Talk:Stanford University/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Stanford Wiki

Currently, in the external links, there is a link to http://stanford.wikia.com/wiki/Stanford_University_Wiki named "Stanford Wiki". However, as far as I can see it, the "Stanford Wiki" has hardly any usefull content, and is full of advertisement. I do not think that this link is relevant. Therefore I suggest that we delete this link.--Stacalusa (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented it out and added reason why so people won't be encouraged to put it back in. --Erp (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whole Article Needs Revision

Much of the information in the article is old (for example, why does it list the fundraising from three years ago, and no other year is even mentioned?), and there seems to be a lot of key information about the university missing. Most importantly, there seems to be an excess of useless information; for example, why would there be information on the mobile homes that once occupied the space of a few current dorms, which were built many years ago? Lots of other random information too. The only way to include the more vital information is to get rid of a lot of other information, unless we make the article longer. Is the article too long already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.249.107 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stanford-affiliated people are so unconcerned with this article, this gem still exists: "A new environmentally friendly Environment and Energy building is also planned" -- that building was finished three years ago. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Student Groups

The current selection of student groups used as examples seems rather arbitrary. Should we make an article for Stanford University student groups with more details on their history, formation, and funding structures, and with a more complete categorized list of groups? Unless there are just a few student groups that stand out far more than others, this current list is pretty meaningless as a representation of Stanford. Poseidon^3 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First things first might be describing the general areas of the groups, highlighting one or two significant ones per area. The areas are:[1]
  • Athletic/Recreational
  • Careers/Pre-professional
  • Community Service - perhaps Alternative Spring Break?
  • Ethnic/Cultural - Stanford Powwow because they organize the single largest student run event and it has been going on for nearly 40 years.
  • Health/Counseling - The Bridge Peer Counseling Center and/or Sexual Health Peer Resources Center
  • Media/Publications - Stanford Daily, KZSU
  • Music/Dance/Creative Arts - the arts groups are covered a bit in the arts section
  • Political/Social Awareness -
  • Religious/Philosophical -
  • Fraternities/Sororities - these are covered separately

Significance means either size, historical importance, or influence. I've put in a few that could probably be mentioned. Any other suggestions?--Erp (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Computer Science

Stanford has according to some sources such as http://nt.cra.org/scripts/rankcs.pl?TOP=108&DIRECTION=DESC&ORDER=QUALITY the highest-ranked Computer Science department in the world and is listed as top ranked in all others; why isn't this mentioned in the Academics section? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor history

The History section is loaded with small anecdotes about the founding years, and trails off after 1905. It neglects the real history--there is too little on the students, the faculty, the administration, the programs and centers, and the impact of the school over the last 120 years. And it needs a bibliography and citations to the many good studies. Compare the entries on Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Probable we need to spin off the origins story into a separate article.Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional traditions at Stanford

I attended Stanford University and noticed that two traditions were left out. I have added them to the article since they are very big and well-know traditions within Stanford.

1. Secret Snowflake -Students are given three dares by anonymous residents within their dorm. These students have to perform these dares (one a night for three nights) in front of the whole dorm. These dare can range from tame activities (e.g. singing Like a Virgin in a wedding dress) to extreme (e.g. nudity, stunts). This week of dares is carried out near the end of fall quarter before Christmas Break.

2. Valentine's Day - In the freshmen dorms, all of the guys in the dorm wake up all of the girls very early in the morning on Valentine's Day. Each girl is given a single rose and is then brought to the dorm lounge where all of the guys serenade the girls with a love song.

Nicolef6 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Alumni who have founded technology companies

Since Aug 7 2008, the article has contained a mention of the many technology companies founded by Stanford alumni. Here is how it read as of yesterday:

Stanford faculty and alumni have founded many prominent technology companies, including Cisco Systems, Electronic Arts, Google, Hewlett-Packard, LinkedIn, Sun Microsystems, and Yahoo!.

But yesterday, three editors, 169.229.82.172, 136.152.209.172 and DeusExa, insisted on deleting it. The only explanation offered was in 169.220.82.172's edit summary, "Does not represent all fields, too narrow"'. I restored it twice, the second time remarking, "Once again restoring a useful sentence that's been here over 1000 edits. Before undoing, please discuss on talk page." That discussion didn't happen; the sentence was simply deleted again.

I should point out that even though DeusExa objects to this sentence in the Stanford article, he added a similar statement to the UC Berkeley article. Also, the IP addresses for both the IP-identified editors traceroute to berkeley.edu, so this may be just a Stanford/Berkeley rivalry thing. (But if so, I don't think it belongs here.)

Obviously, having already done 2 reverts, I won't do another. Instead, I call for some discussion.

