Talk:Cambridge Conference Network

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Benny Peiser
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Benny Peiser

Orphan

This is an orphan. could someone familiar with the topic link this article to another? Kingturtle 11:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe this is the same system used by the University of Toronto (their system is called CCNet, but it's used for course websites, not for information accessibility); is there any way that article could link here?

Cleanup

I have given the article a bit of a rewrite and added details of the organisation's views on climate change in particular. I am concerned that the only references are back to the organisation's own website, hence the use of the word 'claim' in relation to its membership. I also an concerned that the last post was made over 3 years ago. PeterEastern (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various issues

I edited some refs as follows:

Reduced redundancy (there were two refs to the same Times Higher Education article).
Noted that the CCNet homepage link is a dead link.
Removed 'The Colbert Report' as per WP:CIRCULAR.
Noted failed verifications (in relation to hate mail from children).

Additional issue:

Article title is "CCNet (network)" which gives the impression of being a physical network (such as a computer network). For accuracy, perhaps "(network)" should be changed to something like "(online discussion forum)", "(online chat room)", "(online publication)", etc. This is also to prevent it from being confused with CCNET which was an actual computer network (as noted on the DECnet page). I propose to update the title accordingly.

If there is any alternate proposal, please discuss here. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it should be changed. It should also be removed from the category "Academic computer network organizations" since this seems to consist of physical computer network providers for academic institutions in various countries. It was never a chat room, nor really a publication. As far as I can tell from receiving CCNET emails for a few years (and from the archive of posts) is that it was just an email list. Hence "CCNet (email list)" might be better? An alternative is to delete the page if it isn't notable. Is an email list ever notable? The email list and hence CCNET are no longer active and the archive page has been removed (though there is a copy of posts up to July 2006 on the wayback machine [1]). TimOsborn (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some layout edits, grouping sentences into paragraphs and a section on climate change. Also removed the Academic computer network organizations category, as noted above. Despite making these edits, I can't see why CCNet is notable. TimOsborn (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TimOsborn. In light of your responses, and the lack of any dissenting comments (over the past month), I went ahead with my proposal (above) and moved the article (renamed it from "CCNet (network)" to "Cambridge Conference Network") and made corresponding adjustments in the article.

Also in light of TimOsborn's comments (e.g., "Is an email list ever notable?"), and the fact that this subject matter is covered in Benny Peiser#Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet), I further propose a merger of this article with the latter article. The target article seems to already contain all the essential information from this article, and more. So this might not require any editing, just that this article name becomes a redirect to the relevant section of the aforementioned (Benny Peiser) article, and this article ceases to exist (except as a redirect). If there are any opinions, please discuss here. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support HLachman's proposal for a merger. As far as I have seen, CCNet is intrinsically linked with Benny Peiser (e.g. none of the archived archives I looked at were edited by anyone but Peiser) so it fits best on Peiser's page as one of his notable activities. TimOsborn (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. In light of the above merger discussion, I am doing a blank-and-redirect (WP:BLAR), so that this article (Cambridge Conference Network) will now redirect to the above-mentioned Benny Peiser article. I will add further comments at Talk:Benny Peiser. Please post any further discussion there. -- HLachman (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]