Jump to content

Talk:Western Carolina University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Millennial Initiative

someone made a change in the article noting the Millennial Initiative was announced 8 years ago, I have not idea where that information was obtained, but the Millennial Initiative was announced in 2006, here's a link to the concept plan.... http://www.wcu.edu/assessment/documents/MillennialInitiativeConceptPlanApril2006.pdf 24.30.116.171 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Catamount

Is there any source available that confirms the catamount is a "fictional" animal? I was under the impression that a catamount was just another name for a mountain lion, certainly not a fictional animal at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.235.38.201 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.191.176 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The catamount is not a fictional animal. Your information is correct. Ezratrumpet 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

Why merge Power 90.5 with WCU? It's not even owned by WCU and plays what Jackson County tells it to :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.44.128 (talk • contribs)

July 9: Power 90.5 is owned and operated by Western Carolina University students. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.35 (talk • contribs)
No Merge. Radio stations can stand on their own merit as an article cataloging the ownership, station format, etc. There is no need to merge 90.5 with this article. ju66l3r 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No Merge. I concur with the aforementioned statement and am removing the banner from the page. Any viable radio station (viable defined as licensed by the FCC) could have a Wikipedia entry, regardless of owner and operator. Ezratrumpet 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Criswell Lappin

Might want to consider adding Criswell Lappin Creative Director for Metropolis Magazine

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1681

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/magazine.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.128.170 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

David Sedaris

Didn't David Sedaris attend Western? Definitely not an alumni, but pretty sure he attended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.128.170 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I found this link that says he spoke there but I couldn't find anything that said he actually attended. If he did go to WCU I would have expected the link that I gave to have mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.76 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
He was a student at Western, but did not graduate from WCU. I don't think that attending qualifies him for a listing. See this link.Glovejr (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rich Hall

Can someone give a citation showing that Rich Hall attended Western? I've searched and I can't find any proof that he went to WCU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.30.221.68 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Try this link: http://www.nndb.com/people/267/000108940/ Glovejr (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How accurate is NNDB? I can't find a source on their website and I wouldn't be surprised if they posted that about Rich Hall because it was posted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.139.55 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Rudolph

