Talk:University of Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Glass (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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 quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Largest public recipient of federal research funding?[edit]

The source [34] does not mention either the statement of the largest public recipient, nor that it is the 2nd of all public and private... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.128.218 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

List of buildings[edit]

I opened this article looking for a list of buildings and descriptions. It would be good if someone could create a new section for buildings.

Thanks 168.156.149.165 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Here's a list of all the UW Buildings: http://www.washington.edu/admin/ada/buildlist.php. Not sure how you want to incorporate it into the page. 63.226.217.139 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sundodger[edit]

I seem to remember hearing that Sundodger was a slang term at that time with a meaning similar to a rake or playboy or a party animal. A person who stayed up late enjoying the nightlife, sleeping in and avoiding real work was a sundodger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.136.201 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

See User:Jkiang/University of Washington rewrite for a rewrite I plan to fold in in the near future. Anybody have good pictures?--Jkiang 00:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite incorporated.--Jkiang 02:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Athletics[edit]

Dawg'n it[edit]

This section appears factually questionable and I have to regard it as non-neutral. It should be backed up with references or removed. Thanks. :) — RJH 20:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This section has been removed repeatedly and should be considered vandalism. It has basically no factual basis, and should be reverted if added again. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Public University on West Coast?[edit]

I've seen this mentioned repeatedly, and as an alumnus, I can say that most alumni I know believe it to be true...but from what I understand, Western Oregon University in Monmouth is actually older than UW, having been founded in 1856 instead of 1861:

http://www.wou.edu/core_features/about_wou/

Anyone know more about this? Apparently WOU used to be affiliated with a religious organization before being absorbed by the state, but I'm not sure if the statement is interpreted to mean that UW has been a public university for its entire existence, or if they're referring to just the founding date of the institution. kylesobrien 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I while back I wrote that the UW was "one of the oldest", but this was later changed without particular comment. Another claim is San Jose State University, also not originally chartered as a public university. I know that UW seems happy to make the assertion themselves in some of their promotional literature. Jkiang 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for "part" of a university being older than the university itself. Sometimes, a university is found by combining colleges, therefore it is not surprising that a particular college has an older date than the establish-date of a university. Now here comes the tricky question: if the college is older than the university, is the founding date of the college be used as the date of establishment, or the actual establishing date of the whole university? Now of course, I could be totally wrong. I don't know if my theory about college and university can apply to UW or Western O, but maybe it is a point worth pursuing. justicelilo sept 2006

Really if you apply those standards Oregon State beats UW especially since UW has not been continuously in operation, while Corvallis College Started in 1858. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.72.86 (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the University website itself says "one of the oldest" (see http://www.washington.edu/discovery/about.html ), I've changed the text back to this. — Myasuda (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wave?[edit]

I'm surprised the Athletics section doesn't have a mention that the UW is possibly the source of the sports audience cheering activity, "The Wave".

It talks about it now. Feel free to elaborate on what I wrote or correct my usually poor grammar.

Other names[edit]

Washington? Nothing else. Thats new to me :)--Gephart 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?[edit]

How much work would it take to bring this up to Featured Article status, I wonder? --Lukobe 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:WIAFA which is the requirements for a feature article. Then consider submiting it at WP:PR for a peer review of the article. Metros232 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seal color[edit]

I thought last time the color of the seal was purple. Was it changed? --StevensCourt 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's not an official color scheme. Punctured Bicycle 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm not too sure. But the previous logo also had some quality problems in terms of smoothness. Punctured Bicycle 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the official color is purple. That's what I always see from the official letters. Also, one of UW slogan is Passionately Purple. If we could get a purple logo with a nice resolution, it will be great. Thanks. --StevensCourt 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigational template[edit]

Based on a design by an anonymous editor (I believe it may have been User:KSEA while not logged in), I have created Template:University of Washington as a navigational template to place on University of Washington articles. Feel free to add relevant links to this template should you come across a page that we have missed or create a new page. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Picture updates[edit]

I received permission from Loyd Heath to use his photographs. The images are better quality and don't have dubious copyrights. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kallath (talkcontribs) .

