Talk:Ball State University/Archive 1

message: Academic Extracurriculars have been removed because they are not necessary to the article itself, because no other college pages have them (that I am aware of), and because to update the academic extracurriculars of a school (beyond its debate team) would require a lot of time and energy and would have to be changed on a year-by-year basis to reflect the changes in a school.  Bearing in mind that the audience of this article is probably seeking basic information on the school, it is my recommendation that the extracurriculars either be kept out of the main page or be moved to a sub-page that can be linked from the main page. As always, I welcome questions and discussions here or on my talk page. --Martin Osterman 15:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Extracurriculars 

message: I’m sorry, but BSU simply is a little more than the home of the academy.  The "Academy" sentence as it is now is immaterial and frankly just plain menial.  Either dump it or tie it into BSU in terms of the Academy’s significance to BSU, not the other way around (e.g. link this with the BSU teacher’s college and the use of the academy as a teaching laboratory).  Also, when you single out individual programs as "excellent", the presumption is that ONLY those programs are decent.  This isn’t to say you shouldn’t single out one or two programs for praise (e.g. Teaching, Architecture, Business/Entrepreneurship), but that grouping them in one sentence without supporting evidence and with only a generic adjective in tow instills a sensation of mock praise.  A good starting point would be BSU’s current national academic rankings.  [Ball State: Rankings and Recognitions] (Unsigned comment made by 207.191.220.59)
:Currently this article is little more than a stub of sorts with very little information within it save a listing of important information.  As a student of the university, I plan on devoting time and energy to this article in the coming weeks as time and school permit.  Your critiques of the article as it is, at present, are welcome as they will give everyone an idea of a direction to move as this article is "fleshed out".  Bear in mind, however, that I put the Academy reference back in at the end of the paragraph (as opposed to where it had been before you removed it) because there is no "body" of the article for me to put the sentence presently.  However, since the Academy does have its own Wiki page, I felt it relevant to make sure it does get mentioned in the mainpage.  Once the article is brought up to spec the sentence in question will have a better home where it fits in better.  --Martin Osterman 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Blurb 

message: Alright, after lots of work, I would like to ask those here to take a look at the revised and amended article and let me know if it'll fly.  Additional information added to it is welcome, as always.  The page can be found here:  User:Martin Osterman\Ball State University  Thanks! --Vortex 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - move it over. (But don't get too upset if other folks start editing it mercilessly) - Davodd 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Wiki is for. :)  Let me put some meat on the two sections that are currently empty and then we'll be ready to do it. --Vortex 12:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Change 

