Jump to content

Talk:List of University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign people

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

Category versus list

[edit]

I created a category Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni and gave John Bambenek the honor of being the first person in the category (adding it to the 8 he was already listed in). Every person on this list should also be added to the category.

As for the list, I agree that we should discuss some guidelines for inclusion. I have to leave for work now but if no one else kicks off the discussion, I'll try something tonight. -- DS1953 talk 14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youtube?

[edit]

someone should add something about the youtube founders. it looks like two of the three went to UIUC.

see YouTube and article on cs.uiuc.edu

Kaiken 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My Recent Changes

[edit]

I made several changes to this page. I am new to wikipedia, so I don't know all the ground rules.

To begin, I added a section for academia. I intend to add one more name for a former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

I alphabetized the categories. I think this makes the page more user friendly.

I added a few names within politics and business. The questionable adds include the U.S. Ambassadors and the CFO of McDonald's. The U.S. Ambassadors both received the UIAA Alumni Achievement Award. In the eyes of the University, they are notable.

I am not sure if we should reserve the business section for CEO's and founders or if we should add CFO's and COO's. These positions are normally considered the #2 spot within the corporation. I want to hear other opinions on this issue.

--H.al-shawaf 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add something for CEO's, CFO's specifically. CEO's come and go, even if they're founders. A founder is a founder forever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernode3 (talk • contribs)
I think CEOs are important if the company is important or large, or some other criterion. CFO's and COO's though, not so much. -- Superdosh 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the list should be limited to leaders of large, well recognized corporations or business entities. I am happy with deleting Paull (CFO McD's) if we collectively decide to stick to the CEO criteria. --H.al-shawaf 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brinker

[edit]

Does Nancy Brinker belong in business? She seems more like an activist. Plus, her role as an ambassador probably qualifies her as a diplomat.H.al-shawaf 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Brinker over ten years later. H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who attended, but didn't graduate

[edit]

Perhaps a category should be included for those who attended the school but did not graduate? Right now, it is simply divided into faculty and alumni, which leaves out those who didn't get their degree but could still be considered "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people."--Gloriamarie 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, go for it.H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RM of uncited

[edit]

I dropped all names that were redlinked and uncitedm as being unable to pass WP:V, and therefore unable to pass WP:NOTABLE. Please don't add them back until they can either have a wikiarticle (which mean they have passed WP:NOTABLE or you can find a reliable source to pass WP:V Justinm1978 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make massive changes without discussing the issue first. I believe you violated wiki policy by doing so. I have verified all the names in read through the university of illinois alumni association database. I will include a reference in this article to the database. Other University of Illinois alumni will be able to verify the content. If you have issue with this. Let's discuss it here and find what citations are necessary. I will also point out there is a a [citation needed] code you can use in the future. This is less obtrusive and less annoying than a massive delete.H.al-shawaf (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I clearly followed WP:V: "Don't just put a citation needed tag on something, remove it, and make the person with the claim prove their claim." Also, per WP:PROVEIT, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. " Therefore the burden lies with you to not bring them back without proper citation. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find sources that meet verifiability standards. If you are concerned, then you should help too. I don't want these names of notable people to be lost. I will also note that WP:NOTABLE is for articles themselves, not for content within articles. Wilma Vaught for example is in the National Women's Hall of Fame, but has no wikipage. She is relevant to the context of this article, list of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people. She also deserves a page of her own at some point when an editor concerned with women's issues gets around to it.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you find them notable, then create a wikipage, otherwise they don't belong on a list. Being afraid of losing the information is not reason to keep them on, because if they're notable then the information should be easy to find proving they attended UIUC. Notability applies to the contents of the article, especially to lists as they are ideally a collection of pointers to other articles. Please see List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) for an excellent example of what a "list of people" looks like and includes.Justinm1978 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, a section with , or the article with or . Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page.[2]

"Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons."

I don't believe you followed WP:V policy. You should request a source for information, leave the request for a reasonable amount of time, discuss the issue, and then delete the page. That has been my own experience on wikipedia.

