Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

Template:WPUNI sidebar

Hellenic College

There's a discussion going on here at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Holy Cross?. So far, none of us know: 1) the independent or otherwise status of the college from theological school or 2) what to name the article if they are indeed the same organization. If they're truly separate, of course, then that will require separate articles and separate entries in relevant lists and templates. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll go ahead with the merger, then. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, BTW. --Aepoutre (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Rankings

Since rankings from places like the Princeton Review change yearly, do articles on universities only place the most recent rank they obtained? Or should past positions be noted as well? So for example, if a university places 15th in a category one year, 10th the next, and then 13th in the most recent year, should all three be placed there or just the most recent? NyRoc (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As with other annual data, you should include the most recent verifiable information. It's a slippery slope to venture down once you start including historical rankings. While there may be a motivation to show that the institution was ranked more highly just over a year ago, I can assure you that with all rankings, any shift in position between years is not statistically significant and almost certainly can be attributed to noise in the data. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to see some standardisation or guidelines regarding the use of ranking entries. It seems that University Staff, Students, and Alumni use statistics to highlight conclusions. However, sometimes statistics are used in a rather disingenous way. For example, UEA presenting the Times "overall" score to represent an academic rating - when in fact there is a more accurate rating which they could have used.

I would like to see some agreement about how long a rating or award can be used for in the introduction - I would suggest a limit of 3 or 5 years. I would also like to see a standardised rating section which would be adopted by each University. It would then be possible for people to make whatever claim they want afterwards, so long as the standardised section is displayed first. Kbdguy (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Has there been consensus on whether or not to use rankings heavily? While I wouldn't expect a "ban on rankings", I'm not a big fan of them. Many seem rather subjective (a rather typical argument, I know), and profit-driven (the combination of which seems to go against the philosophy of WP:RS), rather than truly informational. Would we say that there's an intrinsic benefit to listing these, or that it improves Wikipedia in any way? I'm inclined to think it's more for certain colleges' prestige to have such rankings featured on Wikipedia, since the hype of rankings really doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. Imagine reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica with rankings.... hah! --Aepoutre (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue that I doubt will ever be resolved: Proposed RfC,December 08 discussion, Rankings in lead discussion, Public Ivies, as well as extensive discussions on WT:BOOSTER about the same. I'm of the view that rankings make all their assessments on similar underlying statistics (endowment, faculty awards, admission scores, etc.) so we can just neutrally report these facts and allow readers to make up their own mind. To the extent that there are some notable rankings (and certainly non-notable rankings as well), these can likewise be neutrally reported in Template:Infobox US university ranking without the need for a whole section of the article (that inevitably is the longest and most cited section in some articles). However, my brushups over the past several years on these and related issues of "prestige" and "selective" demonstrate that there is a huge body of precedent (in the form of FAs engaging in "bad" behavior, at least in my eyes) as well as very, very entrenched constituencies on the articles that don't take lightly to their alma mater being taken down a notch. The consensus on "enforcing" WP:UNIGUIDE is basically to grant local article editors complete autonomy to determine the style, content, structure, and tone of their articles as they see fit rather than ensuring consistency within our (relatively) narrowly proscribed domain. But if there are other people as upset as I am with the situation(s), I'd be happy to have your input on future discussions. After all, there is no deadline and I'm in it for the long-haul! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is going to be a pricky issue to deal with. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) many wiki-volunteers have a vested interest. This is understandable given that we can't pay anybody. I believe a solution lies in allowing three references to rankings withing the introduction, and then a complete ban on them elsewhere.

I agree with Aepoutre - an Encyclopedia is not really a place for rankings - I always ask myself - how would this page read in twenty years time. Can anyone direct me in terms of procedure to carry this out ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni

WHat I understand to be our practice of limiting people on lists of alumni to those notable enough for a Wikipedia article or clearly qualified for one has been challenged, at Talk:Tulane University Law School, with respect to people are lawyers whose sole distinction is having made partner in a major law firm. I noticed it because editors have been entering a remarkable amount of detailed material for the School, including a separate article for the placement office Tulane University Law School Career Development Office(CDO) , and even one for the building it is located in, Tulane University Law Annex. The protesting ed. seems to think I'm a student or graduate of a rival law school. He asked on my talk p. for comments from others. DGG (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a discussion on this topic. I would like to make some points in response to the post immediately above. First, the distinction in question is more specific than making partner at a "major firm"; the distinction is making partner at a Vault-Top-100 firm (known in the legal community as the V100). Relatively few attorneys ever reach this level of achievement (the list in question is comprehensive or very close to it). Among other perks of reaching this level, the salary is typically between $1 and $2.5 million annually. Many people consider reaching this level to be a greater achievement than becoming a Senator, Judge, etc. In fact, just about anyone I have spoken with is more interested in knowing about the former alumni than the later. Second, advocates (I use plural here because I have spoken with several others who concur with me) of including this info are not fixated on trying to say that the alums are or are not "notable" using Wikipedia's definition of the word; some people might certainly think they are notable, but that is not the purpose of the info. (Perhaps there is a compromise opportunity here if need be: Take the V100 partners list and move it into its own subheading in the Tulane University Law School entry, rather than including it under the "Notable alumni" subheading.) Third, the fact that editors recently added Wiki pages for the placement office, etc. is not relevant to the topic that's being debated here; this discussion is about the alumni list that has been up for some time now. Fourth, it is recognized that the editor above is not directly affiliated with a rival law school.

Finally, I want to repeat some of the arguments for including this list that have already been discussed in a couple other places. First, this list is what Wikipedia is all about: the sharing of information at a level that would not have been possible in pre-Wikipedia days. Of course, Wikipedia is not to be a repository of anything and everything. However, the information in question here is not just arbitrary and useless data. The editor protesting the existence of this list has mentioned the desire for a page to contain info that would be useful to a wide-variety of readers who want to learn more about the entity being described. This list is a perfect way for people to gain info-- not just for prospective Tulane Law students, Tulane Law alums, current Tulane Law students, and Tulane Law administrators, but to anyone else who wants to read and learn more about Tulane Law or the legal community in general. Second, I do want to make clear that this list is not "promotional" as the editor above mentioned elsewhere; rather, it is about disclosure. This is particularly important for the legal community, where there is a notorious lack of disclosure about where graduates end up. My third and final point at the moment, this section happens to be the most valuable part of the entry; people can use it to help plan major decisions. While random trivia that a graduate went on to become a rock star or something is interesting and fun to read, the reality is that most readers of this article would be more (or at least as) interested to see this info. So if we are to err on one side or the other, why not err on the side of disclosure/inclusion rather than deletion? Thank you again for your time and consideration. Issueitems1 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG on this. This is an encyclopedia article about the school. The names of truly notable alumni are a relevant part of an encyclopedia article, but the list should not be cluttered by the inclusion of alumni who are merely highly successful in their chosen profession. If people want to boast to the world about their school's successful alumni, they can create their own websites for that purpose. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. First I would like to comment on your last sentence. As I described above and at User talk:Issueitems1 this is by no means "promotional material" or material to "boast to the world." Many readers might view the list as just the opposite. For example, there are only two partners in New Orleans (where the school is located!) and only a handful on the West Coast. The purpose of the material is for disclosure, the intention is not to either boast or to bring down the school. Also, I must comment on your third point, about cluttering the alumni list. As has been previously described, many readers, including myself, do not view this information as "clutter." Rather, it is the most value-adding section of the entry. I appreciate that some people might not be interested in the info, there is plenty of info on Wikipedia that I am not interested in, or that I don't know enough about to understand the significance of. Here, people who are interested in practicing law and learning about he legal profession can learn where highly successful legal practitioners from the school end up, and simultaneously, see where most of the alums do not end up (in terms of both geography and level of achievement). It's fun to see where non-practitioners end up, be it from Tulane or any other school (and I am not suggesting that that info be deleted from Tulane or any other school); but the reality is the most people who are genuinely interested in learning about the Tulane University Law School are more interested in seeing where the legal practitioners are; not just the practitioners coming out of school (which schools' career offices keep track of), but long-term info on level of achievement, where it occurred geographically, and at what firm. Thank you again for your consideration of this issue and the desire to favor disclosure rather than deletion. The truth will set us all free. As a final note, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of sorts, it is not your traditional encyclopedia, it provides the opportunity to transcend traditional encyclopedias, which are hindered by stricter space limitations, lack of timeliness, and a lack of writers/editors, among other things. Issueitems1 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is actually a great topic to explore. I agree with Orlady that these are encyclopedia articles about schools and that alumni shouldn't actually matter that much. Wikipedia is not a guide and thus should not be treated as promotional material for a school. This includes advertising class requirements, admissions requirements, long lists of famous people that have attended, and other trivial things that are not encyclopedic. If a separate page for alumni exists then surely some of these might be worthy of inclusion. But I personally believe a general policy of this wikiproject should be that university articles should cover notable parts of the university. This could be (as the project's article guidelines explain) "not...a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form." I'm more OK with this than a list, as lists in articles are unpleasant.—Noetic Sage 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we list notable people associated with all sorts of things, and, within reason, it makes sense--the reputation of a university does depend on the notable people associated with it--it's not a collection of buildings ultimately, but a collection of graduates. But there is a standard we use elsewhere in reducing spam, and its having a Wikipedia article. The people important enough for articles are the ones general readers want to know about. The details of who went to what firm are for students considering admission, and they will naturally come to the university web site. Its the exact definition of what counts as promotional. DGG (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, this is about disclosure, not promotion. Note that there are only 2 partners in the school's hometown, and only a small handful on the West Coast. Note that the school typically graduates 300+ students a year, and this is the complete list of such partners. Also, these are the people readers of this entry want to know about-- this is a law school entry, people want to know about practicing attorneys. Just because practicing attorneys don't have Wikipedia entries doesn't mean that people aren't keen about knowing about them (e.g., several different editors have added to this list). The idea of having the school post this info is good, but it has drawbacks. First, the school might not be enthusiastic about letting people know this info. Second, the info won't be as timely/accurate. Thank you for not deleting this valuable info (wiki is not paper). Please let disclosure/truth prevail, in the spirit of Wikipedia's goal of sharing knowledge.Issueitems1 (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

