Jump to content

Talk:Gatke Hall

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

Irrelevant information

[edit]

What exactly is the relevance of the information " ... In February 2007, 20 year-old Christopher Curry leaped out of a second story window of the building while trying to elude police. He was apprehended in a nearby building and arrested by Oregon State Police. ..."? I mean the historic significance of this incident for the building which makes it relevant enough to be included in an encyclopedic article? It maybe "sourced info" because it's based on a verifiable piece of news, but apart from that it has zero relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. An encyclopedic article is not a collection of any references ever published about a topic in any media or other source. In writing encyclopedic articles, we try to separate the relevant from the nonrelevant information. --Uwe 12:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if there was an article on Norris Hall at Virginia Tech, then there would be no mention of the shooting, right? Cause the hall had nothing to do with it, right? Aboutmovies 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when we edit articles, we try not to inadvertantly remove pictures. Aboutmovies 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the Virginia Tech shooting is highly relevant on itself (consequently, it has its own Wikipedia article). The shooting is a significant event in the history of the university and the respective building, an event that will be remembered for decades. There will be annual memorial services, and probably commemorative plaques, at each of the buildings involved. All of that is not to be expected for somebody jumping out of the window of a building. Consequently, this soon-to-be-forgotten incident has no relevance for the building. --Uwe 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So only things that will long be remembered and memorialized should be included? Damn, I've got a lot of AFDs to go get right on as that should eliminate about half the articles on Wikipedia. It is relevant as anyone on campus will remember the events that included the jumping out of the window. It lead to increased security on campus, the purchase of new software by the university to be able to lock all buildings (a purchase made more relevant by the VT incidents months later), oh and it made the newspaper. What is relevant to one is not going to be relevant to another, it is a subjective item. Notability is subjective too, that is why there are guidelines set up for notability that require reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability. So just because you think it is not relevant does not mean it is not relevant. Same with me argueing that it is relevant does not make it relevant. But don't you think someone from the area has a little better idea about the relevance than someone nine time zones away? It would be like me trying to say something regarding the Reichstag was not relevant based only on my subjective view of a historic building I've only seen pictures of.
Adding a small piece of information such as this, pared down from a lenghty article that delved into the fact that recent rains had softened the ground which probably prevented any injury, meets the goals of WP:BTW and meets the goal of branching out. Now had there been an entire paragraph that also talked about why the person was running, the type of car he had stolen, who caught him, where he was caught, etc. then I would agree that most of that info should not been in the article. But an event such as this that has has lasting repercussions does merit inclussion as relevant. Aboutmovies 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "don't you think someone from the area has a little better idea about the relevance than someone nine time zones away?" question highlights the relevance between your and my understanding of relevance. For me, encyclopedic relevance is different from and goes beyond personal or local relevance. But as your concept of relevance is so prevalent in the English Wikipedia, I rest my case. Don't forget to write the 2007 Gatke Hall Window jumping Incident article. --Uwe 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you really do have a different sense of relevance. For you Wikipedia would be just like a paper encylopedia and there would be no room for articles on topics such as Anne Beverley, DJ Large, Thalía (2002 album), Itiquira Falls, Hanthawaddy bando system, Joel Skinner, Arizona State Route 389, DHJ58, Donebach, Oklahoma Sooners football, and even Gatke Hall to name a few articles that would not make it into an encyclopedia based on world relevance. Aboutmovies 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not talking about world relevance here. My point is that encyclopedic relevance of a topic or an issue is to be defined by a significant amount of interest which runs across geographical, historical or sociological boundaries. In other words, encyclopedic relevance is defined by a significant number of people who are, or who may reasonably assumed to be, interested in a specific topic or fact, independent of their educational or demographical background or independent of their age, sex, religion, political beliefs, location and other factors. That definition leaves plenty of room for most articles which you mention. Having said that, based on this definition I still fail to see any relevance of the 2007 Gatke Hall Window jumping Incident (gosh, it's still red?!). As we have to agree to disagree on this issue, it's EOD for me here. --Uwe 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye bye. By the way the red linked article would not meet naming guidelines, it would have to be 2007 Gatke Hall window jumping incident, and it would not be an article as it does not meet notability guidelines (which are different from relevance). Aboutmovies 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gatke Hall. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gatke Hall. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gatke_Hall&oldid=1202225992"