Talk:Stanford University/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Photo gallery in the "People" section

What do people think about the recently added photo gallery to the "people" section, showing pictures of two dozen alumni? This was a good-faith addition by User:Phys Ed, and I see they did the same thing at University of Michigan.

Here's some background: Since 2015 we have not listed ANY alumni by name, pointing instead to the article List of Stanford University people. This was the result of a consensus at this 2015 discussion, which was preceded by this 2013 discussion complaining that the section consisted of a bloated and haphazard listing of names with no clear criteria. (BTW since Stanford always gets compared to Harvard and Yale: as of 2015 Harvard listed no names, just referrals to daughter articles, but in recent years Harvard has added a photo gallery of several dozen alums and faculty. Yale has a large multi-paragraph section with hundreds of names and some photos.)

Personally I am inclined to think of this kind of gallery as clutter, impossible to keep within reasonable bounds. Who decides who gets a photo and who doesn't? Why are there so many business people and so few scientists (only one Nobel Prize winner our of more than 50)? Why Tiger Woods but not Sally Ride? Why only current senators - is Josh Hawley more notable than Carl Hayden, who served 28 years, or Scoop Jackson, who serve 30? Why only two non-Americans? You see what I mean. There are no apparent criteria, which can only result in a bias toward recentism and America-centrism, or else an overwhelming surge to include more and more people. I would like to remove the gallery and go back to no-names, numbers-only with a referral to the daughter articles. But I am just one person and I solicit other people's opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops - I missed that a similar gallery had added to the article before, and was removed last month by User:Erp.[1] Demonstrating exactly the kind of bloat I am warning about, the gallery included four people in December 2020, but had grown to more than 50 by March 2021. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And I've removed again. My own view is any picture should contribute significantly to what people reading the article learn. For example pictures of the university itself, map of the university, pictures of people significantly important to the university (but not important people just because they are associated with the university). Picture galleries are probably most useful in articles where pictures matter significantly for instance an article about a painter could have a gallery of significant works. In addition this article is already on the large side. --Erp (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If pictures of people is clutter, should we also remove pictures of buildings? Attic Salt (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a happy medium that we need and 50 portrait pictures is a clutter and likely to grow. Hundreds of people with their own wikipedia articles (and said articles often contain their pictures) are associated with Stanford; to include all either as text or pictures in the main article would overwhelm the article. Hence, in my view, this article should only contain names of those important to Stanford (and always something about why they are significant to Stanford); pictures should be more sparing than names and should show something about the university and not just the person (e.g., a picture of Andrew Luck or John Elway but not both in a Stanford football game could be used in the section on Stanford athletics [plus there is the separate article on Stanford Cardinal]). We have a separate article for List of Stanford University people which can contain names and pictures of people associated with the university (though again pictures should be sparing since anyone interested could go to the article about the person to find a picture). Sometimes less is more. --Erp (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Stanford University, so we include pictures of Stanford University - primarily its campus and buildings. It is not an article about the people who went there or taught there; they have their own articles. If we include a few examples, a few out of the hundreds of notable Stanford people, 4 examples becomes 24 becomes 50 - it is bound to spiral out of control until it overwhelms the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A university is not just "campus and buildings." And editors are more than capable of deciding on a few representative photos of people who are important to the history of the institution. ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is a more significant part of a university, its people or its buildings? Attic Salt (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything there exists to serve people, particularly the people who are educated there and work there. An article that omits them is criminally incomplete. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a picture of bicycles, but nobody is riding them. Attic Salt (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We have pictures of people walking in the arcades of the main quad (1890s), a wedding ceremony in Mem Chu, a few people on the Oval, the current university president (though it would be good if the picture was one of him at a university function and maybe in the president's regalia), one football game (crowd and players shown), and one of the band. A picture of a professor lecturing to a class or interacting with a class might be a nice addition (especially if in a distinctive classroom) or people studying/sleeping in the SEQ (Stanford Engineering Quad). The Stanford People article has more though I would suggest dropping John F. Kennedy's picture since his connection is very minor. --Erp (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lists like [2] are dreadful to read. Stanford, as a good university, can be proud of its notable alumni. If this article is going to have lots of pictures of buildings, then it should have at least as many of its people (not just the anonymous people that Erp mentions, a few people on the oval etc.). Harvard has a very nice gallery of notable alumni. It show history and influence. The Stanford article deserves something similar. I suggest sampling from this Stanford site to put together a gallery [3]. And, no, John Kennedy is not an alum, and so does not belong on the list. Attic Salt (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How to maintain/manage a photo gallery