I have added Eric Rudolph to the list of Notable Alumni two times and both times this reference has been deleted. Granted he doesn't meet the strictest definition of alumni since he only attended for two semesters (a note I have added to my current revision) but he is still possibly the most famous person to attend Western and I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article even if it may reflect poorly on the University. My source is available here, it's a link to CNN's website which I think is a noteworthy source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.30.221.68 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay since I posted this my addition has been deleted at least twice and both of those times it was by Ermcc8. It's really annoying me because I think that it's a notable contribution but it keeps getting deleted and no one will say anything about it. Ermcc8 if you have a problem with my contribution please post it here and maybe we can fix it otherwise stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culled (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You are posting Eric Rudolph in an effort to reflect poorly on the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.116.171 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic heading should be "Notable alumni" not "former students". Someone changed the heading to former students in order to be able to add Eric Rudolph's name. The person that added Eric Rudolph stated that "he is still possibly the most famous person to attend Western", well he/she should look up the definiation of famous. He maybe the most "infamous" person, but certainly not the most famous (saying someone is famous connotes that they have a widespread reputation, usually of a favorable nature). What university wants to highlight infamous individuals that may have attened their university for a short period of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glovejr (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true that famous has positive connotations that certainly don't apply to Eric Rudolph but really you're just arguing semantics. I think that the point is that Eric Rudolph is notable enough to be included on the page. Now of course he doesn't meet the definition of alumni and I can understand that we want to keep the page consistent with the pages for other Universities but still he deserves a mention somewhere. Also, I'd like to point out that there is precedent here for mentioning people who did not graduate from a university but still attended there. Harvard has a whole page for non-graduate alumni and it includes Sinedu Tadesse, a murderer. Now as to the comment that that no "university wants to highlight infamous individuals that may have attened their university for a short period of time" that's of course true but it's also irrelevant. The university would not be highlighting this fact it would be highlighted by Wikipedia which is supposed to be a neutral third party encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.139.55 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it arguing just semantics? Read the definations, that is not just arguing semantics, that is arguing facts. This is not the Harvard page, and it does not matter if they have fifty murderers listed on a non-graduate alumni page, this is not a non-graduate alumni page, this is not Harvard, and the heading is Notable Alumni and he does not fit that catagory. Glovejr (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is just arguing semantics. Famous means well known, it generally has a positive connotation, but I still consider it to be a neutral term for well known and a quick check of several online dictionaries seems to agree with me (Webster has the first definition listed as 'widely known' and the second as 'honored for achievement' while dictionary.com has 'having a widespread reputation, usually of a favorable nature' both of which acknowledge that there are positive connotations but also acknowledge that it is not strictly a positive term). And while we're at it semantics is "the study of meaning in language", which is what you're doing when you're arguing over the definition of a word. But, of course, this is completely irrelevant to the actual matter at hand.
Now I only brought up the Harvard example because the section was ostensibly changed to 'Notable Alumni' in order to be consistent with the pages for other Universities. If the heading is Notable Alumni because that's what it is for other universities then the Wikipedia pages for other universities should be relevant to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.76 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, "but still he deserves a mention somewhere." yes he does, and that somewhere is on his own page, not on ANY university "notable alumni" section where he attened less than a full academic year. Glovejr (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that important but according to the CNN citation he attended for exactly one academic year. Whether or not that's important enough to be included is what's under debate. My basic point is that Eric Rudolph is the most notable person to attend WCU (he bombed the Olympics for goodness sake), I have never heard of any of the other people on that list. I mean come on, the list is made up of a bunch of minor athletes, the CEO of a furniture company that only has one store outside of North Carolina, and a bunch of other random not-so-famous (or infamous) people. I really do just want to have the most useful and informative page possible not, as someone earlier suggested, to make the university look bad. And, for what it's worth, at least for the time being you can leave the page Rudolphless. I'd like for some other people to give their take on this and for a rough consensus to be achieved. I don't want to get into an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.76 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. As referenced in the Rudolph article with a CNN citation, Rudolph attended WCU for two semesters. It is a minor item in that biography and not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia article about the university. — Athaenara ✉ 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll respect that decision. 152.30.161.46 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me, or is the "Only at Western Carolina University" violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy? It reads like a college admissions junk mail letter. 64.53.208.15 05:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. I think that this section must be cleaned up to appear less like a recruiting letter. To start with, I think that the statement "At Western you’ll find educational opportunities you simply can’t find anywhere else." is insignificant, since many schools offer unique opportunities. The other comments are all over the map, and I am wondering how it could possibly be rewritten in a paragraph. HokieJC 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Some googling reveals that the entire first section was just copy and pasted from this site for Western's Athletics. It's clearly NPOV. I also don't think we really need the list of all the majors and frats/sororities since it's really just taking up space and a link to Western's web site would suffice.

NCAA Record

"The Catamounts currently hold a NCAA Men's Basketball record for their 1996 2-point loss to Purdue University."

Is this really a record? Other 16's have lost by 1...but I don't think that is any type of record in any case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.109.131.140 (talk) 22:02, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WCU Seal.gif

Image:WCU Seal.gif 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Majors?

Do we really need to include the list of majors on the page? It seems like a link to the site would make more sense. It's maintained by the University so presumably it won't be out of date when they add or remove majors and it would take up less space here. Petraz (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the list of majors twice, both times they were automatically returned by a bot. I even created a "new page" to move this information to, added a link, moved the majors to the new page, and someone i'd classify as not knowing what they were doing, almost immediately deleted the new page and classified it as "blatant advertising". I have no idea how this information on a new page is advertising, but on the Western page, it's not. Glovejr (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I quit

you guys have been successful, you have run me off of Wikipedia - I'll NEVER try to either edit or creat another article - some of you are just pure @$*#$&*. You never creat articles, just try to see how many you can get deleted, what a pitful life you must have if this is how you get your pleasure. Glovejr (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

The image Image:NIC-Logo.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

File:WCU Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WCU Logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WCU Logo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube video in "External links" section

