Talk:Residential colleges of Rice University

Baker

POV Problems

"What makes Baker the best college on campus are our many long-standing traditions." This is definitely not neutral.

Appears to have been written by a current student who has only a superficial knowledge of the college. Should probably leave the writing of this article to alumni who have a greater appreciation for the college, and would paint a more accurate picture that does Baker justice. There's more than Baker 13 and Upper Fourth - this coming from someone who ran 13 alone and lived in Fourth when it supposedly attained its "legend" status, but also is much more aware of all that is Baker.

Fair use rationale for Image:Baker College Seal.PNG

Image:Baker College Seal.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hanszen

I'm pulling off the comment about "Please don't delete this..." It's not appropriate for Wikipedia, and as a Hanszen alum, I think it looks pretty immature. I think the whole sheriff comment is pretty immature, but maybe you guys actually do stuff like that. Jcloudm 14 Aug 2006

We could probably go a little bit more in-depth on the government, as the current version makes no mention whatsoever of the committees. HFH '04 --69.7.175.177 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Hanszen alum, I respect your opinion regarding the sheriff line.

However, I think you're a piece of shit for censoring what is the only humorous line in an otherwise information-only article, especially on the last bastion of user-created free speech (the internet).

Sounds cool to me.

(I have some extra plane tickets to 1984 East Berlin if you want them ... )

24.167.39.137 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Rice's unique qualities revolve around being more easy-going than other ivy league institutions - don't ruin it.

That bit about the Sherriff needs to stay out of this article. Wikipedia is not the place for jokes or graffiti. If you want to put that up on hanszenet or your own web site, that's you're business. However, Wikipedia already has enough trouble being taken seriously, without people undermining it by putting in intentionally false statements. Additionally, as a Hanszen alum, I am disappointed in the lack of creativity in your humor. It's just simply not that funny. You should be able to make a joke that's more intelligent than that, while still upholding the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is striving for. I mean, come on, isn't there something true AND funny that you can put into a new 'life at hanszen' section? Ekao1111 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that jokes are specifically included in the Wikipedia definition of vandalism: WP:VANDAL It doesn't matter whether you think it's funny or not. Ekao1111 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Ekao111 -- It did happen. Joe was the Sheriff. It was elected as a permanent position - in a cabinet meeting in 06'. Look at the minutes if you want. Just like the "Tom Miller Bitches and Hoes" committee (a real committee at Hanszen, with the most funding of any - even socials), this is a real thing. So keep changing it if you want -- we will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.21.18 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A joke is a joke, even if it has basis in real life. If you want to include it, put it in a new college humor section, and put it in quotes. There's no problem with documenting jokes, provided they are identified as such. Also, let's try to keep this discussion mature. Modifying another person's comments is again just showing that you don't understand the concept here. Finally, if you want to get some respect here, register and sign in when you make edits. If it's so important to you to "prevail", then you should be able to step up to the plate and take credit for it by name. Ekao1111 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, I'll be removing the Hanszen Halo League. A list that is just tacked on to the end of the article makes no sense. It should include some sort of discussion and some references. Ekao1111 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheriff comments: The problem with the editors of the wikipedia (and some Hanszen alumni apparently) is that they fail to see the significance of things like the Hanszen Sheriff. Events like electing/appointing a Sheriff (albeit somewhat tongue and cheek) are what define the residential colleges. These tid bits are important to the creating an accurate representation of the Residential colleges. 99.7.82.53 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The Hanszen's Legacy section needs sourcing for the histories of the various establishments mentioned there. Please read through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for information on Wikipedia content, and read WP:CITE for information on how to cite the references. Thanks! Dreadstar † 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hey J8tennet, I really like the comments, it's a really interesting history that, as a Hanszen Alum ('08) I'd never heard. Probably though, you should phrase them as a quote and that would make you the source for teh facts in the article (just quote yourself like it was a newspaper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddodson (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jones

Does anyone have a list of the previous Jones College Masters including: who they were, if they had an administrative or academic position, their term(s) as Master?

-9/25/08: Found a pamphlet from the term of the Barreras' mastership listing all previous Jones Masters, RAs, Presidents, and College Coordinators. Included info to be added.

