Talk:Residential colleges of Rice University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lovett[edit]

Timeline problems[edit]

The article states "design feature intended to make Lovett riot-proof in reaction to the student riots of the late 1960s, most notably the Abbie Hoffman riot of April 1970." However, footnote 66 links to Fondren Library's Lovett College records, stating the Lovett building opened in 1968, two years before the Abbie Hoffman incident. In addition, there are no primary sources cited for the supposed "riot-proof" design of Lovett, and similar myths surround other Brutalist buildings of the era: https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/10/28/busting-brutalist-campus-architecture-myths/ Elevenrivers (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baker[edit]

POV Problems[edit]

"What makes Baker the best college on campus are our many long-standing traditions." This is definitely not neutral.

Appears to have been written by a current student who has only a superficial knowledge of the college. Should probably leave the writing of this article to alumni who have a greater appreciation for the college, and would paint a more accurate picture that does Baker justice. There's more than Baker 13 and Upper Fourth - this coming from someone who ran 13 alone and lived in Fourth when it supposedly attained its "legend" status, but also is much more aware of all that is Baker.

Fair use rationale for Image:Baker College Seal.PNG[edit]

Image:Baker College Seal.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png[edit]

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown[edit]

Dubious tag re: coed bathrooms... The article text appears to come verbatim from http://www.brown.rice.edu/about/history.php, but I dispute the accuracy of this particular point based on my personal experience as a resident of Brown College from 1989-1993.

During my time at Brown, bathrooms were single-sex by default, with the gender assignment typically alternating by floor and changing every semester (although 8th floor, and perhaps others just after Brown went coed, had only women residents and did not change its bathroom's gender assignment). HOWEVER, as this system always required some residents to go to a different floor to use the bathroom, a floor COULD elect to have its bathroom be coed only by unanimous vote of all residents on the floor. Coed bathrooms certainly existed (I used them myself), but they were not universal as stated by the article.

I have not edited the article aside from adding the "dubious" tag as this is my first foray into editing. Perhaps a discussion to the depth of the paragraph above exceeds the scope of the article, but I would request at least that the universality of the statement be removed, e.g., change "However, the community bathrooms on all floors remained coed..." to "However, each floor had only one community bathroom, which would require some residents to go to a different floor to use the bathroom. A floor's residents could elect to have their bathroom designated as coed by a unanimous vote until 1994, when the bathrooms were renovated to provide separate facilities for men and women on each floor." Garrick42 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read up on Wikipedia's standards, I see I have a tough row to hoe as I'm relying on personal experience alone. I suppose I'd have to get the published source document (http://www.brown.rice.edu/about/history.php) corrected first. I'll send a note to the Webmaster of that page and probably forget about it! Garrick42 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: I was a Brown student from 1992-1996, and for the 1992-1994 years most bathrooms in Brown were indeed co-ed. It is correct, as the previous commenter mentions, that this was determined by a floor-by-floor anonymous vote during the first hall meeting of the year. All votes on a floor had to be unanimous to make the bathroom co-ed. I seem to remember that during the school year beginning in fall 1992 floors 2 and 3 retained single-sex bathrooms, but I could be remembering this incorrectly. Floor 4 was definitely co-ed from 1992 until the remodeling in 1994. This is personal anecdata, so not verifiable by Wikipedia standards, but placed here for those interested in following up. 157.182.147.118 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png[edit]

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanszen[edit]

I'm pulling off the comment about "Please don't delete this..." It's not appropriate for Wikipedia, and as a Hanszen alum, I think it looks pretty immature. I think the whole sheriff comment is pretty immature, but maybe you guys actually do stuff like that. Jcloudm 14 Aug 2006

We could probably go a little bit more in-depth on the government, as the current version makes no mention whatsoever of the committees. HFH '04 --69.7.175.177 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Hanszen alum, I respect your opinion regarding the sheriff line.

However, I think you're a piece of shit for censoring what is the only humorous line in an otherwise information-only article, especially on the last bastion of user-created free speech (the internet).

Sounds cool to me.

