Talk:Williams College

Fraternities?

Is that reference to fraternities in the beginning even legit? The NY Times article it links to says that Williams' frats have died out--so isn't that misleading/presumably inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.206.91 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

It may look like the article is in bad shape due to the number of categories that I didn't think passed, however most of them were very close to passing but one or two things pushed them over the edge. Overall the article was very good and I think it can easily become a good article in no time. Here are my suggestions to make that happen:

• There were some problems the article encountered with regard to the manual of style. Most things were excellent, but a few sections (Recent events especially) need to have more wikilinks.
• The layout of the sections could be better. Athletics should have its own section, the student activities should be coupled under broader headings (Other publications don't need their own heading for a one sentence description. Consider removing sub-sub-headings for Student media (meaning remove Williams Record, the radio station, etc under that sub section) and streamlining all campus media into a few concise paragraphs. This leads me to my next point...
• The article is at times not focused enough. Sections like Williams Record go into unnecessary details such as "To maintain its independent status, the Record relies on revenue generated by local and national ad sales, subscriptions, and voluntary contributions for use of its website". This doesn't seem to be particularly important. It might be if the Record started this trend or is known for it, but almost every newspaper does this and readers can find out this information via a wikilink to either college newspaper or newspapers. Check every section for this unfocused information. Pretend you are a reader not familiar with Williams. What info will be useful to you?

And by whose exact Point of View, and needs, and interest, is "focus" defined? Does "useful to you", here, mean "useful to the audience (potential readers)," or "useful to the Wikipedia Project?" KenThomas (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article takes a rather shocking turn with regard to references. The first half of the article is horribly under-referenced. Various claims (especially in the lead like "Williams is the second oldest college in Massachusetts. According to current and many past U.S. News and World Report rankings, Williams is the #1 liberal arts college in the United States" need two separate references but aren't referenced at all. I know the US News info is cited later in the article but every time that statistic is presented it needs a source. Any claim that is potentially controversial, uses a statistic, or is quoted needs a reference. The second half of the article does a superb job of providing these, but the first half needs a lot of work.

Are you seriously asserting that there is any question that Williams is the second oldest chartered college in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? This is poppycock: WikiPedia's so-called "verifiability rules," instead of requiring actual verifiability by a neutral definintion, place the (work) burden of verification on submitters. Shall I provide the King's record of the charter for you, so the WikiPedia project can solicit more funding? Do the research yourselves, or compensate your contributors for their work, but stop disguising the criteria for inclusion as "neutrality" and "verifiability" when in fact the criteria is "you verify it for Wikipedia, or we censor you." KenThomas (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, references could be (but don't have to be for GA status) better cited in the References section. Consider using citation templates to give more information including date, publisher, author, etc. This would make the article a lot better. I know some sources already have a few bits of info, but they can always be expanded.
• I'm not sure that the sources used in the article are verifiable. For statistics and information that is descriptive about the university's campus or history it's OK to take from Williams sources, but I think the article relies to heavily on sources from williams.edu. Try to find external references from newspapers, online journals, or even other university websites.

Does this mean that Harvard and Stanford (etc) prevail because they can pay to be represented in external sources, but not smaller institutions? Does Wikipedia's Point of View only represent those who can pay to be published? KenThomas (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure if the article had original research or not because the information in question wasn't cited. Once you put those references in I think it will be clearer.
• The article could be more broad. The capital campaign section could be its own primary section about budgeting, endowment, development, capital, and fundraising. This is one of the important aspects of university articles that is rarely touched on. However, it's important to include and should be easy to find since Williams has a very large endowment. Also, there is very little information about the academic structure itself. What schools does the university have? Is there only one liberal arts school? Is there an engineering school? Does it offer doctorate programs? This can all be included in an expanded Academics section.

Williams is not a University... etc. That anyone who could write the above naive farce, is given authority to pass judgment on the quality of the Williams College article, ... reveals exactly how ludicrous, confused and weak the claims and foundations of the Wikipedia Project are. "Is there an engineering school...?" This is fair question for a high-schooler (if that), but absurd for an "editor" of an "encyclopedic" "publication": allowing the purely ignorant to pass judgment on the "quality" of "facts" they themselves have no capacity to verify... is purely fraud. KenThomas (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Distinguishing features section should be integrated into the rest of the article. School colors and mascot can go under the new athletics section and alma mater can be included in the alumni section. Campus landmarks can also be expanded to simply Campus and should touch on the setting of the university (rural, urban, what is the landscape, what is the structure?). Recent events can also be integrated into the rest of the article. New construction can go under the campus section, the capital campaign can go under budget and fundraising, and the house system can also go under campus.