3/1/2006: Although the anti-college cheers against, Brown, Sid, Baker, Hanszen and Lovett are legitimate Jones cheers, they are not bona fide beer bike cheers in that they do not have hand signals, so I deleted them.

If someone wants to put them back in, they should be appropriately categorized and contextualized with archiac (or defunct) cheers like "Rock on... Jones" and "Jones Farmer Jones"

For consitency, however, I did add the "Jaberwocky" cheer.

4/1/2006: Jones Men have won the mens race more times than any other college since there have been University-sanctioned Jones men. There should be some way to represent this that is sufficiently NPOV for Wikipedia.

5/26/2006: Jonesians knew Kalyan as Sammy.

Historical Parties

Although Bakerfeast is in Baker, this is one of the oldest Rice parties, for decades was a major campus event, and is strictly a Jones-Baker deal.

Jones has also had several major parties that were phased out after the drinking age was changed.

Jones used to have a huge outdoor Tiki-torch party called "Where the Wild Things Are" until they built Martel on the site of the party.

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sid Richardson

2/18/04 Please edit, improve, add detail if you've got it.

-Ajeannie SRC '96

7 stories and Charter

"only 7 floors high (in accordance with the Rice charter)"

Is this really true? Isn't Brown College eight stories?

The 7 floors thing is a myth, and yes, Brown is eight stories high.

Minor things

...not being one for formal editing of Wikipedia, here are some notes:

Motto: Mors de super (death from above) see "Apocalypse Now" Color: Black Song: "Back in Black" AC/DC

...would like a note on the lottery system for rooms ...is there a suicide count for Sid? ...due to the nature of the building's structure, members must all pass through the lobby, making for a more cohesive and unified group dynamic. In the early 90's, the TV area provided a nexus for group bonding in "21 Jump Street" and "Simpsons" viewings (William Martin's son was a writer for the show at this time)

Weiss Wiess Historical Information

Someone deleted the list of previous Masters and Presidents which several contributors had compiled over time. One would think that this is exactly the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Why on earth would someone delete such information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Wiess, not Weiss.

"College Night"

There should be more of a distinction made between College Night (a night of celebration at the college) and Pub Night (each college's night at Willy's Pub) in the "College Night" section. I'm not a Wiessman, so I can't say whether this section refers to College Night or Pub Night. Maybe someone could clarify. --Ua747sp 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article looks more like an ad or log for all the various things that students do at this residential college. The information about the student traditions is unencyclopedic in its current form, and needs to be fixed or removed. --Coredesat talk! 06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Baker College (Rice University) redirect

The user Madcoverboy just changed the article "Baker College (Rice University)" to redirect to here. There was a perfectly good article there before. Why was this done? SkyDot (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the colleges are not individually notable enough to have their own standalone articles. The vast majority of individual university departments are far more notable than undergraduate residences, yet they are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, so by convention individual residences at American universities don't have their own articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Moreover, as it stands, the articles are completely unreferenced and full of original research or fancruft. Wikipedia is neither a webhosting service nor a collection of indiscriminate information. I stripped out the information that might be salvaged and got rid of the non-notable content. You are more than welcome to start your own Rice wiki and store all the previous miscellaneous information there. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Something you fail to realize though, madcoverboy, is that the residential colleges at Rice are more than just dorms. You list off several articles referring to other universities and their housing, but that is all they are: housing. Each college at Rice has a distinctive history and set of traditions that make them much more than just a residence hall. Each college has its own governing body and set of organizations that run day-to-day student life in the college as well as organize annual events. The college system at Rice was fashioned after Oxford and Cambridge and if you look at the articles they have for many of their colleges, a good number of them cite no sources in their history/tradition sections either. And while you may call it "miscellaneous," it's also our history. Thanks for just wading in and deleting it willy-nilly. Sothenjoesaid (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Their histories and cultures area apparently not so unique and distinctive to warrant verifiable coverage from reliable sources. In any case, the residential colleges at Rice do not grant degrees like the individual colleges that constitute Oxford and Cambridge, thus you are comparing apples or oranges. If you were familiar with the college systems at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton upon which the Rice system was built, I would encourage you to used those pages as models to write an encyclopedic article rather than using Wikipedia to host the composition of every student government body in the last decade. I do not dispute that the individual colleges may possess the notability to have individual articles at some point, only that their previous state was completely inappropriate. Removing the non-notable information from each article left a stub and I was bold and decided that the college system as a whole would stand to benefit from standardization of coverage in a single location rather than continued balkanization. If you want to host "your" history, go make "your own" Wiki and put it there. If you notice the first line down below save: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Madcoverboy (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How would a Northwestern grad student and MIT alumnus know anything about Rice to justify these changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.180.14.240 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's clear that at MIT and many other universities, student housing consists of just "dorms", which have few or no traditions of their own. Rice's residential college system was modeled that at Cambridge University; each college is an entity that provides more than just housing to its students. Cambridge's colleges each have their own articles. Rice's colleges are far younger than Cambridge's but do not deserve less distinction. I will begin by separating Martel College's article again, and make an effort to only include material that can be properly sourced.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 26 March 2009 (Post-dated)