An editor is insisting that this article lists four YouTube videos in the "External links" section:

I contend that these articles add little value to the article and therefore shouldn't be included per our guideline on external links. That guideline states that external links "should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" and these links violate all those tenets. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link so I respectfully ask my colleague to provide that justification. ElKevbo (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The invitation to the Macy's Day Parade can be considered subordinate to the actual parade, so I agree it can be removed, which I did. The others pass the guideline: "...minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". The last one (concerning the dance team) might be ok instead as a reference (supporting Athletics/dance team section, but either way is ok in my view).—LithiumFlash (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Are we supposed to include links to videos of every event of passing interest? ElKevbo (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily - these links are not unrelated recreational events or festivals. They are links to sources showing exceptional achievements of the university and its students. They illustrate the dedication, commitment, training, and practice that the students engaged in. They are related and germane to the article, and link to material that many readers may be interested in seeing.—LithiumFlash (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
LithiumFlash It would be helpful to the discussion if you could identify which of the categories at WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE you believe these videos fall into. Robminchin (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
These links are in the category WP:ELYES "What can normally be linked" - they meet the condition: "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to...amount of detail".—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"Marching band participated in parades" is trivial to incorporate in an article if it warrants inclusion at all. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's the Macy's Day Parade, the world's largest parade, broadcast in more than one language and watched by "more than 44 million people...on an annual basis". Marching in the parade is not open to any willing university - it's a lengthy qualification process based on merit. (refer to the Wikipedia article which is properly referenced).—LithiumFlash (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And what exactly are readers supposed to get by viewing these videos? Why are they essential to readers' understanding of the entirety of this university's history, organization, funding, and influence? ElKevbo (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Rewatching it, the first of the videos appears to be a report from CBS that has been uploaded to YouTube on a non-CBS channel. This is copyrighted material that should not be linked in an external link (see WP:COPYLINK and WP:COPYVIOEL). I have therefore removed this link.
The second video is simply a (handheld) recording of the band marching past. This does not appear "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" as it provides no information.
The third video appears to be a promotional video (so not neutral) and similarly doesn't contain any editorial commentary. Like the second, it therefore also does not appear "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject".
Robminchin (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Concering the question about "essential to readers' understanding", this is not an essential criteria for inclusion of material in an article (refer to Wikipedia:External links). The topic of this talk section is external links - not material in the article itself. By referring to the supplemental material, readers can learn things about the parade such as the setting of the parade, the weather, the costumes worn by the band, the music played by the band, the instruments played, the reaction from the audience, and so forth. This is too much to be placed in the text of the article, but is conveyed perfectly by the material in the external links. The material for the dance team also shows the facilities at WCU where the students practice, and the costumes used for their performances, and so forth. It is all germane to the topic of article.—LithiumFlash (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
These videos do not appear to be "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", which is Western Carolina University - not the marching band, the Macy's parade, or the weather. That people can learn about the parade is irrelevant; the videos do not belong on this page. Robminchin (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
From my view none of the videos are not notable in relation to the overall topic of the university pertaining to an encyclopedia. They are trivial as many bands participate in parade or events. The video links should be removed. If one of them is in fact truly notable as a separate event, it can have it's own page created. In addition, ALL OF THEM are also on Western Carolina University Pride of the Mountains Marching Band page. I am revising per the general consensus here of editors. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, there is a general consensus here that the videos do not belong. Robminchin (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is not consensus. Participating in the Macy's Day parade is not trivial - it is the worlds largest parade (see discussion above). Also, the "Western Carolina University Dance Team: Road to Nationals" is not in the article for WCU's Pride of the Mountains Marching Band because the dance team is not part of the band.—LithiumFlash (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Everyone but you can see the consensus. You are the only person arguing that the videos should be there, and you have not advanced any cogent reason for why they are "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". Note "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)". Robminchin (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Support keeping them. They are optional for readers to read or view, and are relevant as noted in comments above.OhioOakTree (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify that "optional" is not a basis for keeping content. WP:ISNOT a lot of things. So 'optional' is not relevant. In addition, the subject of this article as already pointed out is the University; not the WCU Band - which has it's own separate page where the links are already located. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 solar eclipse

