Talk:University of Western Ontario/Archive 1

Controversies

I've added a brief sentence on Professor Philippe Rushton in the "Controversies" section. If anyone has a better knowledge of his work or the field of psychology, please feel free to expand it.129.100.205.179 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

As I understand it, the correct full name is 'The University of Western Ontario', with 'The' being part of the name. This distinction is to differentiate this school from other universities in western Ontario.

You are correct. The "The" is part of the name and the article should be renamed with that in place. Someone with enough permissions should move it. --MiloKral (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have place a {{db-move}} request at The University of Western Ontario, hopefully this will get addressed soon. --MiloKral (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we maybe keep the "prominent alumni" section for people that are actually well known? This isn't a place for self-promotion and ego-boosting.

There's the Category:University of Western Ontario alumni, it may be better moved to its own list? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I just added some names, but I can see the merit in paring down the list in the main article and moving to a new article. Doing so now. WesternMustang 07:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no...please don't move it to a new article. That just fragments useful information. That kind of thing should stay on this article! Adam Bishop 12:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I dont like "black" words in "dark blue" cells. Harder to read. wshun 23:01, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to fix that some more...I originally tried the official colour of purple that the university uses, but that was much harder to read than it is now. Adam Bishop 23:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

well we can mention that the official colour is purple but the words looks more appealing with a lighter background. kt2 23:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The full name of the School includes "The" therefore the name of the article and the bold text opening the topic should reflect this as The University of Western Ontario. Magnetawan (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to stay as currently edited, because in running text, such articles are normally treated as part of the running text. For example, the relevant sections of Chicago style 16th ed are 8.67 and 8.168. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Logo

Just curious, does UWO have a crest and a motto as well as the purple logo? dave 19:52, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but the only one available on their site is a little purple version, which doesn't look very good. I found a representation of it here: http://www.mad-alchemy.com/heraldry/academic/uwo.htm (that's not an "official" version, I don't think). Adam Bishop 20:01, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think we should use the purple "Western" tower logo instead of the crest. According to UWO graphic guidlines:

The coat of arms was the main identifier for Western prior to the introduction of the Tower logo in 1998. The Coat of Arms is only used on university degrees and diplomas. The tower logo should be used as our identifier in all other circumstances.

UWO Graphic Standards (PDF)

Opinions?

Robojames 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. --Spinboy 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Did you use a template for this page? I'd like to use this for other Canadian universities. Maybe we should create one of those wikiprojects if there isn't one already? dave 09:17, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alright I just answered my own question. If anyone reads this and wants the answer, check this out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. dave 09:18, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hilary Weston

Does Hilary Weston have an earned degree? If she got her degree in 1997 you'd think it was honorary -- doesn't really qualify her as an alumna. Trontonian 00:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed this comment before, so sorry for the delay, but yes that does appear to be an honorary LLD. (Strangely, she's in the alumni directory, although I can't find any other honorary alumni there.) Adam Bishop 18:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Well, scratch that, Rick Hansen and Peter Gzowski are also in there, they received honorary degrees with Weston in 1997. Adam Bishop 18:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC))

"Western Ontario"

I've never heard UWO referred to as "Western Ontario", I've only heard it referred to as "University of Western Ontario", "Western" or "UWO". Thus I hath removed the reference to "Western Ontario".

Well, people at Western don't call it that, but other people do, like when referring to a sports team for example...I've heard it used plenty of times, so I put it back. Adam Bishop 06:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I thought about you the other day. A young lady from Western called me up on the phone to sollicit a donation from me, an alumnus. Several times in the conversation she referred to UWO as "Western Ontario". Grstain 15:23, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Haha, cool...my friend used to do that same job. I've already been called by them too, even when I was still a student there! Adam Bishop

Not sure if just because you have never heard it called Western Ontario - doesn't mean it doesn't get called that. I seem to remember when I was in elementary school about 10 years ago it was called that by some of my teachers. If several distinct people keep trying to add it in, why not leave it? Graniterock 06:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey I just graduated, and after 5 years at UWO, I have never heard anyone refer to UWO as "Western Ontario", I feel that the line refering to that should be removed. VOO KAP 04:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am under the impression, as a graduate of a western Canadian university, that Western is only called "Western Ontario" either by people who don't know that it's normally referred to as "Western", or by people who know that it is simply called "Western", but are talking with someone who wouldn't know to what "Western" refers. —E.g., "I'm going to Western in September" is a bit ambiguous outside, say, Canadian academia. 69.11.61.81 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

UWO Crest

Someone seems to have replaced the UWO Crest with another image. I tried reverting it, but on my browser it does not seem to have worked. Perhaps it's just a cache thing, but perhaps someone else might have a look at see if the image still needs reverting, or if it is all just an illusion. Hope that this makes sense... Grstain 00:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine now! Adam Bishop 05:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I was still seeing the other image, and so I sent my cache to the trash. All is right with the world now. Grstain 10:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Images

Is there no better picture of University College? I never had a camera while I was there, but surely some current student must be able to give us a more recent pic. Adam Bishop 05:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we have sources of these pics? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

White & purple/purple & white

"Purple and white" is not the same as "white and purple"? They must have started teaching logic differently at Western since I was there. And while I was there the only time I heard the phrase "white and purple" was when they sang the school song, which mercifully happened only rarely. The school song also describes Western as a college, so it can't be taken as an authority on which colour precedes which. John FitzGerald 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that from the official heraldric description of the arms, or something? (By the way, I somehow managed to avoid ever hearing the school song...) Adam Bishop 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I know from your guitar tab page that you like music, Adam, I advise you to consider yourself lucky not to have heard the song. Here's a taste – It starts "Western, Western, Western U./College fair and square/Arts and meds are strong for you/Deny it if you dare." Then it gets worse. It also changes melody twice.

In heraldry isn't white called argent? Actually maybe all the statement needs is a little clarification. John FitzGerald 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Western [1] insists "white and purple" is correct because the heraldic description is "purpure and argent". So I'll revert. Still don't see why they bother to teach logic, though. p _v q = q _v p is what I was taught in Philosophy 37 or whatever it was. I think it was, anyway; it's so long ago they could have changed the rules. John FitzGerald 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it had already been reverted. Seems obsessive compulsive to me. So I added a point that this position is an opinion of the administration only. I'm open to removing it if there's a good reason. John FitzGerald 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that on the info area someone put the school colours as purple and silver. This doesn't seem right, I am a student at Western and it seems that everyone is in agreeance that the school colours are Purple and White or if you like White and Purple (just kidding) I'll change this. Bennyj600 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Most pictures seem overexposed and blurry. (Ivey Garden, Relaxing at University College Hill and Alumni Hall pics) Does anyone have better quality ones? 219.77.172.201 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging Debating Society

