Talk:Tech Squares

Resolved objections
There were objections to an earlier version of the Tech Squares article. Those objections have been resolved, and so that discussion has been archived. C. Scott Ananian 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion was not archived in the way Wikipedia does archiving, but was deleted. It can be seen at
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech_Squares&oldid=86157397 — Lentower (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Improvements
The article, while reasonably well-written, has some fundamental flaws that may make it unsuitable for wikipedia. First, the article does not state the importance of the topic; why is this square-dancing club sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in wikipedia? Second, it appears that many parts of the article are full of unverifiable, uncited, or original research claims despite the referenced sources at the bottom of the article. Madcoverboy 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tech Squares is notable in two ways: first, it is a long-standing MIT institution, notable for the same reasons that MIT Mystery Hunt, The MIT Tech, Tech Model Railroad Club and other similar articles are notable. Second, it is notable through its contribution to square dancing; it is one of the oldest clubs still in existence and thriving, and a long-standing trendsetter in the folk art.
 * With respect to your second objection, please review the referenced sources and object with more specificity to statements in the article. The article is a synthesis of published information, like all good encyclopedia articles.  It does not "advance a position", which would be required to fall under WP:NOR. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the local notability of the club (I of course mean this in the ontological sense, not the geographic), however, the current article has neither an assertion made nor a way of verifying why this particular dance club warrants inclusion like the other three articles make, which are incidentally different as it pertains to global notability.(They Mystery Hunt is arguably the first or most famous of its type of puzzlehunt, the Tech is notable as the primary student publication and its age and its claim to being the first on the internet, and the TMRC is notable with regards to its place in hacker lore and some notable alumni.) You give reasons for global notability and they should be included in the lead along with citations to back them up. I had a similar debate over at the MIT Mystery Hunt a few months back which resulted in a much improved article once we were able to explicitly state what it is and why it's important rather than the fancruft-y stuff that dominated before.
 * My second contention is that, despite the references at the end, the claims in the article are not cited and thus cannot be verified. We can synthesize information insofar as it can directly attributed to and verified from a published, reliable source. I believe this concern could be addressed by implemented citation templates which I would be happy to do if you could mark which references claims can be attributed to claims what references. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline:
I have removed the timeline as it is unsourced and trivial. WP tan 1999 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Article needs to be listed in appropriate WikiProjects
It could attract editors to improve this article, if it was listed in appropriate WikiProjects. Please add some. Lentower (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)