message: The fork I worked on over break is now up and in place.  There are two sections that I removed which can be re-added, but I want the community to mull them over first.  The first is the "Notable Faculty" section which, in my opinion, was looking more like a list than anything else (and only two of the names actually linked to other bios within Wiki).  If we're going to do something like that, I think that we need to make sure it follows whatever "notable" criterion that Wikipedia has set.  That way, at least, we're not simply creating a page filled with lists.
Second, I removed the "Athletic Successes" subsection.  While I want to be able to tell of BSU's successes on the field athletically, going back only to 1989 and covering only basketball kinda leaves the subsection at a loss.  I'd love to see all of BSU's athletic achievements showcased, but that would be a good topic for a sub-article.  My thoughts are that if the section is re-added, a brief summary of BSU's recent successes (within the last 5 years or so) be mentioned.  If we do details, let's save them for a sub-article.
I am now working on a sub-article for the history of the University, accessible through my mainpage.  I hope to have it done in a couple weeks -- I'm through the 1950s now -- and posted shortly thereafter.  
I hope I haven't gone off the deep end with this!  If anyone has any problems or such, I'm very open to change!  --Vortex 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There that would capture that lineage of history of BSU and enhance what is said about BSU over on the ISU article.  To some degree today's BSU began in 1899 with the formation of the first normal school to occupy one of its main buildings, but to some degree BSU began in 1918 as a regional campus of a statewide normal school system, but to some degree BSU began in 1925 when its name first contained "Ball State", but to some degree BSU began in 1961 when it gained independence from the statewide teachers college system, but to some degree BSU the university began in 1965 with its recharter with the State of Indiana.  The only way to definitively solve when that blossoming over time actually caused BSU to be established is to present those stages of blossoming and paint the picture that the formation of BSU was incremental over time, as opposed to other institutions that began on one specific day in one specific year.  (The same is true of ISU, IPFW, and IUPUI.)  —Optikos 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of your comments are going to be included in the more in-depth History page that I am working on now (see my User page for a link).  I didn't want to go into too much depth in the main article with things that would be better-suited for a separate article.  Thus, the main article's History section was created as a basic general summary of the history.  I hope this helps! (And I hope I didn't misread what you were saying) --Vortex 17:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I wouldn't expect nearly as much detail as I gave regarding the overall context of the 1958 to 1969 reorganization of the IU system, Purdue system, and teacher college system promulgated by the Indiana Commission on Higher Education that I went into.  I was providing justification of why a single phrase or a single sentence mentioning this context is important for people (especially those not experts in the history of Indiana state-supported higher eduction) to see this BSU evolution in a larger context of statewide transformation of state-supported universities.  Other previous bullets (italicized portion) and subbullets (the causes of previous private normal school failure) though I think should be covered and would comprise my checklist of what is necessary to be covered at a mininum.  By the way, generally, I am contributing and editing to make all university and college articles more consistent in certain regards, especially infobox, campus map external link, athletics program external link, as I think that this is important information that people expect to be able to learn easily about a university or college.  So far I have not added itemized listing schools/colleges to my list of consistency across all university and college articles, but I perhaps am leaning that way because it is a wonderful summary of what the institution thinks are its strengths.  Even more undecided to me is whether every department within each school/college should be listed (for verbosity reasons), although I agree that it can be highly useful in summarizing the character of a university's academcic specialties.  So far I am focusing on infobox, campus map link, and athletics link consistency for all universities and colleges before tackling the academic-unit list topic.  As one can suspect though, complexities regarding of how a university came into existence (which is especially complicated for IUPUI) is related to presenting accurate/informative information in the "established" field of the infobox rather than merely picking a not-100%-accurate established date (e.g. 1899 in BSU's case). —Optikos 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for those reasons that I removed the department list from the page, as well as other non-essential lists.  WP:NOT is not simply a collection of lists.  I do look forward to working more with you on this as time allows and permits; my progress is slow because I am, in fact, a student of Ball State at the moment, and most of my time is devoted to my studies.  However, if you have things you wish to add, you are more than welcome to do so!  I would love to see this entry in Wiki become much bigger, bolder, and fuller than it is now... at least the replacement I made is better than what was there previously! --Vortex 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page 

message: I'm thinking we should change the founding date to be 1899 - since that is when the school was first started. I'm not sure the 1918 date is truly accurate - it's just the demarcation of the time when the state took over control of the campus. What do you folks think? Davodd 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1918 or 1899? 

message: The following original research has been moved here until better sourced:
===Happy Friday Guy===
Beginning with the fall semister of 2004 a student every Friday has donned a unique costume and rode a motorized skooter through campus shouting "Happy Friday!" and sometimes handing out candy.  It is not yet known exactly who Happy Friday is, but it is known that he brings joy to everybody that he meets.
-- Davodd 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He exists and makes the run across campus every Friday, rain or shine. What kind of sourcing do you want? Pope Guilty 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For clarification, inclusion of facts should conform to: Wikipedia: Original research. Davodd 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about the first article listed here, with an interview with said Friday Guy of Happiness? Pope Guilty 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just do not buy that this is notable. There are MANY people and aspects about Ball State that are not covered - that are more important to the university and the world in general. Five years from now, this individual will be gone and forgotten on campus as he moves on with his life and live only in the memories of a few alumni. Maybe a story about him would be more suitable at Wikinews, which covers more fleeting and less encyclopedic topics. - Davodd 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what was with the "better sourced" bit? Why not just say "This doesn't belong here" from the start?Pope Guilty 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, I was honestly ignorant. I wasn't aware of what you were talking. Now that you point it out, I'm not sure it's notable enough to include in an encyclopedia entry about the third-largest university in Indiana. That's all; no big conspiracy. Davodd 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to talk page: 