I've proposed to merge the University of Western Ontario Debating Society article here, it may be notable in the context of the University (as the oldest club) but certainly not on its own. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any support for this, so I'll close it down. That article is linked directly from many other articles so it does appear to be sufficiently notable. WesternMustang 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UWO and University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

I propose that a disambiguation page be created, with a link to the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh page. Digitalsabre 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

UWO seems to refer almost exclusively to the University of Western Ontario (at least according to search engine searches). University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh appears to go by UWOSH, even internally. So I don't think any disambiguation is necessary. WesternMustang 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Western News Photo replaced and article tone

This article is kind of written like a brochure, the pictures I replaced out of a belief wikipedia should be more "user-defined" and Western News- a quasi related institution to the University itself- should not be allowed to contribute. I kept the Pride Library and Corcoron Hall lecture photo b/c it seems hard to replace and it says something unique about the campus and I don’t want to be censoring material that cannot be easily replaced. All the other photos seem pretty corny and commercial, so I replaced them. The general tone of this article is really very unobjective and I am not into tagging articles, but it seems to be very happy and slapdash and the concluding section about “Recent fundraising” is appallingly un-encyclopedic. --Mikerussell 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) -actually I took out the Pride Library picture since it is the article for the library itself as well as looking kinda of advertising-like--Mikerussell 02:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I actually ended up re-organizing a lot of the article without really adding anything; meaning, I deleted excessive stuff about schlorships that have very little interest value to even students who will have to read about that in official sources, and contradictory info, for which there was several instances, and tried to group the sections better. The article has only 3 or 4 official references and is loaded with unsupported claims, so there is a lot of work to do before it gets better- just compare to the University of Michigan article for an example.--Mikerussell 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uwocrest.png

Image:Uwocrest.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 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a free photo(s) of J. Philippe Rushton

Can someone from this university get a photo of J. Philippe Rushton for his article please? Perhaps someone from Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Western Ontario could do it? Richard001 (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

File:WesternAlumniHall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WesternAlumniHall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:WesternFootball.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WesternFootball.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UCHill.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UCHill.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Western Ontario → Western University – Per official name change (see [2]). The page currently redirects to Western University (Azerbaijan), but the university in Ontario is far more notable than the one in Azerbaijan. Richard Ye^talk 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. "The university’s official name remains The University of Western Ontario, and will continue to appear as such on diplomas and official documents."[3] This is essentially a marketing gimmick. No need to be falling all over ourselves trying to move the page. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, rather expensive marketing gimmick. Name doesn't change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.173.77 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the request, while the university's name is still UWO, many people refer to it as Western and per their official rebranding, even more will. The western page should, at the very least, be made a disambiguation page. --Aquahelper (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone already calls it Western. There are also several other universities with "Western" in their name and are also simply called "Western", so there's nothing special about this one. Changing it to "Western University" makes it less memorable since it no longer says where the university actually is. And as mentioned, the official name of the university hasn't changed, so there is absolutely no reason to move the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with the reasoning put forth by Adam Bishop: the university's official name hasn't changed, so there's no reason to move the article. A certain US university is branded as MIT, but our article is still at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I've converted Western University into a dab page to address the point raised by Aquahelper. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It does seem to be a public-relations and trademarking matter, rather than a change of name. From this very recent statement (26 January 2012; "Western rolls out new branding"; my underlining):

"Chief among the changes will be the adoption of Western University as the institution’s widely used moniker. The university’s official name remains The University of Western Ontario, and will continue to appear as such on diplomas and official documents. But for communication, marketing and web purposes, Western University – or, at times, simply Western – will be the name."

Glance through the results of a Googlebooks search on "Western University". After the commercial and news-oriented top of the page, it is confirmed that the phrase "western university" is primarily generic, and also that there are several institutions that might be confused under the rubric. Nice marketing, to hijack such a phrase! But I'm for using the official name as this article's title. It is not in any way deceptive.

Noetica^Tea? 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In a somewhat parallel case, when the Greater Vancouver Regional District decided to rebrand itself as "Metro Vancouver", we did change the article name. Of course in that case, it was still a unique name that didn't need a disambig. Franamax (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support with amendment The article shouldn't be called "Western University" it should be called "Western University (Ontario)" Other than that, all the opposing arguments put forth here are erroneous and not based on policy. This is a cut and dry case of WP:COMMONNAME, I quote from that guideline: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (see the examples on the page, we don't call the article on Bill Clinton "William Jefferson Clinton" just because that's his full and legal name). So it doesn't matter that the University hasn't changed it's official name or that this is a marketing technique. It also doesn't matter if there are other universities that have "Western" in their name, or are called "Western University", if this causes confusion on Wikipedia it should be cleared up with a disambig page. If the name change causes the University to be confused with others that's not Wikipedia's concern. The fact remains that the University is commonly known as "Western", and the websites of the university have embraced that and chosen to refer to it as "Western". It's our job to reflect things as they are, not judge what makes the most sense for the layout on Wikipedia. Vietminh (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's not quite accurate- the university's marketing department has chosen to brand it as "Western University" (not "Western" alone), which is the target of this requested move, and that is emphatically not the common name of this institution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For one, per my comment below, this was a decision by the top administration of the university, not any "marketing department". For two, who determines the common name? The only measure we have is what the University chooses to call and/or market itself as. Simply put, Wikipedia ought to call the school what the school calls itself, they determine the common name, not us. If a company changed the name it does business under we wouldn't leave the old name up and insist that that was the name of the company. Vietminh (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You assert that "the University is commonly known as 'Western.'" Please provide evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Per [4]: “In many areas, we are already there,” Chakma said. “In Canada, when you say Western, people understand what you are talking about.” Vietminh (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Find evidence other than the self-serving material provided by the university itself. ElKevbo (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Western" is already a short form, but of "University of Western Ontario", not "Western University", which no one has ever called it (as long as it has been UWO). If people need to "disambiguate" it in real life, they say "Western Ontario". Evidence...well aside from having lived there and attended the university, this very article calls it "Western" throughout, there is the "Western News" newspaper (also the name of the page we keep linking to), and our Western Ontario Mustangs page. In the announcement, Chakma compared it to Harvard University simply being referred to as "Harvard" - but in that case, Harvard is already a proper name that doesn't refer to anything else. "Western" is just a regular word. Western what? It's Western Ontario. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence has been presented that anyone refers to this university as "Western University" other than its marketing department. If the university is successful at convincing others to follow suit then we can revisit this. ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Per [5] this decision was made by the university administration and not any "marketing department". Specifically, in the source provided, the President of the university and not any "marketing department" is discussing the name change and why it occurred. Secondly, the only measure we have of what the common name of the university is, is from the university itself. Importantly, the cited source indicates that the old name "University of Western Ontario" is not commonly used. Vietminh (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the university president supports changing the university's wordmark and such; such changes don't happen without the support of the executive. "The only measure we have of what the common name of the university is, is from the university itself" and "the cited source indicates that the old name 'University of Western Ontario' is not commonly used" are such ridiculous statements that they scarcely deserve a retort. Please learn to differentiate between what the institution would like people to call it and what people actually call it. We care much more strongly about the latter. ElKevbo (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The official name is still The University of Western Ontario, and Western University is an ambiguous name, with at least 4 other schools having the same name. Rawr (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The official name of the school will still be University of Western Ontario. They announced the Western University moniker is purely for marketing and commercial purposes. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 06:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- If renamed, it should be the Western University (Ontario), to reflect the rebranding. Howevever since there are only two, Western University might be redirect to the present article (which I gather still to be the official name) with a hatnote for the Azeri university. Englishspeaking readers are more likely to want to know about a Canadian University than an Azeri one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rebranding

