Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

AFD for DEEDS Project

There is currently an AFD discussion about DEEDS Project, a project at the University of Toronto. The discussion can be found here. Otebig (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

University of the Sunshine Coast - COI

Hi. I have significantly expanded the University of the Sunshine Coast article, but in the process have been slapped with a COI. I have been open and honest about my affiliation with the university - I am an employee and as such, am a much more reliable source of information than several of the previous editors of the page, who continually added or reverted to incorrect information. The information is presented neutrally and is fully referenced. Why then the COI? I don't believe COI is appropriate when the edits being made are adding to the factuality of the article, and greatly improving it from it's previous state. As I said, I have disclosed my association with the university, and believe I am no more in conflict than a student or alumn editing any of the thousands of other university articles on wiki. Can anyone clarify this for me, or offer advice as to how to see the tag removed. Cheers. 1Audit1 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Converting WikiProject University of California into a task force of WikiProject California

I've started a discussion on converting WikiProject University of California into a task force of WikiProject California. I'm not certain how tagging and task forces of two independent parent projects would function, so please leave any comments/suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_University_of_California#Converting_to_task_force_of_WikiProject_California. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm back!

Hey guys, so after a grueling semester I'm back... so... fire away :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma GAR

University of Oklahoma has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Logo in Florida Atlantic University article

Some of us are discussing the correct logo to use at Florida Atlantic University. Additional input would be most welcome as so far only three editors are involved and the discussion is becoming heated. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user in question just made a legal threat so I suspect he won't be around much longer. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... FAU eh? I'm heading over there in two weeks for a robotics conference lol - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

March of the Cornhuskers

I declined the speedy deletion so that you guys can make the call; suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is on AfD. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and voting, Jameson. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem Dan, I meant it when I said I would be happy to come back to my previous duties. :) Are you still working on robotics articles? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:People associated with...

I just noticed there are 20 articles categorized in Category:People associated with King's College London. I don't know about other such categories, but it seems very vague, especially when the articles don't mention at all how their subjects are associated with the college (as in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which was just added). Of course, I have nothing against this kind of categories as parents of other, more specialized categories, but I think it would be a good idea to avoid having people directly categorized in them. What do you think? Has this been discussed here before? —JAO • T • C 07:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend removing it if it's intentionally ambiguous (WP:IINFO) or renaming it if it connotes something more specific (e.g., alumni, faculty, presidents, etc.) Madcoverboy (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy's jihad of the month: Yale

Yale University is in a pretty bad shape given its reputation. I've gone through and marked it up something awful with regard to all of the missing information it needs from FA-precedent as well as WP:UNIGUIDE. Editors' assistance would be appreciated in improving the article. I also apparently have a masochistic streak and am trying to either merge or substantially improve the Yale residential colleges pages as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Navbox advertising?

I always considered a list of degree programs to be a form of advertising. I guess that I never saw a reason to list the majors at a college unless you were hoping someone would say "oh, they have what I want" and apply -- even saying "There are 50 majors" told me how big and/or diverse a school was without enticing me to enroll in a program. I just never thought I'd see it in a template. What does everyone else think of this??? King of the Arverni (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Send it to TfD, please. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. King of the Arverni (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All programs offered at a University need to be approved by their respective Accrediting agency or DOE prior to making the program available. They are put through a peer review of subject specialists. Once they have received satisfactory ratings, they can offer the program. What's important here is the School be approved for such discipline. Just my two sense.--Mistro12 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't understand the relevance of accreditation to this discussion. Have I missed something? King of the Arverni (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps, sources, and distance-related content

Anyone else willing to comment over at Talk:MidAmerica_Nazarene_University#Distance_from_Kansas_City? We'd appreciate some more contributors there to determine the best course of action. King of the Arverni (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:University of Atlanta -- input requested

This article has been the subject of many discussions (WP:ANI, WP:AFD, etc.) A predecessor school, Barrington University, was unaccredited and involved in multiple scandals. In 2004, it was sold to new owners. In 2008, Barrington was renamed and received DETC accreditation.

Presently, there's a disagreement at Talk:University of Atlanta as to whether Barrington's history should be included in the University of Atlanta article. This content issue has been clouded by issues of alleged spamming, sockpuppetry and legal threats by University of Atlanta employees and/or partisans.

