Talk:The University Register

List of Editors
I have moved the list of former editors in chief to this page, until we can wikify it. I imagine the information contained in it is invaluable to the article and will incorporated to the article in the near future, but it must be incorporated into the article itself, instead of being just some random table of data. Brash 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete Reformat
I have changed the format of the article, to break away from its stub format and to allow a structure for more contribution. I've created a history section, staff section, and national noterity section. I hope this new format will allow people more ability to add content as they see fit. Mostly, the section which needs help is the history section. Since The UR has such a short institutional memory, we need people who are familiar with the paper from years past to contribute.

Also, if you have anything to add to my major contribution, if you think anything I've written sounds unwiki, or if you think it's just plain wrong, please change it. Brash 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Short institutional memory? How about chatting with Jim Gremmels? He has a lot of knowledge on the paper and you could probably swing some credits out of the project. Roland Guyotte is another source for the history of the paper. And are the paper archives still in the UR office? And I would edit things, but I am not sure where you are going with this. You remove the former editor table, saying there is not a current spot for it, yet you have a three-year history of people at the various positions.


 * I think if you want to start on the history of the paper, one of the logical places to start is with the people who have contributed to the paper.


 * Oh, and I think the current structure with the Editorial Board is limiting in the fact that the board was just recently introduced. It kind of limits the history when so much emphasis is put on the board that only has a three-year history. Alf rules 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's good Wikipedia etiquette sign your entries. Second, the list of the editorial board members is not meant to give history, but to explain how the paper currently functions.  Leave the history in the history section.  Third, it should be noted that I am reaching out to the people who have contributed to the paper.  The problem is that they don't maintain contact with the new staff as the years go on.  Fourth, the list was removed for a few very good reasons.  First, it did not conform to wikipedia standards of format.  Second, it's incomplete, and I think it would be a better idea to only publish a list of former editors in chief if we have a full list.  Third, we need to establish how important the information is.  If we have a list of former editors in chief, are we going to have a full list of every single editor for every single section?


 * I think we need to set this priority on information: first, editors in chief are probably the only position that necessitates a complete list. Second, the only other positions that should be listed in the Staff and Management section should be the current positions, as the section talks about how the paper is currently run, not how it used to be run (that kind of thing goes into history).  In other words, we used to have a Business Manager position.  That should be mentioned in the history, and why the position was eliminated should be mentioned, too.


 * I think you should edit this page. Just keep history in the history section, and remember the purpose of a history is not to just list every single individual who served on the UR, but to talk about the institution itself.  Brash 19:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, I understand some of your reasoning, but why list the names associated with the editorial board? Why not just explain the concept of the editorial board and leave the names out of it? Or just list the names of those currently serving? I guess that is what I am getting at. Alf rules 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wanted the purpose of the Management and Staff section to be to outline exactly how the paper is currently run. To that end, not only should each position contain a description of what the purpose of that position is, but it should also list the most recent people who held that position.  While it would be nice to list every single person who held every single position, I believe that violates Wikipedia's List Policy, in that having such a large number of lists with such a large number of people in each list does not add value to the article itself.  However, I believe it would be acceptable to create a new Wikipedia article titled, "List of University Register Staff from 1960 to Present" or something similiar.


 * Basically, what I'm saying is that yes, it's important to mention the people who are currently involved in the paper and have been previously involved in the paper. But it's more important to concentrate on fleshing out a comprehensive history before we start compiling huge lists of people who previously worked on the paper.  So until then, the last two years' of managers and editors will have to do to give a snapshot of what the paper looks like.  Brash 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons
One of the things the UR has always featured were cartoons. This could be an easy section to add for the history of the paper.

Here are some I remember:

1993(?) - 1997 Platypus Man -- Mike Chmiel (Student) ???? - 1997 Happy Moose -- Fred Ostrander (Student) 1999 - 2000 Masked Mushroom -- Justin Ziegler (Student) 1998 - 1999 Mr. Gnu -- Travis Dandro (Syndicated)


 * I'll go through the archives and start pinpointing dates. I'll publish my findings in the discussion page until I've assembed enough information to put into the main page.  Brash 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Daily
I think this link should be removed. Show some pride! We don't need those stinking Twin Cities campus people! Kind of joking, but kind of serious at the same time. Alf rules 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True that. But notice that this article only contains a reference to the Daily's wikipedia article?  We don't actually have a link to their website.  However, I think instead of removing the Daily's link on the UR page, I will just add a link to the UR on the Daily's page. Brash 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Swing?
Mihoshi has proposed that the phrase "editorial content has been mostly liberal in recent years" needs a citation. There is a problem with this. Since this is an article about a relatively obscure publication, there are no sources to cite about any information reported in here except the publication itself. There is no publication about the publication which we can cite, and therefore none of the information we report here is verifiable since it's all first and second-hand knowledge. Wikipedia policy states that anything that is not verifiable (as in, anything that's not citable) does not belong in Wikipedia. But I think we can bend the rules in this case. But how far do we bend them?