message: Beginning with the fall semister of 2004 a student every Friday has donned a unique costume and rode a motorized skooter through campus shouting "Happy Friday!" and sometimes handing out candy.  It is not yet known exactly who Happy Friday is, but it is known that he brings joy to everybody that he meets.
</blockquote>
-- Davodd 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He exists and makes the run across campus every Friday, rain or shine. What kind of sourcing do you want? Pope Guilty 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For clarification, inclusion of facts should conform to: Wikipedia: Original research. Davodd 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about the first article listed here, with an interview with said Friday Guy of Happiness? Pope Guilty 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just do not buy that this is notable. There are MANY people and aspects about Ball State that are not covered - that are more important to the university and the world in general. Five years from now, this individual will be gone and forgotten on campus as he moves on with his life and live only in the memories of a few alumni. Maybe a story about him would be more suitable at Wikinews, which covers more fleeting and less encyclopedic topics. - Davodd 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what was with the "better sourced" bit? Why not just say "This doesn't belong here" from the start?Pope Guilty 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, I was honestly ignorant. I wasn't aware of what you were talking. Now that you point it out, I'm not sure it's notable enough to include in an encyclopedia entry about the third-largest university in Indiana. That's all; no big conspiracy. Davodd 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy Friday Guy

message: Should there be a small section about the carillon in the article? I know that it is only a few years old but could someone elaborate on it just a bit? Thanks! Wikichange 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shafer Tower? 

message: Not too far from passing, good effort from the editors! The Dumpus/Vanishbox reference is either vanity/spam and needs to be expunged (nothing at Dumpus suggests notability - indeed it got speedy-deleted while this review was being written!) or it needs to be referenced to show just how significant it is. The referencing is variable - some footnotes explaining where in the main reference section facts are sourced from (see Corinthian War for an excellent example of how to do this) would be wonderful. Many facts have are completely unreferenced, including ones which obviously should be. The inline external links, if intended to be references, should be rewritten as references/footnotes (see  WP:CITE). Further, the "academics strengths" section uses several well-known reports to support claims of particular strengths. That's a good example of using respected sources. However, they need to be referenced properly, and not just to an internet address (since they are mostly originally "paper" references, reference the correct paper copy then give the external link). Everywhere where external links are used (under references and "external links") it would be a good idea to include in brackets after the address something like (URL accessed 9 April, 2006).
Use of images is good, and mostly they are well-tagged for copyright status. :Image:Ball Brothers 1.jpg needs more work - it should have a source listed, and a brief description on its image page that establishes that is a photograph published prior to 1923. (If the best you can do is show that it got taken prior to 1923, I doubt anyone will complain too hard, though!) As for :Image:BallStateUHoriz.jpg and :Image:BallStateSpiritMark.jpg, read the instructions on the template tag. Somebody needs to write fair use rationales, explaining why each individual use of the images in WP articles is fair use. (This is different to PD or GFDL, because once a photo is PD or GFDL, it just is PD/GFDL, full stop. "Fair use" photos are only fair use in a particular context, so they need a new rationale everytime they are used, saying why, in that context, it's fair use. Even for logos, fair use is not blanket - you can't use logos purely decoratively, or to effectively "brand" Wikipedia's coverage of a topic.)  One excellent piece of practice could be found on Starship Troopers - not only was each image correctly tagged and rationaled, but a message was hidden in the code for the article using   , which stops the "..." getting displayed when the article is just being viewed. The message also explained why the use was fair use, so fair use was recorded both in the article source and on the image page. 
Other than that, the article reads pretty well and looks nice. The lead is a little weak, however, and could do with summarizing the article better (see WP:LEAD for tips). You had a "--" instead of a "—" (use the code &mdash followed directly by a ; since -- doesn't render as a full dash (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for an explanation) so I corrected that. I also am not sure about the way the "Cheerleading" bit is written after the sports table, it looks a little odd to use the large font and italics - I thought at first it was a caption for the table. Perhaps it could be included in the table, splitting the table up into NCAA and non-NCAA? Or maybe there is some other way of including it. The subsectioning is good and consistent, the table of contents isn't bloated, and aside from the questionable music references in the lead seems NPOV. I also added this article to the category for the county it's in - seemed a relevant categorization to me! So, almost up to GA status, still some way away from FA status but that's definitely achievable if you build up on the strengths of this article and improve the referencing. Please renominate it once you think these concerns are addressed! There's lots of good work here, would be great to see it even better! TheGrappler 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the much-needed observations, tips and beneficial critiques. They will surely help us in our effort to build this article into a top-quality WP entry. - Davodd 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations]] 

