Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Student Affairs

message: I'm a little concerned that "Student Affairs" could be a bit ambiguous in an international context, especially as the article Student Affairs is about the term in a US specific context and lists a lot of tasks that are divided up differently in other countries - for instant in the UK things like (to take some at random) the equivalents of "Community Service-Learning and Volunteerism", "LGBT Campus Centers", "Fraternity & Sorority Life/Greek Affairs", "Multicultural Affairs", "Recreation and Intramurals", "Student Activities", "Student Development", "Athletics" (or rather Sport) and the like are usually handled by the students' union but things like Career Services, "Residential Facilities Management" and so forth are handled differently and invariably by the university. In the past I sat on my college's "Student Services Board" and many of the student affairs functions were covered by the various bodies represented on it, but usually broken into specific sections and often having other, non-student functions as well (e.g. "Conference, Catering and Residential Services").
Is there a clearcut definition that can make it easier for those of use not familiar with a specifically defined role of student affairs staff to determine what does and doens't come under the taskforce? Timrollpickering 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the definition we are working with is everything non-academic at a university that deals with students directly. For example, we would include all of those things you mentioned above but not include university budget issues. I agree that most Student Affairs articles are probably US-centric, which is why I hope you join the Task Force so you can help unbias them! Hope this helps -- Noetic Sage 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not however think we want to include things like college admissions, or student conduct boards, or other things that are really part of the academic structure of the university.DGG (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh...yeah... isn't that what they're saying?  I'm sure if we had more editors we could do this.  We're all spread out pretty thin at the moment.  I mean not many people are participating in the COTF as is...  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Student Affairs" 

message: I'm thinking of starting a new WikiProject just for students' unions. I'm wondering if anyone else would be interested in participating? GreenJoe 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please link us to where you are proposing this WikiProject.  Thank you.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't created the project page, but I'll add the link when I do. I wanted to see if there was interest first. GreenJoe 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the proposal. GreenJoe 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm apologize in advance, and I assure you I mean no offense, but doesn't this proposal go against the WP:UNI discussion regarding student unions being not notable unless there are significant notability involved to withstand WP:N and WP:ORG?  Is this proposal specifically for those few student union articles that are actually notable or are you going full-fledged in basically saying all student unions are notable and automatically pass WP:ORG regardless?  Please expand.  Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with WP:UNI. I think -all- student union's are notable. GreenJoe 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Student life, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Thoughts about the article guidelines (and read down).  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, but I'm not a member of that WikiProject and don't need to follow those non-binding guidelines. Student unions are in-themselves notable. They've all done something at one point or another that sets them apart, but it's finding that information that takes time. GreenJoe 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a beaurocracy. GreenJoe 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok.  haha.  I told you, I'm not "out to get you".  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think the executives themselves are notable unless they've done something outside of union activity that has made them notable, like they've gone on to get elected to the government or something like that. GreenJoe 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would join the project if the first order of business was to discuss the notability of student unions. In no way do I think they are inherently notable, but if they satisfy the general notability guidelines I'm happy to include them. Because of this basic disagreement between so many people, unless the issue is addressed I cannot support the WikiProject. I would love to help and participate though, as I have already started creating  list of students' union articles.—Noetic Sage 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. That is something that needs to be worked out. At the very least we would have a project to improve the articles that are notable. I would be open to discussing it at the very least. GreenJoe 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to reiterate what I commented on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject:Students.27_unions.  Wikipedia policies are not forms of bureaucracy.  Basic guidelines like WP:N and WP:ORG are pretty important for them to not be ignored.  My problem with most of these articles is that the student unions articles would either be made by authors with WP:COI, throwing away WP:NPOV by boasting their work (and boosting their egos), and students using these articles to disseminate student activities calendars and other nonsense into the articles.  (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site)  This also sets a negative precedent.  With starting a WikiProject Student Unions, this gives way to individual student organizations on every single university around the world the same grounds to start their articles boasting themselves and using Wikipedia as their publicist whether their organization is even remotely notable or not.  I believe we need to settle the dispute on student unions' notability before we continue with this proposal.  And once again, User:GreenJoe, I'm not here to get you or anything.  It's just this is a fairly sensitive subject that needs to be dealt with before starting a WikiProject such as this.  I agree with User:Noeticsage that if we can make clear on the notability of these students' unions, I cannot support this WikiProject, but I'd help you guys out with sorting out everything.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: How's about solving current disputes first? It should be decided whether SUs are notable before a project is started for them. After all, if you create the project, you won't be able to just declare all SUs notable without continuing the same discussion, so there isn't actually much you could do beforehand. TalkIslander 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As time goes by, more and more people who think that articles on student unions should follow the same rules as all the other articles will begin to notice (and oppose) this effort. They will notice the articles first, and organically accrue to the opposition; no special canvassing will be needed. Do you really want to argue forever? Paddy Simcox (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject proposal

message: Hi there! This is a notice that I have opened an individual Good Article reassessment on the article College Republicans, which falls under the domain of this WikiProject task force. The review can be seen at this link (Talk:College Republicans/GA2) and any editor is welcome to help fix it up so that it can maintain GA status. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Good Article reassessment