Great news. Those are excellent pictures. Can you upload said permission along with the photos, for future reference? --Lukobe 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? You mean quote his permission in the licensing or something? I added another fair use tag in addition to a description of my rationale and the permission given by Mr. Heath himself. What exactly is the procedure I use to show that I received permission? --Kallath 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They do have dubious copyrights. This is the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is that fair use images can only be used when "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." It is quite easy for someone to go to a public place like UW, take pictures, and release them under a free license like the GFDL, Creative Commons, and/or public domain. For this reason I am nominating these images for deletion, as I have done for the other fair use images in this article. Punctured Bicycle 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's frankly absurd. I have previously attempted to put images on here that were merely pictures ordinary people had taken, and some Wikipedia image Nazis said they weren't acceptable. You realize that ALL the images on here, or at least most, have been taken from the UW database itself, do NOT have proper copyright tags that even say they're public domain (if they even are), and so on and so forth. These images have the most explicit copyright information of any on here, and naturally, someone has to find something wrong with them. Even if I were to go out to UW today and take the same photos and properly tag them, someone like you would take them off. Thanks for making all this work to find and use decent images of UW in vain because you have nothing better to do. I suggest you 'nominate' all the images on this article because ALL of them have dubious copyrights--far more dubious than the images you already carelessly discarded. --Kallath 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discarding images based on official Wikipedia policy, established to ensure that the "free" in "the free encyclopedia" is upheld, is absurd. You're right, someone like me—you know, someone who supports the idea of going to UW and taking free pictures to replace the fair use ones—would likely remove pictures that you just took at UW and uploaded under a free license. That makes perfect sense. Back to reality. Yes I am aware of the other problematic images on this article. That's why I nominated them for deletion five days ago. You can't use their faults to justify the images you've uploaded. It is true that since you got permission from the author, the images you uploaded are less "dubious" than the others. But not significantly so. The fact is, we never needed the author's images to begin, however nice they may be. We can walk outside and create our own nice images—high resolution ones, lacking watermarks, which we can be distributed freely without anyone's permission. Punctured Bicycle 03:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I would suggest going out and taking those pictures before you proactively flag the existing ones for deletion. Don't you think that'd be a far wiser course of action than leaving the UW article with no pictures at all? Granted, ordinary photos of the UW campus with a higher resolution would be far better than the pictures I obtained, but I see no decent photos of that nature. Apparently you didn't either, otherwise you would have posted them yourself. That all being the case, why on Earth would you take steps to rid images with proper copyright information from the article with no better pictures already available? We could've had those photos the entire time, but instead we've had low resolution, crappy photos from the UW database itself for as long as I've been visiting this article. At least I found images that were legal and far better quality, even if that quality is relatively low compared to what's possible with an ordinary digital camera. Believe it or not, any photo you find online of the UW--even if some ordinary Joe took it--is not something you can use in this article. The other photos of UW on wikipedia's image database suck, therefore I took the liberty of procuring professional photos and the rights for their use on this article. Believe me, come autumn quarter, I'll be taking better photos; until then, or until someone else posts their own photos, leave the article alone. Sadly you may have already screwed it up.--Kallath 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be wiser to keep them. Jimbo Wales recently said, "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even 'wikipedia only' photo." Besides, "no pictures at all" is an exaggeration. We have free images already and more can be created or found without much difficulty. Your evaluation of the free images we have already is irrelevant; amateaur and free images are preferred over professional and non-free images always. You keep saying that the images you uploaded are "legal". Actually, under Wikipedia policy, they are illegal. I've stated the official policy on this matter once and I'll state it again. If you want to use non-free images, then it must be that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Free equivalents are available and can be created. Therefore, the non-free images you have uploaded are against policy. "Proper copyright information" is only one facet of an acceptable non-free image. A non-free image can list copyright information, the source, and even permission from the author. But if the image's use isn't justifiable under fair use and/or violates Wikipedia policy, none of that matters. Punctured Bicycle 20:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Is everybody OK with cleaning up the external links section? There's a bunch of links to various organizations and departments at the UW that I think don't belong (the UW has tons of orgs and depts, we can't include them all). I think there should only be links about the UW in general, not some select part of it. darby 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

UW not named after Washington?[edit]

What gives? someone deleted the from the bottom of the page that says UW was named about a president. eh? I added Category:Educational institutions named after U.S. presidents back in for the moment. justicelilo

The category in question was deleted due to a CFD discussion. You can see the result here, where it was decided to make it into a list page. I've added this page to a new "See also" section within this article. Let me know if you have any further questions. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

cool beans justicelilo

Is UBC in the Pacific Northwest?[edit]

