Talk:Nottingham Cooperative

This article was nominated for deletion on December 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

About Boldfacing/Capping the NOT in our disclaimer the Mad Community Coop membership:

I say we leave it in there--BUT--it is notable that the edit came from an MCC dweller--who may actually feel somewhat more strongly about the matter than most residents of Nottingham (current author included)--I doubt anyone at Nottingham who works on the Wiki article would have capped and boldfaced the "NOT"--but it is telling that some co-opers would--and I did want to have this nuance spelled out for anyone who would bother looking this far into the matter. Though this is a very, very small thing, I think it reveals the very pith and essence of what makes Wikipedia such a wonderful thing--and that is a very great matter. (utc)

I am the individual who research and contributed most of the content of Nottingham's entry, and I have made the following changes: 1. "NOT" back to "not." Having been around long enough to know Nottingham's relationship to MCC as well as the larger community, I believe the fact that our coop is independent of MCC should be stated, but does not need to be emphasised, especially with it being stated as the last sentence of the first paragraph. Empasising only the word "NOT" makes it look as though Nottingham's independence from MCC is the nost significant thing about the house, whereas to the members and I believe most readers of the article there are more important/interesting things. If the person who made this change feels strongly enough to want to change it back to "NOT", might I suggest we get in touch to discuss this. 2. Deleted "Moe Vee Tee" because apparently this phrase hasn't really caught on yet outside of Nottingham Coop. As stated, I've done a lot of research in order to create a factual entry, attempting to include only content which which would be of interest to the public. If this phrase does catch on- say, if John Stewart uses it on The Daily Show or something like that, then it would merit entry; otherwise it is more of a personal catchphrase. 3. Deleted "non-profit." Currently, Nottingham is not a non-profit. It's still worth mentioning that Nottingham collects no money from shows.

History section

Could we get citations in the history section? I know we have sources lying around. We should do this before they get lost in time. Acornwithwings 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK we don't follow rochdale principles and certainly aren't owenite or whatever. I'd like to remove the sidebar. (Jim) 66.222.62.214 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar

The sidebar, as such, tends to connect Nottingham with things it has partly diverged from--having been through surviving records dating back to the original corporate charter, I do not recall finding a specific commitment to the Rochdale Principles in either the charter itself, or in any of the few attempts at an orientation statement or any of the advertisments or posters that have appeared since that time. In any case, the first formally approved and attorney-inspected compilation of bylaws and policiies dates back to 1998--effectively overturning anything which was not specifically reaffirmed in that canon--and the Rochdale priciples were never discussed or suggested, let alone included. As that original complication has evolved into three editions of an overall orientation manual, Rochdale has been consistently, and to my mind, conspicuously not-included. I do not feel that they are the primary axioms, habits or priorities by which Nottingham guides itself. They might tend to suggest a set of happy end-results worth maintaining if they occur in the course of actual pursuit of our more commonly pursued interests and goals. If the side-bar remains, there should be a paragrpah which attempts to describe the particular goals, approach, and regard for pragmatism that I see as Notitnghams' real way-making: and if it included a very direct disclaimer of any particular allegegience to, history with, or attention ever paid to the Rochdale principles, I would be more willing to see the sidebar remain. Benjamin Pierce

Hello all! Just to clarify, I put up the sidebar not with the intention of connecting the coop with the Rochdale principles but with the general theme of coops on wikipedia. At least as far as I can tell, the sidebar theme (or whatever the proper terminology is) does not necessarily directly imply that the Rochdale principles are guiding principles for Nottingham, ALTHOUGH I understand how this could be construed. I feel that the sidebar does serve a useful function in connected Nottingham's article to the larger theme of coops. As Nottingham is a coop, this sidebar could provide relevant, interesting information to those interested in Nottingham (and assumedly coops in general, or at least housing coops). For these reasons, I would support Ben's move to put some sort of disclaimer acknowledging that Nottingham's history/operation does not seem to involve the Rochdale principles. User:JeffreyN 28 October 2006

Student Housing Category

Nottingham seems to have been put under the Student Housing Co-ops category. Student cooperatives are a particular category of co-ops that are open exclusively to students. Students nearly always form a fair portion of the membership, but there is no emphasis on being specifically student housing, and in fact Nottingham is more notable for having a diverse population of ages and occupations than for simply having students live there. I will remove this category. Acornwithwings 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun City Girls

Why were they removed from the list of performers? Acornwithwings (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That show never happened, it was canceled by 23 Productions. The reference is incorrect. 75.2.241.94 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposal for deletion

Why is this article proprosed for deletion? I cannt find any specific needs that are not met or that are being requested? Will whoever earmarked this site for deletion please let us know what is needed?--Benjamin Pierce, or clown in black and yellow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.60.104 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up Unsourced Statements

I boldly removed some sections for lacking verifiability and reliable sources. Feel free to add back whatever facts can be cited. The "list of events" section can probably be paired down a bit too, by removing the bands without articles and without citations. LOL ^thulu05:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten started with removing bands from the list by removing the ones with no citations and no wiki articles. I'll pull out the rest of the uncited bands in a day or two. Can any of the pre-Nottingham shows be referenced? They'd be nice to keep. LOL ^thulu 06:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to clean out the "events" section, but I'm not quite sure what's referenced to the Isthmus article. If someone could add inline citations, that'd be great, as the article isn't on teh interwebz... otherwise I'll probably remove the lead paragraph entirely. LOL ^thulu 14:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did that. Would like to see citeable assertions cited and returned to article, but I don't have access to such sources. LOL ^thulu 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to article as I believe we should take what's on the page already and verify them (as, for the most part, they are verifiable) rather than deleting everything and rebuilding from scratch. I'll work on the citations in the near future when I have a bit of time. 69.129.199.150 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this change. Your beliefs notwithstanding, the burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores text. Please cite factual assertions added to this article. Thnx! LOL ^thulu 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]