Talk:State University of New York at Oswego
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the State University of New York at Oswego article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 22 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to SUNY Oswego. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Requested move 22 December 2024
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW, considered in the context of the 100+ RMs proposed at once by this user. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State University of New York at Oswego → SUNY Oswego – WP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The full name provides a WP:TITLECON consistent naming convention across all articles on universities and colleges in the United States. Many reliable sources like Forbes and US News and World Report still use the full name. The OP has also made numerous individual RMs on this same issue like this one, which may violate WP:ACROTITLE or use a shorter common name that is rarely used outside a sports/athletic context. Better to stick to the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary, unwise, and unhelpful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per the comments of Zzyzx11. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message. 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) - Oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations, WP:ACROTITLE, and what Zzyzx11 said. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Laundry lists of GLOs
[edit]@Gooseneck41: lists of Greek institutions are better placed on list pages, since their content relevance for an encyclopedia is marginal. Also, there is not enough reliable documentation about them. Most Wikipedia editors agree that rote listings of Greek institutions are not helpful if there is no sourcing from outside the college's or university's homepage or the fraternity's own circle. If you can prove that one or more of the Greek houses is significant, then pls do so, but for the most part, individual houses fall under WP:UNDUE. That is, they are not significant enough for an encyclopdia. Here is an example of the lists, which are more appropriate. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Since no one answered, I reverted. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Melchior2006: My apologies for the late response. I'm not able to get on Wikipedia like I used to. Can you point me in the direction of this editors' agreement? Personally, I would think that two notable organizations, a university and a greek letter organization, having a continuous (or long term) relationship would be worthy of a comment on a Wikipedia page. Thank you for your time. Gooseneck41 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are no editors' agreements as a rhetorical category on Wikipedia, but there is the precedent set my outstanding articles. You will not find any outstandinge higher ed articles which list GLOs because such would be considered WP:UNDUE and are almost always seriously deficient in their sourcing. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Melchior2006: My apologies for the late response. I'm not able to get on Wikipedia like I used to. Can you point me in the direction of this editors' agreement? Personally, I would think that two notable organizations, a university and a greek letter organization, having a continuous (or long term) relationship would be worthy of a comment on a Wikipedia page. Thank you for your time. Gooseneck41 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)