OK, I see a number of people who do want to have pictures of alumni. We do work by consensus here. So I would like to hear their suggestions for how we restrict the list to "a few representative people". Would we create the list by consensus here, with additions also requiring consensus, and automatically remove any additions that do not have consensus? I could go along with such a system, and I think we could agree on such a list here at talk. What I don't want to see is what we had a few months ago, where we started out with three people (Herbert Hoover, Sandra Day O'Connor, and for some reason Peter Thiel), but people started adding half a dozen sports figures or a dozen movie actors and directors, and the list quickly exploded out of control. And I equally don't want to see edit warring at the article, where Person A removes someone who "doesn't belong" and Person B restores them and we're off to the races. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems like the only way forward. Having a robust discussion here, linking to that discussion with an HTML comment in the article, and reverting undiscussed changes (with an edit summary that also links to this discussion) is perfectly reasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to avoid "bloat", editors put pictures into articles all the time, including pictures of buildings in this article. I have already suggested sampling from a Stanford cite that lists some notable alumni [4], though I do find it (somewhat) embarrassing that the Standford list is so top-heavy with athletes. Note, I worked on the Harvard galleries. I am only partly happy with them, but they evolved with several editors weighing in and, I think, good-natured discussion. That doesn't mean that those galleries won't become bloated as well, but the alternative, no pictures of people who have made a difference, doesn't seem very good either. Attic Salt (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How about an approach like this: We want the list to be "representative" and balanced, so let's choose several (three or four) alumni for each of the following classes: Government and Law, Science and Medicine, Business, Sports, and Entertainment. Does that cover it? Do we need any other categories, say Academics or Miscellaneous? We could do that here. Shall I set that up as a poll? (BTW I would not sort them into categories in the article, but list them alphabetically. The category suggestion is just to keep it representative rather than slanted toward a single area.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Arts and Letters. Social sciences and social causes. Attic Salt (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Arts and Literature (as it is called at the Stanford People list) is a good suggestion. BTW that section of the list also includes music, TV, Hollywood, etc. but I think Entertainment and Art/Literature should be separate categories. I don't see a separate list for social sciences and social causes at that list; maybe such could be incorporated into Academics or Miscellaneous. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've spent some time poking around on this. It is interesting how different Stanford and Harvard Alumni/Faculty/Fellows are, much more technology, astronauts from Stanford. Anyway, here are some names, which I'm not wedded to: Arts and Letters: John Steinbeck; Government: Herbert Hoover, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor; Science and Engineering: Sally Ride, Linus Pauling; Technology: Sergey Brin, Larry Page; Business and Economics: Milton Friedman, Elon Musk. I would advocate for looking back further over the history of Stanford people to augment this and other lists of names. One thing, I've not discriminated between alumni and other associations with Stanford. Attic Salt (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I certainly agree with most of them. Maybe we should lay them out separately for easier discussion/additions/subtractions. I'll try that, and come back later with my own suggestions. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Erp and ElKevbo: Care to add to this discussion? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. :) I have no specific familiarity with Stanford and the discussion is already going very well. I'll chime in if I think it would be helpful and appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed people to use in the article

Government:

Attic Salt: Herbert Hoover, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor

MelanieN: Herbert Hoover, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, ?Susan Rice

I'd be more in inclined to include Condoleezza Rice, rather than Susan Rice. Though neither might be sufficiently influential to make the final list. Attic Salt (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Condy Rice should definitely be included in the faculty list. Don't know how I came to miss her, she was both a professor and a provost. Not an alum, though. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Arts and Letters

Attic Salt: John Steinbeck

MelanieN: John Steinbeck, Ted Koppel, Ken Kesey

Comment: I don't think Koppel will have too much lasting influence. What is interesting to me is how few Arts and Letters candidates I could identify. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Technology

Attic Salt: Sergey Brin, Larry Page

MelanieN: Sergey Brin, Larry Page, William Hewlett, David Packard,

Comment: I had also thought of Hewlett and Packard. But I don't think that their influence is as great and as lasting as that of Brin and Page. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the creation of Google was a highly influential and maybe even lasting action. But Hewlett-Packard was the first high-tech company in the Bay Area, way back in 1939, and the garage that was its first location is described as “the Birthplace of Silicon Valley”. That’s lasting influence. (BTW isn't it funny how many enormously successful and important companies started out in garages?) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and I might agree with you. But I think we are coming to the point where some very important people just can't make the cut. A Nobel Prize, for example, is not sufficient. Maybe founding Hewlett-Packard is sufficient, but I'm not certain. I might change my mind. Attic Salt (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

