Jump to content

Talk:South Dakota School of Mines and Technology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip R. Bjork

Is currently up for deletion. Details:

Professor Philip R. Bjork is an American geologist and paleontologist. He was the director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City from 1975 to 2000.

Ikip (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Present Day

Professor Philip R. Bjork is an American geologist and paleontologist. He was the director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City from 1975 to 2000.Hi There 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drutribe (talk • contribs)

Can you please update the logo and colors to reflect the current approved branding guidelines: http://www.sdsmt.edu/uploadedFiles/Content/Campus_Services/University_Relations_and_Media/Graphic%20Standards.pdf

The blue and white logo, as seen on Facebook.com/sdsmt, twitter.com/sdsmt, for example.

The colors are now blue, white, and gold (replacing "Dark Blue" and "Gold (yellow)": Mines Blue: PMS 2768C CMYK: 100/90/13/71 RGB: 7/29/73 #071D49

White:

Mines Gold: PMS 4515C PMS 617 U CMYK 13/19/62/28 RGB 179/163/ 105 #B3A369

Thank you! SDSMTUR (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Template talk:Non-free logo (diff)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability Change

Editor KidAd appears to want to change the notability requirements. Currently they are as follows:

      • INSTRUCTIONS FOR NOTABLE PEOPLE ***

When you add a name to this list, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure all of the following for each person:

1) Insert person into list sorted by last name (surname).
2) Each person MUST meet Wikipedia:Bio requirements to ensure Notability.
3) Each person MUST meet Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements to verify their notability and prove they attended the school.
4a) If the person has a Wikipedia article, then wikilink the persons name so it points at the article.
4b) If the person doesn't have a Wikipedia article, then add citation reference(s) to prove notability and attendance.

He appears to want to base notability on whether the person has a Wikipedia page, which is not based on any Wikipedia guidelines or the notability guidelines of this page. Ckruschke (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

If an individual is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they are not notable enough to be listed under "notable alumni." Your first edit summary completely misses the point that someone who is a cooperate CEO or Managing Partner of World Bank and a State representative are evaluated using different notability standards. A state representative clearly meets WP:NPOL, while a corporate CEO may not meet WP:GNG. If you would like to list non-notable individuals as "notable" alumni, I suggest you create pages for some of these individuals instead of edit warring. KidAd • SPEAK 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, your most recent revert is a violation of WP:3RR. WP:ONUS states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. While you have started a discussion, you have not achieved consensus. I suggest you self-revert or I will be forced to take this issue to WP:AN3. KidAd • SPEAK 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well we will let the admins decide who was in the wrong, as this was your intent. However, you still haven't answered the central question. Your own Wiki link (WP:NPOL) clearly states that just because the person is an elected official does not guarantee notability, which has been one of my points all along. As such YOU are the one attempting to include disputed content. Why is this person notable?!?!?! Simply because he was elected???? As I said in the Admin page, you are misusing WP:ONUS as a hammer to shout me down. My other point which you seem to have missed is why the people you were attempting to delete are NON-NOTABLE simply because they do not have Wiki pages. Nowhere that I can see in the Notability guidelines does it state a notable person HAS to have a presence on Wikipedia. So again, the burden is on you to prove your point because I don't see a basis for addition/deletions in Wiki policy. Ckruschke (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

What does Notability Mean?

