Talk:The University Register

message: I have moved the list of former editors in chief to this page, until we can wikify it.  I imagine the information contained in it is invaluable to the article and will incorporated to the article in the near future, but it must be incorporated into the article itself, instead of being just some random table of data. Brash 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Editors

message: One of the things the UR has always featured were cartoons. This could be an easy section to add for the history of the paper. 
Here are some I remember:
1993(?) - 1997 Platypus Man -- Mike Chmiel (Student)
???? - 1997 Happy Moose -- Fred Ostrander (Student)
1999 - 2000 Masked Mushroom -- Justin Ziegler (Student)
1998 - 1999 Mr. Gnu -- Travis Dandro (Syndicated)
::I'll go through the archives and start pinpointing dates.  I'll publish my findings in the discussion page until I've assembed enough information to put into the main page.  Brash 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoons

message: I think this link should be removed. Show some pride! We don't need those stinking Twin Cities campus people! Kind of joking, but kind of serious at the same time. Alf rules 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True that.  But notice that this article only contains a reference to the Daily's wikipedia article?  We don't actually have a link to their website.  However, I think instead of removing the Daily's link on the UR page, I will just add a link to the UR on the Daily's page. Brash 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minnesota Daily

message: Mihoshi has proposed that the phrase "editorial content has been mostly liberal in recent years" needs a citation.  There is a problem with this.  Since this is an article about a relatively obscure publication, there are no sources to cite about any information reported in here except the publication itself.  There is no publication about the publication which we can cite, and therefore none of the information we report here is verifiable since it's all first and second-hand knowledge.  Wikipedia policy states that anything that is not verifiable (as in, anything that's not citable) does not belong in Wikipedia.  But I think we can bend the rules in this case.  But how far do we bend them?
What I'm saying is, requiring citation on most anything in this article will be futile, since none of it is citable.  So should we place  notations all over the article?  Or should we just let it be? Brash 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Swing?

message: Editor-in-Chief
* Ellery R. Fisher (2007 - Present)
* Eagan Heath (2006 - 2007)
* Tim Lindberg (2005-2006)
* James Bordewick (2004-2005)
* David Bohlander (2003-2004)
* Chris Pifer (2002-2003)
* Jillian Evans (2001-2002)
* Simon Chabel (2000-2001)
Managing Editor
* Donavon Cawley (2007 - Present)
* Jenny Wemerskirchen (2006 - 2007)
* Andy Zschetzsche (2005 - 2006)
* Liz Anderson (2004 - 2005)
* Jessi Gurr (2003 - 2004)
* David Bohlander (2002 - 2003)
* Michael Urness (2001 - 2002)
* Jillian Evans (2000 - 2001)
* Simon Chabel (1999 - 2000)
Advertising Manager
* Christie Blood (2007 - Present)
* Alex Murphy (2006 - 2007)
* Donavon Cawley (2006)
* Jenn Newman (2005)
* Cindy Lahr (2004 - 2005)
* Liz Anderson (2002 - 2004)
* Tina Diderickson (2000 - 2002)
Circulation Manager
* Alex Wanna (2006 - 2007)
* Danny Baustian (2005 - 2006)
News Editor
* Maria Brun (2007 - Present)
* Ellery R. Fisher (2006 - 2007)
* Eagan Heath (2005 - 2006)
* Kim Ukura (2005)
* Isaac Linehan-Clodfelter (2004)
* Kristen Strissel (2003-2004)
* Jessi Gurr (2003)
* James Bordewick (2002)
* David Bohlander (2001-2002)
* Allison Harrell (2001)
* Erin Cary (2000)
Sports Editor
* Andrew Swan (2007 - Present)
* Josh Rogers (2006 - 2007)
* Zach Koeing (2005 - 2006)
* Matt Croaston (2004 - 2005)
* Tim Lindberg (2003 - 2004)
* Nate Fuller (2002 - 2003)
* Dave Fairbanks (2000 - 2002)
Arts & Entertainment Editor
* Sara Russell (2007 - Present)
* Amanda Holter (2006) 
* Serrah Langin (2005 - 2006)
* Jenn Newman (2005)
* Serrah Langin (2004)
* Sarah Neenan (2003-2004)
* Jessi Gurr (2000 - 2003)
Variety Editor
* Elijah Mayfield (2007 - Present)
* Donavon Cawley (2006 - 2007)
* Caroline Daykin (2004 -2006)
Feature Editor
* Kim Ukura (2007 - Present)
* Sarah Vig (2006 - 2007)
* Kristen Strissel (2005 - 2006)
* Paul Carlson (2004 - 2005)
Photo Editor
* Kim Melchert (2007 - Present)
* daniel j moore (2006)
Head Copy Editor
* Ann Fern (2006 - Present)
* John Hanson (2005 - 2006)
* Becky Iverson (2004 - 2005)
Online Editor
* Eli Mayfield (2006-2007)
* James Bordewick (2005-2006)
* Dan Anthony (2004-2005)
The list of staff members was getting unruly, and it basically was never an integral part of this wikipedia page in the first place.  Unless anyone strongly objects (beyond any former staff members who desire wiki-notoriety), I've done away with the list of staff members and the irrelevant descriptions of each position, and move the data to this page. 65.183.250.21 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Staff Members

message: Someone, I'm supposing a former EIC, mangled the paragraph describing the relationship between the editor in chief and the editorial board.  Before, it said:
:While the leadership style of each Editor-in-Chief varies widely from year to year, editors-in-chief usually serve only as a figurehead to the organization, with most policy decisions being made by the Editorial Board as a whole. However, while it is the collective power of the Editorial Board which determines the direction of the organization, it is the Editor-in-Chief who carries the paper in that direction.
But now, it says:
:The leadership style of each Editor-in-Chief varies widely from year to year. Some editors-in-chief serve only as a figurehead to the organization, with most policy decisions being made by the Editorial Board as a whole. Others use the Editorial Board as little more than an advisory group for creating organizational policy. In either instance, it is difficult for the Editor-in-Chief to lead effectively without general support from most of the other members of the Editorial Board. However, in either case it is the Editor-in-Chief who carries the paper forward.
While I agree that the dichotomy between strong EIC/weak EIC should be established, it shouldn't be done in such a haphazard manner.  That is to say, when you make an edit, make sure it's written well, or in the very least, make sure it is mildly intelligible.  I'm going to try to save this paragraph.  Brash 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mangled Attempt at an Edit