Talk:Waterloo Undergraduate Student Association

The section on the ESA brouhaha was cut because it is no real interest except to navel-gazing members of that organization.

I have reverted your edit. I wrote the original blurb about the ESA here and I am not a member of the organization. I would say that dissolving a controversial club is a significant event in FEDS history; at least as significant as the liquor dispute also listed on this page.

That said, if you have concrete arguments for and against the content of this page, we should discuss them here.

--Jdeboer 22:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, and it is factual. --Spinboy 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factual or not, it's a footnote in history. In the grand scheme of things, a non-event. Ten years from now, I doubt very much that anyone will care, because there are no lasting effects and no changes made. Some Christian organization was allegedly bending the rules and (allegedly) using a club as a front to get them better rates on renting space. So what? This is really only notable now because a) it's a religous group b) debate got rather fractious.

If you're looking for a significant event in Feds history, the Feds' stance on the Chevron would be a much more interesting topic of note. 02:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Is branching out a club page from here unncesssery? I'm involved with a club and I want to create a page regarding the formation and events.--AlphaTwo 20:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student participation

I flagged the section under NPOV because the links for uwstudent.org no longer exist, which means that the facts stated no longer have sources to be backed up. While it's probably true if you did a poll asking a sample size of students whether they feel that Feds is doing an inadequate job, it's quite hard to state it as fact unless we have actual data somewhere to back it up.--AlphaTwo 16:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to flag it. I don't know of any existing measure of participation in the "activities of Feds." I don't think election turnout was ever higher than 60%. IIRC the highest was 56% which was in the 1960s a few years after Feds incorporated. The low point of the "decline" was in 2000 and 2001 with turnout of about 8%. The Feds website has been redesigned recently and though communication is often an issue in elections the previous election is now the antepenultimate election. The uws information will be available again soon. -- Rmachenw 16:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womyn/Women's Centre

Just to note on the recent change and revert on the Womyn's Centre name. The official name currently is the Womyn's Centre. It will not be changed to the Women's Centre until the bylaw change is ratified at the Fall General Meeting of the Corporation. (All bylaw changes must be ratified at a GM). The reason people may believe it is changed is over the recently adopted Service Review Recommendation that was adopted by Student's Council last month. This was a recommendation to bring forward the bylaw change to the GM, which it will be. Despite that resolution, the name is currently the Womyn's Centre and the revert was correct. Jeff 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Feds2.gif

Image:Feds2.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

University of Waterloo Federation of Students → Federation of Students, University of Waterloo — The name of the organization is "Federation of Students, University of Waterloo" according to its bylaws: http://boris.feds.ca/docs/bpp/Combined_Bylaws_October_2007.pdf —Paul Cyr (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose, Wikipedia tradition is to go by the most common name. GreenJoe 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Wikipedia tradition is to go by the most common name. Since the most common name is "Federation of Students" which is neither title, the title that best fits naming convention is the proposed one. Paul Cyr (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support On their website they call themselves Federation of Students, University of Waterloo, so who are we to tell them what they are called? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The article title has always bothered me a little, as I always use the proper legal name. Kratoz (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

All documentation and websites that don't list the full legal name, list "Federation of Students", which is closer to the proposed title than the current one and fits Wikipedia naming conventions unlike the current title. Paul Cyr (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously have to disambiguate the title somehow, since Waterloo isn't the only Federation of Students that exists. The current title is less confusing than what you propose. GreenJoe 13:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most pages that disambiguate themselves from other pages with the same name, do so by putting an identifier at the end in brackets. You may suggest putting (University of Waterloo) at the end, which would still be better, but would cause confusion as it is too similar to the real name. Therefore the real name would work best. Paul Cyr (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Credible References, Possibly also notability issues.

The only references are to the Federation of Students' own website, the website of the campus student newspaper (all broken), and uwstudent.org (which was said to be defunct in a 2005 comment, and likely does not contain the linked content, though I cannot read Chinese so maybe this is still at least some kind of source). None of these sources count in my mind as credible, so if someone could provide them it would be helpful. Ebering (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Federation of Students, University of Waterloo. 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) 14:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]