Talk:Aggie Bonfire leadership

United States: Texas / Texas A&M Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Proposed deletion

Why the heck is this being proposed for deletion. It is part of A&M History and will be linked from at least the Aggie Bonfire page and the Corps of Cadets page. There is nothing WP:WALL pertains to in this context and it will be expanded upon, but probably not right now. It is ridiculous to delete something that has existed for mere hours. Give it a chance to be expanded & referenced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential articles to use for citations

<ref name="lebas2000">{{citation|last=LeBas|first=John|title=Bonfire design evolution fueled by informal techniques|newspaper=Bryan-College Station Eagle|date=[[November 13]], [[2000]]|accessdate=2007-08-22|url=http://www.theeagle.com/bonfire/storyarchive/november2000/111300bonfireevolution.htm}}</ref>

This article is a subpage

...of Aggie Bonfire and covers details not included in the main article. The information contained here is not on the Aggie Bonfire page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I knew you'd remove those tags almost immediately. Both were added in relation to issues multiple people noted in the AfD. The Ref improve not only covers needing more references, but the need for more outside references. There are whole chunks of the article that appears to be unsourced. I added the tone because the article does not appear to conform to the MOS, and jumps tense from past to present. As there no longer is a true Aggie Bonfire, my thinking is that it should all be past tense, though if the unofficial ones are going to be included, it should all be present tense unless its a deprecated aspect. There also needs to be improvement to show that it is a subarticle of Aggie Bonfire, both here and in the main article, as right now it is still not apparent. The main article link at the top looks off and I don't think that is the right one to use. Being a sub should be established in the lead section as part of its context. There also needs to be a brief introduction to the whole Bonfire thing, for those who may not want to go read the whole article. Tone was the closest tag to represent thtat. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book written about Aggie Bonfire that I haven't had time to finish going through yet. Sometime in the next week or two I'll try to flip through it and find proper citations for the uncited material. I also agree that it needs a rewrite. We always intended to do that but never came back, so this is a good prodding to do so. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the tags is that they didn't apply without an explanation (one even specifically states to "see the talk page"). Given the failure of the AfD, you seemed to tag it with the same issues that were rejected to delete the article. It seemed vindictive in nature as a reprisal for the AfD failure (not saying it was vindictive only my general impression). The explanation provided here is certainly more descriptive and, in retrospect, I could have simply requested such an explanation here.

Can you please use a {{fact}} tag on the sections you believe need additional references? I only see the majority of one paragraph and then a single sentence without a reference. The given references are from all over.

As for the tone, I'll tackle that later if Karanacs doesn't tackle it first (BQZip01) 131.44.121.252 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got time, BQ, please fix the tone issues. I've gotten sucked into WP:FAC this week and I haven't quite fought my way out of it ;) Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing vindictive about it, and for someone trying to be an admin, you should don't seem to assume good faith very often. The issues were brought up in the AfD, however those issues had nothing to do with whether it was deleted or not, only noting problems with the article in relation to why it was up for deletion (namely its notability as a standalone article). When an article survives an AfD, if is very common to tag it with issues brought up by the AfD. I'm not going to clutter up the article with 20-30 (or more) fact tags when one refimprove tag is cleaned and works better. If a reference is meant to apply to a whole paragraph, that needs to be made clearer (perhaps by writing the paragraph to improve flow and cohesion). P.S. please sign in :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't sign in from work (network issues), so, sorry.

As for adding the tags, fine by me. Seems like a reasonable explanation overall, but I have not seen this "practice" before. If you "knew I was going to" do it, then why not tell me what you did (not saying this was a requirement)? r explain your actions on the talk page (as one of the templates requires)? It sounds like you baited me or set a trap (again, "sounds like"; I'm willing to be wrong here).

Can you please explain exactly what isn't referenced? You keep claiming that, but you won't provide specifics. Can you please tell me where references should be placed? I'm really confused on this one. I've always been taught that placing a reference at the end of a paragraph indicates that the said reference applies to an entire paragraph (and no one has seen a problem with this method in many FACs in which I have participated). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a trap, but I figured you'd undo it and didn't think you'd care what explanation was given. For references, as I said above, the issue may be helped by fixing the writing. Right now, several paragraphs feel like disparate sentences tossed together, making it hard to tell they are sourced by the same item. A reference can added to the end to apply to the whole paragraph, but the writing needs to flow together to help so that. Um...if you can't sign in, doesn't that mean your employer doesn't like people being here and editing while at work? :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera, please remember to assume good faith. It seems very argumentative to state your presumption that BQ would remove the tags no matter what explanation you gave. Since you did not give an explanation, we will never know. Generally, it is best to place a notice on the article talk page when placing such a tag. That allows any interested party to try to improve the article in response to the objection, and/or to discuss the objection here. Johntex\^talk 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]