For that matter, the list of Stanford graduates who founded important companies is long. In just the computer and high-tech area, you have Yahoo!, Intel, Dolby Labs, Sun Microsystems, Cisco Systems, Fairchild Semiconductor, WhatsApp, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Snapchat. And then there's Charles Schwab, Hawaiian Airlines, Netflix, Capital One, Trader Joe’s, Nike, and The Gap. You are right there is no way we can mention them all, but there are an enormous number of Stanford grads whose claim to fame is "founder of an important company". That whole ethic of "get your degree and then start a company" was created and fostered by Provost Fred Terman - now THERE is someone whose influence has been lasting and he definitely deserves a picture here. (BTW I'm enjoying this very interesting discussion with you, but I wish a few more people would come along and contribute.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting together the photogallery now would add perspective. I'm okay with Hewlett, Packard and Terman. BTW, this exercise ends up teaching us a lot. I learned a lot in working on the Harvard list, where I still favor dropping a few names, but other editors wanted them, so there was compromise. Attic Salt (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest putting Terman in the faculty list. Attic Salt (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Science and Engineering and Medicine

Attic Salt: Sally Ride, Linus Pauling

MelanieN: Sally Ride

Comment: I'm fine with Pauling appearing in a faculty list. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Business and Economics

Attic Salt: Milton Friedman, ~~Elon Musk~~

Comment: I can't find any connection between Elon Musk and Stanford. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I took him off my suggestion list. I can't figure out how to draw a line through text. Attic Salt (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You can use "strike through". It looks like this: <s>text to eliminate</s> and comes out like this: ~~text to eliminate~~ -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'm okay with Friedman being dropped. I'm not sure how much of a Stanford presence he really was. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Entertainment

MelanieN: Edith Head, Sigourney Weaver

Comment: I know that celebrities might be on the list, but I just don't see them as having lasting impact. Still, won't object to some of these. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sports

MelanieN: Bob Mathias, Tiger Woods, ?Eric Heiden ?Kerri Strug? John Brodie, ?John Elway

Comment: I know that athletes might be on the list, but I just don't see them as having lasting impact. Still, I won't object to some of these. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

For a change of pace, how about Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder of the Special Olympics? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Faculty

How about a few notable faculty in a separate section? I propose Linus Pauling, David Starr Jordan, Frederick Terman, William Shockley, Paul Berg, Arthur Kornberg, Norman Shumway, and Wallace Stegner. Also Condoleeza Rice for sure. I would leave out Milton Friedman; he was with the Hoover Institution for a long time, but was never on the Stanford faculty. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely need to include Shockley. And, more generally, we shouldn't shy away from controversial figures. Attic Salt (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on that. Even David Starr Jordan (formerly a revered figure at Stanford) has become controversial in recent years, but we should still list him. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting guy, this David Starr Jordan. Thanks for considering him. Attic Salt (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani awarded the Fields Medal (the first woman to be given it). Math prof. 2009 until her early death in 2017. --Erp (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable Stanford almuni include:
31st President of the United States, Herbert Hoover, BS, 1895.
Author and Nobel Prize laureate in literature, John Steinbeck, left without degree in 1925.
Co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, Bill Hewlett, BS 1934.
Co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, David Packard, BA 1934.
Founder of the Special Olympics, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, BS 1943.
16th Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, BA 1948, MA, LLB 1952.
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, BA 1950, LLB 1952.
Tennis player, John McEnroe, left without degree in 1978.
Astronaut, Sally Ride, BS 1973, MS 1975, PhD 1978.
Golfer Tiger Woods, left without degree in 1996.
Co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, MS 1995, PhD 1998.
Co-founder of Google, Larry Page, MS 1998.

@Erp: Thanks for doing all this work. I see you are doing them in chronological order, that makes sense to me. I can fill in some of the missing information (from a Reliable Source behind a registration wall): Sandra Day O'Connor has two Stanford degrees, an AB in 1950 and an LLB in 1952. Sally Ride has three degrees: BS 1973, MS 1975, PhD 1978. Sergey Brin has two: MS 1995, PhD 1998. Larry Page has one: MS 1998. Tiger Woods left Stanford in 1996 after two years [5] John McEnroe left Stanford in 1978 after one year [6] -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not me. --Erp (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Erp! Actually I see now from your edit summary that you are still inclined to think this kind of gallery belongs in the List article, if anywhere. That's valid input and should be evaluated as we try to determine what the consensus is.

