Talk:Concordia University Nebraska/Archive 1

Archive 1

removed section

I removed the trivia section, as trivia sections are not encyclopedic. Also, the information given in the trivia section was of little use. The fact that floors often wear matching t-shirts doesn't really say much, as many campuses across the nation do this. It also sounds like an attempt to make the university sound "closer" which sounds "flowery" as stated below. I suppose you could make mention of spring weekend in the article, but tacking it on as trivia didn't work. 74.94.39.198 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this page sounds like a brochure rather than a dictionary article. Try to avoid using pretty, flowery language like "cozy" to describe chairs or "impressive" to describe displays. Even if you want it to sound great, it makes it less believable when you take that tone. SirJello37 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SirJello37, as one (myself) who just popped by to perform a good combing of this article for grammar/format issues, I do agree that the article, at the time I performed the aforementioned edit, sounded too much like an advertisement or brochure. I did indeed notice some pretty/flowery or "ad-sounding" words like "cozy" and "impressive," but didn't mess with those words at the time I edited, due to not being as familiar with the Concordia campus as someone who attends/has attended there. It was largely random musings which took me to this article, but thanks much for pointing out necessary work that will be needed to get the article to sound "properly encyclopedic." Your own fixes to the article are appreciated! —Respectfully, Catdude 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all! Sorry about the article sounding a bit like a brochure or something to that affect. A lot of your edits were great and fully apprciated. However, some things that were added were wrong. For example, the LCMS is singular, not plural. Thus it's not "their" but "its." Also, according to the Marketing department here on campus, whenever "servant leader" is written it does not have a hyphen in the middle. According to Wiki style, the original style of writing should be kept, for that is a preference issue. (The University enjoys using AP style.) But thanks for the some of the style change anyway.

SirJello37- Thanks for all your edits and taking away some of the brochure style, but I did erase the added comment of what Dorcus Second put on their t-shirts for the blatent and most obvious sexual innuendo. Thanks for the understanding.

Thanks, Tlancaster s, for the valuable feedback, not to mention the kind words on my Talk page :) Btw, I agree that LCMS should be treated as singular; as a "friendly" FYI, I had changed an instance of "their" to "its" when it referenced LCMS, and it appears that you reverted it back to "their" but then re-reverted it back to "its", LOL....Just pleadin' innocent on that one <laugh>! The way I had interpreted Wiki style guide info in regards to keeping the original style of writing intact was more of a "flavor-of-writing" interpretation to me, but I do respectfully see how you could interpret it the way you did, and I think you're all okay with that. I do agree that for quotes, mottos, etc., we need to pretty much be verbatim with what we write. And regarding the motto, there is the word "the" now existing in the motto where it appears in the first paragraph, but "the" is absent in the motto in the Infobox. I'll kindly throw this one in your court as to what you think is correct :-) Thanks again for your valuable contributions to this article and to other editors! —Respectfully, Catdude 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Thank you all. Any grammer or spelling or add-ons are welcome with the exception of those that are not appropriate. Tlancaster s 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Per the request posted at the WikiProject Lutheranism assessment page, I have looked over this page. I would continue to rate this as a "start" class article, although it is getting closer to being "B-class". My reasons are as follows.

1. Citations should be provided, preferably in-text. Some citation work would very quickly move this to B-class.
2. Images need to be arranged so that they fit with the flow of the article a little better.
3. Please use some third-party (i.e., not the school itself) reliable sources.

That said, the copyright notice ("All photos, logos, and other types of media are exclusive property of Concordia University, Nebraska.") at the bottom of the article is worrisome as well. Wikipedia is designed to be a free encyclopedia. Some of the images claim to be released under CC 2.5, and some under GNUFDL. If such is the case, they are not copyright. However, I suspect that they were incorrectly tagged, and are still under copyright by Concordia. If so, they need to be retagged as being copyrighted and used as "fair use", and they need to have an appropriate Fair use rationale provided. (For more info, see the pages about non-free content and copyright tags). I am going to request someone who knows more than I do about copyright to give this page and these images a once over. Pastordavid 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The images and "other types of media" — including the article — are asking to be deleted if such ambiguity persists. Unless they are claiming some sort of dual-licensing scheme; in which case, the language at the end of the article must go. Aarktica 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks Tlancaster s 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Pastordavid, I will mark your EAR as resolved. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Or seek to have the request reviewed. --Aarktica 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks for your help. And Tlancaster s, thanks for your speedy response tot his problem. Pastordavid 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

really don't have one

1. Fixed photo tags, hopefully they are O.K. now.
2. If anyone has any "3rd party" sites that happen to mention the university, then put them up.
3. Citations, can I just put one big one up, which would be cune.edu?? Cuz thats the only one. This is a university we are talking about, not WW2 (there really isn't an extensive library talking about CU.)
4. I can't figure out how to make the photos "look better with flow," can someone attempt that please?
5. Thanks to everyone!!

Tlancaster s 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bulldog.PNG

Image:Bulldog.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concordia University Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607204749/http://www.cune.edu/11/ to http://www.cune.edu/11/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

LGBT prohibition section

Boyerling3 removed the section headed "LGBT prohibition," saying that it is inaccurate, and inviting a discussion on the talk page. What do you feel is inaccurate about it? Jno.skinner (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence that LGBT students are prohibited from being admitted to the university. The Journal Star article specifically includes a quote that " the university does not discriminate against students based on sexual orientation or identity". Furthermore, the Wikipedia:College and university article advice article structure style guide does not include LGBT Prohibition as a recommended section (despite your adding it to every college you can). Boyerling3 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The deleted section contains no claim that LGBT students are prohibited from admission to the university, Boyerling3. Instead it says that the university holds homosexuality to be sinful, and prohibits "active involvement in a homosexual lifestyle" (whatever exactly that is). Is there something not factual about this? Jno.skinner (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The title of the section is "LGBT prohibition". The school does not prohibit LGBT students. It does, as you mentioned, prohibit LGBT lifestyles. To title the section the way you have misleadingly implies that students who are LGBT are banned and not their actions that divert from the Lutheran interpretation of sexuality. Again, the colleges and university style guide makes not prescribe an LGBT Prohibition section. I don't see a subsection for Serial Killer Prohibition from the UT Austin page or Pedophile Prohibition on the Reed College page. It's understood that university policies would follow their identity (e.g. Lutheran University, Lutheran theology, Lutheran policies). Specific, noteworthy incidents are reasonable which is why I moved the situation to the History section. Boyerling3 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to a different heading, if that's the problem. Perhaps "homosexual lifestyle prohibition" to draw on the words used by the school. Perhaps a subsection if you object to it being a whole section, but it's not merely historical. Further, the "school's biblical interpretation of sexuality" is euphemistic and doesn't specify the school's actual policy. Jno.skinner (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no engagement here for a while, I'm assuming agreement that a change to the subsection title addresses the concern. I've restored it with the new name. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As the section still is not standard for all universities to discuss their approach to homosexuality it should be deleted. There has been no newsworthy development since the Plum Creek event. Likewise the folks at the HigherEducation page said it's not a standard section for universities. Boyerling3 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It is common for articles about U.S. colleges and universities to note if they discriminate against people as that is typically noted by reliable sources. Moreover, "other articles don't include this information" is not a very good reason to delete pertinent, well-sourced information. ElKevbo (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CUNEAcademic Logo Left Color.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)