Talk:Public Achievement

As we create this Wikipedia article, it would be useful if we could start this talk page. Given the democratic principles embedded in Public Achievement, it makes sense for the article to have more individuals and their ideas/contributions involved. Kuhnemi (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we create a new first section titled "Definition" before the "History" section? Kuhnemi (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked this article for some time. It is good to see it expanded. However, although there are hyper-linked sources, it would be good to create a list of references.

Also, we really need to add some media to this page. I know that there are dozens of us out there taking photographs and digital video of the work. I'll try to do something yet this spring, but others are welcomed to try and add their own media. Go to the [Image use policy] policy page for detailed information about acceptable use of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhnemi (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Improve This Article

This is my call to all Public Achievement folks: we need to improve this article and allow the Wikipedia: Featured Article Criteria to guide the way. Here are some starting points that I commit to doing:

1) PA in the USA. We could add all of the work being done through AASCU and the ADP. A listing, for instance, of all of the AASCU institutions involved in PA would be great (complete with links to their sites if available). This would add a bit of arugula zing to this otherwise iceburg-lettuceish article:)

2) Photographs. We should add photographs of the good Dr. Boyte (complete with the appropriate tam), as well as a photograph of PA youth in the US and another photo of PA youth elsewhere (I know that I have seen great photographs, for instance, from Palestine). To add images requires persistence and knowledge of Wikipedia: Image use policy.

Alas, I do not have this material at hand (except for photographs from the Republic of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which I might yet add). Care to share? Crumbit (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (capitalising "Achievement")

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Public Achievement. Currently, the article has an unnecessary disambiguation. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public achievement (US civic scheme) → Public Achievement (US civic scheme) – The article concerns a specific named initiative founded in the United States, so it ought to be capitalised along the usual lines: "Public Achievement (US civic scheme)"
Note: I have recently moved the article to restore the qualifier "(US civic scheme)". The present RM is not intended to establish that move as a fait accompli (which might be an unfair manipulation). It would be reasonable to consider the retention of that qualifier here as well. The qualifier may be technically and pedantically redundant; but no interests are harmed by retaining it; and the interests of a proportion of readers will be served. Noetica^Tea? 23:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – can I reserve judgement until the article has at least one secondary source to give a clue that anyone refers to it as anything? If I don't see a source, I'd rather go with AfD; for now, I'll put a note tag... and the lead says it's a "type of project", not a specific named something. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair, Dicklyon. I was basing my suggestion to capitalise on wording and external sources (irregularly cited in the article) that have just now been edited out. I would not object, as things stand, to a deletion instead. Noetica^Tea? 02:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica's and Dicklyon's comments sound sensible.

Tony (talk)

02:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Public Achievement, where it was until yesterday. This is a specific named project of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at Augsburg College[1][2] and certainly a proper name. The proposed qualifier, aside from being completely unnecessary per WP:PRECISE, is incorrect in that it's not purely a U.S. project (headers from version before recent edits: "Expansion of Public Achievement internationally", "Public Achievement in the Middle East"), and if it were we wouldn't be using "US" without periods/full stops, or "scheme", which has nefarious undertones in AmE. Station1 (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Station1, till yesterday it was at Public achievement (lower case). And if it is not a specifically US initiative, a qualifier is still desirable for the reasons implicit above: typical readers will have no idea what the topic is, unless some qualifier is retained. Neither WP:PRECISE nor WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – even if they are read and applied accurately, as they rarely are – should be invoked to strip away a qualification that is harmless, easy to apply, and manifestly informative to readers. Removing it can only misdirect some readers, not guide any readers at all. Why not, if your analysis is correct, Public Achievement (civic scheme)? We can work together on this. Noetica^Tea? 08:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please check again. I believe it was at Public Achievement until yesterday~~[Sorry, you're correct. It was at Public Achievement until 5 October. I misread the edit history]. Leaving out "US" is a step in the right direction; "scheme" is still objectionable for the reason noted: the artificial addition to the natural name does not sound NPOV to some readers. Whenever artificial qualifiers are added to a name that risk is run to varying degrees. Sometimes they are necessary, but when they're not, the natural name is almost always best as a title imo. I don't quite understand why you say most people coming across this article won't know what it's about without a qualifier. Surely most people getting to the article are searching for a topic that they have at least some notion about, or are following a link where its name is in context. Even someone browsing a category list will have some idea. The concept stated at WP:PRECISE makes sense to me. Your preference would remain as a redirect anyway. (And I don't think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is in any way relevant to this case.) Station1 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – still reserving judgement, but I warped the article into one that is about the proper-named thing, as an alternative to Enric's attempt to convert it to a generic, since that's where the article and sources led me. See if that work. Whether to include the parenthetical disambig or not is above my pay grade. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. The article makes much more sense now. Station1 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move to Public Achievement per WP:PRECISION but not the proposal above. The parenthetical is unnecessary since there is no other "Public Achievement" at Wikipedia. In addition, "scheme", is not appropriate per WP:ENGVAR/WP:NPOV, i.e. it has a negative connotation in American English. — AjaxSmack 02:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.