Unless Rice University's residential colleges have their own faculties, conduct their own admissions, have separate endowments, charge independent tuition levels, and grant their own degrees, then your analogy and justification doesn't hold at all. I don't doubt that the residential college system has substantial identification and meaning among the student body, but individual college residences simply are not encyclopedically notable. If you want to dispute my conclusion, feel free to get a WP:3O, file a request for comment, or request informal mediation. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The individual residential colleges do not appear notable enough to justify their own articles; they are much like the individual houses of Caltech than the comparisons to Oxford's Colleges. I think that the information in this list article gives more than the appropriate amount of information about these residential colleges. Shanata (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a WP:3O and posted a comment on WT:UNI to generate further discussion. In light of the reversions being made by User:Mphornet and User:AniRaptor2001, I would request that further discussion and consensus with all of the affected articles proceed on this talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm with Madcoverboy on this. Just because the residential colleges have their own sets of rules and traditions and whatever does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is justified by reliable sources and verifiability. Right now, there are only two sources for a 55k page, which is unacceptable. This article should be the focal point for all the residential colleges, but it needs a lot of sourcing. And pages for each of the colleges should redirect here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and reinstated the edits that redirect back to this article per consensus from 2 non-involved parties above. If there are further reverts without discussion here, I will file a WP:RFM. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there any disussion prior to redirecting these articles last fall? I believe these redirects were done by Madcoverboy without consensus then. Yes, right now there are only two sources for a 55k page, which is unacceptable - but that doesn't mean they would have remained unsourced. The articles should have been tagged for improvement and time given to establish notability. The two editors mentioned above were working on the article improvement. Also, I thought that third opinion is used only when two editors are having a dispute. I think there were multiple editors involved. Personally, I have no stake in the articles - I moved the talk pages to keep the article and talk pages in sync. Go ahead and file a WP:RFM if you feel it's needed. Postoak (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believed as I believe now that I was/am justified in being WP:BOLD given my understanding of notability policy as well as wide precedent and consensus on similar articles/lists at other universities. If others would like to dispute any of these grounds, we can clear the air with some drawn-out mediation, or we can focus on improving the article right here instead of spinning out low quality content. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of similar articles? Rice was the third university after Harvard and Yale to use the residential college system. [5] How about the residential college articles at Harvard College and Yale University? Are the articles notable at these schools but just not at Rice? Are you planning to boldly combine and redirect these articles...without consensus? The Rice articles could have been cleaned up, expanded and developed in a similar manner. Postoak (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Madcoverboy was justified in performing the edits, considering that his actions were based on the lack of proper sourcing of the material in the articles and the overarching low quality of them. However, as a current student at Rice, I support Postoak's statements: the college system is an incredibly important part of student life at Rice, one that is widely considered to separate us from universities of similar ranking and scope (which in turn have inspired universities such as Vanderbilt to set up college systems of their own. The role of the colleges is integral and continues to evolve even today. I agree that articles such as this one, for Adams House at Harvard, are indicative of the treatment that Rice's colleges should receive.