What I'm saying is, requiring citation on most anything in this article will be futile, since none of it is citable. So should we place notations all over the article? Or should we just let it be? Brash 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Staff Members
Editor-in-Chief
 * Ellery R. Fisher (2007 - Present)
 * Eagan Heath (2006 - 2007)
 * Tim Lindberg (2005-2006)
 * James Bordewick (2004-2005)
 * David Bohlander (2003-2004)
 * Chris Pifer (2002-2003)
 * Jillian Evans (2001-2002)
 * Simon Chabel (2000-2001)

Managing Editor
 * Donavon Cawley (2007 - Present)
 * Jenny Wemerskirchen (2006 - 2007)
 * Andy Zschetzsche (2005 - 2006)
 * Liz Anderson (2004 - 2005)
 * Jessi Gurr (2003 - 2004)
 * David Bohlander (2002 - 2003)
 * Michael Urness (2001 - 2002)
 * Jillian Evans (2000 - 2001)
 * Simon Chabel (1999 - 2000)

Advertising Manager
 * Christie Blood (2007 - Present)
 * Alex Murphy (2006 - 2007)
 * Donavon Cawley (2006)
 * Jenn Newman (2005)
 * Cindy Lahr (2004 - 2005)
 * Liz Anderson (2002 - 2004)
 * Tina Diderickson (2000 - 2002)

Circulation Manager
 * Alex Wanna (2006 - 2007)
 * Danny Baustian (2005 - 2006)

News Editor
 * Maria Brun (2007 - Present)
 * Ellery R. Fisher (2006 - 2007)
 * Eagan Heath (2005 - 2006)
 * Kim Ukura (2005)
 * Isaac Linehan-Clodfelter (2004)
 * Kristen Strissel (2003-2004)
 * Jessi Gurr (2003)
 * James Bordewick (2002)
 * David Bohlander (2001-2002)
 * Allison Harrell (2001)
 * Erin Cary (2000)

Sports Editor
 * Andrew Swan (2007 - Present)
 * Josh Rogers (2006 - 2007)
 * Zach Koeing (2005 - 2006)
 * Matt Croaston (2004 - 2005)
 * Tim Lindberg (2003 - 2004)
 * Nate Fuller (2002 - 2003)
 * Dave Fairbanks (2000 - 2002)

Arts & Entertainment Editor
 * Sara Russell (2007 - Present)
 * Amanda Holter (2006)
 * Serrah Langin (2005 - 2006)
 * Jenn Newman (2005)
 * Serrah Langin (2004)
 * Sarah Neenan (2003-2004)
 * Jessi Gurr (2000 - 2003)

Variety Editor
 * Elijah Mayfield (2007 - Present)
 * Donavon Cawley (2006 - 2007)
 * Caroline Daykin (2004 -2006)

Feature Editor
 * Kim Ukura (2007 - Present)
 * Sarah Vig (2006 - 2007)
 * Kristen Strissel (2005 - 2006)
 * Paul Carlson (2004 - 2005)

Photo Editor
 * Kim Melchert (2007 - Present)
 * daniel j moore (2006)

Head Copy Editor
 * Ann Fern (2006 - Present)
 * John Hanson (2005 - 2006)
 * Becky Iverson (2004 - 2005)

Online Editor
 * Eli Mayfield (2006-2007)
 * James Bordewick (2005-2006)
 * Dan Anthony (2004-2005)

The list of staff members was getting unruly, and it basically was never an integral part of this wikipedia page in the first place. Unless anyone strongly objects (beyond any former staff members who desire wiki-notoriety), I've done away with the list of staff members and the irrelevant descriptions of each position, and move the data to this page. 65.183.250.21 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, in case there is any future interest in replacing this section of the entry, I've made some updates for this year. It seems likely enough - as often as this page changes, that it could just as easily come back. fish

Mangled Attempt at an Edit
Someone, I'm supposing a former EIC, mangled the paragraph describing the relationship between the editor in chief and the editorial board. Before, it said:
 * While the leadership style of each Editor-in-Chief varies widely from year to year, editors-in-chief usually serve only as a figurehead to the organization, with most policy decisions being made by the Editorial Board as a whole. However, while it is the collective power of the Editorial Board which determines the direction of the organization, it is the Editor-in-Chief who carries the paper in that direction.

But now, it says:
 * The leadership style of each Editor-in-Chief varies widely from year to year. Some editors-in-chief serve only as a figurehead to the organization, with most policy decisions being made by the Editorial Board as a whole. Others use the Editorial Board as little more than an advisory group for creating organizational policy. In either instance, it is difficult for the Editor-in-Chief to lead effectively without general support from most of the other members of the Editorial Board. However, in either case it is the Editor-in-Chief who carries the paper forward.

While I agree that the dichotomy between strong EIC/weak EIC should be established, it shouldn't be done in such a haphazard manner. That is to say, when you make an edit, make sure it's written well, or in the very least, make sure it is mildly intelligible. I'm going to try to save this paragraph. Brash 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)