Jump to content

Talk:Royal Military College of Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeRoyal Military College of Canada was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
[edit]

From the copyright page of this articles source website (1 or 2):

Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:
Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

This is not compatible with the GFDL which allows anyone to alter the text of a Wikipedia article. Further, the GFDL under which Wikipedia is licensed, does not forbid commercial use, e.g. burning Wikipedia onto DVD-ROM and selling it. The license of the DND forbids this:

Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

Therefore, this article has to be rewritten from scratch or be deleted. Same for the flag. -- JeLuF 21:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The above seems to be referring to an earlier version of this page. I'm guessing it reappeared when the page was recreated. -- Cjrother 15:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit]

The new images on the page are copyrighted. Is that acceptable on wikipedia? I thought only public domain images were ok. Cjrother 19:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted images are OK, as long as the holder of the copyright has granted the public a licence to use them under terms compatible with the GFDL. This is the situation with many images that have been created specifically for Wikipedia: they are copyrighted, but licensed under the GFDL. The other situation where copyrighted images are OK is under fair use. I have no idea what the situation is for the images in this article.--Indefatigable 03:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pierre Berton

[edit]

Pierre Berton was listed as a notable professor, but I haven't found any evidence that he actually was an RMC professor. He taught courses at RMC during the Second World War, but this was at a time when RMC was used as a training centre. It had ceased operating as a military college in 1942 and did not resume that function until 1948. Eron 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to Pierre Berton as a notable professor. VictoriaEdwards 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC) My sources had included [www.cbc.ca/news/obit/berton_pierre/, www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?0385659385],[reply]

[www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/history&people/berton.html], and [www.bookclubs.ca/catalog/display.pperl?0385658427].

Lists

[edit]
  • A fair number of the lists that dominate this article seem to be fairly irrelevant. While certainly notable professors and alumni should be included, I'm not sure what the need is to include lists of the Governors General, Honorary members, and so forth, it doesn't add much (if anything) to the article itself, and I think the article would be much more improved if we were to focus on information about the school itself. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CopyEdit and references

[edit]

I just did a fairly thorough copyedit of the article, minor grammar things, removed a couple useless charts. I also tried to standardize the references though there are a fair number missing. I tried to find references for the chart info and some of the other claims (including the ontario law) but couldn't find most of them. I'll look again later, if anyone else wants to help find references, please do! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Year Orientation Period

[edit]

I added a section on the First Year Orientation Period experienced by all cadets. Feel free to edit the section. I hope not too much information will be removed due to irrelevance. I am sure that all information is accurate as I experienced it first hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OCdt24550 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

As far as the weathervane and the torpedo trivia, is it provable that the torpedo points in a random direction, and the weathervane does not point to the all-girl dormitory? 64.228.222.85 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are legends passed down each year at the college. It would be hard to prove them exactly: besides, what if they were placed under that intention but incorrectly? Psyklek 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge coin

[edit]

I'd like to see a photo of the Challenge coin mentioned on this article, uploaded if possible. --JAYMEDINC 00:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost mine... -Germ (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia standard

[edit]

I've tried to combine various sections and give the whole article a bit more flow. I think there's more of a logical development, although I'm stuck on some of the tables (mainly the History one). I know that's how I learned it, but it seems like it could be written in sentences/paragraphs and be much more appealing.69.156.144.214 14:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (AN RMC OCDT)[reply]

Have you deleted information from the page? Reviewing the edit history, it seems some info is missing. Andrew647 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (Another RMC OCdt)[reply]

GA Failed

[edit]

I'm sorry, but I have to fail this article for it's review for Good Article status. I'll explain why, using the definition of a good article:

