redirecting it. -- Jonel | Speak 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid redirecting while discussion is taking place on whether to merge or split other content from the main article. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:McMaster University. Peyna 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You have your facts wrong. The last "All male" year was the 79-80 term. I attended McMaster, starting in September of 1980 and lived in Whidden Hall and this was the first Co-Ed term for that residence. 65.92.127.230 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Rich
The discussion there centers on to where this article should redirect. Changing the target of the redirect is simple, once a campus article is created. All information remains in page history when redirected, so is easy to access if desired. -- Jonel | Speak 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It works fine as a separate article, although I believe it should be expanded. Perhaps extensively. If a merger is carried out, I think all the info should be merged, including the logo. I also do not appreciate: a) a redirect without any explanation while a discussion is underway on the talk page; b) a second redirect without an edit summary; c) a redirect that leaves a merge tag on the target for an article that has just been redirected. Please try to participate constructively in a discussion rather than take matters into your own hands based on what you think is right. There is no rush here. Therefore I am again reverting your redirect. -- JJay 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know much about this topic beyond my research for its AfD, which doesn't seem to support the contention that it can be "... expanded. Perhaps extensively". If this article is not redirected, what do you feel can plausibly be added beyond the information there now?
Thanks :) Adrian Lamo ·· 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict, replying to JJay) The discussion at AfD was strongly suggestive that this article should not be separate. The above is my explanation. The second redirect had an edit summary. I'd be glad to remove the merge tag on the target, as pertinent information has already been merged into it. A copyrighted image of a dormitory logo is quite a stretch for usefulness. -- Jonel | Speak 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your question, I do not see any relationship between a redirect and expansion. However, I would like to see some basic information such as architect, construction cost, number of rooms, etc. Then it would be nice to see an explanation of the Whidden riots. Finally, there may have been notable residents beyond John Candy. Frankly, these continued redirects are very rude. And the varied interpretation of the AfD outcome does not apply now.-- JJay 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue posting the redirect. The proposal for merge does not mean that you redirect first, then wait for someone else to merge later. It means you discuss the merge and then decide what action to take based upon that discussion. If you're not willing to engage in meaningful discussion, do not waste everyone else's time by constantly redirecting and reverting. Peyna 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That was very well said Peyna. Thank you. -- JJay 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war. Really, once a change is reverted, it's probably a good idea to discuss rather than persist in editing by brute force. As it was, we had more than one editor warring, with both sides justifying it with "see talk". Anyway, I think a redirect is appropriate right now, but since it's obviously controversial, I won't do it. Do the mergists want some certain period of time to do the merge before this becomes a redirect? Maybe all that's left to discuss is how long is needed for that? To me it looks like the important stuff is already in the other article. Friday (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
All that I see in the main article is what follows:
  1. Whidden Hall - Traditional
   * Built in 1961, 333 bedspaces, Co-ed (men's before 1982) - Size: Medium
There is more content here than that; so my concerns with the merge were not addressed, and it is very likely that the same people that were advocating keeping this article will constantly revert any redirect, therefore we should address their concerns before just redirecting. Peyna 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How about this:

McMaster has a large number of well known comedian graduates including Martin Short, John Candy, Eugene Levy and Ivan Reitman. There is a long standing debate on whether the movie Animal House was inspired by Reitman's time at McMaster's Whidden Hall during the so called "Whidden Riots" or Matthews Hall during the 1960's.

