Talk:University of Arkansas

Detailed listings of student government officers

@LoudPorcupine797: Please do not add detailed listings of student government officers to this article. That is not appropriate information for this encyclopedia article about the entire university. Our advice about college and university articles may be helpful for you. This information certainly doesn't have the necessary weight to include in this article nor are Wikipedia articles intended to have all information about a topic that's available. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thank you for the message. However, I'm not sure why you believe this is not appropriate information about the University. Some may find it very relevant and it provides great historical context to the rest of the page. While Wikipedia articles are indeed not meant to have all information about any one topic, adding comprehensive information in a certain area can be a positive. Generally, I think it would be good to add student body leaders to Wikipedia pages for all colleges and universities. I have read the article providing advice about college and university articles, and do not conclude from reading it that the edits I made are inappropriate, wrong, or even discouraged. If there is a specific reference in there that you beleive makes this point, can you direct me to it please? Thanks for the help! - LoudPorcupine797 LoudPorcupine797 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What essential information about this university do you expect readers to learn from detailed listings of student government leaders?

If you'd like some specific guidelines or policies that may be relevant, I think that most of them will be in WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTWHOSWHO, and WP:NOTDB. If you'd like to argue that WP:UNIGUIDE be edited to explicitly include this information, you are more than welcome to open a discussion in that essay's Talk page.

@Ponyo: You also participated in editing this material in this article. Do you have anything you'd like to add? ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

LoudPorcupine797, you're now blatantly edit warring with multiple editors while a discussion is taking place here in Talk. Please revert your most recent edit and reach a consensus here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo, you are right. I have reverted back my most recent edit. I look forward to reaching a consensus as long as that means trying to find the right answer, not a 2-1 vote between you and @Ponyo against me. Not all information on Wikipedia is essential, nor must it be. You have not pointed to anywhere that says otherwise. Because this type of detail/information is not specifically or even inherently against the rules, it should be allowed to be added to the page by someone who would like to add it. It is in no way damaging to the page, harmful to readers, or misleading. LoudPorcupine797 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your most recent edit; I appreciate it.

I again urge you to review WP:NOT. WP:DUE also seems relevant. We do not add all sourced information to articles - we are selective. To the best of my knowledge, the only college or university leaders that we sometimes include as a complete list is the most senior leader of the institution, usually the president (at least for colleges and universities in the United States); we don't include lists of provosts, vice presidents, deans, etc. as that information is too detailed and unlikely to be useful for readers (and frankly many of the lists of presidents aren't useful and should probably be deleted).

So again I ask: What essential information about this university do you expect readers to learn from detailed listings of student government leaders? ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem.

I have reviewed WP:NOT and WP:DUE several times... neither of them have any references that make me think having a list of student government leaders is inappropriate or in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines.

The one thing it may violate is precedent. In fact, that seems like what your references keep coming back to. It's not done this way now, so why do it at all? President or Chancellor's are indeed the most senior administrative leader at colleges and universities in the United States, however, student government leaders are the most senior leader of the students, who clearly play a major role at universities.

I will mention another that readers can gain knowledge of context of who the student leaders were at various inflection points for the universities. Why is more detail and information bad in this scenario? Perhaps it's not essential, yet it can be helpful and enjoyable for readers. Once again, because it does not violate any Wikipedia rules, why can it not stay? LoudPorcupine797 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the student leaders played a significant role in historical events at a university, they would be named in the history section.

It is generally agreed that a holder of the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution" is notable (see WP:NACADEMIC); this is not the case for student leaders. Thus the head of the university (but not generally their deputies) is considered notable by Wikipedia, but the head of the student body is not. Following from this, a list of university presidents is a list of notable people who are notable by the very fact of their inclusion in the list, while a list of student body presidents (and vice presidents, treasurers and secretaries) is a list of non-notable people occupying non-notable positions. While content does not have to be notable to be included in an article on a notable subject, devoting this much space to a non-notable listing would fall foul of WP:NOT and also appears to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to unimportant facts.

If the student government has its own wikipedia article (i.e. it independently meets the notability critera), then a listing of the student body presidents (but not other executive members) might arguably be relevant there, as the leaders of the notable organization being discussed in the article, but it doesn't belong here. Robminchin (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo @Robminchin I'm really struggling to understand why you both are so upset about this... is there some real harm this is causing you? I don't see damage or disruption that you or any users have to face by adding these detailed tables. LoudPorcupine797 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The answer is basically at WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.

Robminchin (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And then, under WP:NOTEVERYTHING:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.

Robminchin (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the data dump of names adds bloat and is of no benefit to our readers; it completely overwhelms the article. A couple of sentences or a short paragraph mentioning notable previous student body elects, with a link to a reliable source (or sources), is sufficient.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)