...if so then UW is not the largest university in the Pacific Northwest, as the first sentence of the article claims. Spebudmak 03:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarified. Punctured Bicycle 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lux sit"[edit]

I don't know Latin, but I remember reading during my undergrad days that this is really bad grammar. The phrase in the Vulgate is "Fiat lux," and I think UW's motto actually translates to something like "Light there is." I'm guessing the link in the text is to an article on this very fact, but it's broken. So, it makes sense to me to note this fact somewhere, and in a way that's more stable than a student newspaper (you know, in case someone who does read Latin sees it), but I don't want to put it in the sidebar. I'll try and find a source, but in the meantime, please give your thoughts on where you'd prefer to place it in the article. L Glidewell 05:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Google turned up WP's own article on the phrase, which mentions UW. L Glidewell 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I also had some problems accessing the [1] link just now, but found a cached version of the Venice Buhain article (May 25, 1999) at [2]. And yes, the article does quote a classics professor as saying that 'Lux Sit' is ". . . extremely bad Latin." Myasuda 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLA,UCSD,UCSB,UCSC,UC Irvine,UC Merced,UC Berkeley,UC Davis, UCSF,UC Riverside etc. all have 'fiat lux' (Let there be light) as their motto too- one of them must be wrong (which is funny considering these are universities, lol). Are there two ways to say it? I don't know latin.

I don't know that it really is bad Latin. Doesn't it translate literally to "there is light" (not "light there is", Latin is word order independent)? I take this to mean something like "in a benighted world, here (UW) is an enlightened place." - seamonk

Have you read [3] as I posted above? It discusses this topic at length. Myasuda 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Buhain article above died . . . an active one as of 04/23/2012 is: [4]Myasuda (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Boydington[edit]

It's not historical in the sense that it's not a school event in which people were affected.

The UW has been involved in many controversies before, and he already has an entry in University of Washington People.

In any case, the part in UW History has been deleted. It can live on, on Boydington's page.

Mr krisp 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

student organizations[edit]

do we really want to list them out like that? can we just link them at the end of the page? Justicelilo 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Justicelilo. I think we should make another list just like the list of notable UW people. The current list looks unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.83.87 (talkcontribs)

president[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to create a separate list for president just because of its unique leadership position. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.83.87 (talkcontribs)

  • Thank you for your suggestion{{subst:#if:| regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Lukobe 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Shootings?[edit]

Does anyone think that the shooting that occured a couple of days ago at this university is significant enough to be included into the article? Smlowe5 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't (see recentism). Punctured Bicycle 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
no, it isn't. It hasn't impacted the school that much.Justicelilo 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Someone may want to take a look at the Commons: I believe that there are some images in this article that must either be only on en: (because they are not in the appropriate Commons category) or that are miscategorized on the Commons. Also, there are a lot of good images on the Commons (some of which I took) that someone might want to consider using. In particular, someone might want to take a look at commons:Image:Alberg pano.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance[edit]

It seems that a user with IP number starting with 64. something keeps on posting the same misleading thing again and again about transfer students. The community should try to block that person or be aware. This is really annoying, not to mention irresponsible.128.208.83.192 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, as I have had to revert their edits multiple times already. Getting a message to them is difficult, however, as their IP address is assigned to nocharge.com, a free dialup service in the Western Washington area. Allynfolksjr 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing pictures[edit]

I notice that some pictures are missing. Could someone knowledgeable in that area please help? Thanks. StevensCourt 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the University seal[edit]

The seal needs to be replaced with the logo used in athletics (purple W), as its use here is prohibited by the UW's graphics and use guidelines (page 20 and 23). Other articles have removed their logos after cease & desist letters were issued against WMF (see Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University), so we should take steps to conform this article to guidelines before that happens. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rankings[edit]