User:Attic Salt, I see it was actually you who began to assemble this gallery and so my comments above should have been directed to you. Also, still looking at the history, I see that a bot removed the pictures of Hewlett and Packard, saying that those files can only be used in articles but not in talk pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable Stanford past and present faculty include:
Ichthyologist and founding president of Stanford, David Starr Jordan.
Mathematician and Fields Medal laureate, Maryam Mirzakhani.
Chemist, Nobel Prize laureate in both Chemistry and Peace, Linus Pauling.
66th United States Secretary of State and provost, Condoleezza Rice.
Physicist and inventor, Nobel prize laureate in physics, William Shockley.

@Attic Salt: The bot says we also can’t use Stegner or Terman pictures on a talk page. I would suggest you just create a holding slot without a picture for now, for them and for Hewlett and Packard. As I understand it, you will be able to use those pictures in the article, just not here.-- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please do those things, and modify gallery as you choose? :-) Attic Salt (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm just following up on JJMC89's bot's removal from some files from this talk page. The bot removed the files because non-free content can't be used on talk pages per WP:TPG#Non-free images and WP:NFCC#9; however, it's highly unlikely that the non-free use of such photos could be justified in the article itself per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS), WP:NFG, WP:NFLISTS and even possibly item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Non-free images of individuals are pretty much never allowed in "Notable alumni" or "Notable resident", etc. sections because such usage is almost always considered more WP:DECORATIVE than not. I don't think I've ever come across a case where such a non-free use was considered acceptable unless perhaps the image itself (not the person, but the image itself) was the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article. Whether the gallery is a good idea is something perhaps that a local consensus can decide, but I would suggest sticking to freely licensed images from Commons. Of course, if anyone wants to seek other feedback on this, there's always WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC, and even WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly, that's very helpful! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Include the gallery or not?

Things have gone quiet here for the last few days. How do people feel about putting the above galleries into the article? Attic Salt (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

So how do we plan to stop these from exploding as people keep adding those they think are important? --Erp (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think we should have a plan. We, as editors, should treat this article as any other. We do our best and hope for the best from other editors. Attic Salt (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You can through discussion establish some basic inclusion criteria per WP:LSC and WP:SOURCELIST here on this talk page if you want. The most basic one tends to be that the subject have a Wikipedia article already written about them where the connection between the university and individual is clearly established. Sometimes a section such as this can attract WP:Namechecking, WP:RECENTISM, etc. It will be a bit subjective perhaps, but maybe select a representative bunch of people from List of Stanford University people for inclusion, focusing on those most notable for their connection to the school and trying for a balance age, gender, era and popularity wise. No matter what you end up doing, someone is probably going to want to do things differently; if, however, you can establish so basic inclusion criteria, however, you might be able to avoid the things MelanieN mentioned early on in this thread. There's no need to try and stop being WP:BOLD, but you can try and encourage them not to be too BOLD, and let them know they can discuss who to add here on this talk page when there are disagreements. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, as you can see above, we've already gone through the discussion that you suggest. We could spend a lot more time trying to come up with specific criterion, only to find that finding such criterion will, as you admit, be subjective. Taking names from a long, long list hardly seems useful, and, will, again come down to a subjective judgement. So, apologies, but most of what you are suggesting what we've already done. My question, now, is on a different subject: are we ready to post the gallery? That part of your response, here, is addressing my question. Erp's comment is about how to maintain the gallery, but his concern just as well applies to all content in all articles. Yes, other editors will come along and add things, take things out, change things, etc. We don't control this, we accept it, and we try to work with it. That's the way Wikipedia works. In the mean time, this article has 14 pictures of buildings. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: I'm aware of how Wikipedia works and I did read the above discussion. You posted that I don't think we should have a plan, which is fine; I was just suggesting that it's OK to have a plan for the reasons given in WP:SOURCELIST. Anyway, I still had this page on my watchlist (I'm going to remove it now) after posting my first comment and saw Erp's question; since it seemed to be specifically related to keeping the galleries from exploding, that's what I was responding to. I probably should've addressed my response to Erp directly and used level-2 indentation instead. So, my apologies to you and Erp for any confusion or redundancy.

FWIW, like what ElKevbo posted above, I've got no specific familiarity with the school; so, whatever the local consensus turns out to be is fine. Working off the list article was also just another suggestion, mainly because it contains some photos that are probably OK to use here in this article since non-free photos cannot really be used in list articles per WP:NFCCP. As long as the gallery or this talk page doesn't display any non-free images, you shouldn't have any problems with WP:BOTs or non-free content reviewers removing or otherwise challenging the use of any files.

