Talk:University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
September 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

School of Communications now School of Media[edit]

Yo people idk how to do all the changing and stuff and don't want to mess anything up but someone has to change it soon. the u of i website has school of media now.


Cleanup[edit]

A few sections in this article could use some cleanup. The photos section is pretty big and kinda seems triva-esqe. Perhaps a few of the main quad buildings could be kept and then the rest put in a separate article about the buildings at UIUC? Also I think the notable location section is also another trivia like section. If these were expanded to full sections or sub sections that link to their main article, it would make the UIUC article a bit more specific. Chipotlehero 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Library[edit]

The library, while justifiably famous for its breadth, probably (I say probably) doesn't contain 22MM volumes. I believe the link cited indicates "items". Most libraries carry photographs and other items. Volumes are probably a separate itemization. On that basis, the library is probably 3rd or so, but not as large as the Library of Congress (which the number approximates).


See News-Gazette report. It states that the library got its 10 millionth volume in 2003. About the number 22 million, the report states that:
The library has more than 22 million items. In addition to its 10 million books, those items include manuscripts, pamphlets, maps, microform, computer files, film and video materials, and music scores.
So I guess this settles the matter. Thanks. --Ragib 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable photos[edit]

I don't think posting the photos of non-notable buildings in the UIUC encyclopedia article is proper. Why not post photos of Lincoln Hall and the Psych building, and... You get the idea. Main quad and engineering quad are notable. --G3pro 14:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very Notable Photos[edit]

Beckman and CSL are the two main buildings on the Engineering quad, if you don't believe them notable you don't know anything about the University. I plan on adding articles on them shortly. PDE 16:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm thinking about doing a UIUC engineering article and moving engineering related things all into that. Including the Siebel article. --G3pro 17:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Check out UIUC College of Engineering. It's a stub with the info from the Siebel article, but I want to put all engineering info into the article in the future. I am envisioning a course/buildings/history/accomplishments descrition for many UIUC engineering fields. --G3pro 17:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CSL is notable because it employs such a brilliant network admin... -- Jbamb 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes John, you are awesome! anonymous wikier, 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni[edit]

What's wrong with keeping (Max Levchin, B.S. 1997, co-founder of PayPal) in Notable Alumni section? I have seen his name on a wall in Siebel Center. He also gave talks in CS dept some years ago. I do think he can be added to the notable alumni list. --Ragib 22:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poll on University Naming Conventions[edit]

A new survey has been created to assess consensus with respect to university naming conventions, specifically regarding the usage of terms like "University of Texas" vs. "University of Texas at Austin". The poll addresses this issue both in the specific case of the "University of Maryland" and proposes an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions which could impact a large number of additional pages, including this one. Dragons flight 17:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Transportation Section Off-Topic[edit]

The section on Transportation was becoming a mini-article on the MTD, which already has a page: Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District. Awards for the MTD mentioned on this page should be referenced in the main MTD article and actually be for campus. Thesquire 22:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Character[edit]

I have removed the "Trivia" section for two reasons. First, there are more famous ghosts, hauntings, stories, legends, etc, on the campus than the one cited. Secondly, the claim was unsourced and out of place when compared to the entries for the rest of the Big Ten.

Also, the "Residence" section as it now stands suffers from poor organization and POV. I will attempt to fix this as best I can, but this will likely need an extended amount of attention.