On the issue of sourcing and quality; this is difficult, because much of the information available about the colleges is passed on by word of mouth from upperclassmen to incoming freshmen, during O-week and other activities. The quality of online information available varies widely; Sid Rich has nothing on its website regarding history [6], while Wiess has a somewhat detailed history [7] available. Vandalism is also quite common, the appeal of modifying another college's Wikipedia article as a prank is known to many.

I think each college should receive its own page; I think vandalism will be more easily squashed in this manner since more Martelians will be watching Martel's article, for example, rather than the long list of residential colleges, and checking to see if their college's article has been vandalized. Sources can include those from the Rice University website, individual college websites, personal blogs of Rice students and alumni, the Rice Thresher newspaper [ricethresher.org], etc. If anyone has read John Boles' (Rice's Historian) about the university's history, there will be more sourceable data in there to add to the articles. Rice's network of articles sadly does not measure up to the quality of the university, this above all must be resolved.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As several of you have pointed out, this issue of college residences having individual articles appears to be widespread and the use of lists more inconsistent than I was aware. I've filed a RFC to get other editors' feedback on how to deal with this issue of individual articles for colleges/residences/halls.

To the issue of sourcing and verifiability, many of the sources you outline fall afoul of policies on self-published sources and reliable sources like the colleges' webpages or alumni blogs are not sufficient for establishing notability. If vandalism is to be expected then I expect it would be easier to identify and revert if this was focused on one article rather than 10 or more. Wikipedia isn't a site for acting out sophmoric pranks or stuff made up one date, so don't be surprised if blocks and bans are issued as a result of vandalism to this or any other article. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The analogy to Adams House (Harvard University) is apropos. I cannot detect any substantive difference between the article on Adams House, founded some 75 years ago, and (for example) the article on Wiess College, founded some 52 years ago. Either both should have individual articles, or neither should. The fact that one is at Harvard and one is at Rice cannot be a reason for different treatment -- and if in fact that is the unstated reason for inconsistent treatment, at least have the guts (or as some would say, BOLDness) to say so. Also, from the tone of some of Madcoverboy's posts, I am concerned that he (the principal driver of redirecting) appears to have become emotionally invested in the present discussion, and may no longer be (if ever) an objective contributor to the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Harvard, Yale, and Rice were the first universities in the United States to establish residential colleges. They are significantly different from residences or dormitories. Each college has its own assigned faculty residents, faculty associates, student government, and a budget of over $50,000 annually. Even though they may not grant degrees (just as the colleges at Harvard and Yale do not), Rice's residential colleges do offer their own courses taught by university faculty. Just like the colleges at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford, the colleges at Rice are important and distinctive enough to require their own pages. Mphornet (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As several editors have continued to point out (including myself), there is a lack of consensus on this issue across all colleges and universities. This is why I have filed the RFC which you can comment at here. I do not take kindly to others impugning my good faith in editing this or any other article and my previous edits to the Rice University article are clear evidence that I have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy. Please stop reverting edits and stop appealing to other stuff that exists because the content for this and any article needs to establish its own notability independent of any other article's existence or precedent. Please go comment on the RFC so we can establish consensus on this and similar types of articles so that we can treat Rice, Harvard, Yale, and every other university's page exactly the same. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy's good faith was not impugned; his objectivity was. The tone of his comments (especially his ascription of praiseworthy boldness to himself, and of sophomoricness and similar traits to others) supports that concern. Purity of motive is not the same as objectivity of judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

“I have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy” Madcoverboy,are you familiar with the Yuuzhan Vong? Neither was I until I started searching Star Wars pages on Wikipedia to prove this point. The Yuuzhan Vong are a fictional race from the fictional Star Wars Expanded Universe. Their Wikipedia article is full of paragraphs like this:

“There is evidence that the Yuuzhan Vong had scouted the galaxy since before the Mandalorian War: four thousand years before their initial invasion, Canderous Ordo encountered a "living asteroid that spat fire" that escaped towards the edge of the galaxy. However, the Yuuzhan Vong only began probing in force 4,000 years later, several years after the Battle of Naboo. They attacked Zonama Sekot in an attempt to steal its advanced biological technology, but the living world defeated them and Old Republic Jedi Vergere offered herself in exchange that Zonama Sekot be left undamaged.”