if they are notable by our rules, write articles on them. I have long advocated more articles on lawyers, but its been difficult sometimes to find suitable information according to WP:BIO, and too many such articles have been deleted. If you can help write some, do. I suggest you start at the most senior level, with involvement in very notable cases, because such articles are in practice more likely to be kept. It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that those none only within a small circle will not have sufficient supporting material. Make sure there are good published sources. This is not a directory. Nor is it made according to your ideas of which of the alumni people want to know about. Putting in mentions of those people you are proud of , for the purpose of promoting your school when people come to choose law schools, is the very essence of promotion. Are you seriously trying to tell us you have no connection with the school? DGG (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I caution my fellow editors against applying WP:N to the content of articles. The policy is clear in stating that it "only outline[s] how suitable a topic is for its own article. [It doesn't] directly limit the content of articles." So it's unfair and out of line with our standard practices to insist that every alumnus in an article already have his or her own article. Instead, other considerations such as verifiability, neutrality, and due weight should guide our decisions and discussions. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo for weighing in on the side of inclusion. And thank you DGG for your suggestion about creating more attorney bios. I would venture to guess that most readers of the article would rather know about these alums than about alums who went on to write film plots. However, I am sure that some readers would beg to differ. Fortunately, there is space for both. I am a student at the school. I have no control over the school's website. I recognize that when an insider is involved there is a heightened scrutiny for neutrality-- which is a policy that I don't disagree with. With that being said, for the reasons mentioned above, I disagree that this info is promotional. Rather, it discloses neutral and objective info about the school. It's not intended to put the school in a good or a bad light. It's about sharing info.Issueitems1 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; if it appeared like I was arguing for the inclusion of these alumni then I wasn't very clear. I don't have a strong opinion about this particular article and if forced to take a side I would probably lean towards excluding them. What I am trying to say is that WP:N is not a valid tool to use this discussion, at least not in the way it's been referenced so far. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think confusion might inadvertently stem from the title of the section. Specifically, the "most-prestigious" part. This is the formal language used by Vault, so that is what the author used. However, the legal community regularly says V100 or Vault 100. I propose to change it from "Partners at Vault's Top-100-Most-Prestigious Law Firms" to "Partners at Vault 100 Law Firms" if nobody else objects. Issueitems1 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Change completed. Issueitems1 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DGG: WHat I understand to be our practice of limiting people on lists of alumni to those notable enough for a Wikipedia article or clearly qualified for one has been challenged [...] I'd challenge it from the other side. People who are clearly qualified for an article should get an article, and that article can then be linked. Energy that goes into arguing on a talk page that this or that personage merits an article would be better spent creating the article. Or rather, it would be if the person really did merit an article. Often such redlinks are highly dubious, and all in all they're a waste of time. Incidentally, I frequently prune redlinks (and non-links, including non-linked names of members of blue-linked pop groups, etc.) from the alumni lists of certain university articles, and I don't remember any objection or challenge to this removal other than reinsertion of the red/non-link. ¶ Noeticsage: Wikipedia is not a guide and thus should not be treated as promotional material for a school. This includes advertising class requirements, admissions requirements, long lists of famous people that have attended, and other trivial things that are not encyclopedic. Yes indeed, so I'm always puzzled by the way in which articles on universities stipulate their "colors" and "mascot" (surely far more trivial than admissions requirements, though less prone to obsolescence), demonstrate a curiously credulous approach to official statistics (e.g. telling the world that Yale has "11,398" students [such precision! on exactly which day?]), and often don't bother to say what subjects are studied (which I'd have thought all important, at least for any university worth the name). -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What about including infamous people among notable alumni? For example, surely someone like Ted Bundy is notable, but should a college be "punished" for the fact that he may have graduated from their school? And what if most of a small college's graduates are just solid regular businessmen not noteworthy enough for a WP article, except for that one Ted Bundy they had? Should this be considered? Or, does it instead show that "notable alumni" is in reality too subjective a category to include? Any thoughts on this?--Arationalguy (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotta take your lumps in the name of NPOV -- he absolutely needs to be included. Notability isn't just for positive things and lists of notable people shouldn't be limited to only the goodie-two-shoes. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think for consistency this would be true. What it may call into question though, is the actual informative value of notable alumni in the first place. I haven't decided on this one way or another.... but just want to challenge us to think about it for a bit.--Arationalguy (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See List of Brigham Young University alumni, which has achieved featured article status. The list includes a range of individuals who may or may not reflect favorably on the school, including hijacker Richard McCoy, Jr., anti-Mormons Steve Benson (cartoonist) and Will Bagley, as well as rival football coach Kyle Whittingham. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania

I've also left comments at User_talk:Flyguy33#Navboxes and Template talk:Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania#Size. I wanted to point out WP:NAV and say that this template is really big, and I'd even go so far as to say too big. I'd also argue that no one would need a navbox for all the institutions of higher education in PA that a list couldn't handle better (see WP:CLN). Perhaps, as suggested by one of the guidelines, separates templates, like one for liberal arts colleges in PA or something, might be more manageable, though breaking up institutions of higher education by type can get dicey not only because definitions are so lax but also because type is often tied more to matters of status and prestige than utility. --Aepoutre (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Still no comment on Template:Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania? I've also found Template:Public_universities_in_Pennsylvania, so these two already overlap in that respect. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two templates Template:Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania and Template:Public_universities_in_Pennsylvania are of doubtful utility, and far too complex. Also, higher education by type is doubtful, too. For example, Lafayette College is both a liberal arts college and an engineering college in Pennsylvania. Are you proposing that these two templates be deleted? DThomsen8 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

I'd echo Dthomsen8's concerns that dichotomizing the list serves cross purposes with regard to both providing some structure but also pigeonholing some institutions. I can't recall seeing any other geographically-oriented university templates. I would recommend using the Category organization. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of college residences (residential colleges)

There's a dispute at List of Rice University residential colleges about the notability of individual residential colleges. Other editors' input would be appreciated here. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) See the RFC below as this is an issue at multiple universities.

Template:RFCpolicy

There are many articles and multiple categories about individual dormitories, residences, halls, and residential colleges at colleges and universities. Some universities have adopted the practice of listing these residence halls: New York University residence halls, University of California, Berkeley student housing, List of MIT undergraduate dormitories, House System at the California Institute of Technology. Given the limited individual notability of many of these entities, should these articles about student housing be merged into a list of residence halls by institution rather than standalone articles? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: By and large, I believe that housing should be merged into a list by institution. However, I think that there should be flexibility for exceptions. If a residence hall can sustain its own individual article - that is, by fulfilling WP:N - then it should be listed on its own. For example, a dorm is listed as a national landmark or something should probably have its own article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator Excepting for those handful of residences that are notable by virtue of their recognized historic importance, almost all college and university residences are not notable in of themselves. Some editors have tried to make the case that residential colleges are analogous to the college systems at Oxford and Cambridge, though the analogy is unconvincing on a variety of dimensions: American residential colleges do NOT have their own faculties, conduct their own admissions, have separate endowments, charge independent tuition levels, nor do they grant their own degrees. Short of inappropriately using AfD to establish the notability of each individual college and the attendant issues of consistency within and across colleges/universities, I propose merging the standalone articles for residence halls, dorms, colleges, etc. into integrated articles or lists. If a constituent of the list has substantial notability and content to warrant spinning it out, this can be evaluated and justified on a case-by-case basis. The divergence of practices and large number of articles demonstrates the need for an explicit consensus on this issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Same issue, previously raised here: [1], [2], [3]
  • Lists containing examples of potentially non-notable spun-out articles: List of residential colleges, List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, List of Rice University residential colleges, Boston University Housing System, (add more)

• Comment I took the liberty of changing the title to correspond with the intended scope. There are a number of types, not all of which are intended here,.DGG (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The traditional residential colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, where the Colleges very early evolved into teaching institutions, and where until today the core of the formal education process there, the tutorial sessions, take place there under its auspices. These colleges have traditionally controlled the bulk of the university endowment and scholarships, and membership in them is for the entire undergraduate career, most postgraduate students and faculty are affiliated with one as well. The affiliation with a College is as important as with the University.
2. Systems in similar universities having various aspects of this, as discussed by BDuke hjust below--I defer to him for this part.
3. The system set up in the early 20th century at Duke, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton in imitation of the above, where the individual sections (called Dormitories at Duke, Houses at Harvard, Colleges at Yale and Princeton) . In each of these cases very little actual teaching takes place in these places, though occasional classes are held there, but they are the units for academic advisement. Students join (or are assigned) after the Freshman or Sophomore year. . There may be people there called Tutors and Masters, but the primary allegiance of the students, and all of the money, belongs to the University. There are some athletic competition between the colleges, but at the level of other intramural teams. Usually they are the centers of meals for most students, but there is considerable variation, especially at Princeton , which has distinctive eating clubs to which historically all upperclassmen except a few socially unpopular or discriminated-against ones belonged, and Yale & Harvard, there are similar but more limited clubs). In all 4, the system to considerable extent replaces --and was meant to replace -- the traditional early 20th american system of Fraternities.
4. A system set up in imitation of the above more recently at some other colleges, including at Rice. There are variations: at Rice, students affiliate for all 4 years, I am unclear from the article whether the students there are the formal academic responsibility of the college, as they are at, for example, Princeton.
5. Dormitory arrangements of similar degrees of academic and other decentralization called usually Honor colleges" at other US universities, where the honors undergraduates are in similar manner separated from the rest of the university. (and normally free from the Fraternity system that typically pervades the University).
6. The various arrangements similar to one or another of the above at universities elsewhere, especially those parts of the developing world copying the English system.
7. Ordinary university dormitories, which are merely residential units.
8. The current European mode of dormitories, disconnected with the university, and run by a separate organization from students of one or more universities,often called Student Hostels.
9. Fraternities and cooperative living houses on American and similar campuses, where the university normally exercises a limited degree of supervision, though not usually ownership.

