Template talk:Infobox university

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox University)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

University Anthem[edit]

Dear All,

Almost every university has an anthem or official university song.

Let us add a new parameter as

<code>
|anthem = ''[[Anthem_label_text]]''<br />{{small|''English_Name_of_the_Song''}}<br />[[File:Uploaded_anthem.ogg|center]]
</code>

Thank you SrLnKn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srlnkn (talkcontribs) 06:17, 14 January 2014‎

Deputy superintendent[edit]

My addition of |deputy_superintendent= was reverted with an edit summary claiming that it was of "off topic". Since universities and colleges ({{infobox college}} redirects here) employ deputy superintendents, that's rather a bizarre claim to make. The parameter should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

which article is this for? Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide a few examples? I'm not aware of any U.S. colleges that use the title. In fact, the only (U.S.) institutions that I can think of that even use the title "superintendent" are a few of the service academies and even they don't have deputy superintendents under the superintendent but instead they have commandants (and then deputy commandants). ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
exactly, see the description in deputy superintendent. Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You appear to make the mistake of assuming that only police superintendents have deputies. That would be a false assumption; just as organisations other than the police have superintendents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you miss |superintendent=? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No. We're discussing |deputy_superintendent=, not |superintendent=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I repeat my original question: Can you please provide a few examples of how this parameter would be used in this template? ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean like |deputy_superintendent=John Doe? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm asking for specific examples of colleges or universities who would use this parameter if it were added to the parameter (and, of course, the people who hold this title at these institutions). ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Surprisingly, after much searching, there seem to be no Wikipedia articles on any type of college or university (nor university school, department or other such sub-division) which have a deputy superintendent. I withdraw my opposition to the removal of the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have never encountered a civilian university or four-year college that employs the title "superintendent" for any of its administrators. The commanding officer of the U.S. Military Academy (West Point), U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis) and U.S. Air Force Academy is usually a lieutenant general or vice admiral styled "superintendent," but it is less an academic title than a military one. In the American civilian education context, a superintendent is usually the appointed chief administrative officer of a county or city school district, or less commonly, the uber principal (i.e. headmaster) of a single-campus K-12 school. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
But, of course, this is not just about the US. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not, which is why I've been careful to note that my knowledge is limited to U.S. institutions. Of course, if there are non-U.S. institutions that use this title then that would valid and useful knowledge that might justify the addition of this parameter. But my broader point is that if nobody can name even one specific instance in which this parameter would be used (and I'd insist on multiple instances before expanding and already expansive template) then it shouldn't be added or retained since it has no utility. ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not suggest that this issue is was "just about the US," Andy, but my comment was a reference to the higher education system with which I am most familiar. I don't pretend to be an expert on obscure academic titles in higher education in every other country, and even less so outside the major English-speaking countries. That being said, the question still stands: can you provide an example of a university that employs the title "deputy superintendent?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what my experience and education tell me, too. "Chancellor" is the closest analog I know in the higher ed world when it's used to denote the head of a university system (as opposed to British usage which is more of an honorary title with the vice chancellor having the genuine responsibilities). ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, shouldn't we change the link for the label for |superintendent= to Superintendent (education)? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a no-brainer. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The current link to is University president. Superintendent (education) is about people who oversee the management of schools (i.e. establishments that teach children). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. As already mentioned, it's a very unusual title for anyone in U.S. higher education to hold so University president may be the best match if the superintendent article doesn't include enough (or any) information about the few instances in which the title is used in higher ed. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Superintendent[edit]

Provided Category:TEMP - Infobox university with a superintendent parameter value has finished populating, it seems that only six articles use |superintendent=:

(I removed it from Adarsh Polytechnic along with a lot of other crud.)