This is related to the requested move talk but is slightly different. Should the titles of everything read Western University. This is not the legal name nor is it the common name (yet). I believe that there should be something in the article to reflect that the official name is still "The University of Western Ontario." NEPats (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Very little other than a note about the new marketing term should be added to or changed in this article. The university does not control this article not do they dictate to us or anyone else how to discuss the university. If their efforts are successful and the new term catches on then we can look at changing the article. But until that happens, a change which could realistically take several years, very little should change. The article should reflect predominant usage, not the university's preferences. ElKevbo (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• though I'm sure everyone is going to disagree with me as they did above, I think that the name should reflect what the university refers to itself as, and the school should be referenced as Western University, with the official name in parentheses. --Aquahelper (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No. This is well established in Wikipedia practice and policy. ElKevbo (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of the policy are you referring to, you just linked to the entire thing? Also this isn't about the university dictating terms to us, this is about reflecting what they choose to call themselves. If they wanna call themselves Western University then it's our job to reflect that for accuracy, the RM is getting bogged down on a technicality, we wouldn't be debating this if they changed the legal name. Vietminh (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you will actually read the policy, you'll understand that it isn't "our job to reflect [what they wanna call themselves]." It should definitely be part of the article but it doesn't dictate what we title the article - the common name of the institution is what we use as the title. And the university doesn't get to dictate to the world what it's called. To put it another way, the title of a Wikipedia article is descriptive and not normative. ElKevbo (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just checked the article, and perhaps in a form of proof for the decision the University has made, most of the article already uses the "Western". So this discussion is really about the outcome of the RM and nothing else, the full name usage in the article should follow the article name. Vietminh (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just about the name of the article. It's fine to use shortened phrases or abbreviations within the article itself as there is virtually no chance of causing confusion or misleading readers. ElKevbo (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tower Logo caption stating it as "Historical Logo"

The page has the tower logo with the caption "Historical logo of the University" Can we come up with a better caption. The tower logo was not introduced until 1998 during the previous "branding" campaign of the university. Considering the school was founded in 1878, and this logo was not introduced until 1998 I don't think the words "Historical Logo of the University" is a proper caption. Prior to 1998 to school had a variety of historic brands, many of which can been seen all over campus. Perhaps we could use something simple like "Historic Tower Logo" as the caption. The tower logo is a historic logo but not "THE Historical logo of the university" Magnetawan (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I adjusted the caption below the tower logo to read "Historic Tower Logo (1998-2012)" as there was no opposition of discussion or other suggestions as per my last post above. This should better reflect the logo's use with the dates in use Magnetawan (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

An editor (User:Nikkimaria) has three times today reversed informative, reasonable, and referenced information, the first two times with only an edit summary of "ce, fmt" and "cleanup" (these were reversed and notice was placed on the user's talk page), and the final time with unexplained claims of original research, a spelling mistake, denial that the terms "Western University" (WTO's official branding term) and "Western University of London, Ontario" (original name at founding in 1878 - with full reference from Ontario Statutes of the same year) should be bolded, denial of a hatnote directing users to other universities named "Western University", and finally unexplained things described as "dbld" and "fmt mess"(?). The only possible reasonable change might be to the ellipses (...) used in the quote of the reference from the 1878 Statutes (appears in small print in the References section only). If user continues this wholesale reverting, could a WP administrator please intervene? Thanks very much! Facts707 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Facts707, thanks for taking this to the talk page (in accordance with WP:BRD) instead of continuing to revert blindly. You are certainly welcome to disagree with parts of my edits, but it is much more productive to discuss these rather than reverting the whole thing without a valid explanation (and particularly with inappropriate accusations of vandalism). Now, let's examine your preferred version, highlighting the differences from the stable version:

1. The hatnote. Your proposed hatnote points readers to "other universities named Western University". This is problematic because this university is not named Western University, and is certainly not the primary topic for that name.
2. You removed "{{cite web|url=". This formatting is needed to make the reference appear correctly. Such changes are what I referred to, in the limited space allowed by edit summaries, as "fmt [formatting] mess"
3. You replaced "title" with "work". This creates a citation error, as the software interprets the citation as having no valid title.
4. Bolding of "Western University" in the first sentence. That one's debatable, but is IMO unnecessary.
5. "London in the province of Ontario, Canada, about halfway between Toronto and Windsor/Detroit." I agree with your initial statement that "London" needs to be disambiguated, and incorporated that into my edit; however, your proposed version is too much detail for the lead, per WP:LEAD. And let's face it: if a reader needs to be given Canada as a disambiguator for Ontario, "Windsor" isn't likely to be helpful.
6. Repetition of "main campus" in the Thames River sentence. You later recognized this as redundant, but for some reason reverted it earlier. I'll assume you just didn't read the diff carefully.
7. Bolding of "Western University of London, Ontario. If you examine MOS:BOLD, you will find that article topics and synonyms are bolded in the first paragraph, usually within the first sentence.
8. Ellipses. You admit above that this change was "reasonable" (though you cushion this admission in excessive rhetoric), so we'll leave this be
9. "denomimational". That's not a real word. My edit corrected it to "denominational", but for some reason you reverted this.
10. "(although the university is in the eastern third of Ontario, many Ontarians refer to the area as "Southwestern Ontario")". This is technically true. However, a) in combination with the context it constitutes synthesis, as you seem to be attempting to draw a conclusion from unrelated facts, and b) historically, this was not the case. If you examine the history of the school's name, you will find that the original name reflected the geographical situation of its era.
11. removal of "}}". Again, this is needed for correct citation formatting. I don't see any valid reason for you to remove it, as you did here.