What i think fairly clear is that

1. All the Oxbridge colleges are notable, by any reasonable standard. Even not considering them educationally or organizationally, most are notable for their architecture or historical nature.
2. Some of the individual colleges of any type will be notable for their architecture or historical nature, as any building.
3. Almost all individual residence halls, hostels, dormitories, fraternity houses, student apartment houses, cooperatives, and the like are not notable. A very few may be because of architectural, historical, or social considerations. Normally they would be included with a paragraph or even a mere listing in an article on student life at the university.
4. In the middle, I am not sure.
5. My general view has so far been to strictly limit the individual articles for college buildings and administrative units except in unusual cases. I am beginning to wonder whether it might be simpler to accept them more widely, essentially for the same reason I earlier gave up opposition to individual articles for high schools. But even more generally, I am in favor of expanding the use of combination articles on many topics. I wonder whether my reluctance to college departments and buildings and the like is to some degree an illustration of people not considering notable most types of the things they know best--a tendency which is as likely as considering them over-important.
6. I think this a singularly poor place to apply the general WP:N guideline, of 2RS=N. The arguments will always devolve to ones over details sourcing, as A/ all college anythings have coverage in campus and local newspapers, and major college newspapers are accepted otherwise as generally reliable. B/the other 3rd party places where such information is to be found will typically be either guidebooks or obituaries, and in each case there is always a question about the degree to which the mention is substantial. C/The colleges websites are usually a RS for details, but the details they tend to give are not always encyclopedic. Better to decide on the nature of the subject itself,and to have a relatively firm rule. DGG (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Could you elaborate on what types you imagine are or are not subject to the discussion in your view? Madcoverboy (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to, but there was an edit conflict. I added it above to keep it together. DGG (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been asked on my talk page to come here to comment, and I will do so at greater length later. However, at this point, it looks as if this arises from a problem with a US university and the discussion so far is about US examples. The situation in many other countries is quite different from the US. From my visits to US universities, it does not appear to me that the dorms are notable, although a few perhaps have notable historical buildings. In several UK universities there are colleges which have the attributes of Oxford and Cambridge Colleges to a greater or lesser extent. Some Halls of Residence have the same college attributes while perhaps others do not. The same occurs in Australia and New Zealand. I can not really comment on other countries. The differences relate, I think, primarily to the attachment people have to their College. It is quite common in Australia for example for it to be noted that someone was educated at Trinity College, Melbourne, rather than the University of Melbourne of which Trinity is a College. The common use of this, makes the Colleges notable as people want to look it up in an encyclopedia to find out about the reference. History, building and other matters all add to the notability. Colleges are not just residences. One can often be a member of a College yet not live in it. In view of all this, maybe this discussion should be restricted to US universities. If not, great care should be taken to not come to conclusions that are appropriate for US universities but not for universities in other countries. Far too much of the discussion at AfDs on residences in countries other than the US, already makes the assumption that they are the same. They are not. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Bduke that we have an issue of globalisation and terminology here. We have to take WP:N as the starting point, so basically I have no problem with any "college", "hall", "dorm", or whatever name the university chooses to use that can prove its independent notability. Historical merit, as suggested above, is a good example - Lightfoot House would not be notable independent of my own alma mater, St Chad's College, were it not housed within a historic listed building. If there is no independent notability, a merge back into the parent university article would be the normal way forward (unless it would be so long as to justify a split into a more specific article). DWaterson (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First, we can not continue to confuse "residence halls/dormitories" with "residential colleges." They're different beasts (the first are buildings and the second academic units) and the confusion has little to do with globalization. Second, those who have said that we must determine this on a case-by-case basis are absolutely right. Some buildings and some colleges are notable and others aren't. To put in place a blanket prohibition against all articles of a particular type would be ludicrous. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (including myself) was advocating a blanked prohibition against articles -- the question is what to do with articles of dubious notability like those I've begun to outline. As we've witnessed with the list of degree programs deletion discussions, subjecting these degree articles to AfD results in wildly disparate outcomes. We need a consensus on what to do with individually non-notable articles about college residences. However, I do want to take issue with ElKevbo's assertion that residence halls and residential colleges are substantially different in practice and that the distinction is important in an international context. Based on my familiarity with several universities' residental college systems and my general agreement with DGG's assessments, I would stand by this (unreferenced) distinction taken from residential college:

In the United States, the academic and residential functions of the residential college system have separated somewhat, leaving the colleges primarily as housing systems. Although residential colleges still offer some classes, these offerings supplement the offerings of the major academic departments which have separate facilities. The primary difference in the U.S. between residential colleges and standard dormitories is often that students are a member of the same residential college for each year that they attend the university. In addition, the members of each residential college are usually expected to eat their meals together, as a unified body. Standard dormitories tend to have residents who move between dorm complexes each year, and who eat in dining halls largely mixed with residents of other dormitories.

The magnitude of differences separating residential colleges from other forms of residence living in the United States is not nearly so great as it is in other countries. While I do not deny that students experience substantially more identification and loyalty to a residential college than a dorm, this alone is not a basis for notability. In addition, other asserted distinctions like faculty advising, residential academic seminars, and student self-government are not wholly foreign concepts to traditional residential halls and dorms either. In the American context, I simply do not see residential colleges being substantially different in scope or mission than traditional residence arrangements to warrant independent coverage.

Were we to limit the scope to residences in the United States given the heterogeneity of residence types and their notability already outlined in other countries, what is the best way of addressing the (US) articles I've begun to list? One issue that DGG raises is on what reliable basis can one genuinely assess notability of these buildings/organizations in light of rampant self-published sources. Second, is what is the best procedure for assessing notability (e.g., weighing down AfD). Third, is what to do with existing content for non-notable articles.

1. To the first point, I agree that residences (of any kind) of historical or architectural notability certainly may warrant their own articles, but the vast, vast majority of these buildings simply do not warrant encyclopedic coverage on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if the residential college systems at the Ivy League schools are more notable than those at Notre Dame, Caltech, Rice, or UCSD, however there isn't even the faintest whisper of consensus on what constitutes said grounds for notability. DGG points out that college newspapers are perceived to be reliable sources and I'm inclined to demote newspapers to effectively self-published sources and not a reliable basis for establishing encyclopedic notability. I would also assert that notability is not inherited, so simply having notable alumni is not a sufficient grounds for notability either. So what now?
2. To the second point, there are a host of articles in the category and lists I've linked that are wholly lacking in reliable, third-party coverage and of generally dubious notability. As is the case at Rice, I expect there to be entrenched constituencies exhibiting the characteristics of ownership and conflict of interest over the content that will not happily see it merged. On what procedural grounds do we go about enforcing policy or consensus? If we nominate these for AfD, do we do so en masse by university? If we want to merge them, do we add a paragraph to WP:UNIGUIDE elaborating on the consensus (if any) developed here? I think the former is an abuse of the AfD process, but the latter has the problem of often devolving into pissing matches that likely will require lengthy mediation in each and every case. Or do we simply avoid the issue and grant concerted opposition by local editors the benefit of the doubt? The third seems to reign in most cases.
3. To the third point about what to do with the content, it seems obvious that some aspects of residential life at colleges and universities warrants encyclopedic coverage. In either the AfD or the merge cases, merge seems like the inevitable outcome. But where are they to be merged back to? Certainly not the often carefully tuned and overly-long university articles themselves! I advocate merging them into a standalone list and then spinning out only in cases of sufficiently notable/important/historic entities. This seems like a very happy medium of keeping the majority of the content in these usually stubby articles while avoiding gnarly issues of individual notability.

I hope my arguments have some modicum of coherency and prompt some discussion on how best to tackle an existing problem rather than tilting at abstract concepts. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

I want to take issue with the assertion that residence halls and residential colleges are not substantially different. Rice students identify themselves not as members of Rice University but as members of Baker, Will Rice, Hanszen, Wiess, Jones, Brown, Lovett, Sid Richardson, or Martel College. That alone should make them noteworthy enough to have their own articles, not to mention the fact that many of the colleges do have have their own endowments and that all of them have their own body of associated faculty that give the colleges an academic side unmatched by any "dorm." I also take issue with your assertion that residential colleges are probably more notable at Ivy League schools than at Notre Dame, Caltech, Rice, or UCSD. I, frankly, find that insulting. If you know nothing about the Rice college system, how can you make a statement like that? I've looked through the wikipedia articles of each of the houses, eating clubs, and colleges at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. Few of them have any references, they're filled with peacock terms, and many of them are certainly not written from a neutral point of view. I don't understand why only Rice's colleges are being targeted right now. If you're trying to be fair and apply wikipedia's policies uniformly, then why are all the Ivy League residential colleges' articles not listed for deletion or merging as well?