We have a couple issues recently about what constitutes "notability" with myself and two other editors noting our own POV for the term. After thinking about the error of my ways, I think we need to really stick to the Wikipedia term of who is and isn't notable. Wikipedia's Basic Criteria is very specific about the general litmus test on the subject. Rather than commenting on the right or wrongs of our non-NPOV (mine included), I thought I'd open it up to discussion for ElKevbo, KidAd, and the other editors on this page. IMO, the notability rules that were previously in place on this page did a good job of summarizing Wikipedia:Notability, but I didn't write it and its just my opinion. What do you all think? Ckruschke (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
You missed my point. If you get rid of the basis for Notability on this page, as you have, what governs submissions? Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
It shouldn't be an indiscriminate listing of every alumnus, faculty, or staff member with a Wikipedia article or reference. It should be a purposeful listing with entries selected because they tell readers something important about the institution e.g., its accomplishments, its challenges, the breadth of its curricular offerings. ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
But if you get rid of the page's guiding principles of insertion, the notability list, by omission of guidance, actually becomes indiscriminate. I tried to remove several coaches who fail to tell anything about the institution (other than they had several one-year coaches and/or who weren't good coaches) and who appear to have ONLY been added to the Notable Staff list because someone crafted a Wikipedia page for them, but you reverted this removal. So forgive my confusion, but your words don't seem to follow your actions. Either we should be discriminate with lists and only put on those people who are deserving using a set of criteria gleaned from Wiki guidelines and who tell the academic/curricular story of the institution or we allow the lists to become catchalls for any Anon editor to add their favorite teach or alum. WSY? Ckruschke (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
You're welcome to propose some draft principles or guidelines. But they must be neutral; we cannot exclude people just because they embarrass the institution or don't paint it (or themselves) in a good light. ElKevbo (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
While I agree with you in principle - neutrality is obviously what we are striving for in Wikipedia - its not non-NPOV to say a handful of coaches who each coached the team for one season (regardless of their records) are non-notable with respect to SDSM&T as an institution. It's just the truth.
Honestly I'm still not sure why you deleted the original ground rules. By those rules (or more specifically the notability statement in Wikipedia:Bio), all but one of the coaches I removed would be by definition non-notable (with regards to the school) and the last one (Erv Mondt) would be debatable. Not saying its perfect or that just because it proves my point its the perfect system, but rather than coming up with a whole new set of criteria I continue to argue that there was nothing wrong with the existing stipulations - at least as a starting point. Again this is just my opinion and this is simply an open conversation looking to improve the page. WSY? Ckruschke (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
The edit summary you used to remove those coaches was "Allmendenger, Strong, Kratzer, Hahn, and Mondt who all had either 1 yr terms or terrible results as FB coaches..." which is not the same as what you wrote above ("each coached the team for one season (regardless of their records)"). The rationale that these coaches didn't have successful seasons, one of the two reasons you explicitly provided for your edit, was why I objected to your removal.
My best guess is that the use of "notable" in the title of this section is causing a lot of confusion. When we use that word in an article, we don't mean "notable in the very specific and unusual sense that we define it in Wikipedia" but in the broader, non-technical sense that we usually mean in ordinary life. That's why the advice for college and university articles recommends that this section be titled "Noted people" instead of "Notable people" (although, in fairness, this suggestion has never really caught on). WP:BIO only provides guidance on whether a person should/could have their own, dedicated article; it explicitly does not govern the content of articles and require that people in a list included in an article themselves be independently independent. That is why I deleted those original "ground rules:" they contradicted project-wide guidelines.
I'll also add that across Wikipedia these embedded lists of "notable" or "noted" people are generally a mess with no explicit or implicit criteria for inclusion except "should be supported by a source or an article that mentions this college or university" as a loose criterion. They tend to be collections of people that random editors have added as they pass through the article with no thought given to why each person should be included in that encyclopedia article beyond "they have a connection to this institution." The articles that are in good shape tend to be those that do not have these lists but instead (a) have a brief section of prose describing the alumni, faculty, and staff with a handful of noteworthy examples and (b) link to one or more list articles (alumni, faculty, etc.) that are all-inclusive of all people in that category who have an article (because WP:BIO does apply to the contents of a stand-alone list article). So my recommendation would be to follow that model by writing a paragraph or two that generally describes the alumni, faculty, and staff of this institution and links to one or more list articles where all notable people can be included. ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your comment about my edit summary, but your edit summary for removing the notability list was "you're not the boss of me" so.....
I wouldn't be in favor of creating a stub of the very few justifiable notable persons - lets be honest, I'm an alum of Tech and I love the college, but we aren't talking about Harvard. In addition, as I've seen with other stubs like this, admins eventually find them, tag them for speedy deletion, and suggest that the info be added back to the main page.
I do see the merit of adding in a paragraph of prose on the notable persons, but this will also catch Anon additions. It is however easier to monitor. I could make a stab at a draft if you like. Ckruschke (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

How about this as a draft.
==Noted staff==
Prior to 1897, the head of SDSM&T held the title of Dean rather than president. William Phipps Blake was offered and accepted the position to be the school's first Dean, but turned it down after the territorial legislature reduced the position's salary. His book donation started the school's library.[1] Dr. Franklin R. Carpenter (1886–1889) was the first Dean and Dr. Robert L. Slagle (1898–1905) [citation needed] was the first President of the school. Dr. Richard J. Gowen (1987–2003) was the 9th President and the longest serving (17 years).[2] President Dr. Heather A. Wilson (2013–2017) followed her SDSM&T tenure with a two-year term as the Secretary of the US Air Force (May 2017 – May 2019).[3] Academically, Dr. Walter A. Rosenblith (1943–1947) taught physics before moving to Harvard and then MIT. Dr. Rosenblith was later elected to all three National Academies (National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine).[4] Physics professor Dr. Jack Weyland (?-1971) moved on to Brigham Young University and became a well-known author of LDS fiction.[citation needed] On the athletic side, Coach Gary Boner (1971–1989) is to date the longest-serving and winningest football head coach at SDSM&T. Coach Josh Boyer (2005) followed his one-year stint as defensive coordinator with multiple coaching positions in the NFL. As of May 2021, he is the Defensive Coordinator for the Miami Dolphins.[5]
Ckruschke (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

References

  1. ^ Stymiest, Ruth (1985). South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Centennial, An Illustrated History, 1885–1985. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. p. 6.
  2. ^ "Dakota State University". Departments.dsu.edu. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved September 5, 2016.
  3. ^ "Senate approves Heather Wilson to be Trump's Air Force secretary". Washington Examiner. May 8, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
  4. ^ https://news.mit.edu/2002/rosenblith
  5. ^ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/fl-sp-dolphins-josh-boyer-patrick-graham-20200112-chmm73fv5jeynm3sdv2274ay2m-story.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Dakota_School_of_Mines_and_Technology/Archive_1&oldid=1172589357"