Talk:College of the Holy Cross
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the College of the Holy Cross 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 |
 | College of the Holy Cross was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edit-warring over "Jesuit" in lede sentence
edit@GuardianH: I appreciate all of your recent work on this article but that doesn't give you a personal veto over others' edits - WP:BRD still applies.
The institution's Jesuit identity absolutely belongs in the lede sentence. That it's also mentioned in the infobox is utterly irrelevant; the infobox summarizes and includes a lot of information that's in the article as intended. That it's also mentioned elsewhere in the lede is also irrelevant or something that can be fixed with further edits. The opening sentence of an article should give readers the most critical information about the subject and this definitely fits the bill.
Moreover, undoing several other improvements to the article just because you object to this one specific word in one sentence is not acceptable. Or are you really insisting that the article must say that the college "maintains" its endowment and that readers shouldn't be told that the Patriot League and Division II refer to the college's athletic teams, among other innocuous changes and improvements that you also reverted? ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have no problem with adding the term into the lede, I just think it's unnecessary clutter for the reader. I haven't been
undoing several other improvements to the article
because Iobject to this one specific word
; I am not sure where this claim stems from. The only revert I did concerning the term was yours. - I reverted a few additions because they showed a citation error, represented unnecessary puff, or were undue clutter—these are far from "
improvements
", and none but yours was because Iobject to this one specific word
. What improvements were you mentioning? None of these reverts constitute the edit war suggested by the tag you left on my talk page. @ElKevbo GuardianH (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Take another look at your most recent edit - you didn't just remove one word from one sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ElKevbo I reverted the edit because of the Jesuit term — I didn't even see the changes to the third paragraph on my screen, they were collateral. Of course, I had no issue with the copyedits. Like I said, it was only a revert to your edit—far from your rather large assertion that there somehow had been an edit war between me and other editors. GuardianH (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You edited the article. Another editor partially reverted one of your edits. You reverted that editor's reversion. That is an edit war.
- As you have explicitly said that you "have no problem with adding the term into the lede," I'm reinstating my edits. If I misunderstand what you've said, please let me know here in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I replied here about edit warring.
- Regarding the content question, I'm happy to offer a third opinion if you are both seeking that once we've laid conduct issues to rest. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ElKevbo I reverted the edit because of the Jesuit term — I didn't even see the changes to the third paragraph on my screen, they were collateral. Of course, I had no issue with the copyedits. Like I said, it was only a revert to your edit—far from your rather large assertion that there somehow had been an edit war between me and other editors. GuardianH (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Take another look at your most recent edit - you didn't just remove one word from one sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring to include trivial information
edit@Finty67: Why are you edit warring to include trivial information in this article? We have no indication that the 3+2 program with Columbia is important enough to include in this or any other article. The college offers lots of degree programs - why is this one so important to specifically mention? If it is important enough to include, you should be able to find some independent sources about it. Similarly, that the college has a strategic plan is not all noteworthy - every college and university has one.
We don't include just anything in an encyclopedia article. We have common practices for articles about colleges and universities. Most importantly, when another editor reverts one of your edits your next step should be to open a discussion, not to begin an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Changed edits
edit@GuardianH: Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia. I had made a few edits to this page and noticed you changed them. I was hoping you may be able to explain why and what I can do next time to avoid more work for everyone on here. Thanks for any advice you can pas along! Bymbonner (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)