If you could take a break from enforcing Wikipedia policy on the pages for Rice residential colleges, and in the meantime start to do so for the Yuuzhan Vong, the authors of the Rice residential college pages would have more time to clean up their pages. The page for the Yuuzhan Vong doesn’t cite any references or sources, it needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications, its quality is compromised by peacock terms, its neutrality is disputable, it contains unverifiable claims, its notability is questionable, and it may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If the latter two problems, notability and appropriateness, apply to Rice’s residential colleges, then there is certainly no urgency in merging them or deleting them.

If you really “have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy”, then start equitably grinding your axe against the Star Wars Expanded Universe encyclopedia within Wikipedia. Go and inform the authors of the Yuuzhan Vong that they should go and create their own Star Wars Wiki, as you suggested Rice should do for their residential colleges.

15Step (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:WAX. I edit university articles by choice, not Star Wars articles. You're welcome to fix the problem there, however. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Merging

Has a consensus actually been reached to merit this merging? This article already seems far too long. A great deal of the data in the separate articles has been reviewed and sourced. AniRaptor2001 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus, based on the Adams House analogy, seemed to be for NOT merging. Yet someone merged them (again) anyway -- and in the process, sacrificed a tremendous amount of information that was appropriate, verified, and sourced -- not to mention actually interesting to a reader hoping to learn about student life (currently and historically) in a residential college system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that the articles should be kept apart. I don't feel like any consensus was reached; arguments were posed in favor of and against keeping these articles apart. Madcoverboy went ahead and merged; I have supported the move thus far, preferring not to continue any edit warring. In order to preserve information, in case a real consensus is reached to keep the articles apart, I have turned the college's individual articles into redirects, rather than deleting, so everything's there in the histories. I feel that once properly fleshed out, a listed article can help reduce the amount of unnecessary repetition of information about the college system; if a college's section gets too big, it can become its own article. Or maybe this should have been done already. Or something. Is there any way to finally sort this out? Can we have the wikiproject draft up some guidelines on the subject, since it seems like it won't rest? AniRaptor2001 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Georgewebb is reading this consensus or any Adams House analogy, but the consensus at the RFC was either not to issue any blanket rule and simply evaluate notability by AfD or merge the articles. I support the current version of the article that includes the high-quality contributions from other Rice editors on the respective pages while removing some of the fancruft and non-notable information (lists of RAs, non-notable traditions, etc.). I further support AniRaptor's redirects of individual articles this this article rather than nominating for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the previous versions of the article which recognized that the colleges are organizations of people, not merely buildings, and that contained information that might be interesting or useful to an educator, historian, or sociologist studying student life in a residential college environment. As for merging or not: The Adams House analogy is spelled out in black and white on this discussion page. There is clearly not a consensus for merging; therefore, the unilateral decision to merge seems heavy-handed and non-objective. Of course, a back-handed way to "justify" merging is to delete extensive worthwhile information from each section, then argue that since the only thing left is architectural data, the section cannot stand alone. One hopes that Wikipedia contributors are mature enough not to resort to this approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.226.3 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we had a fairly long and extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:UNI#Notability of college residences (residential_colleges) where some attempt at consensus was reached by both Rice editors and neutral editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And actually, the result of that discussion is pretty obvious that there was no consenus to merge -- unless one simply ignores opinions one disagrees with, which the evidence suggests might just be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The prerogative is either to merge or nominate for deletion given the lack of notability. I think merging and redirecting as AniRaptor has been doing (and I did previously) is the least painful avenue for everyone. Maybe accuse me of being a zealot a few more times and we'll see if that changes any minds. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on behavior, perhaps the shoe fits.

It is already apparent that one mind is closed to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Page size

This page at 56 kilobytes in length is getting close to the suggested size for splitting per the rule of thumb. Maybe it is time to split out again into separate articles and turn this page into a list or delete it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that includes a lot of markup from the templates as well as references. The article as a whole still contains some content that could be better summarized, non-notable information, and other cruft. There's actually 33 kB and 5372 words of readable prose, so it's well beneath the rule of thumb. No need to spin out. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)