Please check the entire page before making claims as to what is on it or not. I maintain my claim that all relevant information from this article has been merged already. I'll let someone else do the redirecting though. -- Jonel | Speak 23:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Couple problems with this idea. The graduates are already listed at List of McMaster University people. Also, it doesn't look like there's any long-standing debate, it looks like an urban legend of the kind of commonly associated with colleges. I still think an appropriate amount of content on this dorm is already in the main article. Friday (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that paragraph belongs anywhere, just that it is on McMaster University, in response to Peyna (talk · contribs)'s claim that very little information from this article is at that one and therefore we can't redirect this one. I completely agree with you that sufficient content about this dorm is there (and am amazed at the strenuous objections by some against removing a) rumors, b) urban legends, and c) generalizations applicable to any college dormitory. -- Jonel | Speak 20:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright, we're on the same page then. As for the strenuous objections, this is pretty common in my experience. It's the classic conflict between the "let's have an appropriate level of detail" crowd and the "if it exists, let's have as much content on it as possible" folks. But, some articles, for whatever reason, attract a large numbers of editors who enjoy trivial details. At least one editor involved here says he attends McMaster, so I can see how a college student might think it's cool to have lots of detail about their dorm. I believe, in the interest of article quality, we should go with the appropriate level of detail. Friday (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
How come I'm not surprised to see a post from Friday suggesting a redirect right now? Is there a bot somewhere that indicates a redirect has been undone? And how about we don't do a merge? Why is a merge a foregone conclusion? Why was this redirected without explanation right after I indicated my opposition? What ever happened to discussion- such as what was going on here until someone redirected without merging [1], participating in the discussion or explaining the redirect? -- JJay 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As a user who is strongly opposed to the article's deletion and someone who is baffled as to why so many people are vehimately opposed to the article's existence, I will accept a merger/re-direct with McMaster (or sub-category campus) as long as the cited information in the Whidden article is kept and keep a smaller version of the picture too, placing the pic with the merged article. This will suffice until more information can be gathered, written and referenced to the future incarnation of the main Whidden Hall article Steelium 18:25, 10 February 2006
Here's how I see it. This hall is one minor aspect of the larger topic, the university. This hall already has as much coverage as the other halls in the main article. Some of what's in this article is rumor and (in some editors' opinions) trivial details. So, there are those that feel it has adequately been merged already. There are also those who want lots of details on this topic, whichever article it goes in. I tried earlier to merge the entire contents of this into the main article, but it looked really out of place, having two paragraphs on this particular dorm and just a brief mention of the others. I'm not sure the editors who watch the main article would want this much content on a single dorm. But, I suppose anyone who's brave could try it. Friday (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you just explained your rationale for your redirect I guess I missed it. Do you have some kind of compulsion to redirect articles? If it looked out of place, then why not leave this article on the hall alone so it can develop over time? I thought we were here to provide information to people who need it. I guess I was wrong. What counts is that the articles look good. Since that is the case, maybe you should remove the merge notice from the target article- unless of course you intend to merge the info at a later date. Or should we keep debating the merge? -- JJay 04:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Animal House Nonsense

I've removed the nonsense that this hall was an inspiration for the movie Animal House. The source cited does not mention the movie. Furthermore, the Animal House entry on IMDB clearly shows that the insiprations were from the co-writers college experiences...not this hall. Batman2005 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • IN RESPONSE The "non-sense" is cited in numerous sources and confirmed by students of the school. Please do not delete this cited information.

Steelium 18:25, 10 February 2006

The citation used in the article right now refers to it as a rumor. And, students from any school are full of urban legends about their school- that's hardly a reliable source. I suppose it could be a verified rumor (verified to be a rumor, that is) but I don't see how a mere rumor warrants inclusion in the article, personally. Friday (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Then put the "numerous" sources up here so they can be reviewed. It seems to me to be rather dubious, something students would like to believe rather than what probably is. Ivan Reitman had little to do with writing Animal House, and the two guys who did write it went to Dartmouth. It's like that "professional party school" rumor that seems to be true of every school you ask about it at. Daniel Case 03:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Case, the "numerous" sources WERE up on the Whidden page and you chumps removed it. It's not like this article is taking up space in a book, let the article be, and it will evolve over time as readers add to it. From my experience wikipedia is not very welcoming to new contributors, or who contributors who want to post about something you've never heard of. Steelium