On another note, I don't see how merging all the pages could possibly be an improvement anyway. The page List of Rice University residential colleges is horribly sloppy and has ALL the problems of the independent pages that have been tagged. It doesn't look professional at all. All the merged page does is make it more difficult to navigate through the colleges' information, and it relegates individually significant institutions to an insignificant status. If anything, the merged article should be deleted, not the pages of the individual colleges.

I think the solution is just to tag each of the residential colleges' pages (whether they're at Rice, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Notre Dame, Caltech, or UCSD) for improvement. We need to add references and make those pages more professional, uniform, and neutral, but the uniform policy should be that they are not deleted or merged.Mphornet (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rice editors have now created a Facebook group with 140 members to both improve the article(s) and undermine the consensus-process by singling me out. Real good faith there. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The facebook group is not intended to undermine you or anyone. It's there to address your concerns. The administrators of the event are asking that people update and correct their colleges' articles by adding references and deleting extraneous information in the hope that the articles will eventually be acceptable for everyone. I think it's an honorable endeavor.Mphornet (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

All we're trying to do is preserve the colleges' individual articles by making them universally acceptable according to wikipedia's policies. I would really appreciate it if someone could give me advice on how to go about doing this. The members of the facebook event and other Rice students would best be able to accomplish these improvements because we have access to primary sources in our campus library and other locations, however these people are not necessarily experienced in editing wikipedia. What's the best way to get them involved and to address all the concerns raised about the articles?Mphornet (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this crosses a very bright line of good faith conduct when dealing with content disputes: No personal attacks, No votestacking, No editing on behalf of other editors, No harassment on external websites, No conflict of interest editing. I've filed reports at WP:EAR, WP:COIN, and WP:ANI. My apologies to the rest of the editors on this RfC that this sideshow has now gotten out of hand. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on these incident reports? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors here. Please remove me from these incident reports. Postoak (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the facebook event is out of line. 1) No one's being personally "attacked." 2) There's no "votestacking" because all people are being asked to do is improve the content and reliability of the nine articles. That's what wikipedia is all about. The facebook event calls attention to the fact that the articles as they were were blatantly substandard, and it invites people knowledgeable about the colleges to improve the content of the articles. 3) No one's editing on another editor's behalf. I don't know much about Will Rice College. You don't know much about Will Rice College. The event is inviting people capable of improving that article to do so entirely of their own volition. 4) No one's being "harassed" on the event. It only calls attention to the fact that madcoverboy was trying to delete the articles. Nothing disparaging anyone has ever been posted as part of the event's information. 5) The event advocates giving each of the articles a more neutral, encyclopedic tone and content and removing instances where personal bias have affected the articles' content. I'm sorry if anyone feels attacked by this, but it's for the sole intention of getting wikipedia users involved in preserving long-standing articles by making them universally acceptable according to wikipedia policy.Mphornet (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphornet (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

• Comment Here's my soloution, and I think it fits rightly with consensus on WP:N. Every article thats under discussion here, be it about a dormitory or a greater college must meet WP:N in order to have an article dedicated solely to it. Notability isn't inherited from the parent university or college. That being said, I think that a "List of X colleges/dorms" might be reasonable, provided that the list itself meet WP:N, which would be pretty easy for major colleges and universities. Nonnotable lists like a list of small-town X community college buildings wouldn't get an article, but that's what the notability guidelines are designed for. I think it would solve the Rice issue to merge these individual articles into the "List of" article. Any that meet WP:N on an individual basis can have its own article expanding on the reasons for notability. To sum up my point, I fundamentally agree with Madcoverboy's interpretation of WP:N and his proposed merger. I also agree that the facebook recruitment violates WP:CANVASS and has the potential to violate other policies and guidelines and it would be a good idea for participants from facebook to read through the cited policies in this discussion before contributing, especially WP:N, WP:V, WP:CANVASS, WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. ThemFromSpace 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I firmly agree that dormitories should not generally have their own wikipedia articles except in extraordinary circumstances. However, we're not talking about dormitories. We're talking about residential colleges. Nearly every single residential college in the world has its own article. Check this list: List of residential colleges. The articles on Rice's colleges are being considered for deletion completely against the precedent of treatment for equally notable colleges at other universities. What madcoverboy had done was to simply combine nine distinct articles into one gigantic, unsightly, and un-encyclopedic list. It didn't solve any of the issues of citations, verifiability, peacock terms, etc. The facebook event does nothing more than encourage people to improve the articles so that they are more in line with wikipedia policy. Check out the articles for all the colleges, houses, and eating clubs at Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. Those articles are equally or even more unprofessional than the Rice articles. Madcoverboy had acted boldly without consensus and without calling for improvement of the articles before he deleted them. The articles need the opportunity to be corrected and updated before any rash decision is made, and that's what the facebook event espouses.Mphornet (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was in good-faith, any off-wiki solicitation of a biased manner is considered canvassing. You should try to work from within the system instead of recruiting from outside of it. As for other articles existing, please see WP:WAX. I'm betting that some of those article's don't belong on here either, and that shouldn't affect the current discussion. Their time will come another day. ThemFromSpace 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Various, established editors and administrators have been cleaning up various related pages, because much of the content added has been unencyclopedic, useless knowledge that does not significantly assert notability. Nor is Wikipedia free web hosting space. I've also removed an infobox, as it was nothing more than HTML code that, under better circumstances, would be better vested for a template; I'm not seeing a need for it, however. Furthermore, be aware that these page has been referenced on Facebook, and is noted at WP:ANI#Rice University residential colleges dispute becomes a Facebook cause. Canvassing and soliciting for support is frowned upon, and meatpuppets can be blocked for disruptive editing, that includes edit warring. I'm disappointed that some editors have cited this RFC as grounds to include any and all content, when consensus has not been reached here. In addition, this RFC's scope is in regards to the notability of the pages, and does not extend to needless trivial information. seicer | talk | contribs 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This link, at the bottom of the List of residential colleges around the world: http://collegiateway.org/colleges/ offers the viewpoint that a residential college is by nature notable and distinct from dormitories. Included in the scope of "residential colleges" are Harvard's houses. Noticeably missing is Caltech and its house system. I support the viewpoint that each residential college, house, or eating club within any university around the world should have its own article, so that its members may be more inclined to watch the article and correct vandalism, and so that a standard can be instated. I agree that most of what is currently in the articles will have to be deleted, returning some of them to stub status, until they can be properly rewritten using actual sources.

I invite other editors to take a look at the Martel College article; I have edited it down to what I believe is an acceptable balance of unreferenced information about student life at the college and university-referenced history of the college and its benefactor. I modeled it off the article for King's College, Cambridge, which I believe is the standard all these articles should be written to. Also included is a small list of notable people; things such as o-week themes and beer bike themes are in fact not notable, and should be a feature of the college's website (wink wink). AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "each residential college, house, or eating club within any university around the world should have its own article." They need to be notable. Mere existence is not sufficient evidence of notability nor is notability inherited from their parent institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud the effort and initiative of the Rice University editors, the existence of other articles or analogous institutions is not grounds for notability nor are references to self-published sources. I anticipate that the rest of the trivial information and original research will be filtered out in the days ahead as well. In the context of this RFC and any AfD where notability is being considered, this definition must be fulfilled: "A topic (receiving) significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". To date, none of the Rice articles have asserted notability outside of Rice itself by using reliable, third party sources such as books, newspapers, scholarly papers, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The usual (albeit imperfect) method of ascertaining notability is searching newspaper archives, books, or scholarly archives using databases like Google, JSTOR, LexisNexis, etc. I don't mean to hold AfD court here, but were one to go through the motions, my preliminary searches for the simple strings of "Will Rice College", "Sid Richardson College", "Baker College", etc. return no substantive coverage outside of Rice on gScholar or gNews. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Obviously, a simple search like this is not authoritative evidence in of itself and there are off-line sources as well that can establish notability, but as the databases are increasingly digitized and indexed, I believe one can have increasing confidence that a lack of results on these queries corroborates a lack of encyclopedic notability. I did, however, come across a book on the architecture at Rice that mentions the colleges along with the rest of the architecture but I was unable to preview the coverage. I expect it would provide some much needed reliable, third-party references but not evidence of independent notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the official standpoint on using the university newspaper (at http://www.ricethresher.org/) to confirm at least a small amount of student life information and historical data? In Rice's case, I know that John Boles, the university historian, has written several books about the university's history which can be used to source these articles. The books are obviously not widely published (and probably not widely read outside the university's alumnus), so it may take a while before facts can be properly sourced and inserted into the articles.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As DGG pointed out, the question of reliability of student newspapers is an open question which needs consensus. I previously indicated that I believe these should be viewed as self-published sources that can be used to verify facts, but are not evidence of encyclopedic notability. Other editors' input is needed. I know that I use archival/archivist's materials in the historical university articles I edit, so I see no reason why these couldn't be included, if not privileged over information gleaned from college websites and newspapers so long as they do not consitute POV synthesis or original research. I have no doubt that the residential college system at Rice is a notable topic and that a variety of sources such as the architecture book and the archivist's books will readily establish the facts. Rather, I doubt that the individual colleges that constitute it are notable. The issue raised by this RFC concerns what do we do with university residences of limited or no individual notability? Once the trivia, unverifiable content, and original research is removed from these articles, they're likely to be short stubs. As I have been arguing, given the notability of the residential college system (as distinct from the notability of the individual colleges themselves, for the nth time), this content and the community of Rice-related pages would be better served by having this in one location as a list/article than as disparate stubs that describes the system, including the constituent colleges. If at some later date, it becomes obvious that some colleges are independently notable owing to their architecture, history, relevance to current events, etc. and their section in the list grows too long, it can be spun-out and made into a stand-alone page. Rice is certainly not the only university affected by this (I've been listing others above), but likely to be the first to test whatever abstract consensus is reached here. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to admit that by the standards of WP:N the Rice University College pages may not be notable enough to warrant their own pages; I do understand that. The problem that I see is that until similar measures are enacted on the other universities-in-question's housing systems, there will be a lot of resistance by the Rice student body to these changes - you must admit, it is rather unfair that Rice be the sole target here. I'd rather avoid a bigger edit war than we've seen already (and that's NOT a threat, just an observation on the way things seem to be going.) I also have concerns about the total length of the proposed list, but I believe that's already been addressed. Jgr2 (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break III

• Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Although it's useful to talk about, I question the legitimacy of any broad decision that could be reached on the matter of residential buildings or college newspapers via an RfC, by people not immediately involved in editing the particular articles in question. It is rule creep to think one can paint, for example, student newspapers with the same brush. Calling them "self published" is certainly wrong because they are not. Some are highly structured, respected institutions with large budgets that have been around 100 years or more with dozens of positions, and editorship by some of the brightest, most serious-minded people in the world today - they are certainly more reliable, say, than most small town dailies and many magazines. Others are efforts of individuals or clubs that publish irregularly and exercise little oversight. We already have notability criteria that apply to residential buildings, social clubs, etc. I see no reason not to apply those and, as we do for anything where there are multiple similar instances of the same kind, we can see what patterns emerge. However, the pattern will likely be complex, as there are variations between different types of institutions, different parts of the world, and from university to university. The one caveat is that if a certain threshold of them are notable in a certain instance, say 8 of the 11 Rice colleges meet notability criteria, it would be silly and counterproductive to declare that the other three do not. Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing the reliability of student newspapers, only their "independence from the subject" in the lingo of WP:N. Does the fact that Harvard's Crimson, MIT's The Tech, Rice's Thresher, etc. have reliable articles about campus topics for Harvard, MIT, Rice, etc. (respectively) surprise anyone? No. Should these newspaper articles be used as a basis for establishing notability of campus topics? Absolutely not. Student newspapers are precisely the kinds of works "produced by those affiliated with the subject" that WP:N warns against. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• To address the argument that claims of notability cannot be assisted by articles from the Rice University newspaper, The Rice Thresher is largely independent from the subject. It is published by the university, not any of the individual colleges; and it is circulated not only on Rice campus, but to a significant extent throughout the Houston metropolitan area as a whole. Citations of the Thresher or any other verifiable Rice publication may not individually establish notability for a college; the notability is an emergent property that arises from the sum of all the individual parts. It cannot be disputed that the individual articles have been tremendously improved in the past few days. They are now arguably among the most verifiable articles on wikipedia about residential colleges in the United States. Back in November when the articles were first merged, the new list became an unmanageable mass with only two citations. It was a disgrace to wikipedia and to Rice. I argue that the current format with highly cited and condensed articles about the individual colleges is a vastly superior model.Mphornet (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I actually just checked the notability policy and there's nothing about it being a complex or adaptive system: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Seems pretty linear to me; nothing about synergy, multilevel interactions, or feedback loops in there (you really don't want to get me started!). No one is disputing that the articles haven't improved: they were abysmal at the outset and simply less abysmal when I merged them. There's no reason why the list can't be just as condensed or highly cited either, just that none of the several dozen editors to all these articles has bothered to update it. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's a very simple reason why that won't work. The list was completely unwieldy. Reducing it to a manageable size would require deleting vast amounts of significant information and notable history from each of the colleges; and from an encyclopedic standpoint, that would be a huge step back. Plus, people have been deleting all sorts of lists (many of which, admittedly, ought to have been deleted) from the college's articles with the reasoning that lists are generally unencyclopedic. I don't understand why you're advocating creating another lengthy list rather than keeping the coverage of the colleges' in an encyclopedic format. At this point, after all the extensive revision by dozens of dedicated wikipedia users, I think the articles are essentially satisfactory as they are.Mphornet (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I was notified of this discussion as I had raised the issue previously in 2007.[10] Please note that I was concerned specifically about dorms and residence halls, not residential colleges as a whole. I received no response at the time and did not pursue it further. Taking another cursory glance at Category:University and college dormitories in the United States, it still appears that many of these articles are still not suitably referenced. No attempt has been made to establish notability outside of the world of the attached institution. As someone else stated, I see a lot of peacock terms and original research. Although I have no plans to do so, I think many of these articles should be listed at AfD. I like Wikidemon's idea of taking the guidelines for residential buildings/social clubs and applying them to dorms and residence halls. I think a guideline would help people decide when it is appropriate to write a Wikipedia article about a particular building. Also, a guideline is not the same as a rule, so it leaves leeway for exceptional cases that don't fit the mold. However, I don't think we should exempt university buildings from the verifiability rule just because the college itself has adequate references. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• One could make that comment (not suitably referenced, notability not shown in the article, original research) about most articles on the encyclopedia. Taking aim at a particular class of articles via mass deletion nominations, when the issue turns out to be article quality or a broader consensus question about information organization, can become a source of drama. AfD as a tool works best on a case-by-case basis, or at most a few articles that are closely related to one another. It's not that effective at generating consensus about an entire class of things at a time. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good point - many articles on Wikipedia don't meet the standard. However, it is my opinion that many of these articles will never meet the standard as the subject matter is too narrow and trivial. (Hmmm, I guess your point probably still holds.) Anyway, as you say, mass AfD nominations can create drama, which is part of the reason why I didn't do that. When I first asked about this back in 2007, I was wondering if we had already established a consensus on the subject. Clearly, we haven't. I am glad to see it taking shape though. If I might add, one of the things I'd like to move away from is the number of "George Washington slept here" articles. A list of famous former residents is a legitimate thing to include (when verifiable), but it shouldn't be the entire basis for notability. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think mass AfDs will result in particularly reliable or consistent outcomes (though it may have saved us headaches in other areas!). I would venture that the consensus from almost every single AfD nomination would be that there is some meagre semblance of notability, but the content should be merged back to the university article itself rather than having a standalone article. This is far from the ideal situation as university & college articles often are the targets of unceremoniously dumped content from AfDs and inevitably leads to undue weight on whatever particular area. Given the a priori assumption that these residences have some non-zero level of notability, mass nominations are simply an abuse of AfD to reach a predetermined outcome. Why don't we just merge each of these individual residence articles with trace amounts of notability together into a single article or list by institution? It precisely addresses the equity issue User:Wikidemon raised above and appears to reflect the consensus reached for other campus buildings in the section above. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• CommentThe huge problem with that argument is that we're not talking about buildings. Every single undergraduate at Rice is a member of one of the nine residential colleges, whether they live on-campus in the dorms or not. Residential colleges are not buildings with people inside. They are communities of students interacting together in a university context and creating a noteworthy whole. That's why a dorm would generally not be notable but a residential college would.Mphornet (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Great! So lets talk about the nine residential colleges and residential college system at Rice and how it produces yadda yadda yadda. There's lots of notable stuff about the system. Even after several hundred edits, none of the articles have a single assertion of notability one of the articles has two 60-year old citations from reliable, secondary, independent sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, the vast majority of the cited sources are reliable, secondary, and independent. The Rice Thresher has nothing to do with the nine colleges. It's an award-winning periodical that happens to cover Rice events, completely independent of the college system. I see no reason why all the many references from this credible, independent source ought to be ignored. Besides, there are now over a dozen references taken from Texas newspapers and history books written about Rice and its colleges by people who have nothing to do with the colleges. Check out the references at Wiess College for example. How are those not reliable, secondary, and independent sources? I guarantee there will be more references added from similar unobjectionable sources in the days to come.Mphornet (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• I count eight reliable sources in that article alone. Just because a reference has the word "Rice" in it doesn't mean it's biased in any way in its coverage of Wiess or any of the other colleges. It just means it's relevant.Mphornet (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll admit that I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, and to this discussion, so my opinion probably doesn't count for much. However, one point I'd like to make is that a residential college at Rice is somewhat of a misnomer. Though current undergraduates live in the physical buildings on the Rice campus, those who were admitted to a college maintain their association while living off-campus, as well as far beyond their graduation. Alumni return for certain events not to Rice, but to their College. Furthermore, a body of 100-200 faculty members, university staff, and community members are afforded the privilege of being a "College Associate," valuable people who provide undergraduates with networking opportunities, extended Houston-area opportunities, and resources available to the College. With no hesitation, the most "notable" element of a Rice undergraduate education is what college they were a part of. Kirlinator (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• We've certainly realized that the colleges are more than just buildings, they are academic entities that utilize a specific building to perform their activities. I'm already trying to change the articles to better represent that. However, the fact that they are said academic entities rather than buildings does not deal with the main issue here: notability. Whatever they may be, the discussion is whether or not residential colleges are notable enough to receive their own articles, or if they should all be merged into a larger article of "Residential Colleges at University X". I believe sufficient notability can be established for each college at the majority of universities; we shall see what the consensus is.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question: One issue that I foresee is that residential college and similar institutions can have a dozen or so entities, many of which have articles of a few pages each. If we were to merge all the articles together, that article would be WP:TOOLONG, and the guideline recommends splitting the article. Once, we split the article, the sub-articles may not meet WP:N, so they cannot have their own article. How should we resolve this contradiction?Techieman (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of these articles are full of trivia, non-notable content, and other cruft that can readily be either summarized or stripped out to get them down to ~3 paragraphs. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test

• College newspapers are a "reliable and independent source" for establishing the notability of college and university-related topics.