(I have some extra plane tickets to 1984 East Berlin if you want them ... )

24.167.39.137 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Rice's unique qualities revolve around being more easy-going than other ivy league institutions - don't ruin it.[reply]

That bit about the Sherriff needs to stay out of this article. Wikipedia is not the place for jokes or graffiti. If you want to put that up on hanszenet or your own web site, that's you're business. However, Wikipedia already has enough trouble being taken seriously, without people undermining it by putting in intentionally false statements. Additionally, as a Hanszen alum, I am disappointed in the lack of creativity in your humor. It's just simply not that funny. You should be able to make a joke that's more intelligent than that, while still upholding the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is striving for. I mean, come on, isn't there something true AND funny that you can put into a new 'life at hanszen' section? Ekao1111 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jokes are specifically included in the Wikipedia definition of vandalism: WP:VANDAL It doesn't matter whether you think it's funny or not. Ekao1111 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ekao111 -- It did happen. Joe was the Sheriff. It was elected as a permanent position - in a cabinet meeting in 06'. Look at the minutes if you want. Just like the "Tom Miller Bitches and Hoes" committee (a real committee at Hanszen, with the most funding of any - even socials), this is a real thing. So keep changing it if you want -- we will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.21.18 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A joke is a joke, even if it has basis in real life. If you want to include it, put it in a new college humor section, and put it in quotes. There's no problem with documenting jokes, provided they are identified as such. Also, let's try to keep this discussion mature. Modifying another person's comments is again just showing that you don't understand the concept here. Finally, if you want to get some respect here, register and sign in when you make edits. If it's so important to you to "prevail", then you should be able to step up to the plate and take credit for it by name. Ekao1111 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, I'll be removing the Hanszen Halo League. A list that is just tacked on to the end of the article makes no sense. It should include some sort of discussion and some references. Ekao1111 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Sheriff comments: The problem with the editors of the wikipedia (and some Hanszen alumni apparently) is that they fail to see the significance of things like the Hanszen Sheriff. Events like electing/appointing a Sheriff (albeit somewhat tongue and cheek) are what define the residential colleges. These tid bits are important to the creating an accurate representation of the Residential colleges. 99.7.82.53 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The Hanszen's Legacy section needs sourcing for the histories of the various establishments mentioned there. Please read through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for information on Wikipedia content, and read WP:CITE for information on how to cite the references. Thanks! Dreadstar † 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Hey J8tennet, I really like the comments, it's a really interesting history that, as a Hanszen Alum ('08) I'd never heard. Probably though, you should phrase them as a quote and that would make you the source for teh facts in the article (just quote yourself like it was a newspaper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddodson (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jones[edit]

Does anyone have a list of the previous Jones College Masters including: who they were, if they had an administrative or academic position, their term(s) as Master?

-9/25/08: Found a pamphlet from the term of the Barreras' mastership listing all previous Jones Masters, RAs, Presidents, and College Coordinators. Included info to be added.

3/1/2006: Although the anti-college cheers against, Brown, Sid, Baker, Hanszen and Lovett are legitimate Jones cheers, they are not bona fide beer bike cheers in that they do not have hand signals, so I deleted them.

If someone wants to put them back in, they should be appropriately categorized and contextualized with archiac (or defunct) cheers like "Rock on... Jones" and "Jones Farmer Jones"

For consitency, however, I did add the "Jaberwocky" cheer.

4/1/2006: Jones Men have won the mens race more times than any other college since there have been University-sanctioned Jones men. There should be some way to represent this that is sufficiently NPOV for Wikipedia.

5/26/2006: Jonesians knew Kalyan as Sammy.

Historical Parties

Although Bakerfeast is in Baker, this is one of the oldest Rice parties, for decades was a major campus event, and is strictly a Jones-Baker deal.

Jones has also had several major parties that were phased out after the drinking age was changed.

Jones used to have a huge outdoor Tiki-torch party called "Where the Wild Things Are" until they built Martel on the site of the party.

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png[edit]

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Richardson[edit]

2/18/04 Please edit, improve, add detail if you've got it.

-Ajeannie SRC '96

7 stories and Charter[edit]

"only 7 floors high (in accordance with the Rice charter)"

Is this really true? Isn't Brown College eight stories?

The 7 floors thing is a myth, and yes, Brown is eight stories high.

