This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Memorial Hall (Harvard University) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Memorial Hall is explicitly not a memorial to the alumni of Harvard who fought for the Confederacy. There has been discussion of a Confederate Memorial at Harvard many times, most recently after Ken Burns' Civil War series in 1994, but no memorial has ever been constructed or will probably ever be constructed. Mem Hall is strictly Union only. 71.61.0.52 ( talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can additionally confirm no presence of conferederate names inside memorial hall MemHallUsher ( talk) 23:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's more than natural that Mem Hall and Sanders be treated in a single article. I can't imagine this could be controversial, so I'm just going to go ahead. (If someone points out some reason this is actually a numbskull idea, I'll be happy to undo the damage myself.)
Despite the adminsitrative joinder with Lowell Lecture Hall, I don't think it's appropriate to merge that topic in as well. (Doesn't seem to be an article on it yet anyway.)
Should the merged article be simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) or Memorial Hall and Sanders Theater (Harvard University) i.e. is Sanders a part of Mem Hall, or its co-equal, so to speak. Whatever the formal, historical answer may be, combining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA with [1] points to simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) as the right choice. (Historical formalities can be clarified in the article.) Naturally there will be redirects from:
EEng ( talk) 01:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe there should be two separate pages as historically and currently it is rare for anyone other than Harvard students and Harvard alumni to access Annenberg Hall. Sanders Theater is the only space where public ticketed access can be available. Memorial Transept is the space that physically connects the two spaces. Public access to Memorial Transept varies, but ticketed access to Sanders Theater de facto provides access to Memorial Transept. The history of Sanders Theater as a performance venue (in film media, live acts of varied nature) is noteworthy and may call for its own sub section if not page. Separately but similarly, I would like to contribute and add references regarding the names inscribed on the tablets throughout Memorial Transept and provide links to / from the respective individuals Wikipedia pages. I welcome feedback. Thank you. MemHallUsher ( talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The articles already too image-heavy (for the current amount of text) but here's one for the future:
Before restoring this, please see the article on WP:WEASEL. This term should not be used on Wikipedia, and that it exists elsewhere is only a reason to remove it from there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. That it is sourced is a non-sequitur, it is still far too subjective and WP:WEASEL still applies. The proper way would be to state "described as imposing", and this type of language is inappropriate for the lede, hence it goes. Carl Fredrik talk 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
|alt=
could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Is it your suggestion, Mandruss...No. It is my suggestion that
|alt=
could be added to describe the image in objective terms, as all |alt=
parameters are supposed to do. The vision-impaired reader could then apply their own subjective adjectives, in the same manner as the sighted could do using the image itself.Fabulous.I really don't see your point. Editors with different viewpoints or opinions is a problem, somehow?
I'm afraid I must differ.imposing: "impressive in size, bearing, dignity, or grandeur". I'm impressed by the size of Mass Hall. It's a whole lot bigger than I am. Maybe you're harder to impress. Regardless, surely you know what "most" means and don't propose to refute the claim with two cherry-picked examples? ― Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
|alt=
. When there is strong disagreement about the choice of a word, the first question I ask is whether any word is really needed. If I haven't been clear enough, see my proposed first sentence below (no adjective).when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions.I'm not supporting anybody's position. I stated mine, and AFAICT it's the only one advocating no adjective at all. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Memorial Hall (Harvard University) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Memorial Hall is explicitly not a memorial to the alumni of Harvard who fought for the Confederacy. There has been discussion of a Confederate Memorial at Harvard many times, most recently after Ken Burns' Civil War series in 1994, but no memorial has ever been constructed or will probably ever be constructed. Mem Hall is strictly Union only. 71.61.0.52 ( talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can additionally confirm no presence of conferederate names inside memorial hall MemHallUsher ( talk) 23:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's more than natural that Mem Hall and Sanders be treated in a single article. I can't imagine this could be controversial, so I'm just going to go ahead. (If someone points out some reason this is actually a numbskull idea, I'll be happy to undo the damage myself.)
Despite the adminsitrative joinder with Lowell Lecture Hall, I don't think it's appropriate to merge that topic in as well. (Doesn't seem to be an article on it yet anyway.)
Should the merged article be simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) or Memorial Hall and Sanders Theater (Harvard University) i.e. is Sanders a part of Mem Hall, or its co-equal, so to speak. Whatever the formal, historical answer may be, combining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA with [1] points to simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) as the right choice. (Historical formalities can be clarified in the article.) Naturally there will be redirects from:
EEng ( talk) 01:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe there should be two separate pages as historically and currently it is rare for anyone other than Harvard students and Harvard alumni to access Annenberg Hall. Sanders Theater is the only space where public ticketed access can be available. Memorial Transept is the space that physically connects the two spaces. Public access to Memorial Transept varies, but ticketed access to Sanders Theater de facto provides access to Memorial Transept. The history of Sanders Theater as a performance venue (in film media, live acts of varied nature) is noteworthy and may call for its own sub section if not page. Separately but similarly, I would like to contribute and add references regarding the names inscribed on the tablets throughout Memorial Transept and provide links to / from the respective individuals Wikipedia pages. I welcome feedback. Thank you. MemHallUsher ( talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The articles already too image-heavy (for the current amount of text) but here's one for the future:
Before restoring this, please see the article on WP:WEASEL. This term should not be used on Wikipedia, and that it exists elsewhere is only a reason to remove it from there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. That it is sourced is a non-sequitur, it is still far too subjective and WP:WEASEL still applies. The proper way would be to state "described as imposing", and this type of language is inappropriate for the lede, hence it goes. Carl Fredrik talk 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
|alt=
could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Is it your suggestion, Mandruss...No. It is my suggestion that
|alt=
could be added to describe the image in objective terms, as all |alt=
parameters are supposed to do. The vision-impaired reader could then apply their own subjective adjectives, in the same manner as the sighted could do using the image itself.Fabulous.I really don't see your point. Editors with different viewpoints or opinions is a problem, somehow?
I'm afraid I must differ.imposing: "impressive in size, bearing, dignity, or grandeur". I'm impressed by the size of Mass Hall. It's a whole lot bigger than I am. Maybe you're harder to impress. Regardless, surely you know what "most" means and don't propose to refute the claim with two cherry-picked examples? ― Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
|alt=
. When there is strong disagreement about the choice of a word, the first question I ask is whether any word is really needed. If I haven't been clear enough, see my proposed first sentence below (no adjective).when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions.I'm not supporting anybody's position. I stated mine, and AFAICT it's the only one advocating no adjective at all. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)