Question: Perhaps I may misinterpret the policy, however WP:PRIMARY indicates that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Could I please get clarification? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

College and university newspapers are not affiliated with university presses; those are distinct organizations that exist only on some campuses to publish scholarly peer-reviewed books and journals. Whether these newspapers are considered "mainstream" I leave to others more knowledgeable of the popular media. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated in the previous discussion, there does not appear to be a dispute about using student/college newspapers as a reliable source. The dispute is whether such such sources can be used to establish notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should be self-evident that college newspapers, regardless of their incorporation as either privately-controlled or school-operated organizations, are still substantially affiliated with the topics they are meant to cover. They should not be used to establish the notability of university-related topics. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. College newspapers are not independant of the subject. I've seen this brought up at AfD a few times and from what I've seen college newspapers are good to back up an article but they don't prove a subject's notability. ThemFromSpace 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Their role is to cover everything on campus that might interest the current students; they are not sufficient to show notability, if one wishes to go by reliance on sources rather than actual notability. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as general rule. Some are very reliable and some are not. They are no different than any other class of publication in that regard. The fact that many of them are small, produced by amateurs, have a limited specialized audience, etc., factors in each case into an appreciation of their reliability. However we cannot decide by consensus in a single place without due consideration of the specifics in each case that all college-related newspapers are or are not reliable. Many are clearly reliable for many issues. Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as general rule: some college, university, local and even national newspapers do not set out to be objective and may not have processes to detect and prevent bias. However, not all University sources are unreliable, in fact they are sometimes exemplarary. - Pointillist (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• oppose they don't have the editorial standards of non-college/university newspapers.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Respectable college newspapers can be used to establish notability as long as they are used in conjunction with other sources.Mphornet (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support To prevent university news media from qualifying as "notable" opens up a can of worms. Suppose the only coverage a major intercollegiate collaboration, competition, or initiative received was in university newspapers. It is certainly a "related topic" to more than one university, and may be of interest to others not associated with the universities, but would not qualify as "notable" due to this rule's elimination of collegiate news media as sufficient to establish notability. Bottom line, the rule is far too general and will create problems. Kirlinator (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Postoak (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some university newspapers may be considered a reliable source, but they should not be used to determine notability. You can compare it to a local newspaper that reports on the city council's approval of a new traffic signal. It is interesting for local residents, is reliably reported, but is not notable for an international encyclopedia. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Partial oppose as a blanket rule. University papers should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but generally (even on larger state school campuses) are not widely circulated enough (i.e. off-campus) to qualify them as a third-party source as per WP:N. They are generally reliable (I would think) as a source of facts, but not for establishing notability per se. Jgr2 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Articles about individual university/college residences with no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university should be nominated for AfD.

• Weak support. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe that "internal sources" is too broad, and eliminates useful university newspapers, institutional history departments, etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as it falls in line with our deletion policy. ThemFromSpace 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Partial support. Articles about student housing without significant importance outside the immediate campus environment should be deleted or merged. The focus should be on importance, not the accident of sourcing. Further, AniRaptor is right that this should not apply to major campus histories and the like, although published by the college. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. There are so many different types of residences that there's no way a fair universal policy could ever be established. These need to be judged on an individual basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphornet (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't support this point, as it uses language that assumes the consensus on the previous point is that university-independent coverage is a requisite for notability. Furthermore, I think forming an overarching policy after a single encounter with a single university, Rice, is hasty and a poor way to proceed. Kirlinator (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Postoak (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There are too many subjective terms in this point to render it worthwhile as a blanket rule. For example, how many outside sources are needed to qualify as "significant?" Also, generally I beleive they should be incorporated into lists at the very least. Jgr2 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons cited by Jgr2 and Aniraptor. Also, as Jgr2 points out, the proposition itself is a loaded one that seems designed to reflect the pre-conceived conclusions of the one zealot who really seems to be driving this discussion.

• Articles about individual university/college residences with no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university should be merged into a list of residences or article about the residential system rather than being nominated for AfD.

• Strong support. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that this solution is applicable in many cases; if the articles can be sourced and expanded beyond stubs, then the larger article can be linked from within the list. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as a blanket rule. Per WP:STAND, these lists must abide by Wikipedia guidelines like notability. Unless the list as a whole can be proven notable, the list as a whole shouldn't be an article. A mention in the college's main article might be appropriate in these cases. ThemFromSpace 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a blanket rule. We should not legislate a top-down rule that circumvents existing notability guidelines and editorial discretion by imposing a single rule applicable to all residences. Many are clearly notable and deserve their own article. Policy and guideline is descriptive of this pattern on notability, not prescriptive of new regimes designed to impose uniformity on a subject matter where the instances are not uniform. Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as the default; but there is no such thing as proving a list notable. A list can be a convenient way of covering less-than-notable topics. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• support as the default. It's either notable or not per GNG. No special standards needed, especially not special standards that lower the bar.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a blanket-rule. I agree completely with Wikidemon on this. We can't come up with a fair universal policy, especially since the editors pushing for this have focused all their efforts on merging Rice's articles and thus are not very familiar with other systems that may fall under new rules set by this very biased pool of editors.Mphornet (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose First, per the first point, we have not established that university-independent sources are necessary for these articles. Second, the meaning of "residences" here is ambiguous - we still run into the problem of delineating what is a dormitory and what is a college. See further discussion in "Comments" below. Kirlinator (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Postoak (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support as a blanket rule. I think that unless the residence in question is singularly notable, it should be part of a list; certainly, the residential college system at Rice deserves an article, even if the individual colleges do not, and the same would probably apply to most other colleges with unique housing systems. Jgr2 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose.

• Articles about individual university/college residences with no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university are still inherently notable and should remain standalone articles.

• Oppose. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. On the grounds that "sources from within the university" can be reliable, such as a recognized college newspaper. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. notability isn't inherited from the parent topic to the offspring. ThemFromSpace 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• 'Oppose, in general, but special cases need to be considered. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this too as a general rule; it's also misstated. Each case is taken on its own merits. Whether a college residence is notable or not depends on the usual factors affecting notability. That a residence happens to be college-related does not affect its notability in any particular way - there are non-college buildings with similar functions of housing, social clubs, meal facilities, etc., and they are all notable if they meet certain guidelines. Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• oppose. There is no argument to be made that such organizations should have a lower standard of inclusion than anything else. A terrible precedent.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral This point is worded poorly - it seems to have been written so as there is an "obvious conclusion;" that is, to oppose. We have not even established, per the first point, whether university-independent sources are necessary for such articles. Kirlinator (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I too object to the wording of this point (I would consider most university newspapers "independent" of any residence, i.e. they are not self-published). Some historically important residences may have no mention other than that they exist in any reliable source, and may still be important enough to be notable. Jgr2 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. But first one must overlook the obvious bias in the proposition, which others have noted as well. The proposition seems designed to reflect the pre-conceived conclusions of the one zealot who really seems to be driving this discussion.

Comments on this consensus test

The whole discussion above is completely confused, as I warned it would become, between whether it is about residences/colleges in general internationally, or just in the US, or only about Rice University. I do not think it can give any guidance about articles outside the US or possibly even outside Rice. But then, the consensus seems to be going to "it all depends anyway" on the individual case. Could I also make what is perhaps a dangerous point. Very many wikipedians are closely connected to universities as students and many are associated with the Colleges and residences. On the one hand, this leads some of them to write completely trivial unsourced stuff about the building they know about. On the other hand, I think some people are so close to it, that they can not possably think that the College or Hall they belong to may be notable. It is a kind of reverse COI, the downplaying of something you know about. I have been a member of an Oxford College for 51 years and still visit it every year or so. I was Principal of a College in another university over 35 yeras ago. I think I have a long term perspective on this. Many Colleges and Residences are highly notable to people, although some are not. This general discussion has little value. We do need to look at each case individually and I have no comment about Rice. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I omitted it from the consensus test, the top of the RFC identifies several other universities in addition to Rice that are in a similar situation. Of course context should always mediate any abstract consensus reached here, but it seems that various constituencies have wildly different interpretations of how to establish the basic precept of encyclopedic notability as it applies to colleges and universities. A RFC is the chance to affirm or reaffirm interpretations in light of conflict, precedent, and wide variance in practice. I always welcome suggestions on how the RFC could be tangibly improved without delving into hair-splitting and wikilawyering since there appear to be fundamental misunderstandings about basic policy.

