This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a clear consensus that:
- For purposes of Wikipedia categorization of persons who were editors or members of these publications, this and related page topics should be named as:
- B. "Harvard Advocate alumni"; "Harvard Crimson alumni"; "Harvard Lampoon alumni"?
Summary of arguments:Supporters of A preferred using "people" to be consistent with other newspaper categories such as Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:The Washington Post people, and Category:The Denver Post people.
Supporters of B countered that inconsistency would result regardless of which name was used:
- If Category:The Harvard Advocate people were used, there would be inconsistency with the parent category Category:Harvard University alumni.
- If Category:Harvard Advocate alumni were used, there would be inconsistency with other newspapers' categories.
Supporters of B said that since inconsistency is inevitable, it is preferable to be consistent with the closest categories in the category tree.
To counter the point that "alumni" would be inconsistent with other newspapers' categories, they distinguished the Harvard publications from the other publications mentioned by noting that the Harvard publications are student publications. Supporters of B noted that all editors or members of The Harvard Advocate, The Harvard Crimson, and The Harvard Lampoon are alumni of the university.
Both positions A and B are defensible but there is a clear community support for B.
Implementation of the close:SMcCandlish noted that categories renames happen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD), so an RfC on this talk page may be the wrong forum. There are several options available to implement this close. One option is to just immediately rename the categories per this RfC. Another option is to start a CfD to go through the formal process.
Which option to choose is up to the RfC participants. I cannot counsel which is the better approach.
For purposes of Wikipedia categorization of persons who were editors or members of these publications, should this and related page topics be named as:
I explain the background leading to this RfC below, in the Discussion section. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've opened this RfC following a "no-consensus" discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 30#Harvard student publications, in order to get participation by more editors than would be found at a relisted CfD discussion. The existing categories are Category:The Harvard Advocate people, Category:The Harvard Crimson people, and Category:Harvard Lampoon people. (About the absence of "The" in the Lampoon category, our page and the publication name are actually The Harvard Lampoon, so the existing category names are not consistent.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the survey section, editors are discussing the relative merits of "people" versus "alumni", in the particular context of consistent naming of categories. Although I personally favor "alumni", I want to point out some things about the category tree. It's true that a large majority of categories about persons who work or have worked on periodicals use "people" in the category name: Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:Playboy people, and on and on. The latter has the subcategory Category:Playboy Playmates, something that I hope has no counterpart here! So "people" makes some sense for Playboy, because not everyone was an editor-type. None of those categories, however, are about student publications. But there's another side of this coin. The primary parent category of the categories we are discussing here is Category:Harvard University alumni. And that is proper: all members of the three categories here are indeed alumni of that university. And every other category within that parent category is named with "alumni". Every one: these three are currently the only exceptions. So we have a kind of lose-lose situation here: no matter whether we go with "people" or "alumni", we are going to be at odds with the names of some other categories. Thus, "people" should not be regarded as the sole way to get consistent naming. I can see arguments either way, but my preference is to go with the closest categories within the category tree: alumni. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Our current article Harvard Crimson (sans "the" in the title) is about Harvard's intercollegiate athletic teams while The Harvard Crimson is about the newspaper. Ergo, if we drop "The" aren't we implicating that the categorized individuals are alumnae of Harvard's tennis or lacrosse teams, and not its student newspaper? Chetsford ( talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion that has bearing on these categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 2#Bunch of journal/magazine people categories. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The statement in the lede that it is run entirely by undergraduates is misleading (not to mention basically unbelieveable, which is why I kept reading), especially considering later the article states that there are several non-student employees. And don't try and play some linguistic gymnastics with "run" to justify this....
I am missing a paragraph on ownership & financing. How is it payed for? Is there professional staff? DePiep ( talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a clear consensus that:
- For purposes of Wikipedia categorization of persons who were editors or members of these publications, this and related page topics should be named as:
- B. "Harvard Advocate alumni"; "Harvard Crimson alumni"; "Harvard Lampoon alumni"?
Summary of arguments:Supporters of A preferred using "people" to be consistent with other newspaper categories such as Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:The Washington Post people, and Category:The Denver Post people.
Supporters of B countered that inconsistency would result regardless of which name was used:
- If Category:The Harvard Advocate people were used, there would be inconsistency with the parent category Category:Harvard University alumni.
- If Category:Harvard Advocate alumni were used, there would be inconsistency with other newspapers' categories.
Supporters of B said that since inconsistency is inevitable, it is preferable to be consistent with the closest categories in the category tree.
To counter the point that "alumni" would be inconsistent with other newspapers' categories, they distinguished the Harvard publications from the other publications mentioned by noting that the Harvard publications are student publications. Supporters of B noted that all editors or members of The Harvard Advocate, The Harvard Crimson, and The Harvard Lampoon are alumni of the university.
Both positions A and B are defensible but there is a clear community support for B.
Implementation of the close:SMcCandlish noted that categories renames happen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD), so an RfC on this talk page may be the wrong forum. There are several options available to implement this close. One option is to just immediately rename the categories per this RfC. Another option is to start a CfD to go through the formal process.
Which option to choose is up to the RfC participants. I cannot counsel which is the better approach.
For purposes of Wikipedia categorization of persons who were editors or members of these publications, should this and related page topics be named as:
I explain the background leading to this RfC below, in the Discussion section. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've opened this RfC following a "no-consensus" discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 30#Harvard student publications, in order to get participation by more editors than would be found at a relisted CfD discussion. The existing categories are Category:The Harvard Advocate people, Category:The Harvard Crimson people, and Category:Harvard Lampoon people. (About the absence of "The" in the Lampoon category, our page and the publication name are actually The Harvard Lampoon, so the existing category names are not consistent.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the survey section, editors are discussing the relative merits of "people" versus "alumni", in the particular context of consistent naming of categories. Although I personally favor "alumni", I want to point out some things about the category tree. It's true that a large majority of categories about persons who work or have worked on periodicals use "people" in the category name: Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:Playboy people, and on and on. The latter has the subcategory Category:Playboy Playmates, something that I hope has no counterpart here! So "people" makes some sense for Playboy, because not everyone was an editor-type. None of those categories, however, are about student publications. But there's another side of this coin. The primary parent category of the categories we are discussing here is Category:Harvard University alumni. And that is proper: all members of the three categories here are indeed alumni of that university. And every other category within that parent category is named with "alumni". Every one: these three are currently the only exceptions. So we have a kind of lose-lose situation here: no matter whether we go with "people" or "alumni", we are going to be at odds with the names of some other categories. Thus, "people" should not be regarded as the sole way to get consistent naming. I can see arguments either way, but my preference is to go with the closest categories within the category tree: alumni. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Our current article Harvard Crimson (sans "the" in the title) is about Harvard's intercollegiate athletic teams while The Harvard Crimson is about the newspaper. Ergo, if we drop "The" aren't we implicating that the categorized individuals are alumnae of Harvard's tennis or lacrosse teams, and not its student newspaper? Chetsford ( talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion that has bearing on these categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 2#Bunch of journal/magazine people categories. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The statement in the lede that it is run entirely by undergraduates is misleading (not to mention basically unbelieveable, which is why I kept reading), especially considering later the article states that there are several non-student employees. And don't try and play some linguistic gymnastics with "run" to justify this....
I am missing a paragraph on ownership & financing. How is it payed for? Is there professional staff? DePiep ( talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)