As is clear from the above, saying that the removal of ellipses was the "only possible reasonable change" is a gross overstatement. Could you please provide valid justification for your continued reversions, in light of the above? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nikkimaria - since you updated the Talk page AFTER your recent edit, we had an edit conflict on the talk page. Here is my edit to the talk page, we can discuss this at a later date when we are both rested:

User Nikkimaria persists and has again wholesale reverted all recent changes, this time with the odd edit summary ==> ("denomimational". Please read WP:BRD and discuss on talk instead of blindly reverting) <== In fact, it is Nikkimaria who has been blindly reverting without pointing out why. Furthermore, the spelling mistake Nikkimaria uses to justify his/her latest reversal goes back to at least January 2012 as edited by Nikkimaria himself/herself [6]. I have only been editing this article since May 7, 2012. I will not make further edits here for at least 24 hours (when both editors have had a rest and a chance to review). Take care everyone and I hope everyone is well, Facts707 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you examine the edit histories, you will find that this discussion did not exist at the time of my most recent edit to the article. Per WP:BRD, given that it was your edits were reverted, it is your responsibility to begin the talk-page discussion; thank you for finally doing so. I have given an extensive explanation, both above and in an edit summary, of why I reverted you, yet you persist in referring to my edits as "odd". That in itself is "odd". I did not use the spelling mistake to justify the revert; you asked, in edit summary, for clarification on what the mistake was, so I obliged by pointing it out to you. My revert was justified by the broken formatting and other errors caused by your revert. I did not say you made the original spelling error, but you did restore it, along with a number of other errors. I'm not sure why you believe that that mistake had not previously been corrected justifies your reinsertion of it, but I trust you will endeavour to provide a coherent explanation in the morning. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's summary above appears to be accurate. I don't have an opinion on the legitimate changes to text (e.g. more detailed description of location) but most of your edits appear to be either violations of our Manual of Style or outright problematic because they break templates. It's puzzling that you defend those edits as they are completely unacceptable; it's one thing to make a mistake but it's another to steadfastly defend an unequivocal mistake after it's been pointed out to you. Please slow down and pay more attention, especially when another editor steps in to comment on or revert your edits. ElKevbo (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tower Logo

I think that the historic Tower Logo should be removed for three reasons:

1. Use of the Tower Logo offends Wikipedia's policies for logo.

In order to use a copyright logo, Wikipedia requires that the logo "is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." The Tower Logo, having been replaced by Western's new logo, is no longer used as the primary means of visual identification. It is used in the body of the article, rather than as the main logo for the university.

The Wikipedia policy on logos also requires that the image "is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value." As Western now has a new logo, the Tower Logo is by definition replaceable by the new logo.

Thus, use of the Tower Logo goes against Wikipedia policy.

2. Use of the Tower Logo may infringe Canada's "fair dealing" policy.

The Tower Logo is copyright. While ElKevBo suggested that Wikipedia is governed by U.S. law, that's only true IN THE U.S. If the website is accessible in Canada, then it is governed by Canadian law. And, in Canada, fair use does not apply. Rather, the more restrictive "fair dealing" applies. Thus, a case must be made that use of the image fits the requirements for "fair dealing".

3. Use of the Tower Logo doesn't fit with aesthetic standards.

The Tower Logo looks dated. It is no longer used by the university, nor does it hold any official standing. It was only used for about 14 years and is not "historic" in any sense of the word. Simply, the graphic is jarring compared to the higher-quality imagery on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong about Wikipedia having to comply with Canadian laws simply because Wikipedia can be accessed in Canada. If that were the case then every website would be governed by the most restrictive laws in the world because every website is accessible in every country. That's obviously not the case.

However, your third point seems to hold water and that's enough to satisfy me that this image should be removed. We would have to revisit this if someone were to make a reasonable argument that the logo is historically important and should be briefly mentioned or discussed but unless someone can make that argument I'm ok with removing the image. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo. That being said, websites do have to comply with the laws of the country in which they are accessed. That's why ebay had to block auctions of certain materials in Europe. For example, if the U.S. had strict obsenity laws, it could fine websites located elsewhere and force them to black out content to U.S. IP addresses. This wouldn't require the website to comply with the most restrictive laws in the world, as websites would be able to black out content based on geography. Ultimately, countries have jurisdiction over what is "published" within their borders - and websites that are accessible within their borders are considered "published" content.

Wikipedia does not have to comply with Canadian copyright laws, and your third point is incorrect: while you may dislike the appearance of the logo, it is still more widely recognized and associated with the university than the rebranding version. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - If you publish content in Canada, then yes, you have to comply with Canadian law. If you publish content on a website, and that website can be accessed within Canada, the content is deemed to have been published in Canada. (see the Crookes v. Yahoo - http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc1325/2007bcsc1325.html at para 29. In that case, the plaintiff sued for defamation for content posted on a Yahoo-hosted website. The court found against the plaintiff because the website was not accessible to Canadians. Had the website been accessible by Canadians, the court would have found differently. Also, see Crookes v. Wikimedia, http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc1424/2008bcsc1424.html, where the plaintiff sued Wikipedia because an article contained a link to allegedly defamatory material. Again, there was no proof that the material was actually ever accessed by a Canadian.)

Since Wikipedia is accessible in Canada, however, the content published on a Wikipedia article is deemed to be "published" in Canada. As such, Wikipedia is governed by Canadian law insofar as it is accessible in Canada. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer.

As to my second point, you've completely ignored it. Wikipedia's own policy on the use of non-free content states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". In this case, it is not necessary to use the Tower logo, as the new logo has replaced it. Wikipedia policy on non-free content also states that "[n]on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since UWO now has a new logo, which is being used in the article's infobox, the Tower Logo is not "significantly increasing readers' understanding of the topic" nor would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding."

Under acceptable uses of images, the Wikipedia policy on non-free content also states that a corporate logo is to be used for "identification". The Tower Logo, however, is no longer being used as identification in the UWO article, as the new logo has replaced it in the infobox.

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia policy on the use non-free logos states that logos may appear in the infobox of articles and be no larger than necessary. The Tower logo in the UWO article, however, does not appear in the infobox - it appears in the body of the article (since it's no longer being used to identify the school).

Finally, under Logo Choice, the Wikipedia policy states that "Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale." The Tower logo is obviously not the "current logo", and no good reason for using it exists.

Obviously, you're partial to the Tower Logo, but that's not sufficient reason to infringe Wikipedia's policies and possibly copyright law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The historical logo has broader recognition than the rebranding logo, which is a valid reason to use it. It's not required to be in the infobox, but it certainly could be (that's an editorial decision). Wikipedia, as already explained, follows US copyright law - what you say about Canadian copyright law may or may not be accurate, but according to Wikipedia policy, we don't care. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of my arguments regarding Wikipedia's policies. Where in Wikipedia's policies does it say that you can use copyright material if a Wikipedia editor deems it to be "broadly recognized"? I went through the policies and picked out a number of specific reasons (Wikipedia's, not mine) why use of the logo infringes your own policies, and you respond with a simple "it's more broadly recognized"? It doesn't matter if the Tower Logo is recognized. The Tower Logo is copyright and the Wikipedia policies have specific criteria for using copyright material. The fact that you think it's broadly recognized isn't a listed reason under Wikipedia's policies. As for the legal argument, the law doesn't care whether you accept it or not. It applies regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"[n]on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Wider recognition = increased understanding. A law that may or may not apply to this case is not, under Wikipedia policy, a valid reason to remove the image. If UWO wants to submit a takedown notice, they are of course free to do that - but that seems rather unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - First, do you have any evidence that the old logo, used for 14 years out of 130 the University has been around is widely recognized? Even if that's the case, I don't see how including the old logo contributes to "SIGNIFICANT understanding" about the university. What exactly are we understanding when we see the Tower logo? How is removing it detrimental to our understanding of UWO? Regardless, you've now addressed one of my numerous arguments.