I don't understand the implication of the reverse COI that Bduke argues -- I think that were topic to actually have some trace amount of notability, there would be no shortage of other editors to write on it despite the misgivings of that particular editor. While we might not expect such editors to start such a hypothetical article, I would hope they could be availed to improve it as it is written. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think the wording on these points is ambiguous. What is defined as a "residence"? We run again into the problem of the fundamental difference between dormitories and colleges, the latter of which may or may not be centered upon residential facilities. If we're going to set out a consensus, we must be clear so we don't revisit this. Kirlinator (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In this whole debate over notability, the Rice-related editors have continually asserted a distinction without a difference about this residential college system. Simply put, residential colleges in the United States are more like dorms than they are like academic colleges. These residential colleges do not award degrees, do not appoint faculty, do not charge tuition, or any of a variety of other substantive things that make UK residential colleges or academic colleges notable and distinct from other aspects of the university. US residential colleges are still fundamentally student residences (hence the "residential") despite whatever accoutrements they layer on top. I see no reason why whatever consensus is demonstrated above should apply any differently to residential colleges than to other types of student residences. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First, you do not understand the UK system. Colleges at Oxford or Cambridge do not award degrees, although they do present candidates to the Chancellor at degree ceremonies. They normally share "faculty" (a non-UK term) with the university. Second, while I do not want to get into the Rice argument, I thought the point was that people were members of the College whether they lived in it or not and that it was a defining point for many after graduation. That is a clear distinction between Rice Colleges and most residences. Third, what ever consensus is demonstrated here is unlikely to be supported elsewhere. Too many university editors do not come here. I think you should close this as having not reached a consensus and go to fix the Rice issue on one of the Rice talk pages. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To your first point, I was referencing academic colleges' awarding of degrees. To your second point, whatever policies surrounding the affiliation of students with various components of the university is not grounds for granting these components notability -- notability is not inherited. If there a notable distinction about the Rice residential system, why not elaborate on this point in an article about said system? As I seem to need to always repeat, I have never disputed the notability of the Rice residential system, only its individual constituent members. Nor does this RFC ask for a blanket sanction to do away with all college residence articles. The central issue here is what to do with non-notable articles - delete, merge, or leave it alone. To your third point, should we just abandon the whole enterprise of conflict resolution and consensus formation simply because all hypothetical stakeholders can't be recruited to participate? This isn't a democracy and I have made an extremely good faith effort to advertise this RFC to various stakeholders. I have little empathy for editors who want to make policy assertions but can't be bothered to add the venues for said policy discussions to their watchlists. Finally, concerted opposition elsewhere is not a sufficient basis for forgoing the discussion and enforcement of a modicum of stylistic and policy consistency. What more basic mission are we tasked with as a WikiProject? Madcoverboy (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If I have read your arguments correctly, Madcoverboy, you desire to find criteria (of notability) by which we may delineate which college systems at which universities merit pages for each college, and which systems only merit a list thereof. I think this is a tricky undertaking, and edits made to the myriad systems will continue to rely on ambiguous definitions and a wide variety of interpretations even if we develop a couple of notability criteria. A much clearer and less ambiguous line exists between those residences which do not notably belong to any sort of system, and those which have been established as institutions with functions far beyond "room and board." For the former, lists are appropriate; the latter merit individual articles for each college of the system. Kirlinator (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the question is not about creating lists versus creating articles, rewriting Wikipedia's notability policy, or trying to develop some broad policy/guideline on how residential articles should be written. I am trying to find a middle ground between m:inclusionism and m:exclusionism for non-notable articles about colleges and university topics. Except for the Rice-related editors, there is pretty clear consensus that student/college newspapers are not independent sources for establishing notability. Similarly, there is also pretty clear consensus that college residences are not some unique entitity with inherent notability that are exempt from the notability guideline. After over a week of intensive editing by both Rice and unaffiliated editors, there is still no assertion of notability for these residential colleges by reliable and independent sources. Given these facts related to notability, all the Rice University residential colleges and several other universities' articles about residences and other topics are not notable and should be nominated for deletion. Anyone could have nominated for AfD at any point in this process and the outcome would almost certainly have been one of three possibilities: outright deletion, merge to Rice University, or merge to something else. I'm simply asking for consensus on whether (1) we should use AfD as a process to establish their non-notability and (2) what should be the ideal outcome for these non-notable articles. Stop ascribing motives to my actions when I've repeatedly and clearly stated that this process is about establishing consensus on what to do with non-notable college and university residences. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Rice articles should go to AfD. I have not looked at them because I have no interest in Rice and no knowledge of it. I am looking at general issues here. Above you misunderstand me. I am suggesting that this ends because there is total confusion about whether it is about the particular, Rice University, or the general. It is often a mistake to try to discuss general issues in the light of a current particular one. Fix Rice and then perhaps we could have a discussion on the general issues. This is just a project. Editors on university matters are quite free to keep away from it if they want. Any consensus has to be in the community not just here, and we do not have consensus here. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Was any consensus reached? The Rice articles are currently being merged: List of Rice University Residential CollegesAniRaptor2001 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be pretty clear consensus that college newspapers cannot be used to establish the notability of topics. There is unclear consensus on what should be done, as I expected. I read the discussion as a reluctance to make any blanket rule about what to do with these kinds of articles independent of following typical AfD procedures. As such, I assume that we should just nominate them for AfD since they do not pass the basic notabillity guideline if college newspapers cannot be used to establish notability. I am currently revising Rice University residential college system to merge and incorporate the non-trivia/cruft content from these other articles and then adding in sources so that it passes the notability test itself. We'll let discussion proceed some more and re-evaluate if there is a more concrete consensus, but in the absence of any assertion of notability from reliable independent sources, I see these articles being nominated for deletion sometime this week. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Let's finish up the combined article and see if it works better than separate articles. AniRaptor2001 01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate Articles for Graduate Schools (Law, Business, Medical)?

Does anyone have suggestions for criteria indicating if Graduate Schools in Law, Business or Medicine should have their own article? Harvard School of Law, Wharton School of Business, and Medical College of Virginia are certainly notable enough, but I'm looking at salvaging a Deleted Article created by a banned user for a Medical School in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being foreign doesn't make it less notable! :) If it's an accredited, stand-alone, professional/graduate school (like Mount Sinai School of Medicine or Mayo Medical School), then it's certainly notable. If it operates under a university but is still an accredited professional/graduate school (Harvard Medical School or Stanford School of Medicine), then it's likely still notable. In addition to unaccredited institutions, I would also be weary of recently-founded, or undergraduate only, or online-only institutions. I believe the Philippine Medical Association would be the accrediting body. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Although this site has a disclaimer about its listing of institutions not being an endorsement of their status or accreditation, it may be a good first cut: [11] Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to both... I agree that foreign doesn't make it less notable, but might make verification more difficult. The article I'm trying to save is at User:Naraht/PLM College of Medicine and PLM is the abbreciation of their Filipino name (and according to articles the correct one, they are proud of the fact that their official name isn't in english) for the University of the City of Manila. The link at iime.org does include their med school as University of the City of Manila, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. So while I think this may be the tail somewhat wagging the dog, I think it is notable enough. At worst, I probably need to de-stub University of the City of Manila, so I guess I'll work on that page as well. :)Naraht (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:UE, and WP:PLACE, I believe University of the City of Manila should still be used in the title rather than the local name or acronym. Thus: University of the City of Manila College of Medicine. Of course, please redirect PLM College of Medicine and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Medicine there as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many individual departments, laboratories, divisions, etc., at major universities are notable, even if they are not stand-alone or separately accredited institutions. If you dig around you will find the same categorization issues with notability in almost any corner of Wikipedia: are divisions of major corporations notable? Are variations of models of motorcycles and pianos? Sub-species of lemurs? Various segments of a geological formation? I think we're reinventing the wheel of notability here if we try to start from scratch with a specific system dedicated to university-related matters, and the best we can hope to achieve anyway is something approximating a wheel. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox logos / images

In the McMaster University article a disagreement has come about regarding the what image to use as the principal image;

Image:McMasterCoatofarms.jpg or Image:MacU.png.

The guidelines at present do not specify that the image is to be a coat of arms, shield or seal however the template does. A good number of the FA and GA article use logo, images of the campus, shields or seal without detriment. Can I get a call on this one. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles do not use logos, images of the campuses. They all properly use the official images that are used on official documents. This differs from institution to institution and national history. In the US, these are generally the university seals. In Canadian universities, these are the coat of arms (due to heraldic tradition).