  1. It is well written? Mostly. Some general capitalisations according to the WP:MOS might need to be reviewed, especially with your lists. Some minor general copyediting is required in parts, particularly in your paragraphs that preceded a list (one of note is the Admission Requirements section). This line "The older, historic buildings, located on the 41 hectare peninsula in Kingston, Ontario, blend with the modern academic, athletic and dormitory facilities." suggests taste, and is possibly contentious. It's in your lead, so it shouold be aptly referenced also, which it's not. Another issue with the Manual of Style is the reference formatting. You've simply got the websites/URLs for many of these entries. These should be formatted to a consistent standard. If you want to find a standard method of citation that suits the content of the page, have a look at Special:Cite and put any Wikipedia page in there. It will give you several different examples of how to cite a Wikipedia page. Pick one, format your footnote references all to that standard and stick with it.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Factually accurate? Sure, the references confirm this, but for the average reader, if they want to confirm the reference, or seek outside information, it's tough to find citations. There's a small handful, but inline citations are sparse. A lot more is required to pass GA.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. Yes, broad in coverage. Perhaps more depth could be explored in parts, but for the purposes of being a Good Article, it's certainly broad enough, but this will need to be adressed further before reviewing for WP:FAC.
  4. It is neutral. I don't believe it's completely neutral. There does seem to be a sway of bias towards the article, which is natural for a page editor, but there needs to be tightening up in this area, for instance the lead, as I mentioned in Point 1, could be worded it a way that doesn't suggest any bias. The term "blend" generally refers to something that has been effective. Should this be effective, then it should be referenced by a third party source. Generally, that doesn't seem to be an issue, as there's a blend of first party sources (i.e. the College's own website) and third parties.
  5. It is stable. This is the one regard this page is its strongest (which is perplexing as this is where most tertiary istitution pages seem to suffer). Keep the consistency of editing as it is, and the page will perform well.
  6. Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale. Appropriate? Selectionwise, yes. The selection of images is good, however the tininess of the thumbnails almost nullifies their existence. Increase their size and they'll be more useful to the viewer. Though one can click the image to view its own page and see the image in its full size, it's more appropriate to have the image large enough at a glance so as to be able to avoid this.

One last thing I'll address is the length of the lead. I'd like more volume in the lead, given the length of the article, it should be 2-3 paragraphs long. Have a look at WP:LEAD for more information.

On the volume of work to be done (as well as the fact that such a volume as this, with the small team of editors working on it) I have to fail this. Once these items are addressed, feel free to re-nominate the article. If you have any questions, feel free to comment on my talk page and I'll respond promptly. --lincalinca 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mentioning that it is the college numbers that precede people's names is necessary, noting the significance of the college number, and description of the S,H, designations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.99.148 (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some images were added and their are truly useless like the foil and the canex logo. Also, there is quite a lot of junk in the article. Is it really necessary to know that distance learning is taught in a classroom, by a correspondance course, by a CD or by internet. This sort of junk has to go. -Unsigned

Honours degrees confusions

[edit]
"The Faculty of Science, in conjunction with the Faculty of Arts, also offers three joint honours degrees: Computer Science and Business Administration, Chemistry and Psychology, and Space Science and Military and Strategic Studies"

I've got this old brochure published by RMC, and rather than CompSci+Business, the Honours degree was in CompSci+Mathematics. Has this changed in the past couple years? I just want to verify this, because none of these other ones seem familiar. For example, in the current brochure there is no 'Chemistry' program described, only a Chemical Engineering one. We know the engineering type courses are different from the science ones. Tyciol (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a student at RMC, and haven't heard anything along these lines. I have seen double-majors between Physics and Space Science, but nothing else. And Chemistry degrees are granted by the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, which I think falls under the Engineering Faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.3.28 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article size issues

[edit]

I have added {{toolong}} to this article, as its length (over 100KB) makes it difficult to edit; according to the guidelines at WP:Article size, an article of over 60KB should 'probably' be split into smaller articles, and one of over 100KB 'almost certainly' should be. That is what should happen here; certain sections, such as 'Features and buildings of the RMC' and 'History of the RMC' could make good articles in their own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RMC role in the investigation into disappearance and death of Cadet Grozelle.