Finally, just for future reference, a template like {{u}} will only WP:PING as intended when the syntax is correct and the post is signed in the same saved edit; it doesn't work if you go back and "fix" the syntax in a separate edit without re-signing the post. If you already were aware of this, then once again my apologies. -- [[User:Marchjuly|@Attic Salt:]] (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:, okay, thank you. I just wanted to focus on whether we post the gallery or not and, also, respond to Erp's concerns. I'm sure you know how Wiki works, but sometimes I see merit in saying what we know, just to make sure we are thinking together at the present moment. Apologies if I got so clear as to be annoying. As for my interests, I've lately taken interest in biographies, and looking at who's who is a way to learn about people. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for just joining the conversation now, I’ve been out of town. Let’s evaluate the basic question: is there consensus to include a section like this, or not? Starting from the beginning of the discussion, we have:

MelanieN - I started the discussion by saying I opposed such a section, largely because I felt it would quickly explode out of control (as it actually did when a gallery was added in December). Background: I was one of those who opposed naming individual alumni in the "people" section, back when the section was multiple paragraphs long with hundreds of randomly added names, and I was part of the consensus to list no names at all in that section.
Erp - opposed, and has consistently opposed a picture gallery here. Proposed putting a few individual pictures in appropriate sections, e.g. a picture of a star quarterback in the Sports section, or individual pictures in appropriate places in the List of Stanford People (there are a few there now) and articles like Stanford Cardinal Football which has a few.
Attic Salt - favored, and has consistently favored a picture gallery here. Has done a lot of work to assemble one.
ElKevbo - favored pictures of “a few representative photos of people who are important to the history of the institution”, saying article is “criminally complete” without them.
At that point I started a discussion about developing a picture gallery, not because I had changed my mind, but because I thought there was significant consensus for the idea and I defer to consensus. Based on that understanding I participated in the discussion about who to add. But now on reviewing the discussion I see that I actually I misread it; there are two people (Attic Salt and ElKevbo) for inclusion of a gallery and two (Erp and me) against.
Marchjuly - later chimed in, but only to talk about what kinds of images can be used; they deferred to local consensus about whether to have a gallery or not.

So the bottom line is, we do not have a clear local consensus to include or not to include. There does not seem to be any particular Wikipedia policy one way or another, it's a matter of local preference. In general (but not firm policy), material which has been challenged and removed from the article, as the photo gallery was twice, requires consensus before it can be restored. Should we launch an RfC to try to obtain more opinions? That’s one way to solve a talk page impasse. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not care whether images of people are included in one or more galleries or in other places throughout the article; my only concern is that this article is woefully incomplete without them. I also do not accept "we cannot include any images of people because other editors might also add other images of people" as a reason to not do this; if we follow that line of reasoning then we'll have to remove everything from every article. We can easily add an HTML comment to images that we add, pointing editors to this discussion and letting them know that they'll need to open a new discussion if they want to add more images or make changes. ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, ElKevbo. What you say suggests a compromise solution: That photos of people be added, not in a gallery of "Stanford people", but individually in appropriate places in the article. I would certainly support that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

like that idea as well. Attic Salt (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And Erp already proposed that concept, so it looks like consensus. Have at it! I would suggest, as someone did above, that we try to focus on people who are actually important to the university and/or its history and/or the section where we are adding them - rather than just alums who are important generally. But that's not a rule; go ahead and add what/who you feel is appropriate for the section. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding pictures of people to the article

Thanks for all the additions, Attic Salt. I have moved a few around. In particular I took the pictures out of the "people" area, since there was opposition to having pictures there. I removed Steinbeck, whose connection to the university is tenuous. I couldn't find a good place to put Sally Ride. I restored the Hoover Tower picture to the landmark gallery since it is the best known landmark at Stanford. All open for discussion, of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for "people" section

Hi there! I see an unsigned IP comment above on this talk page asking about including Jennifer Connelly and Reese Witherspoon in the People section as Academy Award winners. Currently, the section includes only academic laureates and prize winners. Would it be unreasonable to expand it to include major awards in the arts? (Eg. Academy Awards, Tony Awards, Grammy Awards, and Emmy Award)

The problem I see with expanding this section is that inclusion criteria are murky. For example, do we also include MacArthur Fellowships, Pulitzer Prizes, Thiel Fellowships, Laurence Olivier Awards, Michelin Stars, James Beard Foundation Awards, Purple Hearts..? I could easily see well-intentioned editors adding Forbes 30 Under 30 and we'd just have an entirely unmanageable section on our hands.

What does everyone here think would be best?

Best, Liam M (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)