It would be helpful if we had a few more neutral editors looking this over and adding their thoughtful comments on the talk page. Note that doing this right probably means about 30 minutes reading the cited references and the full discussion on the article talk page.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Colour infobox

i have prepared the article bhim rao ambedkar college and want to add colour to the heading of my inforbox..also i would like to include the map of my college just like oxford uni people have done.. can anyone help me with the procedure as i am new to the website and i have tries my best to find a solution to it.. ill really appreciate your effort. thanxx Amitverma86 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)amitverma86

Ivy League Presidents

I have just added this article to the project. IMHO this article suffers from over-categorization. I trimmed the cats down, but I was reverted. I don't care to get into an edit war. Perhaps some other members would care to check it out. clariosophic (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I just added Senate of Serampore College (University) to the Project. I'd like to see if we can/need to find a better name for this article. The parentheses make it look as if its disambiguated, but that's apparently part of the name. As you can see, the website also omits any university reference, so I'm tempted to just make it Senate of Serampore College, but wanted to get some other input first. King of the Arverni (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Back in 2007 User talk:DGG proposed that Senate of Serampore College (University) be merged into the Serampore College article. DGG is still an active editor and it might be worth checking with him/her why the merge never happened (DGG is a very approachable, level-headed type). You might also take a look at Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College#Legal_Status where it says Serampore College is not a university. Good luck.... Pointillist (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it never happened is that I couldn't figure out how to make it consistent from the existing articles, and I didn't want to do the necessary research in the actual documents. Let me give a simpler analog: the official name of Harvard University is "The President and Fellows of Harvard College" and that is what will appear on the degrees they issue. Nonetheless, it is not in any real sense the name of that University, and anyone who uses it out of a ceremonial or legal context is using the wrong name.

As I understand it, there are two interlocking institutions, neither with a physical basis: The Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College" is a legal umbrella for coordination of Protestant theological education in a number of Asian countries. The "Senate of Serampore College " is an administrative body acting as the combined theological faculties of these colleges. It may possibly be called now "Senate of Serampore College(University)" to indicate that it is recognized as a university, but I see no documentation in the articles that this is the actual legal or practical name of anything, though it might have been officially renamed when the College was recognized by the Government of India as a University. (In India as in many other countries, "college" is an ambiguous title, referring usually to a secondary school in the British sense, but sometimes a degree granting tertiary institution of higher education, such as a typical American college.) The articles do make clear at least that this "Senate of Serampore College" has actually the legal status of a university under Indian law; University being now the usual name in India and elsewhere for an institution of higher education. Another term frequently used in articles here on Indian higher education institution, is "deemed University", which I understand to mean the same thing, that an institution such as a medical school whose name does not happen to include the word "university" is treated legally by India as a University. "Serampore College" seems to be used to mean two different things: the theological part of the original Serampore college, after the arts parts became part of the University of Calcutta; or the combination of the arts and the theological parts. The articles seem to demonstrate a certain dispute about who if anyone has the actual internationally recognized accreditation to give degrees, as they seem to be operating under a charter of the Danish King from several centuries ago which bears no clear relationship to the present state of affairs. Such ambiguity is not unknown elsewhere--in my home territory, the University of the State of New York, usually operating as The Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York is not actually a university in the usual meaning, but the overall regulating body for all public and private education in New York State: primary , secondary, and higher. The actual pubic university in New York State is the State University of New York, overlapping to a changing extent in New York City with the City University of New York. The various parts do not always move in the same direction, and the ways they are funded is probably as complicated as in India, and a continual political issue. I defy anyone not both educated and employed by the NY system to actually understand it, and I think the same is likely true of Serampore. I know 4 other US state systems also, and all 5 of them are radically different. And don't get me started on London or Paris. There is no human institution where the accidents of history are preserved in more peculiar ways than higher education. DGG (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed for this analysis. I will add a note on the article talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. In that light, what do we do about an article title that uses a parenthetical reference in its name but is not involved in disambiguation? I still think it'd make a good candidate for renaming, and it might be easy enough now to just make anything saying "Serampore College (University)" say "Serampore College" or "Serampore College University". Does anyone else think that the parenthetical reference might cause confusion with disambiguation cases as I suspect it does? King of the Arverni (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want my tentative advice, its to remove the (University) from Senate of Serampore College (University) as there is no real authority for it, and to merge this article andthe one for the Board of Theological Education. But, as I said, the reason I haven't done it is the work it would take verifying the history from the sources--I wouldn't want to do it based only on my interpretation, which may or may not be correct, and amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. DGG (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Colgate University

Hi all. We've got a conversation going on at Talk:Colgate University on whether or not the school's rankings should be mentioned with a comparison to other schools. I contacted Wordbuilder (talk · contribs) to get some help, but if anyone else could chime in, we could certainly use the help. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I really should check my watchlist during times other than right before I go to bed. I'll see if I can chime in tomorrow... - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

UVa - Oldest engineering school in the US?

