Talk:École nationale de l'aviation civile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Enac2.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Enac2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Directors history[edit]

I removed the biographies from that section as they are completely off-topic. At best, this is confusing for the reader and at worst, it is trying to get around the notability criteria for biographies. So what we should do here is what we do on every single other school and university articles. If the person is notable, we create a separate biography article and simply link it from here. If the person is not notable, well in that case, there is no reason to include the information. See Yale and List of Yale University people for a good example. --McSly (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As explained two times by , this page is translated from the French article which is a good article. Even that, I have found on your French talk page some other information given by the same person. (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you are not addressing any of the points that I raised and you should also answer here. Discussions on other wikipedia are not relevant. Essentially we have only one question to address: are any of those people notable?
If they are, then it's easy, we just create a biographical article for that person and link it from here. If not then the biography is completely off-topic and should be removed. This is how every single article on Wikipedia is built and there is no reason to have an exception here.--McSly (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Already answer on the French version. Please respect the work of other contributors. (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussions on other wikipedia are not relevant and not everyone contributing here speaks French. Please provide an answer here. It's the only place where it counts.--McSly (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The rules are the same on all Wikipedia. An answer has already been given to you two times by another contributor. "This page is translated from the French article which is a good article (". You and I didn't write this article so the minimum is to respect the work of other contributors and wait for an answer from them. You can also read this : "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense" or this. (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for my removal were always provided. You are mistaken when citing policies see here and here for a couple of examples. On top of that I started this discussion. You on the other end, have been dodging my questions and generally haven't addressed the subject at all (see WP:TALK). So my reasons for the removal of those biographies have been clearly explained. Please provide specific reasons why you want to keep the information or move on.--McSly (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
For the third time, it has been already explained to you by another contributor : "This page is translated from the French article which is a good article (". (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles change and can be improved by adding relevant details or removing non pertinent information. Biographies in the middle of a school article are not. As mentioned before (and many times), if those people are notable, it is perfectly fine to move that info in separate articles. So once again, here is the only question that needs to be addressed here, why do you want to include those biographies here instead of creating separate articles if they are notable or remove the info if they are not ?--McSly (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia, it is not recommended to delete a complete part, specially when you don't contribute to the article. And more over, it is not fair at all to go on english Wikipedia when you don't obtain what you want on the French one and when discussion is pending. So again, respect the work of your colleagues, wait for an answer from them and do not push your point of view. Keep cool. Thanks a lot and have a nice day. (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia, it is recommended to be bold. I do respect the work of my fellow editors, but that doesn't change the fact that not relevant information gets deleted all the time. So that's not really an argument. It's not personal, it happens to all of us including myself. It's just part of the process. So again, the only question we have to answer here is about the notability of those people since that having biographies in the middle of the article is off-topic. If they are notable, they get a separate article. If they are not (and I don't think they are), the info is not relevant and should be deleted. So which one is it? Keep in mind that either way, these paragraphs won't stay here.--McSly (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I left the question open here for 4 days and didn't get any answer. So I'm removing the section again. Biographies are clearly not the subject of this article and therefore off-topic. Other stuff exists and it doesn't do any harm are not valid arguments. If any of those people fulfill the notability criteria, you can create them as individual article and link to them from here. Here are the (currently red) links: Guy du Merle, Louis Pailhas, Andre Sarreméjean, Alain Soucheleau, Gerard Rozenknop and Marc Houalla. --McSly (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You get an answer on the French Wikipedia. Please stop this vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion was open on DRN. If no additional remarks are added there, I will remove the section shortly.--McSly (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion you open, which is a very good idea, does not give us for the moment any additional information about the section. Only one person answered by saying : " I do not care to get into the merits of whether or not these biographies ought to be included or excluded from the article". So for the moment, you cannot remove the section, we should wait for more information. (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The biographies of the directors should be removed this is an article on an educational establishment and not about the individual directors. If the directors are notable enough then all the relevant info can be in a linked article for each individual, other than the names the rest of the info should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne. Thanks for your message. We have moved the discussion on the page : Could you please join us? Many thanks. Regards. (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. The Work is done. (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Badly translated[edit]

I appreciate that a lot of the material for the article comes from the French wikipedia and due to the translation some of it is badly written and doesnt make sense. Just to give notice when I get some time I will have a go at re-rewriting the worst bits of it. But pending consensus I wont touch the directors bit. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable Alumni[edit]