[edit]

I think any article on the RMC should deal in a frank and forthright manner with the RMC's role relating to the disappearance of Joe Grozelle and the disputes involving the manner in which his death was investigated.TD TinkersDam (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a matter that has been dealt with by the authorities, and don't necessairly have anything to do with the college by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.54.239 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There seem to be bad links within the "External Links" section. Including:

  • "Joining Instructions - First Year Officer Cadets" goes to a 404 Error.
  • "A video about the first weeks of a Cadet at RMC" results in a You Tube Page with "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party. " on it.
  • "The Division of Continuing Studies at RMC" has been redirected to http://www.rmc.ca/aca/dcs-dep/co-cc-eng.asp
  • "RMC Museum" results in a HTTP 404 Not Found Error.
  • "Royal Military College of Canada, Massey Library" results in a HTTP 404 Not Found Error.

I will remove all 404 and Copyright links that were included. I will update the link with the redirect.

Also, a error message "Cite error: REF tags exist, but no REFERENCSE tag was found" is appearing at the bottom of the page. I am unable to locate the error to correct. Medic48 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial RMC.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Aerial RMC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Military College of Canada Paladins logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Royal Military College of Canada Paladins logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Royal Military College of Canada Paladins logo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

I'm concerned that User:Victoriaedwards may have left as much of a mess here as she has at Thomas Fuller (architect), in terms of adding erroneous architectural information. I'm not going to place an accuracy tag here, as I haven't looked through the buildings thoroughly, but the first one I checked, building 5, had info that appears to be contradicted by its Heritage Character Statement, and which I've attempted to correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article size issues revisited

[edit]

As mentioned before, this article is way too long. I have re-added {{toolong}} to this article, as its length (over 100KB) makes it difficult to edit; according to the guidelines at WP:Article size, an article of over 60KB should 'probably' be split into smaller articles, and one of over 100KB 'almost certainly' should be.-- BC  talk to me 20:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to remove a bunch of things that don't contribute anything/are repetitive/aren't neutral/aren't up to date and were too date specific, but there is still the massive both history and buildings pages that I think perhaps should be made in to their own articles --Navathehut (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page has become unwieldy. Great that you've started this. Lots of garbage here. I think a good place to start is with stuff that is time/date specific and trivial/not notable or encyclopedic. And there is tons of stuff with no source. There is also a problem with OR. If transferring stuff to their own articles, we have to make sure that the stuff is notable; some stuff isn't worth transferring. For instance, is the intricate detail about the buildings important enough to warrant an article on RMC buildings? I'm not so sure.-- BC  talk to me 17:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Military College of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Royal Military College of Canada. 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) 02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Royal Military College of Canada. 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) 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Wall of Distinction

[edit]

The Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Athletics Wall of Distinction (AWOD) was established to honour those who have brought distinction to the Canadian Military Colleges (CMC) through significant achievements and contributions in sport while at a CMC and/or following graduation throughout their athletics careers. The AWOD program was conceived of by the Class of 1970 and is supported through an endowment funded by the Class to honour its entry into the RMC Club of Canada Old Brigade in the fall of 2015.

Le Mur de la renommée sportive (MRS) du Collège militaire royal du Canada (CMR) a été établi pour rendre hommage à ceux qui ont fait honneur aux Collèges militaires du Canada (CMC) par des exploits sportifs ou d’importantes contributions aux sports pendant qu’ils fréquentaient un CMC ou au fil de leur carrière sportive après obtention de leur diplôme. Le Mur de la renommée sportive a été mis sur pied par la promotion de 1970 et est financé au moyen d'un fonds établi par cette promotion en l'honneur de son entrée dans la Vieille Brigade du Club des CMR du Canada à l'automne 2015.

SECONDARY SOURCE: RMC Athletics Wall of Distinction Inductees (rmc-cmr.ca)

TERTIARY SOURCE: Sports: RMC Celebrates Athletic Wall of Distinction Inductees Virtually – eVeritas (rmcalumni.ca) 00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)~ 198.103.111.110 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Military_College_of_Canada&oldid=1207904752"