This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't really see a need to split this into two pages. I don't think NIU has that many notable faculty to have a second page for its own list. --Pinkkeith (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. What do you think about the tables? --Eustress (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of tables, but it seems to be the way that most Wikipedians like to organize lists. Besides, the templates will make uniformity with all the lists. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, normally red links exist on Wikipedia to let us know that an article should perhaps be created. But there is one place that redlinks simply should not appear, and that's in a list of people who are supposedly already "notable". These redlinked people may mean something to us (though I must say, even I don't know who all of them are), but until their articles are created, they don't belong here.
Now I'm not saying that they have to have an article to have a red link in Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that, if their name actually appears in another article, with some kind of context, and someone creates a redlink to their name, then that's how redlinks are supposed to be used. Not in some kind of smarmy we're-just-so-proud-of-you list of fellow allumni. Frankly, the existence of all these redlinks in this list of our supposedly notable fellow Huskies is just an embarassment. A shorter list of blue linked names is much more meaningful. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)