To McSly and Racconish. Guys, I think the best option is to start a discussion. If you look on Good articles such as Columbia University or Lindenwood University (or many others), you can see that the current version of the article is perfectly in accordance with good article criteria. (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a section on notable alumni, provided they are notable and alumni. Per WP:BLP asserting these people are alumni must be sourced. Per WP:WTAF and WP:LC a "list of X" - regardless of its form - "should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article". Per WP:COAT the article should discuss the nominal subject, this school, without covering the tangentially related biased subject of trying to establish the notability of some people. The concern here is very close to the one above on directors biographies, which had been taken to DRN... except there is no proof these people are alumni.— Racconish Tk 05:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If you look the two good articles I mentioned, you can see that the shape, the "way of writing" the notable people part is exactly the same as here. And also, each time there is an alumni, there is a proof, you just have to look carefully. If you still have a doubt, please see (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And to be honest, I think it is a good idea to go on DRN. It can help us, with other opinions, to make the article better. (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the fact the link you provided allows to verify if a person really is an alumnus of that school. The 2 articles to which you refer, on Columbia University and Lindenwood University, do name some notable alumni. But (a) these people are clearly notable as evidenced by a blue link to their article and (b) a source is provided to show these people have made explicit reference to their studies in that school. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OC, it is not sufficient that the school is notable and an alumnus is notable, but the notability of the "intersection", i.e. the person being an alumnus of the school should be established, for example by a reference made by the person itself. In any case, as suggested to you at DRN, I will ask for a third opinion on the two following disputed issues : (A) Is it appropriate to mention non notable people (either alumni or teachers) in the article as notable people associated with the school ? (B) Is it sufficient the person is notable, i.e. has a dedicated article in WP, or should its status of either alumnus or teacher be also notable ? Thanks, — Racconish Tk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As you know, I have asked help on DRN. It will help us to know which version is the best. We just need to wait a little bit. (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
30 requested and signaled at DRN. As a side note to other editors, and his sock puppet have been blocked on the French WP, in particular for his non constructive edits to the same article in French. See [1]. — Racconish Tk 19:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is purely harassment which is forbidden on Wikipedia and show that you don't want to discuss at all about this article. It is just against me, I am very surprised. (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no harassment. I have actually tried to help you, as evidenced by your thanks on my talk page ([2], [3], [4]). I had no involvement in your initial block. I am just stating a relevant fact as your sock has been blocked on the French WP on the exact same matter as here. in any case, you are not blocked here, so please kindly address the issues I have raised above. Thanks,— Racconish Tk 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
First because you suppose that I am still doing jobs on French Wikipedia with other address, which is totally wrong as you can see here, this is still the same and more important, because the discussion should be : "a calm, concise, and on topic discussion". So this rule is not respected. It would have been much better to stay focus on how to improve this article according to the rules, how to take the right decision, things like this. (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
We requested help on DRN, on a third opinion page, so as already said, we need a little bit time to let other editors reply. I am open to a discussion, and I am sure at the end this article will be better and closer from a good article. (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not supposing anything, just reporting statements on you and your sock by admins on the French WP. Now please let's go back to our calm, concise and on topic discussion on the notable persons associated with this school and kindly address the issues I have raised above. As you have surely noticed, I have agreed with you on some of your answers, disagreed on others and explained as clearly as possible why. Thank you.— Racconish Tk 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any sock. And as I said, we need to wait a little bit time before people can help us. I am still working on it, as you can see on my contributions. I am quite confident we will improve this article. (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you address the issues I have raised hereabove ?— Racconish Tk 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Because, as already said, for me the article is perfect on that version. So we need to have other opinions, review, etc. It takes some time, so please be patient. There is no rush, we have to let people nicely read this article. (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Racconish, only notable alumni should be mentioned in the article through a simple link to the article dedicated to them. No raison to mention a person if they are not notable, this is really straight-forward. --McSly (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, researching policies on the subject, I went one step further : not only should the persons be notable, but also their association with the school.— Racconish Tk 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

bdb484 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

I think I've got the general idea, but a distillation of the main points would be a big help. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Viewpoint by Racconish