An editor is insisting that this article include a section specifically dedicated to the 2017 solar eclipse. This section has only three short sentences and is supported by references that include three YouTube links and one Flickr link:

On August 21, 2017, a total solar eclipse passed across the campus of WCU. Classes were cancelled for several hours during the eclipse on the first day of classes for the semester. Students, faculty, and passers-by viewed and cheered the eclipse from the courtyard and other areas on campus.[1][2][3][4]

This adds very little to the article and is not at all essential for readers to understand this topic. Hundreds if not thousands of colleges and universities in the U.S. had activities related to this eclipse. The photos that are included in this section are quite nice but they're just of the solar eclipse itself and show nothing at the university or any special activities that occurred there. This section is entirely superfluous and I request my colleague justify edit warring over it. ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com Great American Solar Eclipse at WCU!
  2. ^ https://www.flickr.com Eclipse - Cullowhee North Carolina.
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com 2017 Solar Eclipse shot in Cullowhee NC.
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com 2017 Solar Eclipse.
You are correct that "Hundreds if not thousands of colleges and universities in the U.S. had activities related to this eclipse", and this demonstrates the notability of the event. Those universities were not in the path of totality; WCU was. The article on the eclipse itself (Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017) has plenty of references to indicate the infrequency of these astronomical events, and the wide attention that it received.—LithiumFlash (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
But what critical information about this subject does this section provide readers of this encyclopedia article? Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article, not a news site. ElKevbo (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's part of the history of WCU - it exactly matches the topic of the section in the article. There appears to be more on-line material about this event at WCU than any other single day in WCU's history (with the possible exception of the Macy's Day parade). WCU wasn't a passive observer - the university organized activities, passed out solar glasses, gave out "moon-pies", and held a live broadcast. It may actually be worth expanding this section with one or two sentences.—LithiumFlash (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As it stands, the section doesn't belong in the article. None of the references given are to reliable, independent sources, and they also fail to back up what is said in the text. That isn't to say that this information doesn't belong in this article, if backed up by reliable sources, but to justify being a subsection of its own inside the history section, it would have to be demonstrably of historical significance to the university – not just having lots of on-line material. Robminchin (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This section is short and has four references (which is more than adequate), with at least one by WCU itself, published with peer review. As I understand, the accuracy of this section is not in dispute. We can remove one or two references and the section is still adequately referenced. If you feel that any statement is dubious then perhaps it can be substantiated (or refuted) with other references.
Also, the event was indeed part of the history at WCU. The dialog in the first reference contains: "Today is the day we've been waiting for as history will be made "(0:12 in video), and "(WCU) will quite literally be the center of the universe".(at 0:35).—LithiumFlash (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What lasting impact did this event have on the university? And what exactly are readers supposed to learn about the university from this information (that they don't already know - "university conducts research and public outreach" is not new information)? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of things are claimed to be historic by people participating in them, that does not make them historic. You need reliable third-party sources stating that this is generally considered to have been a major event in the history of WCU, not a video of a non-neutral person promoting the event.
The number of sources is irrelevant, it is the quality that is problematic. They don't back up the statements made in the text. The first reference is to a promotional video from WCU itself, which is of the event rather than about the event. This source cannot tell us anything about the historical importance of the event. The other three references are all self-published works that are not suitable for use as sources (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). The claims that "Classes were cancelled for several hours during the eclipse on the first day of classes for the semester." and that "Students, faculty, and passers-by viewed and cheered the eclipse from the courtyard and other areas on campus." are not supported by the sources. Robminchin (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Remove, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article about a university. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What is your basis for this statement? Not everything in an article for a university needs to be about education.
  • The article for Virginia Tech has a section on a shooting that took place on campus.
  • The article for Duke University has information about the removal of a statue after violent clashes at a rally in Charlottesville.
  • The article for OSU has information about an attack where a criminal drove into a crowd then began stabbing people, causing the university's alert system to be triggered.
