Talk:The Harvard Crimson

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
For purposes of Wikipedia categorization of persons who were editors or members of these publications, should this and related page topics be named as:
:A. "The Harvard Advocate people"; "The Harvard Crimson people"; "The Harvard Lampoon people"
::or
:B. "Harvard Advocate alumni"; "Harvard Crimson alumni"; "Harvard Lampoon alumni"?
I explain the background leading to this RfC below, in the Discussion section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am one of a the people who thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: "Staff" is generally understood to be paid employees, not student members (and I have already explained the usage of the word "alumni"). Second, I strongly resent what you said about forum shopping. That's offensive, and nonsense. It would be forum shopping if I wanted to change one outcome to another. Here, I am trying to get from no outcome to a consensus outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on "staff".  On FS, I'm not making any accusation, I'm warning that perception sometimes bends that way, having learned this the hard way. Re-raising issues after some time has passed seems to work better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Only speaking for myself, I am. I do note the definitions of alumni you provided. However, I'd still prefer we stick with "people". I have yet to see a compelling argument why The Harvard Crimson needs a special and unique syntax different from that used for all other newspapers on WP (e.g. "The Los Angeles Times people", "The Washington Post people", "The Denver Post people", etc. Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification! I'm going to comment on the positives and negatives of that in the discussion section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

text: In my experience, athletes describe themselves as alumni of the specific teams/sports they were on, rather than of the athletic program as a whole, and nobody at Harvard regards "the" as the way to distinguish between sports and the newspaper. It's more an artifact of Wikipedia's naming conventions: they can't both be "the" and they can't both be without "the", without needing further disambiguation. And ironically, the correct name of the Lampoon is The Harvard Lampoon, with "the", but the category is :Category:Harvard Lampoon people, without. In any case, "The Harvard Crimson people", as a phrase, sounds jarringly like "the American people", where "American" is not a magazine name, or "the little green people" for that matter. I think that there is a trend in the survey section so far, of editors not liking "the". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I'm guessing the audience for these articles may not be limited to people at Harvard? Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm facepalming myself for wording it that way. Well, more to the point, I'm pretty sure that our readers do not come here thinking about "the" either. If one were to ask anyone from the general public: "what is the difference between Harvard Crimson and The Harvard Crimson?" I'm pretty sure the reaction would be incredulity. Consequently, I don't think we would be helping any readers doing it that way. On the other hand, I can easily see readers wondering: "what are the Harvard Crimson people? Are there also Harvard chartreuse people?" --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

text: The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
===CfD notification===
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)
thread_title:  RfC on categories 

message: *B. Frankly, this is a no-brainer: the options in A, although the status quo for these categories, sound downright silly. Although the publication names begin with "The", we don't need to say "The" all the time. We would not say: "James Reston was a The New York Times columnist." And 100% of the persons in the three categories are Harvard (or Radcliffe) alumni, which is more precise than just saying "people". (Per , , , and , the word "alumni" can be applied to persons who were previously members of organizations, and not just of the educational institution itself.) And renaming the categories this way would make them consistent with all the other members of their parent category – :Category:Harvard University alumni – where we already have, for example, :Category:Hasty Pudding alumni. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am one of a the people who thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: "Staff" is generally understood to be paid employees, not student members (and I have already explained the usage of the word "alumni"). Second, I strongly resent what you said about forum shopping. That's offensive, and nonsense. It would be forum shopping if I wanted to change one outcome to another. Here, I am trying to get from no outcome to a consensus outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on "staff".  On FS, I'm not making any accusation, I'm warning that perception sometimes bends that way, having learned this the hard way. Re-raising issues after some time has passed seems to work better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Only speaking for myself, I am. I do note the definitions of alumni you provided. However, I'd still prefer we stick with "people". I have yet to see a compelling argument why The Harvard Crimson needs a special and unique syntax different from that used for all other newspapers on WP (e.g. "The Los Angeles Times people", "The Washington Post people", "The Denver Post people", etc. Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification! I'm going to comment on the positives and negatives of that in the discussion section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title: CfD notification

message: 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....
::2001:569:BCD5:8600:18F4:5683:B74D:599C (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run entirely by undergraduates in lede misleading  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ownership and finance