Minor things[edit]

...not being one for formal editing of Wikipedia, here are some notes:

Motto: Mors de super (death from above) see "Apocalypse Now" Color: Black Song: "Back in Black" AC/DC

...would like a note on the lottery system for rooms ...is there a suicide count for Sid? ...due to the nature of the building's structure, members must all pass through the lobby, making for a more cohesive and unified group dynamic. In the early 90's, the TV area provided a nexus for group bonding in "21 Jump Street" and "Simpsons" viewings (William Martin's son was a writer for the show at this time)

Weiss Wiess Historical Information[edit]

Someone deleted the list of previous Masters and Presidents which several contributors had compiled over time. One would think that this is exactly the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Why on earth would someone delete such information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wiess, not Weiss.

Wrong, it's Weiss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.218.79.137 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.226.3 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"College Night"[edit]

There should be more of a distinction made between College Night (a night of celebration at the college) and Pub Night (each college's night at Willy's Pub) in the "College Night" section. I'm not a Wiessman, so I can't say whether this section refers to College Night or Pub Night. Maybe someone could clarify. --Ua747sp 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup needed[edit]

This article looks more like an ad or log for all the various things that students do at this residential college. The information about the student traditions is unencyclopedic in its current form, and needs to be fixed or removed. --Coredesat talk! 06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png[edit]

The image Image:RiceU BlueSealLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baker College (Rice University) redirect[edit]