There is currently a discussion at Talk:University of Virginia#Oldest engineering school associated with a university? on whether UVa can assert that "The School of Engineering and Applied Science opened in 1836, making it the oldest engineering school in the United States associated with a university." Other editors' input and feedback is welcomed. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Byrn Mawr selectivity in the lead

There is a dispute at Talk:Bryn Mawr College#Article sprucing up about whether or not "highly selective" should be used in the lead sentence. Other editors' input and feedback would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

UNIGUIDE on tuition

I just came across something in WP:UNIGUIDE itself that I was stupid not to have noticed. Via conversation at Talk:New England School of Law#Inappropriate editing, I was reminded that WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure encourages editors to include tuition figures. I've always removed those figures because I considered them to violate WP:NOT, that is, WP:NOPRICES. Are universities exempt from this? Have I missed something? Should we discuss altering UNIGUIDE? My last comment was an attempt to feature UNIGUIDE more prominently, but we may need to tweak it a bit first. Thoughts? King of the Arverni (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I fall on the other side of the debate since I think that all university articles should include this basic information. I would even suggest including this into the UNI infobox. From WP:NOPRICES: "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." Given their variance and standardization, reliable sourcing (as opposed to street pricing), as well as importance to framing any discussion of admissions and financial aid, I think their inclusion is justified. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Tuitions are notoriously inaccurate given the very high discount rates and practices used by most institutions. At most institutions, virtually no one pays "sticker price," excepting foreign nationals. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. gov't figures [1] suggest that 35% of students receive no aid whatsoever (Table 1) and the average aid was $9100 (Table 2) which is only a fraction of the total "sticker price". I think ElKevbo's assertions that universities' tuitions have "very high discount rates" and "no one pays 'sticker price'" are not accurate or defensible grounds for excluding basic information such as this. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This information is about about as neutral and objective as any we can verifiably report and completely devoid of any of the "notoriously inaccurate" conclusions implied by university rankings already so pervasive in the articles. If "notoriously inaccurate" is suddenly a precedent for removing neutral and verifiable information from articles, I can't wait to employ it to strip out rankings sections from articles! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I "side" with ElKevbo on the matter of not including tuition, I'm not sure the discount rate is relevant, either. Not that it isn't, I suppose, just that I'd need a better explanation as to why it's not. As for the rest.... After finally reading WP:NOPRICES, I'm fairly sure that tuition should not be included. I had no basis before, just that "I'd understood" that it shouldn't, which is why I wanted to discuss it. My rationale now lies in what Madcoverboy did not quote from WP:NOT:

-- After "justified reason for their mention," it says "Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation." These examples seem far more notable and far-reaching to me than each and every school's tuition. I'd go so far as to argue that there is no "justified reason for their mention" in terms of these clarifying examples, though I'm obviously open to discussion.

-- "In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products..." I'd argue that, if we were to include tuition figures, even with sources, Wikipedia would become a source to compare prices, as foolish as that sounds.