Is it worth keeping, or should we switch them to |head= and |head_label=? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are in fact 46 articles using the parameter - still a small number. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
seems worth keeping for better granularity. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I did a quick review of Andy's 46 results earlier: 23 American public school districts or high schools, 11 military academies, and 13 random institutions all over the world. Clearly, we should keep the parameter option, but I do find it interesting that 23 public school districts and high schools are using this template -- do we not have specific or generic infoboxes for school districts and high schools? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, not surprising, and yes, see {{infobox school district}} for school districts and {{infobox school}} for high schools. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of the individual uses are bogus; checking the sources shows that the person has a different title, and an editor has shoe-horned their name into a field generically. Others are incited BLP, or, in one case, junk characters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also replaced the school district's templates. We're now down to 22 articles using the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Schools done; now just 19 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Affiliation label[edit]

I've copy-edited the label for |affiliation= from "Religious affiliation" to "Affiliation", because it was apparent that some templates use the same parameter name for other types affiliations; because editors my be led by the parameter name "affiliations" to enter non-religious affiliations, and because the new label is much shorter. The new label is still applicable for religious affiliations, because they are a subset of all affiliations.

Another editor has objected, on my talk page, and asked me to revert the edit. Before I do, does anyone else object?

The editor also referred me to a similarly named parameter, |affiiations=. It seems to me that the two parameters should be merged, as their names and purposes are confusing Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your boldness but your edit seems to have made this situation more confusing. The "religious affiliation" parameter is a very useful and important one that's relatively unambiguous so it should remain. The generic "affiliations" parameter, on the other hand, is ill-defined and poorly used so I think it should be removed. It's widely used, however, so its removal or redefinition should be discussed in a broader venue or at least have notes posted about this discussion in broader venues e.g., WT:UNI. ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As ElKevbo feels strongly enough to take the matter to WP:ANI, despite no-one else having objected here, I have reverted my edit; hopefully temporarily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

in my opinion, we should (1) track all uses of |affiliation= and convert them to |religious_affiliation= where appropriate. (2) merge |affiliation= with |affiliations= after some time has passed. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That plan sounds good to me. —PC-XT+ 02:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected[edit]

I have done a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_8#Template:Infobox_academic_division, but the notification tag needs to be removed from this page. Reywas92Talk 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: The reopened TfD for this template has been closed (again) today. Can you remove the TfD notice from this template? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

The non-administrative close of the TfD mentioned immediately above has been re-listed/re-opened following a DRV. Please restore the pending TfD/merge template, linking to the re-listed/re-opened discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. I have placed the TfD notice on the template/documentation page, but I could not tag the template itself because it is a fully locked page and may only be modified by a template editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

music schools/conservatories[edit]

Which infobox template should music schools (aka conservatories) use on their pages?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prisencolinensinainciusol: Actually, the better answer is "it depends." Andy Mabbett has proposed that Template:Infobox university be merged with Template:Infobox academic division. The latter template, Infobox academic division, was specifically designed to be used for articles about constituent colleges and schools of universities, and intentionally omits many of the optional parameters that are generally not applicable to constituent colleges and schools (e.g., school colors, mascots, sports teams, etc.). There is a pending TfD to decided whether these two infobox templates should be combined as a larger all-in-one template, or whether their separate existence should be maintained as two smaller, more specialized templates, with Infobox academic division including optional parameters that are specific to particular disciplines, graduate degree programs, professional degree programs, and professions. Until the TfD is decided, you can probably safely use either template, and no one will tell you are wrong. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

TfD merge banner[edit]