The user Madcoverboy just changed the article "Baker College (Rice University)" to redirect to here. There was a perfectly good article there before. Why was this done? SkyDot (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the colleges are not individually notable enough to have their own standalone articles. The vast majority of individual university departments are far more notable than undergraduate residences, yet they are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, so by convention individual residences at American universities don't have their own articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Moreover, as it stands, the articles are completely unreferenced and full of original research or fancruft. Wikipedia is neither a webhosting service nor a collection of indiscriminate information. I stripped out the information that might be salvaged and got rid of the non-notable content. You are more than welcome to start your own Rice wiki and store all the previous miscellaneous information there. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something you fail to realize though, madcoverboy, is that the residential colleges at Rice are more than just dorms. You list off several articles referring to other universities and their housing, but that is all they are: housing. Each college at Rice has a distinctive history and set of traditions that make them much more than just a residence hall. Each college has its own governing body and set of organizations that run day-to-day student life in the college as well as organize annual events. The college system at Rice was fashioned after Oxford and Cambridge and if you look at the articles they have for many of their colleges, a good number of them cite no sources in their history/tradition sections either. And while you may call it "miscellaneous," it's also our history. Thanks for just wading in and deleting it willy-nilly. Sothenjoesaid (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their histories and cultures area apparently not so unique and distinctive to warrant verifiable coverage from reliable sources. In any case, the residential colleges at Rice do not grant degrees like the individual colleges that constitute Oxford and Cambridge, thus you are comparing apples or oranges. If you were familiar with the college systems at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton upon which the Rice system was built, I would encourage you to used those pages as models to write an encyclopedic article rather than using Wikipedia to host the composition of every student government body in the last decade. I do not dispute that the individual colleges may possess the notability to have individual articles at some point, only that their previous state was completely inappropriate. Removing the non-notable information from each article left a stub and I was bold and decided that the college system as a whole would stand to benefit from standardization of coverage in a single location rather than continued balkanization. If you want to host "your" history, go make "your own" Wiki and put it there. If you notice the first line down below save: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Madcoverboy (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would a Northwestern grad student and MIT alumnus know anything about Rice to justify these changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.180.14.240 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's clear that at MIT and many other universities, student housing consists of just "dorms", which have few or no traditions of their own. Rice's residential college system was modeled that at Cambridge University; each college is an entity that provides more than just housing to its students. Cambridge's colleges each have their own articles. Rice's colleges are far younger than Cambridge's but do not deserve less distinction. I will begin by separating Martel College's article again, and make an effort to only include material that can be properly sourced.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 26 March 2009 (Post-dated)
Unless Rice University's residential colleges have their own faculties, conduct their own admissions, have separate endowments, charge independent tuition levels, and grant their own degrees, then your analogy and justification doesn't hold at all. I don't doubt that the residential college system has substantial identification and meaning among the student body, but individual college residences simply are not encyclopedically notable. If you want to dispute my conclusion, feel free to get a WP:3O, file a request for comment, or request informal mediation. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The individual residential colleges do not appear notable enough to justify their own articles; they are much like the individual houses of Caltech than the comparisons to Oxford's Colleges. I think that the information in this list article gives more than the appropriate amount of information about these residential colleges. Shanata (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a WP:3O and posted a comment on WT:UNI to generate further discussion. In light of the reversions being made by User:Mphornet and User:AniRaptor2001, I would request that further discussion and consensus with all of the affected articles proceed on this talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I'm with Madcoverboy on this. Just because the residential colleges have their own sets of rules and traditions and whatever does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is justified by reliable sources and verifiability. Right now, there are only two sources for a 55k page, which is unacceptable. This article should be the focal point for all the residential colleges, but it needs a lot of sourcing. And pages for each of the colleges should redirect here.—HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and reinstated the edits that redirect back to this article per consensus from 2 non-involved parties above. If there are further reverts without discussion here, I will file a WP:RFM. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any disussion prior to redirecting these articles last fall? I believe these redirects were done by Madcoverboy without consensus then. Yes, right now there are only two sources for a 55k page, which is unacceptable - but that doesn't mean they would have remained unsourced. The articles should have been tagged for improvement and time given to establish notability. The two editors mentioned above were working on the article improvement. Also, I thought that third opinion is used only when two editors are having a dispute. I think there were multiple editors involved. Personally, I have no stake in the articles - I moved the talk pages to keep the article and talk pages in sync. Go ahead and file a WP:RFM if you feel it's needed. Postoak (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believed as I believe now that I was/am justified in being WP:BOLD given my understanding of notability policy as well as wide precedent and consensus on similar articles/lists at other universities. If others would like to dispute any of these grounds, we can clear the air with some drawn-out mediation, or we can focus on improving the article right here instead of spinning out low quality content. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of similar articles? Rice was the third university after Harvard and Yale to use the residential college system. [5] How about the residential college articles at Harvard College and Yale University? Are the articles notable at these schools but just not at Rice? Are you planning to boldly combine and redirect these articles...without consensus? The Rice articles could have been cleaned up, expanded and developed in a similar manner. Postoak (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Madcoverboy was justified in performing the edits, considering that his actions were based on the lack of proper sourcing of the material in the articles and the overarching low quality of them. However, as a current student at Rice, I support Postoak's statements: the college system is an incredibly important part of student life at Rice, one that is widely considered to separate us from universities of similar ranking and scope (which in turn have inspired universities such as Vanderbilt to set up college systems of their own. The role of the colleges is integral and continues to evolve even today. I agree that articles such as this one, for Adams House at Harvard, are indicative of the treatment that Rice's colleges should receive.
On the issue of sourcing and quality; this is difficult, because much of the information available about the colleges is passed on by word of mouth from upperclassmen to incoming freshmen, during O-week and other activities. The quality of online information available varies widely; Sid Rich has nothing on its website regarding history [6], while Wiess has a somewhat detailed history [7] available. Vandalism is also quite common, the appeal of modifying another college's Wikipedia article as a prank is known to many.
I think each college should receive its own page; I think vandalism will be more easily squashed in this manner since more Martelians will be watching Martel's article, for example, rather than the long list of residential colleges, and checking to see if their college's article has been vandalized. Sources can include those from the Rice University website, individual college websites, personal blogs of Rice students and alumni, the Rice Thresher newspaper [ricethresher.org], etc. If anyone has read John Boles' (Rice's Historian) about the university's history, there will be more sourceable data in there to add to the articles. Rice's network of articles sadly does not measure up to the quality of the university, this above all must be resolved.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As several of you have pointed out, this issue of college residences having individual articles appears to be widespread and the use of lists more inconsistent than I was aware. I've filed a RFC to get other editors' feedback on how to deal with this issue of individual articles for colleges/residences/halls.
To the issue of sourcing and verifiability, many of the sources you outline fall afoul of policies on self-published sources and reliable sources like the colleges' webpages or alumni blogs are not sufficient for establishing notability. If vandalism is to be expected then I expect it would be easier to identify and revert if this was focused on one article rather than 10 or more. Wikipedia isn't a site for acting out sophmoric pranks or stuff made up one date, so don't be surprised if blocks and bans are issued as a result of vandalism to this or any other article. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy to Adams House (Harvard University) is apropos. I cannot detect any substantive difference between the article on Adams House, founded some 75 years ago, and (for example) the article on Wiess College, founded some 52 years ago. Either both should have individual articles, or neither should. The fact that one is at Harvard and one is at Rice cannot be a reason for different treatment -- and if in fact that is the unstated reason for inconsistent treatment, at least have the guts (or as some would say, BOLDness) to say so. Also, from the tone of some of Madcoverboy's posts, I am concerned that he (the principal driver of redirecting) appears to have become emotionally invested in the present discussion, and may no longer be (if ever) an objective contributor to the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Harvard, Yale, and Rice were the first universities in the United States to establish residential colleges. They are significantly different from residences or dormitories. Each college has its own assigned faculty residents, faculty associates, student government, and a budget of over $50,000 annually. Even though they may not grant degrees (just as the colleges at Harvard and Yale do not), Rice's residential colleges do offer their own courses taught by university faculty. Just like the colleges at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford, the colleges at Rice are important and distinctive enough to require their own pages. Mphornet (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As several editors have continued to point out (including myself), there is a lack of consensus on this issue across all colleges and universities. This is why I have filed the RFC which you can comment at here. I do not take kindly to others impugning my good faith in editing this or any other article and my previous edits to the Rice University article are clear evidence that I have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy. Please stop reverting edits and stop appealing to other stuff that exists because the content for this and any article needs to establish its own notability independent of any other article's existence or precedent. Please go comment on the RFC so we can establish consensus on this and similar types of articles so that we can treat Rice, Harvard, Yale, and every other university's page exactly the same. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madcoverboy's good faith was not impugned; his objectivity was. The tone of his comments (especially his ascription of praiseworthy boldness to himself, and of sophomoricness and similar traits to others) supports that concern. Purity of motive is not the same as objectivity of judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“I have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy” Madcoverboy,are you familiar with the Yuuzhan Vong? Neither was I until I started searching Star Wars pages on Wikipedia to prove this point. The Yuuzhan Vong are a fictional race from the fictional Star Wars Expanded Universe. Their Wikipedia article is full of paragraphs like this:

