Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 19 May 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas City This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Why exactly are we in Wikiproject Missouri when MANC/MNU is in Olathe, Kansas? I've changed the tag to Kansas...

Contact info removal

(from Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory) This in an official policy. Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Misplaced Pages articles are not:

1. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Misplaced Pages is not the yellow pages . User:Aepoutre 12:57 June 20, 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Mnulogo.JPG

Image:Mnulogo.JPG 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Leads are introductory summaries of their respective articles, which means there shouldn't be information there that isn't in the body of the article and it shouldn't need citations. Other recent issues: don't delete the comment and source about Mid-America Nazarene College vs. MidAmerica Nazarene College. That was placed as the result of an earlier edit dispute -- removing it is not only in bad taste but fairly contrary to Misplaced Pages's improvement policies. King of the Arverni (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding other issues:

1 - It's not necessary to say "MidAmerica" in the lead. That's "common knowledge." One says "Northeastern" for Northeastern University or "Northwestern" for Northwestern University; the only confusion could be with reference to the abbreviation (NU, versus NEU or NWU, much like MNU instead of MANU).

2 - What's not common knowledge is the fact that "Mid-America Nazarene College" had a hyphen. There's been dispute between editors in the past, and the current name doesn't use the hyphen, eliminating any obvious assumptions.

3 - Leads are not "beefed up" by moving content complete with citations to the lead. See above and learn your MOS.

4 - There's no need to bold former names throughout the article. It's often referred to as "excessive".

5 - Cited information on student life was inexplicably removed.

6 - Color information was cited, and your changes did nothing to improve the article, if not serving to worsen it.

While I'd like to avoid any ad hominem assertions, it might now be fair to say that these and like edits are disruptive and destructive. Please stop. King of the Arverni (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of Lead Sections... 1) There can be citations in a lead section. (i.e. University of Oklahoma has about 8 references, and many, many, many, many, many, more articles have refences in the lead including many Featured Articles). I doubt you will delete Oklahoma's lead section to merely The University of Oklahoma is state university in Norman, Oklahoma. Also ENC has a very nice lead, which has some of the very same information that I put into MidAmerica's lead...So be consistent. Because of not removing every reference in every university article lead, and deleting information (which is in other University's lead's) instead of helping making it better, I feel like you are singling me out. 2) On the issue of MNU's Colors...white is a tertiary color, therefore I listed it last, that switch is not that big of a deal and is not harming the article at all. For it was my editing that gave it color boxes, which is an improvement. White is used a background color. Regardless of preferrence the MNU website list them in that order. Red, Blue, and White, oh I'm sorry, Scarlet, Royal, then White. Or we could go by a third party source from the HAAC at MidAmerica or MNU, in which case it would be Royal, Scarlet and White, both proving that this is a trival issue, and that white is list last on two websites. Typically a third color means it is an accent (i.e. School colors) 3) Ok so you don't like my lead, that's fine, but fix it, and edit it, instead of deleting it. (i.e. good are 2-3 paragraphs.) 4) And use the good faith rule. So you don't like some content, and or you think it needs a source, well if I, Moonraker0022, but it on there, I can assure you that I put it on there to improve the article, whether it be SNU, OU, MNU, ENC, or other. So again, instead of deleting it automatically, use a {{Fact}} tag, for my edits are non-controversial, and non-harmful in natural. (i.e.unsourced material).

I'll use points again, to keep it clear and organized:

1 - Correct, leads can have citations, but that's not the case at hand. Material was removed from the body of the article, citations included, and moved to the lead. That makes it not a summary or an introduction, since it includes information not in the body of the article. The citation comment was just a side note to help you better understand the difference. I apologize if it was confusing.

2 - Just because some articles employ certain techniques doesn't mean they meet the highest standards of Misplaced Pages policy. Many editors experienced in the featured article process are aware that even those articles, especially older ones, are not perfect.

3 - No, I wouldn't advise such a change. But the edits we discuss didn't improve the lead as an introductory summary but rather removed material from the body and placed it in the lead.

4 - I'm not singling you out; I'm citing Misplaced Pages guidelines to an editor who, in this case, didn't appear to follow them.

5 - If merely adding information were adequate improvement then we could throw out WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV and a host of other guidelines. It is good when editors add information if it follow the guidelines of this encyclopedia.

6 - "For it was my editing that gave it color boxes" might sound like WP:OWN to some. We should both stay away from any personal assertions; the issue at hand is the only relevant one.