Thanks for taking the case. I tried to state as clearly as possible the issues, summarizing them in 2 questions here above. Could you kindly let me know what you would like me to elaborate on and I will be happy to do so. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary. What I'm still having trouble locating is an elucidation of the opposing viewpoint. It sounds like there may have been some discussion of this topic over at the French project; sadly, my French is no bueno. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess you are referring to this comment. The 4 points made by XIIIfromTOKYO are : (1) A bullet list is not compatible with a good article, so there is no point in going back to such a list ; (2) unsourced elements are incompatible with a good article and should be removed ; (3) a section on notable persons associated with the school is an obligation for a good article on a school ; (4) "it is not because an article on a person is not admissible that a mention of this person in another article is not pertinent". Let me know if you need anything else.— Racconish Tk 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (name here)
Third opinion by bdb484

I'd normally prefer to wait for the other party's summary, but it appears that other party may be under a block. I think, though, that the discussion already on the board provides enough information for me to go ahead with a tentative analysis.

Here are the questions that appear to be in dispute:

  1. Should there be a section for notable alumni/faculty?
  2. What should be the criteria for inclusion in such a section ?
  3. How should such a section be presented?
  4. How should such a section be sourced?

These broadly worded questions seem to cover all the more specific questions with binary options. This approach should make it easier to get to the main points.

Here we go:

1. Should there be a section for notable alumni/faculty? As noted above, WP:LC states that Wikipedia should only have lists of topics when the topic itself is notable. Applied here, that means we have to ask whether "ENAC Alumni," "ENAC Faculty" or "ENAC People" would meet WP guidelines. I don't see any evidence that this is the case. However, WP:LC is an informal essay and not a content guideline. Therefore, we are not necessarily bound to it.

Nonetheless, it is harder for me to think of reasons to keep such a list than it is to find reasons to remove it. To my eye, the content of lists such as this is typically nonencylcopedic and nonnotable, in addition to running afoul of WP:NOTDIR,WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO, WP:PROSE, WP:NOTWHOSWHO. To the extent that the entries in the list are useful, they would usually be better off integrated into a more specifically relevant portion of the article.

If the decision were left to me, the entire section would probably come out. In the event that such a position cannot achieve consensus, I'll treat the other questions as though a decision to keep the list has already been made.

2. What should be the criteria for inclusion in such a section? Obviously, a list of notable alumni or faculty should be limited to such people who are notable. However, simply using WP:GNG or the existence of a WP article on the person should not be deemed sufficient. Such a low bar would present obvious problems at Harvard or Oxford, where a full list of notable people who have attended would overwhelm the article and create undue weight problems. Even for lesser-known institutions such as ENAC, these problems can still arise when the list is permitted to grow every time a graduate does something notable.

A viewer of the ENAC article is presumably looking for information about ENAC, and knowing that Person X is a faculty member at the school does little to help advance their understanding in the absence of information about that person's time or work there. Therefore, I would agree that a higher standard needs to be set for such a section -- slightly higher, perhaps, even than what Racconish has suggested.

Rather than relying on the simple notability of the person, or relying on a person's acknowledgement of their affiliation with the institution, I believe we should limit such sections to people whose affiliation with the institution is notable, in and of itself. Rather than adding a name to the list because an obituary has noted the link between the person and the institution, we would restrict the list to people whose association with the institution has itself "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Such a standard would aid the project in at least two ways. First, it would limit the amount of minimally relevant information included on the page, while ensuring that the content dedicated to alumni and faculty will be accompanied by meaningful context and information that would legitimately advance the reader's understanding of the topic.

3. How should such a section be presented? Like almost everything on WP, this information is probably best presented in prose form, rather than a bulleted list. Again, this encourages editors to consider the context of the information as they add it, rather than simply cranking out the longest list possible.

That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a bulleted list, assuming that includes not just the name of the person, but also a brief description of the reason that their association with the institution is notable.

4. How should such a section be sourced? I don't see any reason why this article would be an exception to WP:V. Every name included in the section should be accompanied with an inline citation to a reliable secondary source.

I'm hopeful that addresses all the main points. If I'm missing anything, please let me know.

Bdb484 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough opinion. — Racconish Tk 05:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional 3rd opinion asked concerning use of {{See also}} for category.— Racconish Tk 08:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to reprise my role, but I don't see a first or second opinion. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. The question is : Is {{See also}} suitable for a category ? My opinion is expressed in the comment of this diff. The opinion of my contradictor, who is probably the same as the blocked IP, has not been clearly expressed, but he obviously believes {{See also}} is suitable for a category.— Racconish Tk 16:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)