Is it me, or is the rankings section ridiculously bloated? I'm going to prune the most obviously less notable sources, but if anyone wants to take the more complicated task on of condensing the remainder into a single paragraph (maybe, just maybe, two paragraphs), it would make the article look alot more professional. --barneca (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove in sections so if someone thinks I've removed a notable ranking source, and left on a non-notable one, hey can revert the one edit instead of the lot. --barneca (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If the rankings are mentioned with the standard and criteria (like presence or research), I don't think there is too much of a problem citing those ranks as long as those ranks are correct. Even if those rankings aren't 100% accurate and seem bloated, you still see how the university stacks up to others in the specific criteria the ranking used. Whsie (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the section looks ridiculous as it is. I was hoping by removing them one at a time that if someone felt that one or two were actually notable, and shouldn't have been removed, they could put those particular ones back. Since you just added them all back, I suspect I can see what I'm up against. You really think they're all notable? Well, if this article ever tries to get to GA or FA, the rankings will be pruned back then, so I guess I don't care if they stay for now. Or, if I have time, I'll look around sometime and see if any other article on a well known university has this kind of silly 10 paragraph trophy case section. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But it sure looks boosterish to me. --barneca (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware that the the section looks a bit ridiculous and that some rankings might not be notable, but that is why I placed them under a seperate section called the "Other" section (while notable rankings like Newsweek or Academic Ranking of the World have their own titles). There is nothing wrong with citing these rankings as long as you don't place a huge emphasis on them. Furthermore, while the rankings does look bloated, you'll still find that the university is often cited along with the same set of universities internationally. If you peronally look at all the international rankings of other elite public universities like University of Michigan, University of Illinois, Univesity of California Los Angeles, University of Wiscousin Madison, University of Toronto, the general ranking is the same. In other words, if you were to personally search for the international ranking of all those univerisities, you'll also feel the ranking is bloated and ridiculous. Since this is the case, there is nothing wrong with citing the other rankings as long as you don't make a seperate title and make the ranking seem like it's a super famous or credible ranking.64.91.136.63 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And sorry, it's my bad. I forgot to sign in before "talking". But again, while you may feel it's boosterish and ridiculous, the general rankings are consistent, which is what matters. Since some of them aren't as notable, citing them under "Other" is perfectly fine for me.Whsie (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You may consider including these rankings. Both are methodologically certainly sounder than many others. The second is the Journal Gatekeepers Indicator Ranking of the University of Budapest, published in Scientometrics, which is not clearly indicated in the pdf. Both have been published in 2007 for the first time and include UW as a global top 5 university. Regards from Heidelberg Fred Plotz (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently reorganized the international ranking. As for the 2 ranking that were recommended, I only posted the 1st one because that was the only one with a clear standard. I need a clearer standard before I post the one by University of Budapest. Whsie (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently took out ULinks after I seriously considered the fame and vague metholdgy of ULinks. Whsie (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start reorganize the rank. I'll start on the international section. After that, I'll work on the national section.Whsie (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I just went through and stripped out all the rankings for specific department/programs. This is an article about the university so it should emphasize university-wide rankings and to some extent, rankings for the major schools that compose the university (law, medicine, business, etc.). There is an ongoing debate at WT:UNI about these sections in the first place. I also reorganized the structure of the article to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Very well, but I'll reorganize it a little to make it "look better". There are also some polishing to be done.Whsie (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The academic ranking of world universities is highly criticized and disputed - I think it is very misleading and rather biased to include it in the introduction to the article. 71.112.17.150 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:UWHuskiesLogo.png[edit]

The image File:UWHuskiesLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Different schools[edit]

Because I worked at the School of Pharmacy in the eighties I looked up the U of W (as we used to call it) in the Wikipedia. Although some credit is given to the schools, I was a bit disappointed about the scope of the article.

For some reason I cannot find any article on the history of American universities. For some reason most states have a State University (i.c. Washington State University) and some other (often public) universities (i.c. University of Washington). The UW is considered as one of the best U's in the US and maybe the world. Also there is no mention of the Pac Seven.

The School of Pharmacy is ranked as one of the better in the US but no mention is made (either here or in the Wikipedia) of the notable teachers (professors) the School has been asscociated with.

Namely: Milo Gibaldi, founding father of pharmacokinetics and one time Dean. Sid Nelson, current Dean, renowned around the world for his work (especially in pharmacochemistry) and Rene Levy, one of the current professors and world acclaimed researcher in his field.

These three men have accumulated an enormous amount of awards and honours between them, making the School of Pharmacy one of the most renowned in the world. But then again, pharmacy is a very small field.