“There is evidence that the Yuuzhan Vong had scouted the galaxy since before the Mandalorian War: four thousand years before their initial invasion, Canderous Ordo encountered a "living asteroid that spat fire" that escaped towards the edge of the galaxy. However, the Yuuzhan Vong only began probing in force 4,000 years later, several years after the Battle of Naboo. They attacked Zonama Sekot in an attempt to steal its advanced biological technology, but the living world defeated them and Old Republic Jedi Vergere offered herself in exchange that Zonama Sekot be left undamaged.”

If you could take a break from enforcing Wikipedia policy on the pages for Rice residential colleges, and in the meantime start to do so for the Yuuzhan Vong, the authors of the Rice residential college pages would have more time to clean up their pages. The page for the Yuuzhan Vong doesn’t cite any references or sources, it needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications, its quality is compromised by peacock terms, its neutrality is disputable, it contains unverifiable claims, its notability is questionable, and it may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If the latter two problems, notability and appropriateness, apply to Rice’s residential colleges, then there is certainly no urgency in merging them or deleting them.

If you really “have no axe to grind save for equitably enforcing Wikipedia policy”, then start equitably grinding your axe against the Star Wars Expanded Universe encyclopedia within Wikipedia. Go and inform the authors of the Yuuzhan Vong that they should go and create their own Star Wars Wiki, as you suggested Rice should do for their residential colleges.

15Step (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. I edit university articles by choice, not Star Wars articles. You're welcome to fix the problem there, however. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Merging[edit]