Can we remove this eyesore? Infobox university is the target of another infobox with only about 100 transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, we cannot, Alakzi. This is standard TfD procedure. Both the template to be merged and the target/surviving template should have the TfD notice while the TfD is pending. If the merge occurs in this case, there will be changes to the surviving template as a result of the merge. Until someone comes up with a better system for notifying potentially concerned editors of a pending TfD, this is the only system we have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm aware, but the TfD has been running for two freaking months. One month, maybe I can put up with. But two months on top of one of the most-used infoboxes? Come on. Alakzi (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I know, Alakzi. It's frustrating, since it is apparent that there is no !majority in support of the merge. The nominator will tell you that TfDs, like all XfDs, are "not a vote," and he is correct that consensus is not determined by raw numbers. That having been said, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires these two templates be merged (nor is there a policy or guideline that requires that they be maintained separately).
The "process" involving these templates was started as a delete TfD on November 29, and closed as "non consensus" on December 7; renominated as a merge TfD on December 8, and closed as "keep" by a non-admin on January 2; re-opened on January 22, after a DRV where the non-admin close was determined to be inappropriate, and now it's been open for another nine days since then. I requested a close on January 29, seven days after it was re-opened, but no administrator has yet stepped up to close it. It's a mess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI, removing the notice banner could be the basis for another DRV. God knows, that's the last thing I want. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus isn't the weighing of the opinions expressed, either. The closing admin isn't an independent adjudicator who'll judge all arguments on their merit. The closing admin can suggest how the discussion could've been better conducted, but he's not in a position to overrule. If so many people are opposed, there's no consensus -- plain and simple. Alakzi (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Alakzi (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • TfM banners have been boldly removed, before, without closing the discussion, usually after discussion has been ongoing for more than the ideal 3 week list, relist, relist cycle. That is a gray area, but people usually don't DRV over it. —PC-XT+ 06:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Would you remove it then? Alakzi (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi:@PC-XT: Guys, let's leave the TfD/TfM notice on the target template. That's how most discussion participants know about the ongoing TfD discussion. Without it, we would have far fewer discussion participants and a much narrower range of input on point. Yes, I know it's annoying, but that's the only TfD notice system we have. Thanks to both of you, and hopefully this TfD will close in our life times. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
          • You need to update the timestamp (sign again) for pings to work. Alakzi (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've wrapped the notice in <noinclude> tags. That way, it stays on the template, but not the artciles using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Alakzi, but I've been asked by Dirtlawyer1 to revert the edit, and so have done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy, if we are going to keep this TfD open indefinitely with no consensus in sight, we are certainly going to maintain the transclusions of the TfD notice on the affected article pages. That TfD notice on the affected article pages is the only way that most TfD discussion participants have found this discussion -- it's not an accident that this discussion has attracted 20+ participants (4 or 5 times more than typical) because it's transcluded on nearly 20,000 articles. Let's try to play by the standard procedures, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"if we are going to keep this TfD open indefinitely". Straw man. As for your closing remark, it is standard (albeit not required) to remove article notices for over-running TfDs, if their presence is causing concern, as here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no provision to keep TfD banners visible indefinitely, either. It's a courtesy; a courtesy that at least two of us here think has run its course. Absolutism leads to absurd results. Alakzi (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy, as far as I am aware, there is no guideline on point to remove TfD notices while a TfD remains pending. As I pointed out above, one of the reasons for the high participation rate in this particular TfD is the widely circulated notice on the approximately 20,000 affected articles. You, of course, may request an immediate close of the TfD as both Alakzi and I have done, but as long as the TfD remains unclosed, the TfD notices need to remain visible -- otherwise, what is the point of keeping the TfD open if we are not going to solicit the discussion participation of knowledgeable and concerned editors? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can safely remove it, for several reasons. One: this has been tagged for quite a long time already. Two: the nomination mainly concerns Template:Infobox academic division and wouldn't perhaps affect transclusions of this template much if at all. Three: several voices are calling for its removal and only one lone voice is dissenting. Four: I am not aware of a rule that says these cannot be removed, and I have removed others in the past without controversy. So I am planning to add the "noinclude" back in shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @MSGJ: Actually, Martin, it's only been tagged continuously since January 22, 2015, or 11 days ago. This TfD was closed on January 2, 2015, and re-opened 20 days later. This is not a typical situation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The first !vote is dated 10 December 2014. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Andy, that's true. And then it was closed on January 2, 2015, and remained closed for 20 days, until it was re-opened on January 22, 2015. It's been open continuously for the last 11 days. Again, this is not a typical situation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • There appears to be consensus for hiding this notice. We don't need to argue every little thing to the death. Alakzi (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: It's not really a matter of "consensus"; it's a question of what is the proper procedure under the circumstances. I requested that this son-of-a-gun be closed four days ago, but if we're not going to close it, it needs to be properly noticed. I don't relish being the "bad guy," but this is about procedural fairness. And as much as I dislike the little TfD notice above the infoboxes, it is a very small inconvenience for all concerned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Why is it not a matter of consensus? We can disagree on what proper procedure is, or when it might be appropriate to brush it aside. I don't think that the TfD needs to be advertised any longer; there's been plenty enough discussion (for want of a better word). The longer it gets, the more difficult it'll be to close. Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)