83.160.198.125 JHvW (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In film[edit]

Is the one mention in Dan in Real Life really considered in that movie? There is no filming of the university or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.0.156 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GU8[edit]

I posted this on the GU8 page as well, but when I go to the GU8 website I don't see any mention of the University of Washington being a member or anything. It only has 7 schools listed, and UW isn't one of them. Someone may want to look into that.

Coolgreen44 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're right so I've removed the material from both articles. Good catch! ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They have got a 15th century palace in León, Spain[edit]

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palacio_del_Conde_Luna

Their web site: http://depts.washington.edu/leonctr/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.238.196 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

for learning Castillian Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.238.196 (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Washington seal[edit]

I wanted to get an SVG version of the seal, but after searching washington.edu I didn't find even the raster version of the current seal, let alone vector version. The source of the present seal as stated on its file page is: "Copied from http://www.washington.edu website, and intellectual property owned by University of Washington." I doubt if it is the original seal of UoW. The University's University Brand Guidelines (direct URL) states that File:University of Washington seal.svg is the seal of the University. We should not put anything on WP just because WP is not censored. WP should be accurate.  Aaditya 7  07:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not give the full information in this post? You neglect to note that Excerpts from the 'University Brand Guidelines' states that: "The special color versions of the University Seal are used for only the most formal occasions. Only the single-color line version (like this Purple version) has been approved for University-wide use."
The special color version, as was formerly displayed on the article, is the official seal of the University. The single-color line version is a simplified version intended for printing on letterhead or business cards. While the single color line version is publicly available on the UW website, the rest are behind a login. The special color version can also be found here: http://faculty.washington.edu/xuxd/Publication.htm Did you go to UW? No, you didn't, or you wouldn't be opining that you doubt that the official seal is real. Yworo (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the seal is finally mentioned on the UW website. All I wanted is that we should have an SVG version of the seal. It will be great if you find one and upload here. I normally just upload the SVG version of the images we already have on Wikipedia, from their official sources. What is wrong with this signature? Why are you removing this signature too? Is this not the official signature of UW?  Aaditya 7  15:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, removed the sig by mistake. I've restored it. I don't have access to the SVG version of the official seal. Feel free to add the SVG letterhead seal elsewhere in the article if you wish. Having an SVG seal in the infobox is preferred but certainly not required. The official seal is better to have there even if an SVG version is not readily available. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

College of Engineering ranking in the lead[edit]

The College of Engineering is ranked 27th nationally by U.S. News & World Report, not a particularly impressive ranking in light of the fact that the UW's other colleges, such as the School of Medicine, School of Public Health, School of Nursing, College of Education, Information School, Evans School of Public Affairs, along with the various social science and humanities departments, are all ranked higher by the same publication. As per WP:UNIGUIDE, the article lead should not place undue weight on rankings. That type of information is normally reserved for the main body. Currently, the article lead does not mention the other UW colleges, and rightly so. While the university's overall ranking may be notable enough to deserve the extra attention, deciding which of the UW's particular graduate schools are "important" enough to warrant the special emphasis is an arbitrary and ultimately misguided task. We would need to mention the higher-ranked colleges as well, which would only serve to clutter the lead with information better placed elsewhere. With this in mind, I have removed the College of Engineering ranking from the lead and left this information in the article's "Ranking" section. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Film trivia[edit]

A (mostly) uncited list of films which may have had some scenes shot at UW is most definitely trivia. Simply citing to IMDb for filming locations doesn't cut it either. If the filming of any of these films has sufficient significance to have been mentioned in third-party sources, such as histories of UW or even the Seattle Times or PI, then some prose should be written based on those sources. Otherwise, the whole section should go. Yworo (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Add part of Gig.U[edit]

Self-written?[edit]

It really seems that members of the UW have written this article, at least partially based off of promotional materials. Look over the citations once - these are not objective sources. 50.35.180.102 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Campuses[edit]

It may just be me, but this page doesn't seem to link to the pages about the Bothell or Tacoma campuses, although both link to this page. Perhaps someone with more experience than I have could take a look at this, like adding them to the 'campus' tab at the bottom of the information box on the top right of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.211.159 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Associated Students of the University of Washington[edit]

Does not meet stand alone requirements for notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - The precedent set by other university articles and WP:UNI show that information about student governments (and other student organizations) are typically grouped into the main article. The Associated Students of the University of Washington appears to fit this mold.--Ðrdak (T) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)