Has a consensus actually been reached to merit this merging? This article already seems far too long. A great deal of the data in the separate articles has been reviewed and sourced. AniRaptor2001 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus, based on the Adams House analogy, seemed to be for NOT merging. Yet someone merged them (again) anyway -- and in the process, sacrificed a tremendous amount of information that was appropriate, verified, and sourced -- not to mention actually interesting to a reader hoping to learn about student life (currently and historically) in a residential college system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that the articles should be kept apart. I don't feel like any consensus was reached; arguments were posed in favor of and against keeping these articles apart. Madcoverboy went ahead and merged; I have supported the move thus far, preferring not to continue any edit warring. In order to preserve information, in case a real consensus is reached to keep the articles apart, I have turned the college's individual articles into redirects, rather than deleting, so everything's there in the histories. I feel that once properly fleshed out, a listed article can help reduce the amount of unnecessary repetition of information about the college system; if a college's section gets too big, it can become its own article. Or maybe this should have been done already. Or something. Is there any way to finally sort this out? Can we have the wikiproject draft up some guidelines on the subject, since it seems like it won't rest? AniRaptor2001 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where Georgewebb is reading this consensus or any Adams House analogy, but the consensus at the RFC was either not to issue any blanket rule and simply evaluate notability by AfD or merge the articles. I support the current version of the article that includes the high-quality contributions from other Rice editors on the respective pages while removing some of the fancruft and non-notable information (lists of RAs, non-notable traditions, etc.). I further support AniRaptor's redirects of individual articles this this article rather than nominating for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the previous versions of the article which recognized that the colleges are organizations of people, not merely buildings, and that contained information that might be interesting or useful to an educator, historian, or sociologist studying student life in a residential college environment. As for merging or not: The Adams House analogy is spelled out in black and white on this discussion page. There is clearly not a consensus for merging; therefore, the unilateral decision to merge seems heavy-handed and non-objective. Of course, a back-handed way to "justify" merging is to delete extensive worthwhile information from each section, then argue that since the only thing left is architectural data, the section cannot stand alone. One hopes that Wikipedia contributors are mature enough not to resort to this approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.226.3 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we had a fairly long and extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:UNI#Notability of college residences (residential_colleges) where some attempt at consensus was reached by both Rice editors and neutral editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, the result of that discussion is pretty obvious that there was no consenus to merge -- unless one simply ignores opinions one disagrees with, which the evidence suggests might just be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prerogative is either to merge or nominate for deletion given the lack of notability. I think merging and redirecting as AniRaptor has been doing (and I did previously) is the least painful avenue for everyone. Maybe accuse me of being a zealot a few more times and we'll see if that changes any minds. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on behavior, perhaps the shoe fits.
It is already apparent that one mind is closed to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madcoverboy, you need to find something better to do. Please refrain from a Wikipedia debate regarding a university about which you obviously know nothing. This is ridiculous. Rice's residential colleges are far more distinguished than Caltech's houses. If anything, Rice's system is most similar to Yale's, and each of Yale's colleges has its own (mostly poorly edited) page. At Rice, we matriculate as a college, and we graduate at a college. We offer our own courses every semester. We have respective associates throughout the Houston community. And yes, we do have our own budgets and endowments. Each college at Rice is distinct, and you really can't seem to grasp that. Our lives revolve around these distinctions. Come visit campus for a week, and then decide. For now, quit making sweeping, uneducated claims. Portside29 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from telling me what I can and cannot edit because Wikipedia operates first and foremost on the assumption that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Perhaps you missed the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Editors must always assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I will continue to edit this and many other university articles to improve their quality and ensure their neutrality and verifiability. Any further attacks directed against me or any other editor here engaged in good-faith improvements will be referred to WP:WQA for possible sanctions or blocking. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand, Madcoverboy, nobody is "attacking" you personally, and nobody is trying to tell you what you can and can't do. I don't think anybody really cares enough to do so. What (I think) we are collectively trying to do here is make sure that the information that represents the residential colleges is presented in the best way possible. Many incoming students, once they are notified of their college, turn to wikipedia as their first place to learn about the history and traditions of their future homes. Personally I think the reason most of us are alarmed at these changes is that they are being done by someone who has no connection to Rice. Objectivity aside, it's hard for someone like that to decide what information is "relevant" (or "Notable" as you always like to say) and what isn't. I think the people involved were doing a pretty decent job at backing up their information with sources, and until the King of Wikipedia (or equivalent) says that consensus on the topic of residential college notability has been reached, I'd say let them remain as standalone articles. The merged page is just too long. Now where is my sandwich....Sothenjoesaid (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm trying to ensure that the information is presented in the most neutral and verifiable possible way, not merely whatever happens to cast any college in a positive light. If incoming students are turning to Wikipedia to learn about their residential college, they should expect to find an encyclopedia article, not a recruitment website. As I've reiterated multiple times, if you don't like the rules about what gets to be in Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to go and start your own Wiki and put whatever you'd like in it. Moreover, I see no reason why you should be any more alarmed at me or any other unaffiliated editor making these changes than you would expect non-experts to be contributing to any other area of Wikipedia--I'd recommend Citizendium if you only want to allow experts to write articles. Contrary to your argument, not having a conflict of interest makes it decidedly more simple to evaluate what content is notable and important enough to include when I'm not having to negotiate my own biases and points-of-view. You're welcome to keep contributing the sources for content, but keep the cruft about resident associates, house masters, lists of presidents, etc. out. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madcoverboy, by no means do I think my previous comment violated the good faith policy. I was not attacking you. I was just stating my opinion. Your rampant editing of this topic (which could be interpreted as an attempt to instigate an edit war) can be viewed as just as much of an attack on other people's editing as my mere comment is regarding your own editing. Some may argue that you're in bad faith for acting omnipotent towards a subject about which you have no firsthand knowledge, and that you should have the good faith to leave the matter alone once it becomes evident that said firsthand knowledge is preferable for any further accurate editing. I agree with you completely that the page(s) should be "neutral" and "verifiable" while avoiding the format of a recruitment page, but having each college stand alone does not necessarily violate these terms. I simply don't see how this must be achieved with information about all the colleges in one long and disjointed article. Furthermore, I don't see how stuff about "resident associates, house masters, lists of presidents, etc." is considered cruft. It's not fictional. It's not fan-based mayhem. It's just simple fact. It's no different than listing the manager and owners of the Boston Red Sox on its Wikipedia page. Portside29 (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the proliferation of SPAs from Rice who generally stood in the way of sensible editing (and whose rather furious efforts to expand those articles almost never turned up reliable, independent sources) i think this merger is a happy result.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order folks. The idea that folks with "firsthand knowledge" are better adept at editing an article is false. In fact, they might, have a conflict of interest which effects their editing in a non NPOV way. I actually like editing articles I have no clue about because I make no assumptions that those firmilar with the topic might make. I also agree that this project does not need to add every "fact" out there to each article. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Anyone who is familiar with the Residential Colleges at Rice University will likely agree that they are separate, distinct, and notable. This discussion simply comes down to how much information Wikipedia should contain on the topic. I personally am of the opinion that Wikipedia should contain as much information possible on every topic, including this one. Having more information, as long as it is accurate, can only hurt if it obscures a more concise version. Generically this problem can be solved in a number of ways: (1) Detailed introductions that contain a complete and succinct summary of the article. (2) http://simple.wikipedia.org. (3) Keep a separate more detailed version of the article in addition to the concise one. Or (4), in the case of related entities, keep a page that summarizes each entity and their interactions as well as a separate page for each entity. Solution (4) is likely the best solution for this case, as anyone who doesn't care about the specifics of a single residential college would probably search for "Residential Colleges at Rice University" and arrive at the existing page, whereas those who are interested in Martel College specifically would probably not find enough detail on that page. However, if a separate page exists for "Martel College", then that would likely be the first hit when they search for it, and thus provide them with the detailed information they are looking for. I do not see any downside to this approach. Just because everyone looking at the electromagnetism page may not be interested in the the photoelectric effect doesn't mean it should be removed completely from electromagnetism; it simply means that it should be summarized in electromagnetism and link to a page devoted to it. Everybody wins. --Xepra 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a wide variety of thoughts and opinions about where to demarcate the line for including or excluding content (m:Deletionism, m:Inclusionism, m:Exclusionism, m:Delusionism, m:Precisionism), so yours is not the final word. Every article on Wikipedia must fulfill the basic notability guideline which states that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It has been exhaustively debated and demonstrated that the individual residential colleges do not fulfill the notability guideline, thus do not warrant their own articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a host for every trivial piece of information and other cruft that the editors like, so this article shouldn't be bloated up with non-notable lists of RAs, traditions, and pranks. Readers who are interested in more details or "as much information possible on every topic" whether it's Martel College or the photoelectric effect should probably go to the website and references for that college or any other topic rather than an encyclopedia article which is intended to summarize all reliable knowledge on the topic. In any case, under the policies on summary style and article size, the constituent sections of this article would need to expand substantially with neutral and verifiable encyclopedic information to justify being spun out into stand-alone articles. And for all the naysayers above about Rice being unfairly singled out, I'm already in the process of merging the Yale residential colleges into Residential colleges of Yale University, so your disenfranchisement is not nearly so unique as you'd like to believe. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page size[edit]