Listen, I get that you like the logo and are passionate about the school. So am I. But under your rationale (that you can use copyright material where it is "widely recognized") would provide justification for a whole host of of copyright infringement. Under your argument (that wider recognition = increased understanding), I would be permitted to upload a lot of copyright material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's answer your question with a question: how does the rebranding logo contribute significantly to the reader's understanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - With all due respect, it is the responsibility of the person posting copyright material to demonstrate that the use is captured by an exemption (fair use/fair dealing/etc). To that end, Wikipedia has very specific policies with respect to non-free content and logos, and it is your responsibility as the person posting the image to justify the logo's use.

You've ignored Wikipedia's own policies and have justified the logo's use by simply stating that it is "widely recognized". This does not provide any legal justification for publishing copyright material, nor does it satisfy Wikipedia's policies. If it did, I would be free to post lots of material that was "widely recognized" (whatever that means).

So, I leave it to you, the poster of the content, to provide adequate justification, as per Wikipedia's policies (current logo should be used, image contributes to significant understanding, there is no alternative, etc. etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The tower logo should be used because it allows for identification of the article topic, an identification not made possible by the use of a the new, as-yet-unfamiliar logo. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so were clear on the legal issues, the only laws that Wikipedia must abide by is the laws of the State of Florida (and indirectly the laws of the United States), as that is where the Wikimedia servers are located. Wikipedia by no means, is "forced" to abide by Canadian copyright law as no servers are located there (as for the Ebay example, Ebay has a number of domains and servers located internationally, which is why they must conform to those local laws. There's also business considerations as to why Ebay would comply with said national restrictions, something Wikipedia need not to consider). If the Canadian CRTC really took offence to Wikipedia, they would take the necessary actions and/or inform the Wikimedia about these concerns (which is unlikely noting how lax Canadian copyright laws are, but thats a whole other issue).

With that in mind, Wikipedia's policies does respect the copyright of most (if not all) states. Noting this policy however, Wikipedia does allow for the use of non-free content provided that it meets the 10 criteria's for inclusion (may be found here WP:NFCC). While it may be true that the Tower Logo is more recognizable (I'm inclined to actually agree with this, but I'm no authority in what is and isn't recognizable), that alone is not sufficient to warrant inclusion (although if I'm reading the policy correctly, it does fulfill one criteria). Ultimately, I'm impartial to whether or not the Tower Logo should be included, however, as the IP user stated, the burden of responsibility is on you to explain how Tower Logo is fits within the 10 criteria listed by Wikipedia. Leventio (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Leventio - though to clear things up, Canadian copyright law isn't as lax as you think. Under Canadian copyright law, the location of the servers don't matter. What matters is whether content is "published" in Canada. If content on a website is accessible to a Canadian (regardless of where the server is located), then it is deemed to have been "published" in Canada. If you look at the Yahoo decision I referred to above, you'll notice that its servers were located in the United States and the poster of the content was also located in the United States, yet the Canadian court based its decision solely on whether the material could be accessed by Canadians (in that case, it was inaccessible).

All that being said Leventio - I agree with you that the burden of responsibility is on the poster of the Tower Logo and that in this case, Wikipedia's criteria have not been satisfied.

In terms of copyright issue, that wasn't my point. I'm not stating that the Canadian CRTC is unable to do anything about it (I even stated that if it comes down to it, the CRTC would act by either informing Wikimedia of their concerns or act by, as you stated, blacklisting the website, although as I also stated, is very, very unlikely). The point I was trying to bring up is that Wikipedia, and any other Wikimedia project does not have to comply with Canadian copyright laws, especially if it deals with trademarked logos (if it was other kinds of intellectual property, thats another matter completely, but this is not dealing with that). My point was, if were strictly speaking in a legal sense, Wikimedia is only party to the laws of the State of Florida and the United States. The Canadian government has no right to force Wikimedia to do anything as Wikipedia the property of a foreign national, based in a foreign country. As both you and I stated, if it really came down to it, the only thing the Canadian CRTC can do, is force Canadian ISPs to blacklist the website.

Also, not intending to be technical, but Yahoo does own a Canadian domain and presumably has servers in Canada (and again, they have to take into account for business, something Wikipedia does not). Leventio (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leventio - I think that you're mixing up the idea of jurisdiction with the concept of enforcement. If a country passed a ridiculous law (say that all websites accessible in that country had to have red backgrounds), then websites with non-red backgrounds that were accessible within that country would breach the law. Countries have the right to pass whatever laws (however crazy) they want within their own jurisdictions.

That being said, enforcement of the laws is a completely different matter. If Wikipedia (or some other website) doesn't have any servers in that country or have any business in that country, obviously, it would be difficult to enforce. That wouldn't mean, however, that the website didn't breach that country's laws. So, ultimately, Wikipedia is governed by the laws of various countries in which it publishes. If a country says that a law applies to websites accessible within that country - Wikipedia can't simply tell a country that its laws don't apply. Wikipedia can ignore those laws, because there may be no practical consequences, but that's another issue. Here's a bit of a legal discussion of this issue: http://www.heydary.com/publications/internet-jurisdiction.html Check out the discussion of California Court of Appeal cases, where the court found jurisdiction based on internet contacts with California residents.

Ultimately, this is neither here nor there. It's an interesting legal issue, but not necessarily relevant here. I think we both agree that the poster in this case hasn't followed Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see where your coming from, but the argument in with the California Court of Appeals, dealt with an internet companies that solicited business to Californians, something Wikipedia does not do (hence the lack of business considerations). Wikipedia does not consider itself to be an internet business. Additionally, the conclusion of the link posted states:

Based on the above decisions and a few other key decisions that have been made in the past few years, it would be reasonable for e-businesses to make the following assumptions.

First, it is highly unlikely that a company could be successfully sued in jurisdictions in which its only presence consists of an informational Website.

Second, those online businesses that do actually target customers in a particular jurisdiction are highly vulnerable to lawsuits in such jurisdictions despite the fact they may not have an office and/or employees in such locations.