So, I can't see any encyclopedic reason to include tuition, which changes every year, and is directly connected to the purchase of a product, not a notable price war, historical economic inflation, or a rare collector's item, the three of which are far more notable and broadly relevant than the price of attending a school from one year to the next. The only exception I can see might be the historical changes in cost (which seems to mean higher prices each year outpacing inflation), but even that's cutting it close for me. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, so simply because it changes every year isn't sufficient grounds for excluding information. Rankings, size of the student body and faculty, number of degrees granted, etc. all change every year. I think that WP:NOPRICES should be read through the lens that Wikipedia shouldn't be a sales catalog with prices and MSRPs or day-to-day changes in stock prices, etc.I don't read WP:NOPRICES as an exclusive enumeration of all permissible uses of prices, but only examples of appropriate price use. I can see some merit in Arverni's comparison argument, but we can't control how readers use Wikipedia. If the tuition is not given undue weight and neutrally reported like any other basic university statistic, I'm having a hard time understanding why it should be deliberately excluded. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I originally thought that it should be excluded because I rarely see it included except in articles that read like advertisements, and probably because I've seen editors remove it before (reminds me of the time that I saw someone remove an academic title "per MOS" and just followed suit without even reading WP:CREDENTIAL). Now, though, I honestly think that including tuition serves the same advert function as listing all the majors and minors at a university. UNIGUIDE specifies the number of degrees and the academic divisions, but to list majors and tuition feels like the articles resemble Peterson's, USNews, and other college guides, which we're trying to avoid per NOT, right? History, rarity, and similar notability as described in the examples at NOPRICES are justified reasons, but tuition doesn't seem to fit any of those. We can ignore the fact that tuition changes (I agree, that wasn't terribly relevant) but I still can't think of a good reason to include tuition unless I'm looking to 1) compare or 2) buy. If you're not buying then what do you care about the price, right? Why else would you want to know? Tuition doesn't seem to have a specifically "justified reasons" in this discussion so far except for its very existence and verifiability. Sure, the information is verifiable, but just because there are sources doesn't mean it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. That is to say, just because schools' (promotional) websites offer their tuition figures, along with various other college guides aimed at promoting them, doesn't mean they merit inclusion. I just don't feel as though you'd ever find an encyclopedia that gives tuition figures. King of the Arverni (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to use examples because I hate to base everything on precedent, but it looks like, of all the featured articles that actually cover institutions (there are 14-15 of them out of 21 or so) listed as UNIGUIDES' example articles, not a single one lists tuition figures. There are a couple that cite news sources as being the top 10 most expensive, or that the U.S. military covers the tuition costs for those attending the academy, but that's about it. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I would like to think that these were (from my perspective) errors of omission rather than commission. After all, a number of these FAs don't include any information on their accreditation status or Carnegie classifications, even though they almost certainly should. Other editors' feedback on whether or not tuition should be mentioned in the articles as basic descriptive information or excluded as unencyclopedic is welcome so that consensus is not based on a 2 v 1 decision. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I hope no one minds that I renamed the discussion and moved the other concern below. Madcoverboy, do you have any response to my earlier comment, or are we just beating our heads against a wall? I was hoping to better explain my rationale that time, before I checked on the example articles for a related but different reason. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disagreement over whether it's important descriptive information or simply unencyclopedic information. We can let the discussion sit here and ruminate/stagnate for a few more days, maybe canvass some other editors for their opinion, or start an RfC. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tuition is basic information. I have none the less usually removed detailed presentations of it, because it is better and more accurately found on the actual college websites. It really isn't a simple number: There is a basic tuition rate, there is a system of special course fees that is increasing used as a way of bypassing the basic rate, there are a variable amount of discounts. At many colleges, a small minority of people actually pay the full amount. Some extremely promotional articles try to give all the fees down to the last detail, and this is surely not encyclopedic, but I am not sure what level of simplification is useful. I am not sure how we can present it properly and accurately and in an up to date manner. But we need to do something to indicate the approximate data. I consider this similar to other cost data. the price for an automobile can vary two-fold depending on the details of accessories purchased, but a general range discriminating a Civic from a BMW is none the less essential for anyone who might not know. And we cannot assume people will know: I was startled to see the extremely high tuition fees at some British public schools--I knew they were expensive, but I did not realize how much-- and it made a difference to the basic view of the subject. DGG (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Northwestern is my "pet" article, so I would welcome others' feedback on whether my description of the tuition and financial aid runs afoul of the concerns other editors raised about unencyclopedic information: Northwestern University#Student body. Would the article be better if this was removed? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I support DGG's opinion that tuition is notable in the sense that it provides perspective on the value placed on higher education, among other things. It is true that it is incredibly difficult to establish a uniform metric by which to describe tuition prices; in the interest of competition, universities will list a very low figure as their "cost of attendance" to draw applicants, which will then be hit with room and board and other fees which bring it in line with the prices of their competing institutions. It is also true that only a fraction of students pay the list price for their educations, so in that respect, tuition prices are irrelevant, since each applicant receives a different price based on their particular scholarship, wealth, and provenance. I am interested in the inclusion of tuition prices in university articles, but admit that I am at a loss to describe an effective means by which to determine exactly what to put in and under what justification. AniRaptor2001 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem quite complex, with discount rates and all (if I'm not mistaken, "cost of attendance" is actually more than published amounts because it's not only tuition, fees, room & board, but also travel costs, books, &c. -- but that's not the subject of this conversation). The NAICU has tried publishing historical tuition figures through the U-CAN network, but I'm still worried that WP:NOPRICES makes the best points here in terms of what not to include and why. Is tuition is worth talking about? Yes! Should we find sources that discuss the fact that British private schools cost a lot, or that community colleges cost less than four-year schools, that Harvard is very expensive but can offer a lot in scholarships, or that some schools have very high discount rates? Yes, yes! Should figures be included in each school article? I don't think so. These are two different conversations, one of which will lead to price comparisons and the other of which really deals with meaningful issues of how tuition works at different types of institutions (and sounds a lot more like the examples listed as exceptions to WP:NOT). These matters of discount rates, scholarships, endowments, cost outpacing inflation are also better discussed in an article about college tuition, and I'm sure the sources are out there to provide the necessary information. There is objective, verifiable information that we specifically don't include in articles: we don't list addresses because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, and WP:NOPRICES is just another part of that. We can't control how users read Wikipedia, but we can take into account how users will and still act as a community in everyone's best interest. I think it's a good idea to leave some bits out, and I'm not sure we're doing Wikipedia anything but a disservice to list these prices. I'm certainly concerned that, as many editors have pointed out, the nuances of college prices are rarely accounted for in reliable sources, and publishing flat rates won't give the proper perspective anyway. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