7 - The article already uses a third-party source for that content, so there's no need to propose the use of one, but I applaud the effort.

8 - I respect the "edit don't delete" rationale -- I've used it many times myself -- but every editor is held to the same standards. Similarly, an editor should make a good lead according to the definition of a lead, not add PR-like information to "beef it up" and then demand other editors fix it.

9 - MNU isn't long enough for a lead of more than 2-3 sentences. You're right, I should just make a better lead myself, just as I've worked to add most of the information and sources.

10 - Uncited information, according to policy (WP:V again), can be deleted at any time. It's on every {{unreferenced}} tag.

11 - Also according to Misplaced Pages policy (WP:V yet again), it's the burden of the original editor to add sources for his/her information. This is also known as "the burden of proof". Adding information and demanding that another find sources for it isn't the way it works. Each editor should be making an effort to follow WP:V.

I trust this is fairly clear, but please let me know if there's any other confusion. I truly am sorry for what may have seemed like a red herring regarding the citations in the lead. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: the order of the colors, and its reversion, were part of an undo. You're right, it's of little consequence -- so why are you complaining about it? King of the Arverni (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of uncited information is acceptable; crippling sentence structure in a vindictive mood because one feels "singled out" is not. This is especially not in good faith considering the hidden personal messages in lieu of any response on the talk page. Please stop. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the sentence was crippled. There was still a subject and a predicate after the removal of some text.Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit left a noun, Moonraker. That's not a sentence. Try reading it again and you might see what I mean. King of the Arverni (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Athletics logo

Explanation for recent edit:

1) Both are unnecessary and serve to overwhelm a start-class article. The article needs more content and sources, if anything.

2) Mnupioneers.png is:

a) a PNG image

b) directly from and .

3) MNUpioneers.jpg is:

a) a JPEG

b) only from Facebook, an inferior source to

c) rationale for latter image as "gender neutral" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the "former logo" (which is available at ), since it's the former logo.

I trust this is adequate explanation for any interested parties :) --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, but start articles grow into larger ones, so why not keep it as it expands.Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Add it after it expands if it ever does. One cannot assume that it will. Granted, I still think two are unnecessary, even if it does. Pointing out that fact was only one more reason to remove it. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

notable people

How is the notable person notable? It isn't really notable. Maybe you but to someone outside of ENC, he's really not. So I suggest removal. Just because you think he is notable because he has written one book, doesn't mean that he is. Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Be more specific. And I'll remind you that any concerns about the notability of an existing biographical article aren't relevant to this article but to that one. King of the Arverni (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

notable in the since of their contribution or 'legacy' to MNU. Snowbarger is, but not sure about your first guy. For the reason he doesn't teach there. He'd be more notable at ENCs. At any rate, there are people of greater note who have come from MNU's loins. Let's look for those, like Dr. James Dobson and his father. (since they have a building named after them), Also Vince Snowbarger's tag insufficient, he's claim to fame would not be on faculty at MNU but being a US Rep. (note how I don't just delete your edits because I don't think he is not notable, but am creating a discussion).Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Distance from Kansas City

The 15 miles is debatable. On any given map it depends on what part of Kansas City you are going toward. Following I-35 into downtown it is a distance of 19.34 miles, but goes east, then the distance is only 10 miles. So I suggest adding back in the phrase about 20 miles from downtown Kansas City, as it has been in the past. This way people now what part of Kansas City they would be traveling to or from. My source is a map of Kansas City Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a map of Kansas City, that's the Google Maps page. King of the Arverni (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, I wasn't sure if this was a proposal or not, but I can say that I just reverted the 20 miles edit because the 15 miles is based on RS. Wouldn't have a problem but that one can't just change sourced information. Example: If the hypothetical New Student Encyclopedia says that all MNU student poop in the morning and one person adds "MNU students poop in the morning"<ref>New Student Encyclopedia</ref>, then someone else can't change it to "MNU students pee in the morning" and keep the New Student Encyclopedia as source -- the information no longer reflects the source. Now, if someone were to do some research, besides what I did earlier to find the RS that says 15 miles, then it might be a different story. I also removed the other uncited sentence -- normally, I would've added a {{citation needed}} in that situation because I thought it was interesting, but I didn't want to risk another overzealous edit like this. It's no big deal, I guess, since it didn't meet V anyway. King of the Arverni (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the map. measure the distance between two points. You don't need a source for common information such as when you cite scripture, and a map is public domain, have you actually been to Kansas City to know how to get from MNU to downtown KC? Or that the city of Kansas City extends south making it only 10 mile from point to point. It's a map. It doesn't need a source, public domain.Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1 -- The link to map above isn't RS but the same thing I'd see if I visited http://maps.google.com. I express concerns the significance of that 5-mile difference in the face of RS.

