Talk:The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could this be modifed to read like an encyclopedia article and not an advert for the club? DJ Clayworth 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised first paragraph

How about this for a more encyclopaedic version of the first para? There was some truly appalling spelling in the original too!

[edit] Notability

• Is there anything in this (overly long) article that established why it is of any particular note? Are there any references to it, for example, in the local press? - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • To respond to the above, I was between 1975 and 1978 a member, treasurer, vice-chairman and event organizer for RamSoc. Although I no longer have access to the data, I recall that it was officially the University of Nottingham's largest student society for at least two of those years. The University has a rich and active student club/society culture, and RamSoc was on occasion at the apex of this. Many alumni of the University will recognise the RamSoc name, and for this reason alone it deserves recognition. Whether this meets the "notability" definition argued over by Wikipedia inclusionists and deletionists, I have no idea. For some, however, The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society remans a source of pleasant memories. Ian Dickinson

• • The notability guidelines state: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." and Ramsoc fulfills this by being the subject of an hour long program on national radio, BBC Radio 4 alongside local coverage in student press. Citations for this are available in the article and since this has recieved no other critisim since April 2007 I have removed the notability flag. The references flag still remains and I will try and have a look at this. (NB: have also formatted this thread inline with talk page guidelines) Danox (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The society is, indeed, notable enough to qualify for an article - although it needs to be connected to the rest of WP better (hence the orphan tag I've put on the page). Most of this article, however, is not. WP is not for indiscriminate amounts of information, and this includes detailed, blow-by-blow accounts of every minor amendment made to the club constitution in the last fifty years, a colossal table of every committee member who has ever served, and a list of members. I'm made the following changes::

1. Edited first section of "History" section for readability
2. Deleted everything between "Committee History" and "References" except for a list of Current Committee

91.105.114.153 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also deleted the link to the MPS site as it was dead. I'll see if I can find an up-to-date version to replace it with. 91.105.114.153 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also cleaned up other references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.114.153 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your editing, especially removal of the list of members who happen to have been known to the alumni office, I think the compilation of past committee members is worth keeping and have added it back. PamD (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that list is pretty unencyclopaedic - it's far beyond the level of detail required and it's reproduced elsewhere on the internet (assuming WP:OR stands). Also, as it stands it currently takes up more than half of the entire page by length. If it was smaller, maybe a quarter of the size, then it would make sense to keep it, but it's just too massive. There's no meaningful way to abbreviate it, either (committee every five years? 'Special' committee?), except for (possibly) most recent committee and first committee. The only way to reduce its size is to cut the vast majority of it out. 91.105.67.222 (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)