No Steelium, you had one source, which is suspect at best, from a student publication in which it says it was rumored to be. Students at my college have stories they like to believe too. 3 sources from reputable newspapers is considered strong evidence, until you have that it's being removed. You'll have trouble finding that though, as Google brings only 3 references to Animal House and Whidden Hall....2 wikipedia sites and the student publication you had already cited. 4.224.192.102 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore Steelium, if you google "Animal House+Dartmouth College" you'll come across about a hundred REPUTABLE sources saying where the true inspiration for the movie came from. Looks like your Whidden Hall myth is BUSTED. 4.224.192.102 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
To second the anon commentator here, the cited source for this rumor just didn't cut it. A passing reference in a college newspaper article? Nope, I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.
Now, it's not like we want you to prove everything you write here. But an article mentioning a rumor is not the same thing as an article devoted in whole or significant part to ascertaining the truth and/or plausibility of said rumor. If you find one that discusses it and attempts to find out whether it is true or not, regardless of success you may use that to support including the rumor in the article, provided it has been properly cited.
Last night, for instance, I added a new section to colander, discussing a widespread urban legend. Note that an adequate reference is included (It's not footnoted, true, but I think in an article that small it's self-evident).
I like what someone says over on the talk page for the libel policy: "If there are published articles about a rumor, then Wikipedia can describe the published articles, even if nobody can prove that the rumor is true." Daniel Case 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If this rumor can be found in multiple reliable sources, perhaps it's significant enough as a rumor to warrant inclusion. If the sources are just college newspapers, that's a good indication that it's purely local interest and should not be included. Friday (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference here is that even though there is a college newspaper that talks about the rumor, we've offered proof that its not true. Sure the libel policy says that we can talk about a rumor, even if there's no way to prove its truth. But we've proven that its not true. Therefore it does not warrant inclusion. Batman2005 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Piltdown man is established as a hoax, but it's still encyclopedic as a noteworthy hoax. This, however, does not appear to be a significant hoax, it looks like typical college legend of the kind found almost anywhere. To me, that's the best reason it should not be included. Friday (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I took out the debunked rumors and the bit about "high spirited activities" in the 60's. Nothing in the source cited made this sound sound signicant- wouldn't most dorms in those days have been home to "high spirited activities"? I'd also like to pull out the second paragraph, since it's just trivia and reads like a housing brochure. However, I've left it in for now, since I didn't want to trim too much at once. Friday (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see I've been reverted, quickly and without discussion. Anonymous editor, the reason I considered it debunked was that the sources used to back this claim did not in fact back up the claim at all. Now you want a source for the removal of the rumors? We don't generally need sources to remove unsourced info. Friday (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that after you removed the information then you bothered to discuss it here. There is nothing wrong with leaving "high spirited activities" in the article. Do you actually want that phrase to be sourced too? Just because a few people find the source not to be reliable, remove the source link NOT the information in the article. Leave an "unsource" tag. Instead, you chose to delete most of the information and you consider me accused this act as "vandalism". It is so obvious what you are trying to do. Removing everything and then make it seem the article is unworthy which eventually leads to a deletion. Leave the original information as it is, discuss whether this article deems to be merged with the main McMaster one or a separate one for the campus. Friday is redirecting, "trimming" or merging this article as he pleases and that confuses users. He is making this situation more complicated as it is. 24.57.131.18 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did redirect it once, yes. And I did trim it, once. Other than that my only edit was to replace the lost merge tag. I've been active in talk page discussion. I don't see that I'm taking any undue liberties with this article. The reason I thought you were referring to my edit as vandalism was the "rvv" in your edit summary. My apologies if that's not what you meant. As for the article- I wasn't trying to complicate, I was trying to get it down to the relevant, verifiable information, which should make a merge easier. Friday (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll?

Anyone interested in summing up their opinons? I can think of 3 major camps here.

  1. People who want to redirect this to the main article McMaster University (or, in the future, some hypothetical article about the campus itself) and think there's already enough info on this dorm in the target article.
    1. Friday (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. People who want to redirect this AFTER putting more details into the target article
  3. People who oppose any redirect and want this to be a seperate article
    1. Based on the actions of the editors here- redirecting without discussion, then emptying the article and redirecting in the face of steady opposition- this poll is obviously a sham. -- JJay 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There could be other major groups I suppose- feel free to add them as needed. People in group #2 can change themselves to group #1 at any time simply by adding the relevant content to the other article. Friday (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect. Ardenn 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

What is left of the Whidden article is now only three sentences. All the trimming and removing information has gone out of hand. The main point of the proposed merge is to see what people think of the original article(unedited) after it had reached no consensus for article deletion. What is the point of merging the article now? What is left here is already on the McMaster page. You people like to do whatever you want until the article looks right to you, not others. No wonder some good Wikipedians choose to leave. 24.57.131.18 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumors, campus legends, and housing directory information are not encyclopedic. The encyclopedic information has been merged to the McMaster page. And as for the assertion that "the proposed merge is to see what people think of the original article (unedited)", that's simply not the way Wikipedia works. Articles get edited. -- Jonel | Speak 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
See WP:OWN. Ardenn 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
See WP:Civil, WP:AGF, WP:Bite. -- JJay 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The last time I checked, nothing was merged with the McMaster page. The information now in the Whidden article is so short and similiar to the McMaster page about Whidden, there is nothing to merge because all the details are the same! There is no value left in this article after all those edits. See WP:OWN WP:Civil, WP:AGF WP:Bite errrr 24.57.131.18 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being uncivil or biting. We're talking about content. I happen to agree that rumors and housing info don't really belong here. Friday (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't either but they posted the remarks so I am doing the same. 24.57.131.18

  • My remarks were adressed to Ardenn. -- JJay 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow your own advice. Ardenn 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Why was the description of this dorm removed from the article? This is essential to understand what it's all about. Frankly, I could care less about the Animal House story, but I need a good description of this dorm. That is what we are here for and the repeated removal looks like vandalism.

