User talk:CODAFRGA
Welcome CODAFRGA!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Editing college and university pages
[edit]There are guidelines you can look at in the article Wikipedia:College and university article advice. You will want to keep in mind that secondary sources are usually needed, not only to verify something as true, but also to verify it as notable. Not everything that is true is note-worthy. This is why a lot of primary-sourced material from the school is rejected. They surely know what the facts are at their school, but they are not a good guide as to what is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The guidelines mentioned above offer much advice on what the community has judged should be included, and what should not. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused how research collaborations between universities aren't considered relevant, especially for a developing countries research program. That would seem to me to be a highly relevant piece of information in regards to the schools research capabilities. Please elaborate if you can, Thanks. Additionally, many Univerisites list housing, student life and associated university culture on their pages, as these are relevant to the overall University's reputation. I would also argue that the facilities and capabilities of a medical school are highly "relevant" information as they are the aspects that make up the research and educational basis of the school. So by eliminating reference to the schools accredited Small animal clinic and Large animal research facility you are doing a disservice to people trying to understand the schools educational and research capabilities. Please address these concerns if you will. (unsigned, added by CODAFRGA)
- The ultimate forum for discussing the St. George's University article is its talk page.
- You won't find me offering much advice or any judgement about university articles. My edits here mostly involve "Recent changes patrol" and activities of what's called a "Wiki gnome", minor fixes and the like. As such, I see thousands of edits across hundreds of different articles, and I often see sincere editors whose efforts are mercilessly edited or rejected outright. When I can be bothered, I do my best to give advice and point the editor to guidelines the community has developed. I do this because it's often a very rude awakening to the eager editor with good intentions to find that "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" isn't so much a communal stew as an autonomous collective as depicted in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and I hate to see the project lose good editors through disillusion and disappointment. I do what I can to introduce the culture here.
- To address a few specific things you've brought up:
- "Many Universities list... on their pages": no university has a page here; there are articles on universities; and there is a principle here touched on at WP:OTHERSTUFF which discourages arguments regarding an article based on what other articles have in them (so much for consistency)
- "are highly relevant": "relevant" is necessarily a relative term; again, secondary sources are relied upon for guidance there
- "you are doing a disservice to people trying to understand the schools educational and research capabilities" (I take "you" as the hypothetical "you" or "one", since I myself have not made any changes to St. George's University): most of the clash I see here is a result of not-completely-overlapping opinions on what Wikipedia is. One Wikipedian might say those trying to understand educational and research capabilities are better served elsewhere, and can likely figure that out for themselves. Another may disagree.
- To address a few specific things you've brought up:
- So, I hope to be encouraging to new editors, but the reality is often too discouraging for some. A good editor is always welcome, so I hope you can stick around. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Glad you came back....
[edit]I know I frustrated you but Wikipedia suffers greatly from spammers/promotional editors and the St. George's University article has had those issues for some time. I admittedly could have done better interacting with you so for that I apologize. While being a single purpose editor such as yourself (currently) is fine with the caveat of staying within the various policies/guidelines, maybe consider expanding your interests. Another thought is getting the St. George's University article to Good article status and/or expanding it to meet "Did you know" requirements which would allow a "hook" on the Main Page. Things to consider, anyway. Also, if you ever have questions or need help, ask at the Teahouse and you may find WikiProject Education helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)