2 -- "Citing scripture," as in John 14:6? I'd like to see where WP:V mentions exceptions for "scripture" and/or "common knowledge."

3 -- One's own knowledge/POV does not account for others, hence WP:V and WP:NPOV, not "common knowledge."

4 -- It doesn't matter if an editor has been to Kansas City. Comments reveal strong non-NPOV. Again, I challenge the significance of that 5-mile difference in the face of RS.

5 -- "Public domain" is not the same as "common knowledge".

6 -- It must be shown here that distance/maps are exempt from WP:V to support previous statements.

7 -- Editor's recent edit summary was disingenuous, since it changed the distance (the subject of this dispute) but referred to the architecture. The edit to which it summary did refer was also improper because the claim wasn't cited; even if the source was "already up there" somewhere, it wasn't used a citation for the claim.

Moonraker, please stop reverting improper edits, making edits with misleading edit summaries, and failing to meet WP:V. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not misleading to say that it is about 20 miles from downtown Kansas City. I am making the statement more accurate. Also if you write any academic paper public domain things like the Bible do not need to be referenced in your citation page. Dude, just zoom in on Kansas City, it's flash so the site doesn't work like that. Also, you are getting your information from a "find out about your college" type site which heavily takes it's information from the MNU site, if not Misplaced Pages it's self. I ask you which I have said before, does every statement need a a reference? No. The coronations of MNU are given already. Moonraker0022 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)http://www.mnu.edu/about/introduction.php

These statement are incorrect. Do not intentionally misrepresent the facts.

1 -- The edit summary in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=MidAmerica_Nazarene_University&diff=290751222&oldid=290720201) referred to the architecture and inappropriately altered other information in dispute here.

2 -- The distance information comes from a notable Encyclopedia. See MidAmerica Nazarene University#Notes and references for http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9312496/Mid-America-Nazarene-College "Mid-America Nazarene College." Britannica Student Encyclopædia. 22 April 2009.

3 -- I've already answered your question with a yes.

I will ask you one last time to please stop editing this way, Moonraker. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From User talk:Arverniking#MNU:

Look, I gave points on the talk page, I even gave sources from MNU, and a MAP. Stop reverting all my edits, and calling me a vandal. We need to get into some WP:DR Moonraker0022 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked another editor to take a look. Your edits were not sufficient. 19 (the new source) is not 20 (your claim) and 15 comes from an independent, reliable, third-party source, an encyclopedia. If you'd read WP:V any of the times I offered you the link, you'd know the difference. --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Original post and my response. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is about. We have two sources (I am not including Google Maps; that seems too much like WP:SYN and WP:OR to me) that are only 1 mile off. Personally, I'd go with the institution's information as it seems a bit more specific than the Britannica source. Without having any knowledge of these two sources, I would also initially place a bit more trust in the institution's website than a "student enyclopedia" written by authors unknown. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First: I agree with the map bit. I disagree with the Encyclopedia Britannica bit, since I'd consider that a more independent and reliable WP:SOURCE (it is third party per that guideline). Does that encyclopedia not have a "reputation for fact-checking?" I believe I sent you a link, Kev, that shows it's at least for students not by students or anything, in case that was a concern, and commented that it made sense that there would be an MNU article there instead of the regular encyclopedia.

Second: All that said, it's occurred to me that Moonraker's "let's do both" idea would apply marvelously to this! I propose a sentence like:

The 110-] (45 ]) ] is located in ], about 15-20 miles from ], ].<ref name="brit"/><ref></ref>

That would use both sources, establish the "squishy" (my word) distance that Moonraker refers to (depending on the approach apparently, although I prefer as the crow flies, which is probably what the Encyclopedia Britannica uses), and -- most importantly -- not use one source that says 15 miles while allowing the content to say 20, or another source that says 19 while still allowing the content to say 20. I still strongly adhere to WP:V in all cases; if it says 19 then it must be 19, unless we're actually establishing a range based upon two conflicting sources like I'm proposing here. I really like this idea, so I'd love to hear Moonraker's thoughts on it, as well as others'. I'm so glad that we took some time to cool off and think about more creative options! King of the Arverni (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Kansas articles
• Unknown-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• Start-Class Kansas City articles
• Unknown-importance Kansas City articles