The issues brought up in these court decisions all have one thing in common, they all are internet businesses which had either solicited products and/or services to people not in their base of operations (keep in mind, Wikipedia is not an officially registered business in any country, and is supported by a non-profit charitable organization - Wikimedia). Wikipedia neither solicits nor sells any product to make such precedents applicable, noting how each case specifically dealt with the websites attempting to solicit their business to the state's residents (which was why the issue of jurisdiction came in). Wikipedia does not do this, and hence said precedents would have a hard time applying itself to this situation (although admittingly, its donation drives may make them applicable). International agreements however may allow the Canadian government to petition the U.S. government to sue on UWO's behalf (if it does exist though, I'm unaware of it), but if not, the best thing the Canadian government may be able to do is order ISPs to blacklist the site. But this is ultimately all just winding down to legal theory, and moving away from the main issue of the Tower Logo, so I'm willing to drop this issue, as the main issue is now whether or not the Tower Logo complies with the 10 criterion of Wikipedia's NFCC. Leventio (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - jurisdiction is an interesting theoretical question but not necessarily helpful here. Interesting to consider, though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the Tower Logo, because, as discussed above, the poster has not demonstrated that use of the Tower Logo fits with Wikipedia's policies. NikkiMaria stated that "The tower logo should be used because it allows for identification of the article topic, an identification not made possible by the use of a the new, as-yet-unfamiliar logo".

The Tower Logo, however, does not help identify the university in this article. It's not in the infobox (where identifying logos are included) and instead is found in the body of the article for solely historical purposes. Unlike a corporate logo (such as Coca-Cola), which people use to distinguish between brands on a daily basis, the Tower Logo was only used for 14 years, and was NOT widely known by the public (how many people outside the Western community would be able to identify the Tower Logo?).

Thus, the Tower Logo can be distinguished with the logos of well-known brands. Whereas including Coca-Cola's logo may help people identify with the company (since most people know what Coke's logo looks like), the Tower Logo is much less recognizable. As such, the Tower Logo is distinguishable from well-known brands, where use of their logos adds to the SIGNIFICANT understanding of the brand. The Tower Logo in this article does not add to the significant understanding of Western (which is required by Wikipedia's policies), because most people outside the Western community are unfamiliar with the Tower Logo, used for a short part of Western's history, and only on certain materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.101.131 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the Tower Logo again. Wikipedia's policies on logos allow for their use when necessary to identify the subject of the article. The article already includes TWO identifying copyright images (the shield and new logo). Thus, the Tower Logo, being the third image used to identify UWO is no longer needed thus does not satisfy Wikipedia's policies. ~Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The rationale behind Nikkimaria's usage of the Tower Logo can be found in her new addition to the Tower Logo's FUR and state:

"The University College tower is arguably the most recognizable symbol of The University of Western Ontario. It is unique to Western and in the world. Western's Tower Logo captures this unique building and helps differentiate Western from other Canadian universities graphically."

However, please note that the following source you cite this from, refers to the tower itself as the most recognized symbol of Western. The source in no way states that the logo itself is the most recognizable logo of the university, unlike what you attempted to advance in your previous discussions on this talk page. The only mention of the Tower Logo in that source is that it incorporates the tower (see the source of the quote here. This is not justifiable grounds for inclusion as you are seemingly advancing a position which is in no way supported in the citation you have given. This itself is arguably a breach of one of Wikipedia's five pillar (please see WP:NOR).

Additionally, despite my attempt to ask you to reengage your fellow editors (two users, myself included, and one IP user) in a discussion regarding the Tower Logo, you had instead decided to act unilaterally numerous times to place the Tower Logo back in the article. Furthermore, you are also removing the current logo of the university without justification (both the current and previous Tower Logo have the exact same FUR - barring the addition of your quote, which I attempt to explain is incorrect in my previous paragraph). Your only explanation for its removal from your first attempt at removing it was "look in talk". However, you have not brought the issue of the current logo to centre stage (although it had been mentioned in the discussion of the Tower Logo). Your second attempt at removing the current logo summary which removed the logo only state, look in FUR, which as stated earlier, is not enough grounds for its removal.

If Nikkimaria continue to ignore the concerns of several users, and continue to act unilaterally (not returning to discussion), it would be advisable to bring this up to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Leventio (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As you say, the two images have near-identical FURs - thus, if one is insufficient, then it would follow that the other is also, would it not? The tower image is certainly more identifiable, which gives it a stronger claim for use here. However, given that articles like Pepsi include both old and new logos, you may be able to argue for inclusion of the rebranding logo, though it might be somewhat duplicative with the CoA. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - in saying that the two images have near-identical FURs, you are (again) ignoring the fact that Wikipedia's policies specifically state that a good reason needs to exist to use an old logo. Saying repeatedly that the old logo is "certainly more identifiable" is not really a valid argument. The current situation is completely different than your Pepsi example. The general public can recognize a global brand like Pepsi - they see it every day. In the case of Western, I would suggest that the Tower Logo is NOT known to the general public and is, thus, very much unlike a well-known product like Pepsi.

As such, I am, once again, deleting the old logo. ~Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has once again re-inserted the Tower Logo. Here is the 10-point Wikipedia policy on non-free images:

1. No free equivalent.

2. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

    - there is, however, one item that can convey equivalent information - the new logo.

3. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

    - Wikipedia's policy on logos state that generally, only the current logo is used.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

    - No argument provided on how the presence of the Tower logo significantly increases readers' understanding of Western.

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

10. Image description page.

So, unless you provide actual argument beyond "it's popular", the use of the Tower logo does not meet these requirements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) — Alexwestern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The argument has been provided, as it should be, in the FUR for the image. That you disagree with it is not a good justification for edit-warring. Given the factual errors you are making in the above posts, as well as your record, I would strongly recommend you review our copyright policies and fair-use rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - I understand copyright and Wikipedia's policies. My arguments above are not factually incorrect, and it is your responsibility to make the case for inclusion of a copyright image, which you have not done. Since the image is copyright, the burden is on YOU to justify its use. Your arguments are flimsy, simply saying that it is "more identifiable" is not a valid justification to breach copyright.