These are all examples of non-educational content that is included in articles for universities (none subject to editorial dispute).—LithiumFlash (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult to believe that someone who is acting in good faith and with enough knowledge to edit this article could ask those questions, particularly for the VA Tech shootings that had lasting repercussions at colleges and universities across the nation. Please answer my questions above. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Doing my best to assume that LithiumFlash is acting in good faith, which is rather difficult as ElKevbo noted:
The VT and OSU attacks received significant coverage from third parties, such that there are whole articles on them. They were clearly significant events. The Duke statue removal does not have its own article, but does have references demonstrating coverage in the national press.
None of these have their own subsection within the History section. The VT attack has a sub-subsection and the other two are simply paragraphs (a single-sentence paragraph for Duke).
This does not back up your argument that the total eclipse crossing WCU is worthy of a subsection within history, i.e. given more prominence in the WCU article than any of the above examples. It demonstrates that events that received significant third-party coverage in the national press have been included in history sections. Please provide similar references to the extensive coverage of the WCU eclipse event in the national press that allow you to make this comparison. Robminchin (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Concering the question about "lasting impact", this is not an essential criteria for inclusion of material in an article. With regards to other comments, although the scope of the VT and OSU attacks was different than the eclipse, the principle is the same – an article about a university does not need to be limited to only education. I did remove the section heading so that this paragraph is less prominent, and added a reference to indicate that WCU did cancel classes during the eclipse.—LithiumFlash (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A "lasting impact" is not a formal guideline, no, but is obvious for something to be considered actually historic and thus warrant inclusion in the History section. More generally, for material to be included, it needs to not be out of WP:PROPORTION to its coverage or be what Wikipedia WP:ISNOT. This certainly falls under the first of these, and quite probably under the second. The principle is not at all the same when the other events received significant national coverage. Robminchin (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove from the page and don't include at all. The solar eclipse event is not as notable as shootings, not to mention practically every university in the United States planned events during the time of the eclipse. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 18:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Having now read through the discussion here, there is no purpose in having information pertaining to a solar eclipse within this particular article. The solar eclipse occurred over the entire North American hemisphere. References or statements with this topic should be removed as not notable in relation to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information per WP:ISNOT, this is very clearly unrelated and indiscriminate information not of value in this context. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Both of the two most recent comments have no basis because they omit key information or are altogether erroneous. It is correct that "practically every university in the United States planned events during the time of the eclipse", and this demonstrates the notability of the event. However, those universities were not in the path of totality; WCU was. The article on the eclipse itself (Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017) has plenty of references to indicate the infrequency of these astronomical events, and the wide attention that it received. It is also correct that the eclipse occurred over the entire North American hemisphere, but this is irrelevant. Eclipse totality occurred only over a narrow band across the U.S. and such an astronomical phenomenon is very much an infrequent event, and therefore received exceptional and wide attention (refer to references at Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017).—LithiumFlash (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that the eclipse was notable, but the events at WCU have not received any significant coverage. Again, you are the only editor defending the inclusion of this text, making a clear consensus for its removal. Robminchin (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The eclipse at WCU did receive enough media coverage to merit a brief mention in this article. I just added two more references, although this section now seems to be becoming over-referenced in relation to its short length.OhioOakTree (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
LithiumFlash, I want to clarify there was very clear consensus here. There were a large number of cities, institutions that were in the path of totality for this singular event as well as previous solar eclipse events. It is literally cruft to include it in this article because it does not add any value to the article. As stated above the number of references is irrelevant pertaining to this subject. As per this discussion, the following users have stated their support for removing this information from this article: Robminchin, Buzz by the Hornet's Nest, ElKevbo, AlaskanNativeRU, Randomeditor1000. That is sufficient consensus. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the information of those curious: the users LithiumFlash and OhioOakTree have been blocked as sock-puppets. (Which is not too surprising given the shared garbage argumentation.) -JBL (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Western Carolina University. 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) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Harvard of the South"

We'll need a citation for this assertion. --valereee (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wcu199930342, that source calls Rice University the Harvard of the South and doesn't seem to mention WCU at all? --valereee (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Carolina_University/Archive_1&oldid=1170447087"