With a statement that's been around so long, through thousands of edits, and which appears helpful, I think the presumption should be that consensus supports the statement being there. It may be that there's a good argument for removing it, but I think that argument should be made and so far, I don't believe it has. Comments, please? Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that the sentence should stay. If you need additional reverting of this removal (while avoiding WP:3RR yourself), give me a holler. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Somebody mentioned at the Administrator's noticeboard discussion about this situation that the sentence in question was not supported by citations. So I just added a citation that supports all the original companies and several others. There can be no further justification for deleting the sentence since it is supported by citation. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to point out that it appears that DeusEx is affiliated with Berkeley and even added the same type of info to the Berkeley article, but you've gone even farther and traced the other IPs back to Berkeley--kudos to you. I'm actually surprised that some Berkeley-affiliated people who go so far as to apply a double-standard and childishly keep reverting edits without even explaining why. It's a rivalry, of course, but come on, this takes it way too far. Hopefully once the page is unlocked, they won't continue this pointless battle. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Your hope did not come true. DeusExa did it again today. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1964 stanford indians champions

I just purchased an old Starter JAcket with a bunch of patches on it. I think it belonged to the Captain of the 1964 Stanford Indians team which were the All Star State Champs. He was # 35 on the football team. Can anybody give me any information about the original owner of this jacket?

Stanford Logotype

This is probably nitpicking, but the updated Stanford Logotype now has a stylized underscore and the word "University" is more condensed as can be seen on their identity guidelines website: http://www.stanford.edu/group/identity/ug_sig_sys.html --Pfenixfire (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from IFerrets, 30 June 2011

Please change in "Athletics" to reflect the 2010-2011 championships:

Since then, Stanford University has won it sixteen straight years, winning sixteen out of the seventeen years it has been offered.

to:

Since then, Stanford University has won it seventeen straight years, winning seventeen out of the eighteen years it has been offered.
— the NACDA Director's Cup, formerly known as the Sears Cup — every year for the past sixteen years.

to:

— the NACDA Director's Cup, formerly known as the Sears Cup — every year for the past seventeen years.
Stanford has earned 100 National Collegiate Athletic Association national team titles[136] since its establishment, second most behind the University of California, Los Angeles, and 465 individual NCAA championships, the most by any university.[137] The 100th championship was won by the 2010-2011 Stanford Men's Gymnastics team.

to:

Stanford has earned 101 National Collegiate Athletic Association national team titles[136] since its establishment, second most behind the University of California, Los Angeles, 439 individual NCAA championships[150] and 467 individual National championships, the most by any university.[137] The 100th championship was won by the 2010-2011 Stanford Men's Gymnastics team and the 101th was won by the 2010-2011 Stanford Women's Water Polo team.

NOTE: please remove "[136]" or replace the link to "http://champions.stanford.edu/history/by-the-numbers/" or use [150]; [150] should link to "http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_records_book/summaries/combined.pdf" (remove "combined.pdf" if inappropriate.) Add the Women's Water Polo win or remove both if we've moved past the 100th win.

Thanks. Michael - Class of '91, Ind. Eng.

IFerrets (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long???

Somebody added a "lead is too long" note to the article. I don't agree with them. The lead is four paragraphs; that is an appropriate or even modest length for this very lengthy article. I don't see anything in the lead that is excessive or should be removed, and I would be inclined to simply remove the note without making any changes. Anyone else agree? --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought. I suppose some of the discussion of the origins of the university in the second paragraph could be moved into the History section but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the current lead. Msnicki (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I just took a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Length. It says that three or four paragraphs is the appropriate length for a lead if the article is more than 30,000 characters. This article is over 100,000 bytes. I don't know how bytes translate to characters, but clearly a long article like this is SUPPOSED to have a lead of three or four paragraphs. I put a note on the talk page of the editor who added this, asking for them to come here and comment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's too long, bulky, not succinct. Too much detail. It should give an overview, not probe into every little corner. But, shucks, that's just my opinion. Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, that's your opinion. But if you'd like anyone to agree, it'd be helpful if you could put a little meat on it, perhaps by proposing (and I suggest doing it here) some specific changes. Otherwise, I propose to remove your tag and seek consensus support to do that. Msnicki (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. In mine, it barely skirts the surface of what is in the article - exactly what an intro should do. It certainly doesn't "probe into every little corner". And it totally complies with Wikipedia style in its length. But I'm not married to it in its current form. If you have specific suggestions of what constitutes too much detail, let's hear them and reach consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW I just checked the leads for the articles of several comparable U.S. universities. Princeton's, Columbia's, and Yale's leads are about the same length as Stanford's. Harvard's, Cal Berkeley's, UCLA's, and MIT's are longer. None of the ones I checked are shorter. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Three editors have taken the position that the length is fine and no new support has been offered for claims that it's not. In addition, as MelanieN reports, the current length is both in keeping with the guidelines and with common practice in similar articles. Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call - the lead rather strictly follows the guide set forth by Wikipedia, including information it should and avoiding excess information. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)