Unless someone can provide a compelling reason, I will re-add the following:

A traditionally dorm-styled residence, the dormitories have one common room and kitchen on each floor. There are public-use bathrooms located in each of the three wings. Accommodations available include single rooms (strictly reserved upper year students), double and triple bunk, as well as loft rooms for first year students. There are triple rooms outfitted with a balcony, which is helpful since there is no air conditioning. Individual heating units are in each room.

-- JJay 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As we've explained previously here on the talk page, some of us think this info is trivial and unneccessary. Friday (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not good enough. Why do we have descriptions of any building, street, tree or any other "thing"? This dorm is unique and for me to understand it I need a basic description. -- JJay 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't generally put descriptions of random building and trees into the encyclopedia- that's the point people are trying to make. Friday (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a random building or tree. It is Whidden Hall. All dorms get a basic description. See University of Exeter Halls of Residence for example. Your continued removal of the basic info required for this article looks like an attempt to destroy its contents.-- JJay 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard about different opinions? Just because some think it isn't needed others feel it needs to be. Btw, what about the straw poll you proposed? I think nobody is bothering with that and just editing away. 24.57.131.18 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whidden Hall is a traditional dorm-style residence. That's the appropriate level of description. I've added it. -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You added it after it was discussed here. I doubt you would've even bothered if it wasn't mentioned. 24.57.131.18 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that the article should just be redirected. -- Jonel | Speak 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
A "traditional dorm-style residence"- are you joking? That tells me nothing. How about we describe McMaster as a "traditional institution of higher learning" and call it a day. Or maybe all our olympics articles should consist of just: an international sporting competition, traditionally held every four years. Short, to the point, tells you everything you need to know.
Based on the the description, I can visualise the building and I know it is unlike any dorm I ever lived in. There is no such thing as a "traditional" dorm and your removal of the contents describing the dorm is simply shocking to me. -- JJay 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The word "traditional" is found in the description of the dorm in source #1. Friday (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
So why do you have to remove it? makes no sense. Why not just leave that ONE link up and remove all the contents. Saves space too. You are thinking every possible way to shorten the article as you have some sort of hate towards Whidden Hall. Most of your edits are unjustified. 24.57.131.18 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Source 1 also uses the following adjectives: 'convenient, modern, traditional, contemporary, smoke-free, affordable rate, clean, well-maintained, comfortable, secure, conveniently located, Air Conditioned, fully furnished,'. It further describes what traditional means, as in:
Our traditional style, residences have kitchenettes within the floor lounges whereas our suite style/apartment style residences have a kitchen area in each suite/apartment. Washrooms are shared.
Our description is meaningless since "traditional" is not even defined. In certain African countries, for example, this level of student housing would be far from "traditional". The same is true where I live. I thought we could do better than that at wikipedia. However, I can see that a few editors have decided to destroy this article using any means possible. That is a severe loss for our readers. -- JJay 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Anyone has the right to remove unverified info from articles if they don't think it belongs. The animal house reference does not support the claim of "high spirited activities in the 60's". It was there to support the rumors of inspiration for animal house. That is why I removed the unsupported sentence and the orphaned source. Telling other editors to "stop changing" the article isn't helpful- editors are expected to edit articles. Friday (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all "high spirited activities in the 60s" does not need to be sourced. The link is in support of Animal house only. It was changed by a number of edits and someone put an irrelevant source to the sentence. I am telling you to stop because your edits are unjustified which is NOT helpful at all. And stop dodging the main issues addressed. Give an answer to your edits above on the description discussion. Btw, the numerous tags expressing concern with the article as "unecyclopedic" is nonsense. 3 sentences and it is unencyclopedic you are out of your minds 24.57.131.18 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree and I guess Friday won't mind if I add the physical description of the dorm back to the article, since it's so verifiable -- JJay 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I didn't see where any sources were used for that at all. Friday (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)