When adding text to the article, please consider appropriateness and NPOV. Thesquire 15:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree on the removal of the Trivia section, which was downright non-sense anyway. I am curious about the residence section, though. Do you mean the criticism of the private landlords? In fact, that part on private party residences can be totally removed. --Ragib 16:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

School Location[edit]

Given that the school is (admittedly in the article) almost equally divided between Champaign and Urbana, is there any value in listing both cities under 'location' in the Univ taxobox? -- RB McLeroy 12:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that the school itself started in Urbana, which is why that city is usually listed. However, while most of the academic buildings and dorms are in Urbana, a few are in Champaign, along with most of the administrative and athletic buildings. As such, I see no problem with adding Champaign, other than figuring out how to properly format it. Thesquire 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

If all the campuses of SIU are listed in Category:Universities and colleges in Illinois, there should be no reason that the campuses of the UofI aren't. As such, I'm restoring this article to that category. Thesquire 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Userbox for UIUC alum[edit]

{{User UIUC}} can be added to your user page if you want to put a userbox there that you are a UIUC person. -- Jbamb 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Xtension Chords[edit]

Personally, I'm against this, since it'd not only mess up the tone of the article, but also because I have serious doubts as to whether the group passes WP:MUSIC. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right, I'll withdraw the merger request and tag it as a possible WP:MUSIC problem... though it might be worth considering creating a new, catch-all article titled Student Activities and Clubs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Kevyn 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

greek life[edit]

I don't see why this article would need to be burdened with a huge, irrelevant list of fraternities and a table of their year of establishment. The greek life is already discussed in detail, no need to take a significant part of the article to give the table. Thanks. --Ragib 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section could do with a little expanding (not a lot, just a little) but the full list of greek letter organizations is a bit much. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a cite for the 48% statistic? I am am undergrad at U of I and that number seems awfully high. Atound here the most common number to hear is 20%. Rixnixon 23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I found what the actual numbers are, but I'm not sure how to get the citations to format correctly. For some reason every reference is off by one in the endnotes. Does someone with a bit more experience know how to fix this? Rixnixon 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gen Upgrade needed[edit]

This is a very disappointing article for such a great university, and alma mater of my late Dad. It doesn't do his school justice. You need to dump the list. Add "academics" and "history" sections, to name a few, and focus on the things that make this school great. This article is both thin and short. Might want to check out Michigan State and Michigan articles for guidance (both of these schools had Featured articles). The WikiProject Michigan group is worth emulating.151.197.170.126 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

GA nom[edit]

This is a very promising article, and I want to give it a pass, but I think several things need to be done.

  • First, get the article format more in line with WikiProject Universities. This really involves moving a couple of sections around. This isn't just for formality's sake ... the very first thing after the table of contents shouldn't be just a linked list (it should be the campus section).
  • The organization section, likewise, shouldn't be just a listing of the university's colleges. As per the project page, explain its governance.
  • The referencing in the article is promising but needs to be more complete. I'd like to see something on the half-million total degrees awarded, for starters.
  • "UIUC is one of the few educational institutions to own an airport. The university owns and operates the Willard Airport" Not only could these two sentences be combined, I'd like to see some citation on the "one of the few". It sounds true, but sounds true isn't good enough.
  • "The university has the largest Greek system in the world." This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof and it isn't in the sources at the other two footnotes. I cannot see a Good Article having such a claim unsupported. Likewise, "Many of the fraternity and sorority houses on campus are on the National Registry of Historic Places." Can we see a link to the appropriate webpage to support this?
  • "The University has the largest public university library in the world" Again, an extraordinary claim ... and one that isn't backed up by the ALA page linked. All that demonstrates is that UIUC has the largest public university library in the United States. Change it or find the appropriate source.
According to the University's web site, http://www.uiuc.edu/overview/explore/library.html, it does claim to have the largest public university library in the world. I've added the citation to the article. Mrquizzical 06:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, good, but that should also make clear the university claims this. Daniel Case 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed--I've been looking for an independent source but haven't found one yet. I added the "claims" language into the article. If anyone can supply additional verification we can take it back out. Mrquizzical 23:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also like to see some sources on the mascot controversy.
      • It should be in here as well. Daniel Case 01:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Lastly, as a general note, some single-sentence grafs could be combined with their neighbors.

Don't take this too hard ... this is a fine article here and those of you who've worked on it have much to be proud of. This has FA potential if you develop it further. I'll check back in a week to see what you've done. Daniel Case 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have tagged the three spots in the article re sourcing that must be addressed somehow. Daniel Case 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed[edit]

After a week on hold, only one of the three unsourced statements in this article has been sourced. I therefore must fail it.

When fixed, it can be renominated at any time. Daniel Case 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short. I cited 3 of the statements with various UIUC web pages. I suppose they are not exactly unbiased. The Chief opposition citation I will leave to someone else. --Dual Freq 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

74.134.238.84 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Come on please upate this page more often. I am a graduate of UIUC and would update myself. But am not to skilled at it yet 74.134.238.84 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Jan

Most prestigious campus?[edit]

I can't believe that anyone would question the statement that UIUC is the most prestigious campus in the UI system. For heavens's sake, the other two or three schools are all cruddy little squatters. Hell, ISU, SIUC, and NIU all have better national standings than the other schools in the UI system.

No, I figure that this is just a case of someone wanting to delete all adjectives that might have a subjective connotation. Well, you know what? The word "prestigious" has a definition, and you can just look it up, and it is obvious to anyone who isn't being obstinate that Champaign meets this definition. Not everything has to be quantifiable in order to be a fact. But since US News has quantified things, and since UIUC is the only public university in the entire state of Illinois (let alone just the UI system) that even ranks in the top 50% of the nationally ranked universities, then I hope you can see what's what. For crimminey's sake. HuskyHuskie 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your bias is absurd. The Chicago campus is in the top 50 universities in the US for federal research funding and is one of only 96 universities in the US recognized by the Carnegie Foundation as conducting the highest level of research. That, not US News and World Report, is a much more rigorous definition of academic prestige. (Your definition of prestige is not so clear.)
None of the other schools you mention attain that level of competitively-funded research. We're talking about $300 million (at UIC) versus $75 million at the next-highest public school in Illinois (SIUC). So while not everything has to be quantifiable, this can be to some extent. Perhaps instead of prestige you mean "rankings by US News and World Report" -- in which case the term "prestige" is not what you are looking for. And none of this has anything to do with whether or not the schools delivers an excellent education. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been lost in your diatribe.--75.34.29.3 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
How on earth did you decide that "competitively-funded research" is the measure of "prestige"? I'm not saying that it's not important, or could even form the foundation of an objective definition of prestige (if that was even possible), but it's so random that it amazes me. We could just as well use any of these measures
  • number of PhDs granted
  • average SAT/ACT scores of incoming freshman
  • average first year earnings of baccalaureate graduates
  • average GRE scores of graduate student applications
  • number of top-tier publications per year by faculty
and so forth. And, incidentally, I don't ever remember defining this as "academic" prestige.
And therein lies the problem. Assuming you have some affiliation with UIC, I'm happy for you that you're proud of your school. As I'm sure you understand, however, there are actually some people—even some people who could be accepted to UIC—who would be disinterested in attending at the Circle because they value additional aspects of the college experience besides competitively funded research. For example, serious sports, or a large grassy quad with lots of trees, or whatever. Now about now I'm guessing that you're thinking that this has nothing to do with prestige. But prestige, my anonymous friend, is not, despite the attempts of both you and US News, a strictly scientifically quantifiable quality. The prestige of a university is in the hearts of those who consider the institution and subjectively evaluate it in comparison to others, and this stems from many factors besides competitively-funded research. While Harvard obtains a good portion of its prestige from competitively-funded research, it also gets some from its age. While the University of Michigan obtains a portion of its prestige from competitively-funded research, it also gets some from its football program (even after years like last year). There are far more applicants each year for U of I than UIC, even though far more students live closer to UIC, because—however it is defined or felt—Champaign-Urbana simply has more prestige.
Having said this, you do make an excellent point about the quality of education delivered. Unfortunately, as has been shown by several studies over the years, prestige of a university or college does not guarantee a quality education, nor does the lack of prestige preclude it. I personally know next to nothing—strike that—I know nothing about the quality of UIC's education. But what I will say with a small measure of confidence is this: That if it really, really is a good institution, then probably its potential prestige was actually hurt by linking it with U of I. If they had instead called it Daley State University, I think it could have better forged a more independent reputation and eventually a greater level of prestige. I course, that's just my speculation.
Oh, and one more thing, by my count, my "diatribe" to which you responded was exactly one word longer than your own post. (I just found that amusing.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prestigious is the wrong word to use. The Champaign/Urbana campus is the "flagship" university of the three UI campuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.115 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

History section[edit]

What's with the history section? It contains only one time period. Given all the prestigious people associated with the school I'm sure there would be some things happening there in more modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 18:35, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

There were. I was in the process of writing the history before I had to leave for the summer. I will add more as I have time, but help from others in this area would be greatly appreciated.Chiwara 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "just a few students" to the exact number of founding students of 77, which I got from the article on Urbana, Illinois. I copied the citation from there into this article, but it is not displayed correctly. Can someone who is more WP savvy than I please properly reference this (fn. 12). Thank you for your support. American In Brazil (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

For the 100th anniversary in 1967, Roger Ebert wrote 'An Illini Century' (UofI Press). Surely there is some material in there that would be relevant for the 'History' section. American In Brazil (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Selective Ratings[edit]

Some one altered the College of Engineering ratings from "Most Selective" to "More Selective". This is not accurate according to their standings. College ranking breakdowns are as follows: Less selective, selective, more selective, highly selective, and most selective. The University at Urbana-Champaign is classified in it's entirety as a "Highly Selective" University- but it's engineering admittance is classified at the "Most Selective" level. A school like Yale, for example, is classified as being Most Selective for its entire University admittance. Selective ratings should be made clear in accordance to their official rankings. These selective ratings are outlined very clearly for each university in America and are not opinions but facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.195 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the anon's point now. But I submit that he (or someone else who knows about this stuff) needs to rewrite this. From what he's written, I'm assuming that there is, somewhere, a formal listing of gradations of selectivity. Without direct reference to this, there is nothing wrong with saying that certain UIUC colleges are "more selective". If this is not directly referred to, I will eventually go in and change this back. HuskyHuskie 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There are several guides to U.S. colleges that can be found in any typical bookstore that has each college and department ranked according to it's degree of selectivity. I have sited UIUC's by this source which also ranks according to selectivity: The Institute For Higher Education Policy; College and University Ranking Systems: Global Perspectives and American Challenges (www.ihep.org) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.114 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to University of Illinois[edit]

Good work on redirecting "University of Illinois" to this page. I had wanted that change for a while now.--Gloriamarie 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad work. If the University of Illinois trustees have decided to have a multi-campus system (and they decided that decades ago), then "University of Illinois" should reference the system at large. Or perhaps you have an explanation for why uillinois.edu is the URL for the system and not the campus at Urbana and Champaign? --128.135.149.54 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
www.uillinois.edu is the system webpage, but the UIUC campus is in the process of transitioning from uiuc.edu to illinois.edu and www.illinois.edu is a redirect to the webpage for the UIUC campus. It is also extremely common for the UIUC athletic teams to be referred to as simply "Illinois" by sports fans and media. -- Upholder (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also extremely common for the UIUC athletic teams to be referred to as simply "Illinois" by sports fans and media. Extremely common? I'd say it's more than that, I have never heard it any other way. These complaints are by people who just don't understand the history. The UIUC "system" is not like the UCal system, nor even like the UW system based out of Madison. The Springfield campus was a struggling school, nay a dying school, and was just given the UI label to try to save it from extinction. The UI "system" is like an Olympic decathalon champion who is later discovered to have one mildly retarded sister and a brother who was kept locked in a closet from age 2 to 33. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is different from the UW system in that, in Illinois, there are actual serious universities around the state that are not part of the UI system. NIU, ISU, SIU, are all serious research universities, and even EIU and WIU are real colleges with dorms and sports and quads. The other campuses of the UI system are glorified community colleges. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to call any of the directional little-sister schools as "serious". Still third-tier, at best. Tool2Die4 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The redirect has been changed back to the University of Illinois system, which I still disagree with. It should be changed back.--Gloriamarie (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The University of Illinois is a three-campus system Justinm1978 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Please tell that to the journalists who continually refer to research coming from the University of Illinois when they mean UIUC.--Gloriamarie (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UIUC.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UIUC.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi there:

There's somebody just went and delete any images BEFORE read the copyright tag and about the original uploader. Some photos have belonged to this article for years and is a plus (to the article) compared to the others in its kind. If you all understand the copyright so well please respect the photographers by recognizing his credits AND his right to release the photos to the public domain, particularly contribute to this article .

If some are not in fair use and/or violate Wikipedia rules/policy, of course they should be deleted. Please don't delete because you don't like it by your own judgement (trivia-like, etc). People did spend a lot of time editing this article, in the hope of genuinely making it better and more informative. I am sure you heard the proverb "A picture worth a thousand words". If you look back the history of this article within this year and compare it to other "university" articles, you'll see the difference between "dynamic" and "static", "live" and "dead', "grown" and "ungrown".

Be clear, I have no affiliation whatsoever with UIUC. Here is one of the tag from the restored photos. Thanks.

personal photo by Aries Liang [edit]Licensing

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.205.172 (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven Kazmierczak[edit]

Steven Kazmierczak is reported as a student at U-Ill-Urbana [1] , so, this is a notable UIUC person then... 132.205.44.5 (talk)

True, but he was a student at UIUC for such a short time. Most of his work and education took place at NIU. Paerra (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does U. S. News rank "public universities?"[edit]

The article says "The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been consistently ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the United States by U.S. News & World Report, and it is currently ranked the 8th best public university."

Does U. S. News provide a ranking of public universities as such? That is, does U. S. News have a ranked list of public universities on which the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is listed as #8? Or is this a small piece of original research, derived from the U. S. News list of all universities, by extracting just the public universities and re-ranking them?

Also, what is meant by "consistently" ranked? If there is a reliable source that can be quoted that uses these words, it should be referenced, even if it's just the university's admissions office brochure. Otherwise, the reader has no way of knowing whose judgement it is. And what one Wikipedia editor thinks is "consistent" might not be the same as what another editor thinks. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The US News report does have a list of top public universities in the hardcopy, but not the online edition. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Does U. S. News provide a ranking of public universities as such? That is, does U. S. News have a ranked list of public universities on which the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is listed as #8? Or is this a small piece of original research, derived from the U. S. News list of all universities, by extracting just the public universities and re-ranking them?"
That isn't WP:OR, friend. It's math. It certainly does not involve any violation of the intent of WP:OR, and only by ferocious wikilawyering could it be thought to violate the letter thereof. Relax. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example to show how silly an objection this is: Suppose I have a source which tells me that Fred Jones was born on April 10, 1925 and died on April 15, 1996. In my article, I note that Jones died at the age of 71. Are you arguing that by doing that that I am violating WP:OR since I have created a "synthesis" of the other article's information? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I urge others to review our policies regarding external links and note that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. There are many unneeded links in this article's External links section, including at least one that is clearly promotional (the capital campaign link and possibly the admissions links) and several that provide little information but seem to act only as directory-like links (library links, I'm looking at you!). I removed all of these those links but was reverted. I'd be happy to compromise and am thus opening discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseless assertions[edit]

When I read these words:

The name of the university was changed to The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1982. This was a watershed moment for the campus, not only because it clearly communicated the university's flagship status within the University of Illinois system, but also because it established a separate identity for the campus. It also marked the opening of a new hi-tech era to which the campus community has much contributed and thrived on.

I am in amazement at the way boosterism can cause people to write the silliest things. For example, just how are we supposed to believe that the changing of the campus's name is linked to the opening of a new hi-tech era? What an inane statement. Even if one could define the opening of such a new era (a vague claim in of itself) it would have nothing to do with the school's name.

But I am more bothered by the spurious claim that the renaming of the campus to UIUC increased the prestige of the campus within the UI system. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and why I still wish the name would be reverted. Before this, you had the University of Illinois, and the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle. Now tell me, please, who would not immediately recognize that the latter was not subservient to the former? It was obvious, which I would guess it was Cook County pols that pushed to have U of I renamed UIUC. Hey, UIUC looks a lot like UICC and UIC. Now the unschooled cannot tell apart the cream from the crap. Changing the name did not "communicate the flagship status", it watered it down to the level of the others.

The only point I'll grant you is that it did communicate that that Champaign-Urbana is separate. But that's not the most significant thing said in the above crapograph.HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrible pictures of School Buildings[edit]

I think it would be wise to replace some of the photos in the article listed under "Images: Perspective views". Namely, Foellinger Auditorium, Lincoln Hall and Illini Union. This isn't someone's art portfolio and, as such, we should replace all three of those photos with photos of the entire building. The Illini Union's chimney isn't really going to give one an idea about the building, nor is the glass over top the front doors of Foellinger. Unless someone objects, I'll remove the images later and hopefully someone who still goes there can replace them at another time. Kakomu (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove them until you've found a replacement. And don't expect someone else to do the footwork for you. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is about footwork for wikipedia, not me. Also, a photo for the Illini Union is already in the article, which means it can be removed. Foellinger's wikipedia entry already has a photo of Foellinger. All that's needed is Lincoln Hall. Moreover, what's the purpose of showing that portion of Lincoln Hall? Does it lend any information to the article? Certainly a wider frame would be better, would it not? Moreover, Wikipedia discourages image galleries without discussion. If the only reason you think to keeping them is simply because they're already there, then I think my argument that the picture of Lincoln Hall doesn't lend much meaning is important too. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement, "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used". The example shows a photo of the Sydney Opera House cropped to such an extent that it's difficult to ascertain what it is, much like the Lincoln Hall photo. The same article also discourages redundancy. As such, due to this post, I'm replacing the Foellinger Auditorium image with that in the actual Foellinger article and I'm removing the Illini Union image because another image of the Illini Union is already in the article. I will remove Lincoln Hall later because the image is poor due to Wikipedia's standards Kakomu (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brinker[edit]

The Race for the Cure charity was added here a while back by Brinker or someone closely associated with her; a number of IP editors have made a number of edits designed to increase her visibility and apparent importance across Wikipedia. The section that Race for the Cure was added in was explicitly labelled "products or businesses", but the charity is neither. It is this lack of care which is evidenced in these edits in all the various pages they occur in. I do not object to adding a list of charities founded by alums of UIUC, but listing only one suggests that it has some distinctive importance. I especially object to the inclusion of Brinker's photo; photographs of alums are really silly here, but especially we cannot list a photo of every government official with some connection to UIUC. Tb (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, the charity is a charity and not a business, because it is, well, a charity, and not a business. I agree completely that it's notable, and it should therefore be added in a new paragraph, correctly identified as a charity (and not as a business or product) and with other notable charities founded by alumni too. Nothing supports the addition of Brinker's photo here, btw. Tb (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Admissions controversy[edit]

I merged the newly created section on the admissions controversy back into a few sentences in the (sadly underdeveloped) history section. Despite the heat of the present controversy, Wikipedia should not mistake a glut of news coverage at the present for historical encyclopedic importance. Just as many would be hard pressed to name a controversy from 5, 10, or 25 years ago, so too will this controversy become less important in time. Please see WP:RECENTISM for more. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a notable event, but I agree that only a few sentences can be gleaned from it. Not worthy of its own section. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator[edit]

Bruce Artwick created Flight Simulator when he was a student at UIUC. Perhaps someone could mention this? Grassynoel (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion[edit]

I found Biological Computer Laboratory, and wanted to gain some sort of consensus about merging it here. Apparently, it was translated from the German Wikipedia. If there isn't any sign of discussion in seven days, I'll go ahead and merge it myself. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just created that page using a hand-edited Google translation from German. Please explain the reason why you think it should be merged in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign page. Certainly, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign page shouldn't include the history of every project and laboratory that the university hosted, right? Artemyk (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would counter Artemyk's comment with this: Certainly, every project and laboratory hosted by the university shouldn't have its own article, right?
While some aspects of U of I's research may certainly be worth of their own articles, not all are, and one that is no longer extant is less likely to merit its own article, absent a substantial demonstration of notability. I'm cool with the merger proposal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how to establish the notability of a laboratory. It is known for being both far ahead of its time, and for attracting an unusually-rich collection of visiting thinkers. A book dedicated to its history has just appeared (press release: http://bcl.ece.illinois.edu/revolution/index.htm ), another older work about the lab's work was recently reprinted ( http://www.spinelessbooks.com/cybernetics/cybernetics/index.html), and it is mentioned in countless articles about the cybernetics movement. I would argue that this degree of historical recognition puts it in a very select group of labs. Artemyk (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you've got some interesting points there. I'll hold off further comment until some others——presumably more knowledgeable than myself—weigh in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject seems notable enough to me with enough reliable source, so I disapprove with this merge proposal. -- Mdd (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been more than a week, and no other comments, so I am removing the merge request Artemyk (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mascot?[edit]

The sidebar of University facts is simply incorrect. Chief Illiniwek is not, nor never was classified as a "mascot." Chief has always been a time-honored symbol of the University. Declaring Chief Illiniwek a mascot is inaccurate and offensive to both alumni and the remaining members of the Illini tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.140.38 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So where it says "None. Previously Chief Illiniwek" should we remove the reference to Chief Illiniwek and simply put "None"?Chiwara (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

redirect failures[edit]

A great many uicu.edu references here at en.wikipedia.org are broken as uicu.edu is often not redirecting to illinois.edu - those for most American poets under uicu "Modern American Poetry" are broken today. See my repair to article on Anthony Hecht. Some references in other articles display uicu.edu as their title but in fact redirect to illinois.edu - yet the generated references section indicates otherwise on the wiki page. G. Robert Shiplett 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talkcontribs)

I don't know anything about links to other articles on Wikipedia. But I can tell you this: While uicu.edu may not redirect or illinois.edu, if you put in uiuc.edu, that does link properly. Look at the name of the school. Champaign may be better known around the US, but Urbana comes first in the name. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Admissions Section[edit]

I would like to address a recent contribution by a new editor, User:Slagestee, which I think shows a lot of time and effort, and is praiseworthy for its ambition. However, I think I'm going to remove it, in its current state. I will explain why here, but I want Slagestee to know that his or her efforts are appreciated, and that I hope he or she stays with us here building the encyclopedia.

With this edit, Slagestee has added a whole new section (Admissions) to the article. In of itself, this may very well be a good idea for a section. But I have a few comments on this particular addition:

  • I don't see a source supporting the data.
  • I don't know that the information here is significant enough to merit inclusion. For example, look at the following:
  1. [U of I] receives around 30,000 applicants for its freshman class each year. Because of this, a portion of those who apply cannot be accepted How is this different than other major universities? Indeed, even lower-ranked universities, such as Illinois State, turn away "a portion of those who apply". Hell, even bottom-tier National Universities like my own beloved NIU turn away applicants.
  2. usually those students who go above and beyond what is required of them in high school are accepted Well, this is not only unsourced, it is vague. And even in its vagueness, I'm not sure it's true. U of I is extremely picky--it can afford to be; everyone knows it's the best public university in the state, so it takes only the best. But this is true both of most flagship schools and Public Ivies, including UW-Madison, UC-Berkley, UF, and maybe even Ohio State. Accordingly, it adds nothing noteworthy to the article.
  3. Requirements and Recommendations for High School Coursework. First of all, Slagestee, my compliments on the table. It was your inclusion of this that cued me in to the fact that you have much to offer as a new Wikipedia editor. I've been around years and I don't have a clue how to put something like that together. Looks great. Unfortunately, it doesn't add enough content to the article to warrant inclusion, IMO. Those "minimum" requirements are meaningless, given point #2 above (unless, of course, you're an athlete). And again, are these really different than other major universities? Do we learn something n particular about the University of Illinois from this table? I don't see it.
  4. Each year, the admissions process is becoming more competitive at the University of Illinois. This statement is not sourced and is unquantified besides, thus rendering it unremarkable. As a general rule, since the population of the United States is growing faster than it university seating capacity, this statement is true for most universities. Just not suitable for inclusion.
  • I also don't think that an admissions section, if it ultimately is created in a form suitable for inclusion, is important enough to go up so high in the article; I'd place it down somewhere between Student Life and Notable Faculty. Just my opinion, though.
  • My last comment is actually a question. Could this be made smaller, with the columns made more proportional to the information within? It simply takes up a lot of room. And would be better off to one side, rather than centered.

Okay, Slagestee, don't get discouraged. Just keep hanging out and editing. Visit talk pages, and use them to ask questions and read other people's opinions. Look forward to seeing much good work from you in the future. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

JavaScript and Smalltalk and wiki's[edit]

UIUC and the internet web browser

Brendan Eich of JavaScript did his Masters at UIUC.

Does anyone now how much the original wiki evolved in the Smalltalk group at UIUC ? For example: Ralph Johnson ?

Did Ward Cunningham not regularly participate in conferences with Ralph ?

G. Robert Shiplett 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable faculty and alumni section[edit]

I've got some concerns here. For a major university, the list of people who could be placed in a section like this would be so long as to overwhelm the rest of the article. And indeed, there is already List of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign people. By my count, there are currently 414 people at that article. I think every reasonable person recognizes that that list exists to keep the section under discussion from growing too large. And that is a risk. Look at the latest entry: a sports agent. And he gets more words than a double Nobel-prize winner.

Now one way to approach this might be to simply eliminate the section within this article altogether. A wise editor did exactly that on my favorite article several years ago, creating a stand-alone article/list. I think it has served us well. Yet I do not favor this approach for Illinois' article. U of I has simply had too large a role, historically and scientifically, to not have some key people mentioned in the main article itself.

But to avoid Section Sprawl (or perhaps, some would say, Section Spam), we need to have specific inclusion criteria. On some pages editors have attempted to avoid spamming by discluding any person whose name yields a redlink, but that won't help here--nearly all of the 400 people in the list article are blue linked.

The first idea that occurs to me is to require that anyone listed have a certain minimum number of hits on the toolbox item, "What links here". For example, here are the people currently mentioned by name in the article:

So, just offhand, I think I might favor limiting inclusion in this section to alumni and faculty who, first of all, have their own Wikipedia article, and secondly, have a minimum of perhaps 10 articles linked to their article, not including lists. Obviously, some exceptions could be made, but I would further suggest that such exceptions would require the editor who wishes to make the addition to come to this talk page and gain consensus for their addition.

One other thing: The section also currently includes inclusion of many notable achievements of U of I alumni, without listing them by name. I see no reason to change this at this time. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've waited a month. I'll make it so. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Pub Ivy ref removed from lead[edit]

I have removed reference to Illinois as a "Pub Ivy" from the lead because it is not an official classification. Greene's Guides listed Iowa in 2001, which is fine to include in the body of the article but is not appropriate for the lead, where we are to provide basic facts of general importance. This is trivial at best. All the other refs thrown in to prop up this case (thebestcolleges.org, collegeexpress.com, youniversitytv.com, wrytestuff.com, city-data.com) are not reliable sources. —Eustress talk 04:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)