Talk:Michigan State University/Archive 2

message: Whomever keeps writing "MSU's basketball success had led to riots" needs to STFU. Success doesn't lead to riots, students with time on their hands do. Start another article if you wish to address this minor aspect of MSU. (Unsigned comment by User:141.217.221.212.)
*If you think that students with too much time on their hands (as well as non-MSU students) cause riots, then write it! If you don't like something in the article, feel free to bring it up on this talk page, but please do not tell me or anyone else to STFU. That is completely inappropriate. Lovelac7 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with whats-his-name that while the language is inappropriate the riots are somewhat minor and should be kept seperate from the main article. AStudent 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riots 

message: Can we get some better photos of this great campus?  There are way too many sports venues (we get the point, sports are popular, here).  Plus, the bulk of shots are of bland modern buildings of the newer South Campus.  Can't somebody spend some time north of the Red Cedar River?  Also, what about some of the older, ivy buildings, like the West Circle dorms.  It's this part of campus that really defines MSU in most people's minds.  Also, while the nature scenes are pretty, they are lacking.  A college campus, especially this one, is designed to harmonize buildings and landscapes.  I could take a camera into the forest, nearby, photograph and post, and call it the MSU campus, but, well, ... you see my point.151.197.64.224 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no qualms with you changing it. i take better photos than i caption them.--Jeff 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Photos Needed (too much stadia-itis!) 

message: I'm pretty happy with the photos that are now in the article, but there's only one thing bothering me. I spent alot of time making these HDR photos through processing, but one of the effects is that the leaves, of course, were not quite still for me. This leaves a "Double exposure" type look in the photos I posted.
Now... I went with the HDR photos for a reason.. They have a color depth to them that isn't present in the single exposure shots.. Enough to, for me, overcome the shortcomings present in the photos.. Especially since the true subject of the photos are the buildings.
That all said, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus.. We can have either pretty pictures with some weird double exposed leaves, or boring single exposure shots but the leaves arent moving that aren't terrible.. just not as exciting. Thoughts?--Jeff 07:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no qualms with you changing it. i take better photos than i caption them.--Jeff 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos, feedback 

message: Jeff, I'm admittedly a little offended that you removed the "rape trail" reference without saying anything. Like I said in my earlier post, it's not a positive name, but that is the common name for what it's called on campus. I realize you took the photos and everything, but the fact you removed it without even telling me you did I find pretty bothersome. Stick Fig 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape Trail 

message: Should the Wikipedia article on MSU include the text "Rape Trail" on the caption of a bike/walk path on Michigan State's campus. It is acknowledged as fact that students of MSU refer to the trail in the vernacular as "the rape trail", however, at issue is its encyclopedic value.
Include(1):
*I vote to include this passage, noting the precedents above. --Stick Fig 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Rape Trail 

message: As admirable as it is for people to get info into the main article, it’s getting too long, again.  I think it’s time to spin some of these new segments off into daughter articles; this is especially true for constituent colleges, like the law school and business school.  I think a main university article should only summarize these programs with links to the daughters.  The rankings, history, athletics, people, among others, are OK for the main article, so long as they’re kept in their main form.
Also, I’m seeing a disturbing tendency in these new constituent segments to drift back into non-attribution/footnoting.  This article originally reached feature status because of the quality writing and the intense use of footnotes.  No one could say the article was mere wiki opinion or boosterism.  We need to stick with this format. 151.197.64.224 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter articles needed 

message: You can use a general overview of these claims (with a corresponding source which must be reliable). However, if you go into a list of specifics and delve too deeply into praising MSU or any of its associated groups, you run the risk of boosterism. This in itself can easily cause the article to lose its featured status. Also, please sign your posts with four ~ so that we can know who said what. PentawingTalk 07:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness to the anon, MSU did win the National Debate Tournament this year and in 2004. Their debate team seems notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to "New 2007 Rankings" and "Debate"

message: MSU is the only university in America where a student can study allopathic, osteopathic, or veterinary medicine on the same campus, yet none of these colleges are even mentioned in the article! Their noteworthiness is reinforced by the 2007 US News & World Report rankings. (unsigned comment by Jankow28.)
*I agree that the medical schools deserve mention, but I don't know a lot about them. Try writing your own, or if you don't want to do that, post some source material on this talk page, so that other people can write about it. You might also want to try the new daughter article, Michigan State University academics. Lovelac7 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the med schools? 

message: I have removed all references to the United States being "The" nation. It is not "the" nation, it is one of around two hundred nations. It may be your nation, but that doesn't make it special in my opinion as it it is not mine, and nor is it that of the majority of Wikipedia users. It is very disappointing to see such an insensitive piece of U.S. centrism repeated over and over again in a featured article. ReeseM
*let me get you some cheese to go with your whine. (elaboration: clearly, any article of any national origin can use the phrase "the nation" because "the nation" is an assumed subject. If the subject of the article was a university located in Kyrgyzstan, and the author of the article said "It is the largest university in the nation.", any reasonable reader would understand that "the nation" is not meant at the exclusion of all other nations but is simply an unbiased english grammatical construct of the assumed subject.) --Jeff 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Remove all sentences containing the phrase "the university"? (NOTE: all references to "it" contained within this comment should be considered as a reference to this Talk page's article). Anyone reading an article on a certain University should know that "the university" refers to the article they're reading, as would anyone reading an article on a Mayor (e.g. Ken Livingstone) would know that any reference to "the Mayor" refers to person the article is about. With the same reasoning, the same can be said about any article about a capital city It isn't the only capital city in the world so it shouldn't be referred to as 'the capital'. Also, "The University" only has "The" capitalised at the beginning of sentences - which is gramatically correct - and from reading the article in it's entirety it is completely unbiased (from an Englishman's perspective). TheJC TalkContributions 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm pretty sure that the comment you replied to was meant to be read sarcastically, but yea, you're right.. --Jeff 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The'' nation

message: Why was the article on Demonstration Hall, which is specifically linked from several other articles, merged into this main article on MSU?  Many other sites — Breslin Center, College Hall, heck even the Rock — have their own articles.  Besides, it doesn't make much sense for an individual building to be lumped in parallel with the "North Campus" and "South Campus" headings.Kevin Forsyth 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the article demonstrated sufficient notability for its own page (the alternative would be an AfD). Whether the other places are notable enough is a different issue! In general it is easier for the reader to find allied topics in one place rather than splintered into many articles. One way forward might be to combine the various articles into a master MSU Buildings page. Alternatively by all means find a better location in the main article. BlueValour 16:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that I don't see any reason for those building to have their own articles, but I do support the notion that a merge tag should have been placed and consensus reached.  It is clear that there are enough people actively monitoring these articles that action could have been taken swiftly no matter the consensus. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstration Hall merger