This page at 56 kilobytes in length is getting close to the suggested size for splitting per the rule of thumb. Maybe it is time to split out again into separate articles and turn this page into a list or delete it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that includes a lot of markup from the templates as well as references. The article as a whole still contains some content that could be better summarized, non-notable information, and other cruft. There's actually 33 kB and 5372 words of readable prose, so it's well beneath the rule of thumb. No need to spin out. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If half of the stuff in the original college articles (and I'm talking about just what was cited here) was still here the page would be over the limit. For example, college masters are a significant part of the college experience either way and all of those sections have been cut out. winstead121 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.244.0 (talk) [reply]
If you think information on miscellaneous traditions, resident associates, and college masters is important, you're welcome to start your own Rice wiki to host this information. Otherwise, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot have directories of names or other indiscriminate information like lists of previous college presidents/masters/associates, beer-bike stats, non-notable traditions, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So get to work cleaning up the hundreds of pages on wikipedia that have Masterships listed as important characterstics. Start here with Amartya Sen a nobel prize winner who has details about his mastership in the MAIN part of his bio. Winstead121 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free images on this article[edit]

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

  • The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
  • Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
  • If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 10:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ΔT, you are wrong on this. The article is not a list article, but resulted from a merger of many college articles, which in themselves would have had a logo/shield. The logos are each only used once on Wikipedia, and that is on this article, and only show about one per screen. I would be happy for the bigger ones to be shown a bit smaller, and the McMurty logo has other explanatory material and so is unsuitable. The point of logos is to identify and promote a separate identity for the organisation. The use here is as intended by the creators of the logos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a list article and they are not acceptable, do not re-insert them or you may be blocked. ΔT The only constant 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see WP:NFLISTS as covering this. Please stop edit warring over this, or you may be blocked. —Kusma (t·c) 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ is quite right. The idea that an article is really just a collection of little articles has been debated repeatedly, and always fails. It doesn't fly. If an article has sufficient sourced material to stand on its own, then an identifying logo is appropriate. If it doesn't, such that it gets merged like this, there's precious little argument that the overt overuse of non-free images is warranted. The use of non-free images on this article places it in the top 0.002% of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free media use. That's extreme. Extreme use requires extreme justification. Our mission is to develop a free license encyclopedia. Adding non-free content detracts from that, and needs to be strongly justified. WP:NFCC #3 implores use to keep use to a minimum. Having 12 non-free images doesn't adhere to that in any shape or form. The arguments used here could be just as well used for discography articles where there are no (or few) individual articles for albums by a particular artist. It doesn't fly there, it doesn't fly here. What would be considerably more useful and in line with our free content mission is photographing each of these residential colleges, complete with (if visible) de minimis representations of the crests on the building or on installed signage. There are photos here for some of the colleges, but not all. The non-free images have to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially the old and tired "one fair use image per article" argument, which could easily be defeated by turning the individual college sections into articles of their own. For absolutely no gain other than meeting a technical standard of "minimality". However, what is minimal is not one, but zero non-free images per article... —Kusma (t·c) 15:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. There is no set minimum or maximum number of non-free images permitted in an article. Also incorrect as to the separate/joint articles argument. As I noted, if there's enough sourced material to stand on its own then sure create an article, and there the significance/notability of the subject is strong enough to warrant the crest. Not here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rice College[edit]

Citation needed regarding Albert Patrick college? This started in spring of 1989 by residents of the 80's and 90's. I was in room 271 that year; can give names of founding members if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable68 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Jones Crest.png[edit]

The file File:Jones Crest.png, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Jones Crest.png. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Residential colleges of Rice University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Residential colleges of Rice 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sid quarantine housing[edit]

I think it would be valuable to include Sid's role as the quarantine house for students during pandemic during the fall semester, as well as the fact that its students are divided into McMurtry, Wiess, Duncan, and Brown. Construction for New Sid will be finished by the end of the year and its students will move in in the spring semester. Also, Radio Free Sid is from 4 - 7, not 3 - 6. -Angelalin79 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelalin79 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation[edit]

I believe the author did a good job in explaining the residential colleges and their individual history, characteristics, and traditions to people who don't quite know Rice University. It first starts with an overview on the residential college system in Rice Univerisity, and then it later introduces each college in a similar logic. There are a number of pictures that are well arranged to bring a better vision to the audience. I would have to point out that several pieces of information are no longer up-to-date. Considering such introductory passage are usually long and includes a lot of history, it is a good idea to introduce each college with a single, brief but conclusive sentence that is made the focus for each college. HRSun04 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Residential_colleges_of_Rice_University&oldid=1208841929"