message: Moved the below list here from the front page - only one has an article here - the rest are red links, which immediately throws their notability in doubt. Of the lot, only Steve Bell, would be easily recognizable outside of Muncie academic circles. - Davodd 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List moved from article due to disputed notability 

message: I have completed a purge of all the red-linked named in alumni and notable people - under the theory that a list of red links falls into at least one of the following categories and because I have far too much time on my hands:
# Not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia;
# A list of dead links is not useful in that Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT)
# In already-too-long-articles, lists should be eliminated whenever possible, preferably by turning them into paragraph form (or moving them to a sub page, if appropriately long enough or distinct enough to be its own topic). Or deleted if appropriate.
- Davodd 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Purged again today. This appears to be an annual trimming. - Davodd 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red link purge in "notables" 

message: Under the wiki guidelines, a trivia secton is discouraged. A lot of the section could be accumulated into a "Ball State in Pop Culter" or something similar. Agree/Disagree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcflood (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSU Trivia 

message: Why do some find it so childish the vadalize this page? Do many other University pages have to deal with it? It is ridiculous.
: Yes, other university pages are vandalized quite frequently - some, like Ohio State University are protected because of chronic vandalism. - Davodd 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: How would I go about officially suggesting that a few articles be merged?  It seems like the articles for Worthen Arena, Scheumann Stadium, and Benificance are small enough to be included on the main page.  What do others think? 
User Acsmith  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acsmith3 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To propose a merger, go here for information: Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. But in my opinion, if they are to be merged, then please not into THIS article - since it already is very long by Wikipedia standards. A short article in and of itself is not always a bad thing. My suggestion is that if you think an article is too short, then you can expand it by adding to it. Both the Worthen Arena and the stadium have a very robust history, architecture, and funding process that are not included in their respective articles yet. Personally, I view them as incomplete entries rather than sub-sets of a larger article. - Davodd 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging needed 

message: I added a couple of articles to the BSU subset. If you could add some info to them, I would be most appreciative. Thanks! OopsMessage (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional articles 

message: Where is Ball State cited as being "recognized" in: architecture, exercise science, education, anthropology, entrepreneurship, and communications?  In the field of architecture I have never seen the school listed by any major survey of premier schools.  I am removing this until we see some objective evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.232.131 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ball State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718094846/http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/mission-history to http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/mission-history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Universe (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Enough media attention" is not the criterion we apply when deciding if information should be added to an encyclopedia article; this might be helpful as a more detailed explanation. The more relevant questions are whether this incident has had a significant impact on the university, is likely to have a lasting impact, or is part of larger pattern or group of incidents or activities (that as a group have a significant or lasting impact). ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone want to add the incident where the marketing professor called the police when the student chose not to switch seats? It got enough media attention and would be appropriate for a "controversy" section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion