Talk:University of Utah/Archive 1

Research[edit]

I thought we might include a lengthier section discussing current research at the U (I'm an Electrical Engineering alumni so I'm not sure what the rest of campus is doing but I know we've got some really cool stuff cooking up in our dept.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.241.241 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics[edit]

I'd like to see a source that claims genetic uniformity due to polygamy. Polygamy got a lot of attention, but in practice it wasn't that commonplace. A stronger effect would simply be due to Utah's isolation - not that many people moving in or out, compared to other areas. Stan 07:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I Concur. Around 1% of Mormons were polygamous at any time. We need to get the stats bar here.

The genetic value of the population is not because of polygomy but rather that the population shares a similiar origin, northern Europe. The population also had a large number of founders but stayed rather isolated for a number of years. All of this combines with large families with large pedigrees that are well-documented to make the population an ideal study group for genetics.

I've added a cite for the genetics claim. --Fjarlq 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The U"[edit]

I'm not familiar with Utah University tradition, but I always thought that Miami University (of Florida) was nicknamed "The U". I suppose they both could be nicknamed "The U", but should The U redirect to Utah's page? 06:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the University of Utah is cooler. ;-) Aranhamo 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus - the UofU has been "the U" for 75 years longer than Miami. JefeDeJefes 13:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic.... the first line of the article claims that one of our nicknames is "the UU". I've been around here for 8 years and I've never heard anyone use this abbreviation. Unless someone can confirm this, I will remove it. Djiann 16:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARPANET[edit]

Somebody edited the blurb on ARPANET to change a verb from 'were' to 'was'. This was incorrect, as the subject of the sentence was 'UCSB and the University of Utah', however the way the sentence was written did not make that clear. I changed it so hopefully it is clear now. Aranhamo 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck E Cheese[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, Chuck E Cheese's was also founded by Nolan Bushnell (who founded Atari); should it not be listed among the companies founded by alumni? Aranhamo 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus History[edit]

The campus history section previously stated that the campus is located on the former grounds of Fort Douglas. It then goes on to say that Fort Douglas was only closed in 1991. This gives the impression that the university is only 15 years old. As stated in the first paragraph of the article, this is obviously not true. The school moved to its current campus in 1900 -- were the older parts of campus, like President's Circle, really part of Fort Douglas? That doesn't sound right. Schmobag

Parts of the current university were once part of Fort Douglas: http://www.lib.utah.edu/150/02/index.html The University has continued to take over additional parts of the Fort, including many historic areas that now serve as dorms and offices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckautah (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded that section in an attempt to make it less ambiguous. I have also removed a bunch of info about the fort that doesn't belong here, but in the fort's article. Those with more info about the historical relationship between the U and Ft. Douglas and the transfer of land from the latter to the former should contribute. Djiann 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible creation of new pages[edit]

This article is getting lengthy. I propose creating separate articles, especially for the University of Utah Marching Band. There are many collegiate marching bands throughout Wikipedia. As a U. Band alumnus, I'll try to start a page soon.

--AdjustablePliers 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add information about departments that are internationally known - like pathology.[edit]

unreal path depart. great educational resources. why isn't this mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.229.121 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

information about student population?[edit]

where is it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.229.121 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Century Magazine[edit]

The same criteria that caused the merging of the Daily Utah Chronicle article into the University of Utah article applies to Century Magazine. -- 159.182.1.4 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only so much you can put in a single article before it gets out of hand. There are a million other things going on at this university, and potentially any of them could insist on inclusion in the main article. The Chrony is a significant part of campus life - I don't consider Century Mag to be so (I've never even seen it). I would be against adding anything and everything happening on this campus to the article. Djiann 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

century magazine isn't even the sole magazine created by students at the U. there are others as well. and I don't think it should be added to the u page either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.8.133 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the banner suggesting merger of Century magazine's artice into the main U article. I don't think there's much interest, but some of us are against it, and that's good enough. Those who don't believe Century rates its own article in WP should probably pursue the removal of the article entirely rather than merger into this one. Djiann 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:University of Utah seal.png[edit]

Image:University of Utah seal.png 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 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notable alumni alphabetization[edit]

I think the "Notable Alumni" and "Notable Faculty" sections should be alphabetized by LAST name, not by FIRST name. Not sure if there is an official Wikipedia policy regarding this, but that's the way I've seen almost every list of alphabetized names on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesreid1 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and suggestions[edit]

This article has really improved. I can think of only a few things that seem to be missing. First, I don't see anything about the chemistry department. I was under the impression that Utah had quite a history in chemistry, what with Eyring and, later on, the whole cold fusion thing. Also, the article doesn't yet have a section on student life. What is it like to be a student there? Wrad (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into whether the chemistry department should be mentioned under notable programs. It's hard to know exactly what should be included there. I could at least add the cold fusion thing into the notable faculty section, and Eyring is already there, with no description however.

As for student life, I considered including that, but it just doesn't seem like there's much to say about it. It's largely a commuter school, and I was going to mention this in the lead, but I couldn't find any stats on it. Anyone else have ideas for student life? There's... Crimson Nights, Plazafest, The Grand Kerfuffle, athletics... But are those things really significant to most university students? (Athletics aside -- there's already a section on athletics.) I believe the university has been trying to get more students to spend time on campus in recent years. I'll see if I can find anything on that. Klubbit (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I reckon we can get a student life section together. Other potential topics: ASUU and elections, various student groups, "dry" campus, the student union building, Bennion service center, residence halls (though I don't know much about life up there), Greek life... and I'm sure I'm leaving some things out. Klubbit (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LDS presidents in notable alumni[edit]

I think Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson should be included among the list of notable alumni, so I'm going to revert the edit by Doyn. Even if they aren't known by everyone, they have/had a worldwide impact and certainly a local impact. Even the alumni association and university list them among notable alumni. See [1], [2], [3] (at least the last one was released before Monson became president, so he isn't included). If you still think they should be removed, please explain why. Klubbit (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should stay. Everyone does not have to know who notable alumni are tor them to be "notable." The fact that they have extensive wikipedia pages is evidence enough that they are notable. With the links to their pages, anyone who does not know who they are can find out. Ute in DC (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S News & World Report?[edit]

Should we really be perpetuating this nonsense? There is no merit to the U.S. News & World Report college rankings. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report#Criticism_of_college_rankings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.239.168 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any conclusive criticism of the rankings in the article you linked, but readers can follow the wikilinks to read more about USNWR and its rankings if desired. USNWR is the most commonly used ranking system in the U.S., and is thus of interest to readers. For example, it's listed first and has the largest section under College and university rankings#USA. Or do a Google search for "university rankings". I suspect that there would be additional criticism of other ranking systems (or additional attention to criticisms) if they were as popular. Also, look at U.S. universities in Category:FA-Class Universities articles. They have the USNWR rankings in text (including in the lead) and/or in the Template:Infobox US university ranking. Klubbit (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned article actually provided two further links that lead to a host of criticisms. The most pertinent (and recent) of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_college_and_university_rankings_(2007_United_States). Here you'll find several well founded criticisms from many universities (including an agreement by 60 or so to not participate and 1000+ to find an alternative); a ranking formula that is unknown, dynamic and non-replicable; and even unfairness to historically black colleges and universities. To further the notion that this is a respectable or accurate metric is not in anyone's best interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.239.168 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment stating "there is no merit to the U.S. News & World Report college rankings" is hyperbolic and unhelpful. Despite flaws of the rankings, there is merit to them in that they help many prospective students choose a course of higher education. Criticism of the methodology of the U.S. News & World are appropriate to page you linked. The fact that criticism exists is not a reason against using them in an encyclopedic article that discusses the relative strengths of an academic institution. Flawed or not, they are the most cited metric today and are appropriate to the limited extent this article uses them. Ute in DC (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have provided more gravity to your argument had you reviewed what "merit" means. For future reference, I direct you to: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merit. Please note the definition's reliance on words such as worthiness, excellence and praise. I doubt this is what you meant by countering that the inclusion of such a flawed method as the USNWR is merited by its popularity (i.e. "most cited metric"), as you've implied. If this was in fact your original meaning, then I concede but leave you with this: In 2007, the UofU had a USNWR ranking of 120^[1]. Then, in 2008, after winning a Noble Prize and completing a multi-million dollar engineering building (Warnock), we dropped 7 points^[2]. I ask you, does this seem like a worthy or excellent evaluation?

Just because something is imperfect does not mean it lacks merit. Something that is helpful, useful, and is often cited has "respect" and "worth" as the definition in the link you posted suggests it should. Back to the point of the discussion: the rankings are used in other university wikipedia articles. They are helpful to a reader to learn more about a university and help give a frame of reference. Because the article does not imply or say that the rankings are the final authority on the education a university provides, they should be included to help a person unfamiliar with the University of Utah learn more. Ute in DC (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in an update on the 2007 movement. Have they made any progress in creating a superior and widely accepted alternative? Have more than the original 60 universities agreed not to participate in one particular part of the rankings (the reputation portion)? There are 1400 universities ranked by U.S. News total. At any rate, I don't think these rankings are going to be removed until there is a consensus that they are no longer relevant. Judging by the FA-class articles and the U.S. university rankings infobox, that consensus has not been reached. If you'd like to add additional and appropriate info to the lead and keep the rankings under academics instead, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If not, I think the fact that the two rankings (ARWU and USNWR) are so different highlights the fact that rankings aren't a perfect science. The article doesn't say that the university is the 127th best university in the nation, it simply says that USNWR ranked it that way, a fact that is of interest to many people, whether you agree with its accuracy or not. Klubbit (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't have any updates on their progress. Regardless, each year there seems to be more and more criticism of the USNWR. Please google for more info. You make a good point that the USNWR are used by many universities and are of great interest. I agree. However, I feel the USNWR a grossly inadequate and unpredictable measure fraught with much controversy. I can only hope that we choose more quantifiable data for our lead-in and leave this buried further in the article. I've reviewed your recent changes and think you've done an excellent job with the U's article so I'll leave this to your best judgment.

It's not up to me by any means, just offering my input. I don't think removing the rankings completely would be justified, but I think removing them from the lead would be an improvement. I'll work on the lead a bit when I get a chance. I also discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines, which might be helpful for general article improvements. Klubbit (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rankings from the lead. Klubbit (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Disambiguation[edit]

I'm curious why the USU DAB was added and if it's really necessary. There's no DAB on other articles I checked for universities in the same state named _____ State University and University of _____. I checked Oklahoma, Florida, Kansas, and Ohio. Klubbit (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like you're right. I do not think it is all that common of a mistake to warrant the disambiguation, but maybe others have different ideas. Ute in DC (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on Wikipedia:Hatnote, one of the examples of improper use is "disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous." University of Utah isn't ambiguous as it refers to only one specific thing. It's never used to refer to USU, and "Utah State University" is never used to refer to the U of U. I did notice that typing "Utah University" redirects here, which could be the reason the note was added, but I redirected that page to List of colleges and universities in Utah instead. Unfortunately the confused template doesn't have any information about when it specifically should be used. Klubbit (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections for a week, so I'm gonna go ahead and remove it, and direct discussion here if necessary. Klubbit (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in the infobox[edit]

The bot user: AnomieBOT removed some citations from the infobox [4]. I have not seen a wikipedia guideline suggesting that there should not be citations in the infobox. Neither Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) nor Help:Infobox list such a guideline. Consequently, I undid the edit. If you disagree or have a link to such a guideline please post your reason here. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young as Founder[edit]

Brigham Young founded the University of Deseret, which is now the University of Utah. Since he is the founder, that information is fairly important and should be included here, instead of the ambiguous "General Assembly of the provisional State of Deseret" that's currently listed.

I know a lot of Utes might have an issue with Brigham Young being the founder, but this is factually accurate information and not including it would be akin to misinformation through omission(in the opinion of this writer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.65.168.24 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that any more ambiguous than saying the Utah State Legislature did something? Our two sources say: [5]: "The University of Deseret, as it was to be called, was created by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Deseret on February 28, 1850." [6]: "This institution was incorporated by the Provisional Government of Deseret, February 28, 1850: hence its original title—University of Deseret." Klubbit (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to include that Brigham Young was the founder. It says a lot about the original mission of the school and is important when looking at change over time. Just because something is incorporated by a specific entity does not mean it embodies the values of that entity. Its like having an organization hold the copyright to a book. The book is really a product of the individual who created it regardless of who has the copyright. Tovegrant (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of a source explaining Brigham Young's role in founding the university, I'm open to looking at it, but what we have currently does not suggest that Brigham Young should be considered the university's founder. Klubbit (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, just putting in my thought, more concerned with current info on the school

Organization list[edit]

What divisions should be listed in the Organization section? It makes sense to me to go with those listed as colleges in the citation, rather than removing certain divisions because they don't seem "college-y" enough. An IP has been removing Continuing Education and Office of Undergraduate Studies, and also added Honors College. Another potentially controversial one is Graduate School. I would recommend that we either include or remove all 4 of these, unless a clear argument is made for an alternative. Klubbit (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so I'm going to restore the full list and direct editors here. I left a note on the IP's talk page, but if the edits continue without any discussion, what is the appropriate action? Browsing through the Twinkle warnings, none of them seem quite relevant. Klubbit (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it seems the Template:Uw-disruptive1 path is generic enough. Hopefully it won't be an issue though. Klubbit (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student Rights section[edit]

I removed this section. A Google search did not turn up any independent articles about a student Bill of Rights; only pages written by the university and a Wikipedia page. Perhaps a sentence or two could be integrated into another section, but I am doubtful that it needs an entire section. —Ute in DC (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it should be included in the article, but if a sentence or two is added, the end of the Academics section lead seems appropriate, since most of the rights are related to academics. Obviously the text of it doesn't need to be reproduced, as that gives it undue weight. Klubbit (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I think in agreement with ElKevbo, that this material does not really seem unique to the University of Utah, and therefore may not be worth including. Even if other universities don't have something called a "Student Bill of Rights", the things mentioned in it are things most universities espouse and/or are legally obligated to. If this is in fact an important and unique about The U, I would expect there to be a third-party source about it. Klubbit (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry, I'd never had someone delete my content without mentioning it first. Didn't realize restoring it was a no no. The U of U has unique student rights which do differ from other institutions. While the rights are things universities should do or are legally obligated to do, not all schools do them. Not all schools have the rights they have and some schools provide more. What it boils down to is that schools only have to give rights when the state or fed govt tells them to, but some schools gove more based on court precedents in other other states or offer institution specific rights which aren't even the result of court precedent. It is important for student to know what student rights are available at this school (or any school) especially if they are going through the university selection process. Students going to any school should know if their school has a bill of rights, what rights the school gives students to ensure they fulfill their federal / state civil, constitutional, consumer and contract obligations, and if there are any institution specific rights which they provide on top of their state and federal rights.Tovegrant (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bulleted points are not the text of the document but condense two very very long documents so that students can understand what their rights at this institution are. Tovegrant (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't claim that the U's student rights differ from those at other universities without a reliable source saying so. It seems this is a topic you know a lot about, so you may be correct, but your own findings can't be added to the article (see Wikipedia:No original research). Furthermore, the contents of the article should be encyclopedic and of general interest -- the purpose of the article isn't to inform students of their rights or help them decide what university to go to. It's not appropriate for such a large chunk of the article to be on that one specific aspect of the university. It may be appropriate to mention it briefly and cite the Student Bill of Rights. This gives readers the opportunity to follow the link in the citation if they're interested. Klubbit (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the purpose of the article is to include information which would be relevant to a wide range of populations. TO include information on walking paths or buildings is information relevant only to those populations who care about them .Student rights is simply another facet of the university and frankly I think all of the University wikipedia articles should include information about as many facets of the university environment as possible. Tovegrant (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not making the claim that they have more or less rights, we are simply stating what they are. The only thing we need to do is cite the documents at the school listing them. It will let people know what this particular university offers and it will be obvious that they offer far less than you would imagine if you did a benchmark across the nation. I highly recommend that this be included. Perhaps I should just do an entire page and go into depth on this subject and link it to the page, would that be allowed? Please note that I would prefer if we just put this section back in here on the main page so people don't have to search for info on this particular institutional facet Tovegrant (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider why you're here and what you'd like to contribute to this encyclopedia. We're not here to right wrongs or act as advocates for causes. This article should describe the important features of the topic; it should not be a guide for potential students and their families nor should it be a warning for future and current students about their lack of rights.

If you have reliable sources that establish this as an important topic, please provide them. Otherwise, it's almost certainly best that the material be left out until such sources can be provided. ElKevbo (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists many things, why not rights? There are plenty of articles on student rights all over the nation and the university of utah mentions their bill on its site. There have even been court cases against the school for rights violations showing that its important to someone. One, for instance, was about a student Flynn Johnson http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16042129946449933449&q=Flynn+Johnson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47. The student rights org. FIRE has also rated some of the schools rights http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/university-of-utah.html. Here is a student video talking about student rights options created by the students in the student news http://www.newsbreak.utah.edu/?p=2701 Even if these sources didn't exist, would you think its ok to include information about a new sports team the university is starting up even though no one else has written about it yet? This is a facet of the university and to is biased to exclude a part of it, not to include a part of it. Any information that is included in an encyclopedia is included so that people can understand the the many facets of the subject and formulate thoughts. Including or excluding information is biased and serves some peoples purposes and not others. I do not wish to argue anymore so please feel free to do as you wish.Tovegrant (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson Hall[edit]

This article has an image of Carlson Hall. It was recently torn down to make way for a new building of the Law School. Perhaps it should be removed.

--Jdjonsson (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the medical center image down to Notable Programs and added an image of the Marriott Library to the Campus section. Klubbit (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings in "Notable programs" section[edit]

There were previously several rankings in the text of the "Notable programs" section. I removed these about 3 months ago, because (1) the section was getting very long, and a good chunk of it was rankings, and (2) it's not clear what rankings should be included or not, or whether a ranking makes a program notable or not. I removed a ranking today from a new edit so figured I would start a section here for discussion if needed. Klubbit (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Adding Wat Misaka to Notable Alumni[edit]

Do you think that Wataru Misaka should be added to notable alumni? I am not 100% sure he graduated. Wat led the Utes to the '44 NCAA championship. Wat was the first non-white player in the NBA. 50.186.126.97 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on University of Utah. 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 to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Utah. 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 to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with The Pride of Utah[edit]

Not notable enough to have own article. Sources are not independent. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Boleyn (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody has done it now. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on University of Utah. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://amroamroamro.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/usnewscom.pdf

[2] ttp://media-newswire.com/release_1071597.html

[1]

[2]