Talk:Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Massachusetts may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Capitalization of belcastro

How come sarah-marie belcastro doesn't like her name capitalized? Sources? I am not aware of any other occurrences of this, any links I can read on this? Perseguidor 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like http://www.toroidalsnark.net/ is her homepage. I wish whoever had left the comment in the wiki had mentioned a source, though. Silence(water) 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtime

The entire Hampshire College network seems to be off-line right now. JWSchmidt 03:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is okay now. JWSchmidt 18:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sources

Self-published sources can be used as a primary source about the subject itself. However, they can not be used to demonstrate the subject's own notability. Has this summer studies program been the subject of an independent article? If so, this source (these sources) should be listed as a reference for this article. Without such independent references, this sounds a lot like a math program blowing its own horn. Rklawton 04:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in your edit summary, "tagged as self-published because it relies substantially on self-published sources". What does "it" refer to? The whole article? Or just the section on yellow pigs day (that you've had prior disputes with)?

If it's the whole article, what statements in the article do you find controversial or needing proof? The statement about funding by the AMS and the NSF? I'm also a bit confused by the tag you added. You say the article relies on self-published sources, but there aren't any sources cited by the article. There are a handful of external links, but these are not claimed as sources. Is this what you're referring to? Lunch 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence that this program exists is through these external links. Otherwise, the article is entirely unsourced. I suppose I could swap the current tag for the "unsourced" tag iv you prefer, but I was trying to give this article some credit for sources. As with any academic journal, this encyclopedia has its standards, and this article needs to live up to those standards or face possible deletion. As you and I both know, this program has existed for some time, and it's probably worthy of an article. However, it needs work, and tagging it as such will hopefully motivate one or more editors to make the necessary improvements. Rklawton 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links do not provide the only evidence that the program exists, and you should know better. You participated in the AfD for yellow pigs day; you should know about the references provided there. I added one that was provided; there are more. I think you would better serve the article (and "this encyclopedia") by putting in the effort to find sources for this article rather than pretending that there are none.

You seem to be aiming all over the place with terms like "self-published", "cannot demonstrate notability", "blowing its own horn", "only evidence for existence", "unsourced", and "live up to those standards". You say "it's probably worthy of an article" and "this program has existed for some time" but then threaten that the article "face[s] possible deletion". Go pick on the list of porn stars. Lunch 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT can explain this better than I can. Wikipedia has standards, and this article falls short in the area of sources. I've got a pretty good track record spotting articles that fall short of standards. Politely pointing them out rather than simply nominating this article for deletion outright is a courtesy. Your question about why I don't fix it myself could be more aptly applied to you since you have edited this article previously. I trust you weren't trying to be rude with your last comment. I've noticed a record of rudeness directed toward me in the past from people associated with this academic program, and that sort of history will do little to convince administrators of this program's notability or of its editors' sincerity in creating an article worthy of publication here. As a mathematician, surely you are familiar with the editorial standards of various journals. Wikipedia is no different. Rklawton 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

It's too long according to WP:MOS. Something should be moved to another section. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant instead to reference Wikipedia:LEAD#Length and not the whole manual of style. If you did, please note that section has been the subject of contention; that section also expressly contains the words "as a general guideline" and "the following suggestion may be useful". With that in mind, please come up with more useful, concrete suggested edits than just "it's too long".

If you didn't mean to reference Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, where in the manual of style did you mean to point to?

Thanks, Lunch (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of weeks so I'm going to remove the tag. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, feel free to continue the discussion here. Lunch (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Belcastro (continued)

Above, a commenter asked why sarah-marie belcastro didn't have her name capitalized in this article. (A link to her personal website was provided as evidence that she prefers downcase). It turns out that Wikipedia has a style rule that applies to this case, and requires normal caps:

For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules.

If we follow that rule, as we should, her name will be shown as Sarah-Marie Belcastro in this article. Does anyone object if I make the change to Belcastro's spelling in this article? EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. If k.d. lang doesn't get capitals, then that sounds about right. I'll change it and leave a note in the note that's there. Lunch (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

There's been a long, drawn-out discussion over whether our naming conventions should apply in cases like this over the last year. Long and the short of it, they do, both at K.D. Lang and here. I'm changing this to use standard capitalisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2

I have recapitalised the name as per Thumperward above and previous comments. If Dr Belcastro uses lower case on her web site, it is most probably for tyopographic effect, and she does not not appear to have stated any preference how her name should be written, and in any case this would have no effect on standard conventions, and those practiced in the literary trades.^[1] The en.Wiki follows normal accepted conventions for the capitalisation of Western names in Western print or electronic media.^[2]^[3]

--Kudpung (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Barnes & Noble

[2] rnenglish.de

[3] UK Government

[1]

[2]

[3]