Sometimes the seal is the logo, such is the case with Northeastern University. Other times, they are clearly different, such as Harvard University. The simplified "shield" used for Harvard University is not the university seal, the seal incorporates the shield. This is the same case with McMaster University. Keitherson (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pointless argument. The first picture from the left hasn't been used since the 1980s. Most, if not all of the letterheads and official use of the logo have been this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/McMaster_University_-_name_and_coat_of_arms.jpg 219.77.172.231 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Order a transcript from McMaster and you'll be surprised. Department letterheads and non-formal things representing the university still use the "logo". All formal invitations from the Board of Governors, transcripts from the registrar, and publications from the Office of the President or Chancellor will have the coat of arms. It's not a pointless argument -- you have no idea what you're talking about. Keitherson (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that logo (i.e the first picture) isn't used and is replaced by the new style. I know because I'm a McMaster student. Even simply googling a McMaster letterhead will show they don't use it. i.e: http://www.tyndale.ca/admissions/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/mcmaster-university-231x300.jpg I know what I'm talking about. 58.152.133.76 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An overhead is NOT an official publication of the university. Link me to a scanned transcript or BoG invitation and you'll see the coat of arms will be on there. So no, you have no idea what you're talking about, still. Keitherson (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But you're still an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.81.240 (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Could we get some input from third parties involved in WP: Universities?
2. Personally, I'd be ok with the coat of arms image if it were a quality image however the one currently presented is of poor quality and would never be considered acceptable for GA, which should be the goal for the article. Could an improved copy be uploaded, possibly converted to PNG, as per image policy? --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Universities should be represented by their academic crests/shields. These modern logos, such as the ones that appear in http://www.mcmaster.ca/opr/html/opr/mcmaster_brand/visual_identity/logo.html and http://www.staff.rice.edu/staff/Rice_Brand.asp are used for marketing, publicity, really just for the sake of having a modern look and feel. The "outdated" crests and shields, however, usually remain the true academic symbol of the university.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know much of anything about heraldry, I have to say that if there is a seal with the name of the university in it, that would be ideal. It doesn't appear to be the case however. I don't think there's ever been an explicit consensus on this issue in either previous discussions here or on WP:UNIGUIDE. Articles about universities and colleges in the United States generally employ the official & historical seal of the university as the primary image rather than any new branding image . I believe it is reasonable to argue that the coat of arms serves an analogous role with respect to describing the historical identity of the university on basic documents such as diplomas and the board of regents/trustees as distinct from day-to-day and marketing communication. If this is the case, then the "older" image should likely be privileged as the "image" in the template while the modern identity can also be used as the "logo" at the bottom of the template. Then again, the University of Oxford does the opposite. I think it's really a function of whether or not the university has adopted official graphic identity guidelines and whether these guidelines still acknowledge the historical image or do away with it completely. If the historical image is no longer officially sanctioned, then it probably should not be included. Incidentally, these older images are also likely to be the images with the least hassle with regard to copyright. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go a step farther and argue that including both a coat of arms and a logo is a violation of the non-free content criteria, specifically #3a (which prohibits multiple non-free images where one will do). If a university has a sanctioned logo or brand image that it uses, that's probably the only (non-free) one that should be included in a Wikipedia article. Esrever ^(klaT) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge debate on the related topic of non-free content for sports logos at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. Looks long and nasty though and still without consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a violation of the NFCC to have both a coat of arms and a logo because they are conveying two different things. One is a academic/corporate identifier, the other is a marketing brand. In Canada, coat of arms are frequently registered by the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The copyright is held by the Board of Governors, and administrated by them. Brands and logos, however, are most likely administrated by the marketing communications department. Universities also have different terms of use for each. Keitherson (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The University of Oxford, however, is not a featured article. The precedent has already been set, IMO, since all previous featured articles have had the traditional "seal/coat of arms" at the top and the marketing "logo" at the bottom. Keitherson (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox has a spot for "image" and a spot for "logo". I've taken the idea to mean the seal for the first and marketing logo for the second. I'd say that rather simplifies it to using the coat of arms for the "image" and the shield, or the shield with the name, for the "logo". But Esrever makes an interesting point. Should we establish a better policy on how such images are used in the infobox. How many others have been interpreting those parameters as I have? --Aepoutre (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "image" = "seal" and "logo" = "marketing logo"? Because Commonwealth universities do not have "seals" -- that is an American invention because there is no heraldic tradition in the US. The direct equivalent of a "seal" in Commonwealth universities = "coat of arms". Just a FYI. Keitherson (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I hear you, but that's exactly what I was trying to convey. Anyway... conversation's over, haha. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a disconnect between the basic guidelines in WP:UNIGUIDE, the template and the wishes of the principal article editors. I would think the guidelines should be clearer if the intent is to enforce a standard. If the intent is to grant local autonomy as discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities# In regards to Rankings then I think it is best to leave the image as the shield until a PNG or SVG image of the coat of arms is created, because this is the wish of the regular article editors. In uploading the coat of arms image Keitherson clear did not follow the spirit of Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload and as a result the image he is seeking include is not of a quality desired by the regular article editors. Once a PNG or SVG image of the coat of arms is created I would be more than happy to utilize it, just not the current one. Is this a reasonable compromise? --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Three things. I am not in violation of Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload because the .jpg is the only version available of the coat of arms. Furthermore, the idea that a vector logo trumps a non-vector official coat of arms/seal is ridiculous. Better tell all of the featured articles to remove their university seals because Dartmouth College is the only one that has it in proper vector format. Lastly, to have two logos representing the same brand, in this case the Shield at the top, and the Shield again at the bottom with the McMaster University wordmark, is in clear violation of the non-free content criteria. Keitherson (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a more up to date version of it as explained here: CoatofArms Guidelines McMaster University identity approved by the Board of Governors in 1997 incorporates a simplified shield design that recognizes the tradition of McMaster’s heraldry while improving the quality of print and electronic reproduction. I suspect what they mean is this: Image:MacU.png 219.77.171.254 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WRONG. The "visual identity" is not the CoA, as all visual identity systems refer to a university brand, never the legal seal. Stop being obtuse. Keitherson (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How convenient of you to also omit this part: "The coat of arms is reserved for use by the University Chancellor and the Office of the President, appearing on their respective letterheads and business materials. It is used with distinction on graduation diplomas and graces the walls of University Hall and the Council Room in Gilmour Hall." Keitherson (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you think everyone is against you but at the same time you don't listen or care about other people's opinion. Unless you can find a higher resolution picture of the crest, you are going to find a hard time convincing other contributors 203.218.207.148 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I care about the opinions of others greatly. Just not the ones from some fucking idiot from Asia/Australia who calls me an "ass", reverts without justification, has shitty knowledge on the issue, and "guards" a specific article and doesn't register for a fucking Wikipedia account. Keitherson (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether I register an account is solely my choice. Take a chill pill before you collapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.156.30 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The request for a PNG / SVG came from the fact the previous principal infobox image was such and it is not an unreasonable expectation to have a replacement of equal quality. The request is not for a perfect image it's for a better image, one that actually complements the article. To be honest, editing the image to have a transparent background would likely be enough of an improvement to have my support. Short of that and you're unlikely to have the support of myself or any McMaster University article editors. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:FYI: I have started a poll at Talk:McMaster_University#Infobox_image to gauge, principally from the article editors, which image option is preferred, if no consensus can be reached here. I wanted to be sure that anyone participating in this discussion was made aware so that they may participate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: With the most appreciated help of AniRaptor2001 I think this issue can now be considered resolved, at least for McMaster University. AniRaptor2001 graciously improved the quality of the the coat of arms image (see File:Mcmaster coatofarms improved.png) and I am prepared to throw my full support behind the image implementation. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AniRaptor2001. Keitherson (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University

Florida Atlantic is scheduled to be on the main page on April 8th. I am going through now making sure everything is up to date, all links are working, etc. I would appreciate a few people giving it a read through before the big day. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The athletic logo is placed in the wrong area. The university seal is missing completely. The logo ("university mark") should be at the bottom, not the top. All these can be found here: http://www.fau.edu/branding/ Keitherson (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to take the seal from there when originally writing the article. Fortunately, another editor added the seal today from another source, so everything should be fine now. KnightLago (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

George Wythe University

This article, on a former diploma mill trying to transition to legitimate school status, is going through somewhat of a whitewash by what may be school employees. Any input would be appreciated! Here[12] is a sample edit. Thanks! --TrustTruth (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:COIN. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this article is a great idea. The discussion page and history diffs are particularly interesting. I joined Wikipedia Universities a week ago after being invited, and this would be a challenging project, but not for the reasons cited by above. Indeed, other editors had already welcomed the help of Wikiproject Universities and placed the banner on the page mostly to protect the article from TrustTruth. What you'll discover is that TrustTruth, an editor with a history of getting warnings for disruptive editing, is disgruntled for some reason and specifically maintains an tabloid attack blog outside of WP for the sole purpose of harassing this institution, and has admitted as such on WP. He had previously converted the GWU article into a "mirror" of his blog for several months, and the "whitewash" he complains of is a simple restoration of NPOV. Whatever his reason for being disgruntled, WP is not the place for "attack pages." He had even gone through the trouble of creating an elaborate network of nearly a dozen "supporting articles" intended to back his hypothesis and smear this institution. He further used used a sock puppet account, which he has finally admitted to as well. Personally, I am neither an employee nor student at the school, but I know a hatchet job when I see one. There may certainly be a place for discussing controversy on any school's WP article. But it must always maintain encyclopedic standards, stay within the rules of WP, and not merely satisfy personal agendas. The school actually appears to have a rigorous liberal arts curriculum comparable to St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland, and is currently in the accreditation process with their accrediting agency as well. Judge for yourselves and do what's right.--Arationalguy (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to alert people that there has been a good deal of discussion about COI and NPOV on this at the article talk p and elsewhere. The present state of the article is I think reasonable NPOV. DGG (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)

Hi, I was wondering whether this article would find a home in the Universities Project. It is rather an idiosyncratic institution, being part of SAIS based in Washington DC, but nonetheless also awards its own degrees independently, and independently administered. Does the universities project cover graduate schools? or just the universities to which they are affiliated? I am reluctant to tag the article myself as I am unsure of the propper convention to follow, and also as I am currently in a dispute with another user about the merging of this article with the main SAIS article. I would also appreciate any comments on that issue from this group. Cesariano (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxford's medieval heritage and Anglican scholarship

I recognise that this was probably not the right place to have raised the concern but I note that references to Oxford's medieval Latin heritage and to the summits of Anglican scholarship have been deleted (whereas a more sophisticated operator might have transferred my latest remark to the appropriate page -instead of proceeding to a further deletion!)----Clive Sweeting (Comment moved from main page. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions requested at Miami University

Two editors are engaged in discussion at the Talk page of Miami University regarding two separate issues. We're at an impasse and outside opinions and insight are most welcome! --ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)