I'm going to seak a third party. I don't think you are correct in this regard. There are red wiki links across many pages. This in and of itself does not justify red wiki links. However, the red wiki links suggest that a page should be created. Wikipedia is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. Red links signal the encyclopedia's incompleteness. Second, people in this article may not necessarily need their own article, however they are notable enough for inclusion on this list. You should discuss someones notability before deleting the article. Please see the above discussion on John Bambanek as an example.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I welcome a third party, but your argument of "There are red wiki links across many pages" falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If they don't need their own article or even a reference, then how are they considered notable? You will notice that I didn't delete the redlinks that had a reference next to them. Yes, wikipedia is incomplete and will never be complete. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it correct/factual. Everyone who was deleted was just listed with no verifiable claim to notability. This is a fairly strong pillar of wikipedia, as noted by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, who said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Provide a reliable source and the additions are welcome, even if they don't have an article. No source, no go. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to roll. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pages needs some more references. I agree with you on this point. However, I will rerefer you to this text. "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long". That implies unrefrenced material can be on the page for a reasonable time to give editors a chance to verify.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Disagreement on the inclusion of various people. Do lists require all items within the list to have a wiki page? Disagreement over the citation needed versus delete functions. Can items in a page have a citation needed tag for an amount of time or must they be deleted immediately. Disagreement over deletion policy. Should discussion occur before deletion?" H.al-shawaf (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

While I agree that a great many of the redlinked people should be removed, the ones with sources should stay. It's not necessarily the case that every person with a redlink isn't notable - it could just be that no one has gotten around to writing an article about that person yet. I don't really see the harm in doing the following:

The difference here is that I removed the brackets from around the name. There's a reference there that clearly points out that he's an alumnus, so I think he should be included - but not linked. Is this a good solution? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just wanted to point something out. WP:REDLINK is the Wiki policy on redlinks, and it says that "it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about a notable and verifiable subject." I'm of the opinion that the people who are truly notable - that is, can be backed up with references - should be kept on the list as redlinks. But if the redlinks are really that offensive, then they can be removed as per my advice above. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be a dick, but I think that's pretty much what I was doing. The redlinks I didn't remove were ones that had a cite. Thanks for the outside opinion... Justinm1978 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the providing wikipedia policy on this issue. We should use caution with red links moving forward. However, an outright ban on red links is not required. Can you also shed light on citation needed versus immediate delete? Justinm has cited some policy that indicates immediate delete. I have cited some policy for leaving the citation needed tag for a reasonable amount of time.H.al-shawaf (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more of a question of personal preference. In normal articles, I'll tag a sentence with the fact tag if I think that there's a chance that it can be proven, and I'll give other editors the chance to add a source. For an article like this, I think I would err on the side of caution by first tagging them with fact, waiting a few days, and then removing them. I'd save outright deletion for vandalism and the like. Alternatively, you could create a list here on the talk page of people who have been removed and say, "When you can find a source that links this person to the school, add them and the source back into the list." It really depends on what you guys want to do. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "El Pollo Loco Names President". QSR Magazine. 2001-04-10.

Standards

[edit]

The above discussion prompts me to ask that we put some standards on what we define as notable, lest another issue such as the John Bambenek thread of above happen. I propose the following standards for defining who goes in this list (both must be met):

If a wikiarticle does not exist, one should be created, even if it is a stub with very basic information.

I'm aware that other lists don't follow this, but that's not a valid argument against establishing standards. I'd like to see this get to FL status at some point, and putting stuff that fails the above two tests won't get it there, and starts to cross into the realm of wikipedia not being a directory. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of standards, let's keep a section in this talk page for people that need verification before they are included in the actual article. I need your help transfering the names you previously deleted to the talk page. Editors can team up and find verifiable sources to reinclude them within the article. Does that sound fair? It sounds like a good compromise to me.H.al-shawaf (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's pretty much an ideal use of talk pages. I'm in agreement to do it that way. We could probably archive all of the other talk stuff here that is a bit old and go from there. Justinm1978 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we came to an agreement. I look forward to working with you on this page. I am an accountant and this is busy season, so I hope you appreciate my efforts. I'm already putting in 60+ hour weeks at work. How do we archive talk content?H.al-shawaf (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced UIUC people

[edit]

After some debate, unsourced UIUC people were moved here. An editor can move the people back to the main page if the editor includes a valid citation.H.al-shawaf (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering

[edit]

Military

[edit]

Politics

[edit]

Art

[edit]

I found a ref for Vivian Zapata and moved her name back to the article page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Lou-boudreau.jpg 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. --08:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign people. 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) 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_University_of_Illinois_Urbana-Champaign_people&oldid=1256996408"