Nikkimaria, it is your responsibility to explain to the other user why his argument is not factual. Simply pointing to the FUR (which I earlier explained is not enough to justify it), as well as stating that Alexwestern's arguments are invalid, without explaining as to why it is invalid, does not bring anymore substantiveness to your own claim. Furthermore, one's track record (whatever track record your pulling up) does not make his argument any less true (this is an issue of content, and for the sake of civility, can we keep it that way). It is ultimately your responsibility according to Wikipedia's NFCC to explain to the concerned parties why your image is warranted in the talk page, and complies with the NFCC, something which you have yet to do to a great degree in this talk page. Nikkimaria, the issue Alexwestern has is that he wants a source which can support your claim its more recognized, something you have not done. Furthermore, your removal of the current logo, with no justifications in this talk page. However, it is clear that neither side is willing to relent in their positions. This discussion has been going on for three weeks with no clear end in sight. For this reason I'm requesting for comment on the issue, as it appears that some sort of dispute resolution is the only way this issue can be resolved without edit warring. Leventio (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The FUR has been modified since you last commented on it; do you still feel it is inadequate? I noticed you restored the rebranding logo, though you have not fulfilled any sort of responsibility in explaining how that image is warranted either. There is no requirement that FURs be posted to article talk, only to the image description page. A history of problems with image copyright is absolutely relevant to a discussion of image copyright, but as you will. I've explained some of Alex's incorrect arguments above, but to elaborate:

1. Alex claims that "In order to use a copyright logo, Wikipedia requires that the logo "is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic."" This is not the case; AFAICT this phrase only appears here and in similar contexts, with the disclaimer "These are examples only. Do not simply copy them".
2. The phrase "is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value" appears in the same context, and is irrelevant - not even Alex claims that there is any free image available. This applies also to the argument that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" - there is obviously no free equivalent here
3. The discussion of Canada's interpretation of fair use is irrelevant, according to policy; while Alex's interpretation of Canadian copyright law may or may not be correct, officially we only go by US law unless the foundation instructs us to do otherwise (which to my knowledge they have never done, even when our policies cause demonstrable effect IRL (cf. the Virgin Killer dispute))
4. Alex suggests that logos must appear only in infoboxes, which is false - there is no such requirement
5. "how many people outside the Western community would be able to identify the Tower Logo?" - how many people outside the Western community would be able to identify the rebranding logo? Or, for that matter, most of the non-worldwide brands on which we have articles? Fortunately, this isn't a valid rationale for removing an image, so is irrelevant. Similarly, "most people outside the Western community are unfamiliar with the Tower Logo, used for a short part of Western's history, and only on certain materials" - this is even more applicable to the rebranding logo, which both of you seem to assert should be included
6. Alex suggests that the rebranding logo can convey equivalent significant information to the tower logo, and that the tower logo cannot be considered "identifiable". However, consider source commentary on the subject: for example "Western's Tower Logo...helps differentiate Western from other Canadian universities graphically." (see also Western News 48(5):5, student/alumni reactions deriding rebranding logo as "generic", etc). If anything, including the rebranding logo is duplicative given the presence of the CoA - after all, as the university itself states, the rebranding logo is a "version" of the CoA, and the CoA has more standing than its derivative. Now, it would be possible to argue for retaining the rebranding logo, based on the Pepsi model - but it is to its proponents to make that argument
7. Alex asserts that "Wikipedia's policy on logos state that generally, only the current logo is used". While it is technically true that the current logo is usually used, the use of historic logos is permitted (in addition to or instead of the current logo), according to the very next sentence - Alex fails to mention this
8. "No argument provided on how the presence of the Tower logo significantly increases readers' understanding of Western". On the contrary, that argument was provided both above and in the image's FUR - the tower logo identifies the article topic in a way not possible with the use of the rebranded logo, as the rebranded logo is less widely recognized than the "iconic" tower logo. This can be seen from all available commentary on the issue, as well as common sense (after all, the tower logo has been in use for much longer, and is still used in much of Western's signage and print promotional materials). Will everyone in the world recognize it? Of course not - but if that were the requirement, almost no articles would include logos. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My response to NikkiMaria:

1. You're right, this isn't a required explanation for the purpose of an image's inclusion. That being said, the Non-free use rationale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale#note-purpose) asks "How does the media contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used?". This has never been adequately addressed. I don't see how the historic logo contributes significantly to the article. My example of using Pepsi or Coke's logo is that someone looking at the article will see that logo and immediately make a connection with the subject matter. Someone seeing the Tower Logo, much less widely recognized, aren't going to make that same kind of connection to the subject matter of the Western article. Quite simply, including the Tower Logo in the Western article is distinguishable from using the Coke or Pepsi logos in their articles. Those logos are necessary to identify the subject of those articles. The historic Tower Logo is not necessary and, thus, doesn't contribute significantly to the article.

2. I agree - there is no free equivalent to Western's copyright logos.

3. I've dropped my Canadian copyright argument long ago.

4. There may not be a requirement, but Wikipedia's policy on logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos) states that "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies". I concede that it doesn't say that logos must only be used in infoboxes, but it seems imply that as the preference. This would appear to be consistent with the idea that logos are employed in order "contribute significantly" to one's understanding of the subject matter, since it's the infobox that provides the basic identifying facts about a company/school/etc.

5. Wikipedia's policy on logos describes the rationale for allowing logos as such:

"The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity."

My argument regarding the fact that many people can't identify with the Tower Logo was intended to distinguish use of the Tower Logo with this requirement. A logo is a visual representation of the entity in question. Since it is created by the entity itself, it communicates important information about how the entity wants to be perceived by the outside world. If an entity creates a logo that has an old-time feel, inclusion of that logo communicates important information about the values of that entity (presumably it wants to be seen as "traditional"). If an entity creates an avant-garde logo, it is presumably communicating much different values to the outside world.

Ultimately, an entity's choice of logo is an important mode of self-expression. If Western has chosen to identify itself with a certain image, that image helps to communicate the values behind that choice. It is, as the policy suggests, a portrait of the entity.

The Tower Logo, however, represents an image that Western has rejected. It is a discarded portrait that is no longer accurate, and as such, does not inform the general public about Western.

To NikkiMaria's point about whether people can identify with the logo - the new logo introduces people to Western, and more specifically, the image that Western is attempting to convey. It is an accurate portrait of the entity as it exists in the present day. Its inclusion informs people as to Western's desired image. Inclusion of the Tower Logo does no such thing.

6. What Western said about the Tower Logo in the past is irrelevant. As I said in #5 above, the Tower Logo once conveyed accurate information about Western. In replacing the Tower Logo, the school has communicated that it is no longer an accurate representation of itself.

7. Same argument as above. Ultimately, logos help to identify the subject. At the end of the day, they do so in large part because the entity has created the logo as a manifestation of its internal values/culture. A logo is used, not because it's identifiable, but because it is, as the Wikipedia policy states, a portrait of the subject.

Since Western has released a new logo, this new logo is now the portrait of Western. The historic Tower Logo is no longer the portrait of Western. Thus, it is no longer an accurate representation of Western.

Non-free use is justifiable when use of the image would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Using a logo that has been replaced by an entity, and no longer represents an accurate portrait of that entity fails to satisfy this requirement.

~Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted our content to be only "a manifestation of [the university's] internal values/culture", we'd let their PR people write the whole article and be done with it. Fortunately, we do have a policy on neutrality to uphold. You argue that the comparison to Pepsi is invalid because that logo is more widely recognized than the tower logo. However, you fail to address either the point that that logo is more widely recognized than that of pretty much any university (by which argument we would not include any logo without worldwide recognition), or the point that the tower logo is more widely recognized (by virtue of its tenure, if nothing else) than the rebranding logo - so that argument would apply more strongly to the rebranding logo than to the tower logo. Your point about the portrait doesn't really make sense as you present it. Certainly a portrait can be used to identify the subject. However, we have no obligation to use the portrait the subject provides, or the one the subject prefers. Nor need we include only the most recent portrait available. Something new is not necessarily something better, nor does it invalidate all that has come before. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're taking what I said out of context. I am not saying that the text of the article should be created by the entity. Logos, however, by definition, are created by the entity, not by the user community. Do you know of any logos that are not created or sanctioned by the entity? The user community certainly isn't going to create a logo for Western - we have to content that they've created and don't have a choice in the matter. This is distinguishable from the article text, which is created by the community. Certainly you understand the difference and can't actually believe that I was confusing the two, or suggesting that I believed that we should get their PR people to write the article.

Your point about the logo being "more widely recognized than that of pretty much any university" is completely unsourced.

With respect to your portrait argument - while we might not have an obligation to use the portrait the subject provides, the portrait should be an accurate reflection of the subject. Again, in the case of a logo, all logos are created by the subject, so by definition, we always use the logo a subject provides.

I think you are forgetting that this logo is copyright, so the default is that it cannot be used unless there is justification. You seem to be arguing the opposite - that it can be used unless someone justifies that it cannot. My point in bringing up this issue is that logos in Wikipedia are used on the justification that they identify the subject. When an entity no longer uses a logo and replaces it with a new one, the purpose of including that older logo in a Wikipedia entry changes. Yet, in this case, that change was not reflected on the logo's description.

Including a logo in a subject's entry is arguably necessary in order to accurately describe and identify a subject. If I look up a person, a portrait of the person helps me to understand the subject of the article. In the same way, including a logo helps a reader identify and understand the subject matter of the entry.

In the case of a logo that has been replaced, that old logo is no longer required in order to convey the information. The new logo is now all that's required in order to fulfill the purpose, and inclusion of the old logo is no longer necessary. As such, it goes beyond the minimal impairment required of fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried twice to replace the old Tower logo (which is no longer in use and doesn't really add anything to the article) with another shot of campus (which I think actually adds to the page). Both times, Nikkimaria has reverted my edits with no explanation. I have no time to engage in an edit war with someone who obviously values her own contributions over those over others, and who demonstrates no ability to compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.189.134 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello IP: the image you added is still on the page, no one has removed it. As both images add to the page and we have the space, why not include both? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Logo's issue

Does the claim that the university's old logo (used from 1988-2012, known as the Tower Logo) comply with Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Criteria (NFCC)? And if so, does that make the current logo used by the university non-compliant with Wikipedia's NFCC? Leventio (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Both logos are perfectly acceptable in this article under fair use, especially if they are used in the infobox or are discussed in the article.

However, that the old logo may be used in this article (provided it's discussed in the text) doesn't mean that it should or must be used in this article. That's a separate discussion that has been inappropriately and unproductively confused with the copyright issue. I hope that discussion can resume once we've established a consensus regarding fair use. ElKevbo (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Number of Students

The Old number of undergraduates (from 2011) only included full-time main campus students. There was nothing wrong with the source, however the number of full time, part time, and affiliate full time and part time students must be totaled to get the correct number. It has been updated to the correct 2013 numbers found here: http://www.ipb.uwo.ca/documents/2013_five_year_enrolment_comparison.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.254.150 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive detail

This article is beginning to be swamped with trivia content that is best left to the college web site or other informative publications for students. We don't really want to know how they pay for their food - for example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest you WP:BOLD and delete the extra stuff. The page is starting to read like a brochure. William Spaetzel (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, take that junk out.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Stuff about the band

I reverted this edit [7] about the band, as it seemed trivial to me. We don't have large sections about every academic department for example, it just seemed a bit much to me. That said, I'd be willing to listen to what others say. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As a WMB alum, I agree that the WMB trivia is best left to the WMB article. William Spaetzel (talk)

I had entered in the information as I felt that the significance of the organization played a unique feature worth noting. That being said, it can be best left to the WMB page. What I do take issue with was the removal of the school song. Most university pages note their school song. This did not. I hardly feel it a trivial element if it is mentioned in many other university articles. I could be wrong though. R.schneider101 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"re-branded as"

To say "rebranded as" seems a bit specific and technical to me. It is simply often referred to as Western. And I think Western more often than Western University. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the article says "branded as" because that is largely the result of the university's recent, high profile marketing campaign. Quite frankly, I don't know if anyone outside of the local area or region actually uses the shorthand "Western" or "Western University" because "Ontario" seems like such an important part of its name: the institution is only "western" in the sense of its location in that specific province. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It is colloquially known as "Western" across Canada, however the rebrand as "Western University" is relatively new, and is notable (and bizarre in my view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.179.225 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have been only a college until June 20, 1881

The University was incorporated in 1878 and on 20 June 1881 it received full University powers including the right to confer degrees in Arts, Divinity and Medicine. The first convocation was held in April 1883.History of the County of Middlesex, Canada. London: W.A. & C.L. Goodspeed. 1889. p. 295.

But I later found this one, https://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/about/university_act/UWO_Act_1878_amended_1882.pdf that suggests they had University powers already in 1878. Yet, Section 7 and 10 put into doubt whether they were able to confer degrees so early; certain conditions had to be met before they could do so.

So, at this moment I am not sure what the degree-granting situation was in the early years.

And in 1882 parts of the University became a college (see text in red). And one had to be an Anglican to teach there: interesting. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC

The full name by 1882 was The Western University and College of London, Ontario https://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/about/university_act/UWO_Act_1878_amended_1882.pdf Peter K Burian (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Margaret Chan - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011 crop.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• London Ontario Flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Move to "Western University (Canada)"

This university has been renamed for awhile now - I think it's time to update the title of the article to reflect that. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been renamed. As it already says in the article, "In 2012, the university rebranded itself as "Western University" to give the school less of a regional or even national identity...The university's legal name, however, remains "The University of Western Ontario" and is used on transcripts and diplomas." It's more of a silly marketing stunt than a renaming. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to rename this article. The university has been re-branded for several years and is now widely known as Western University. This also would make it consistent with other similarly situated universities (ex Stanford). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.255.19 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense to me. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Campus Rape Fall 2021

Last week University of Western Ontario has been in the headlines for an instance of mass rape. More than 30 students, according to ctvnews. It was also mentioned in TheNational. This is may be too soon, but we might think about making a new article once there is a clear indicator of what this event is called, like the articles on École_Polytechnique_massacre or 2015–16_New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany. Fred (talk)