UNIGUIDE feature placement

Should we put {{selfref|See also: [[WP:UNIGUIDE|Article guidelines]]}} somewhere other than its currently obscure location under "Structure"? King of the Arverni (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would support putting this is a more prominent location given the frequency it is cited (by me? :) ) and amount of blood, sweat, and tears that went into getting it to guideline status. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, and I'd agree, of course. Any suggestions, oh wise one? --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BUIC

This is a strange one; I added your project tag, and downgraded it from speedy deletion to proposed deletion. If this is a university with 20000 students, why am I getting no Google archive hits apart from a few that look like PR or advertising? Please have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another one ... we might be able to merge GBS-Department of management - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

College of the Holy Cross GA reassessment

College of the Holy Cross has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability proliferation

I've noticed Special:Contributions/24.60.202.119 has been adding or expanding sections on sustainability across a wide swath of articles I keep on my watchlist. If this some sort of astroturfing campaign, they're doing a very good job with respect to formatting and general verifiability, so I've been inclined to let them run their course and go through and cleanup later. However, it is important to clean this content up as I am worried about these sustainability sections being given undue weight in many articles. I would suggest that much of this content could be summarized and merged with the Campus section on each article rather than being stand-alone multi-paragraph sections. Other editors' thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it too and was wondering if anyone else had noticed and had an opinion. It does seem like undue weight. Offhand, it seems that one good way to handle it would be to (a) remove much of the information recently added as giving the topic undue weight, (b) create an article about the phenomenon of campus sustainability, and (c) add a {{seealso}}, {{main}}, or some other pointer in the relevant college and university articles to the new article. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note that 96.237.125.178 is also engaged in this activity. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madcoverboy that this is neat information to have and might support moving it to the Campus section. I also like ElKevbo's proposal to start an article on the general topic. I am somewhat concerned that the editor seems to have one single purpose in mind and some of the edits sound so unencyclopedic to me [2]. A "bright spot" sounds pretty judgmental and SHU "earned" a grade of D. Let me know if this is uncool of me to point out, oh wise ones, but it's a Cambridge MA account and the Green Report Card place is also based in Cambridge MA. Maybe it's all nothing, but I guess I'm worried that it's just some business going around and posting their own research and sources. It definitely does need cleaning up to make sure it all meets WP:NPOV and WP:V in any case. --King of the Arverni (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

List of universities in Canada

I have nominated List of universities in Canada for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

New England School of Law

Hi, UNI community! I'd appreciate any input my fellow WikiProject members might have to offer over at New England School of Law and its respective talk page. I feel as though my contributions aren't being taken seriously based on some odd ad hominem assertions and it'd just be nice to have some other experienced editors have a look-see. Some highlights: an editor named Latenightpizza prefers to eschew WP:UNIGUIDE for a version geared more toward "prospective law students" and another named Neslgrad09, of course, likes to pretend that I've personally attacked him/her. Comments and criticisms of my own behavior here are welcome, since I feel as though I'm attracting a lot of this lately! --King of the Arverni (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)