That's pretty much everything I saw. The article needs some work, but with a few structural changes and some new references I think it's well on its way to GA status. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification on anything! I'm part of the University WikiProject too, so I can help. Also feel free to take a peek at other University Good articles. —Noetic Sage 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Your' asserted judgment via criteria for a (so-called) "NPOV" (etc) article is, alas, entirely corrupted by the limited perspective and needs of the Wikipedia project (and largely, of its economic underpinnings). To rewrite the Williams article according to these criteria would censor and omit all that is unique and valuable about Williams under the falsehood of Wikipedia's asserted "neutrality"-- which is in fact only the Wikipedia's Project's particular, highly self-interested and deceptive, Point of View-- "the cult of Jimmy Wales." KenThomas (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "Highly Selective"

Do other editors think that it is appropriate to have the phrase "highly selective" in the opening line of the article? That seems to me to be a very subjective statement. Even if it is a universally accepted idea, it would seem to me to be more encyclopedic to just give the data and let the reader reach the conclusion that the university is highly selective on his or her own. It's just like if the Hitler article started out by calling him "controversial", "bad", or "notorious". No matter how accepted those statements are, it would be better that the facts in the article demonstrate those claims rather than actually using those words. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. In the context of US College admissions, "selectivity" refers to both how few students and college accepts, how many accepted students choose that school, and how many other elite schools those students were (or would have been) accepted it. By any measure along those lines, Williams is one of the most (top 10) selective schools in the country. If you have a different definition of "selective," then provide it. If you think that by this (or some other) definition, Williams is not "highly" then argue that. David.Kane (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It may well be a true statement based on a verifiable source (i.e., a magazine). So, just being true and verifiable means that it can be green-lighted for Wikipedia? Schools voluntarily cooperate with some ranking bodies but not with others. Let me write that another way: Since a school has the power to limit the access from "unfriendly" ranking bodies, the meaning of the word "selective" from any source becomes suspect. It cannot be used in a cavalier way. Those ranking bodies have self-interest in mind because they need access to data. Many must sell magazines after all. Certainly, keep the word some place on the page, but not in the lede where is smacks of boosterism as well as being misleading. Wikipedia is not advertising. I don't care if ten people think it is A-OK to have it in the lede. [Who are those ten people, I wonder... alumni? As Williams' prestige rises, wouldn't alumni stand to benefit financially by having "Williams" on their resumes? Look! I am not asking anyone, but it would not make very much sense for a majority of editors on this page to be from Zhongshan University.] An issue as complex as this deserves to be developed on a Wikipage about rankings that can be linked to the Williams College page. There Wikipedia can display joyous words like "selective", "highly selective"and "Not at all selective". The same people who want to use selective here should tell me if they are going to add that last term (true & verifiable) to some school's Wikipage! I want to watch! COYW (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while we are talking, the reality of the page must be one way or the other. Okie-dokie. But talk. COYW (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't to disprove that Williams College is highly selective. The point is that the statement fails to follow Wikipedia policy.[1] The term "highly selective" is not encyclopedic. It's hard for me to believe that I could open any print encyclopedia and find it refer to any college as "highly selective". Chicken Wing (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "highly selective" should be replaced (both for Williams College and Amherst College). Chicken Wing refers to the policy of presenting facts rather than subjective conclusions. But as David Kane has pointed out, "highly selective", is not a subjective statement about the college, it is merely an objective fact. Readers can decide from the facts if they think Williams is an elite school or a good school, but it's objectively "highly selective". This seems encyclopedic to me. Npdoty (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, what is not factual about "highly selective?" First, "highly" is just an adjective. Once you admit that Williams is "selective," then you are pretty much forced to admit that, among the colleges that might be called "selective," it is in the top 5%, if not 1%. And there can be no doubt that Williams is selective. Moreover, I have now found a neutral citation. See the | Re-accreditation Report. They (page 25) refer to Williams as having one of the "most highly selective student bodies in the country." So, if an outside body in a formal report refers to Williams as "highly selective," I think that we are on fairly safe ground. I would add this as a footnote to the article, but I have never figured out Wikipedia's footnote usage. David.Kane (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A third-party source stating something doesn't make it encyclopedic. Statistics would be encyclopedic. Adjectives (and in this case, adverbs) are by their very nature, not very encyclopedic. I'm sure we could find third party sources to say that George W. Bush is "very" retarded or that Adolph Hitler was "really" bad, but that doesn't make those claims encyclopedic. "Highly selective" just reads like a bragging rights claim for a prestigious school. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You need "statistics?" Fine. How about a 16% admissions rate? US News rates Williams the 2nd most selective liberal arts college in the country. If you think that the article needs to cite these statistics, feel free to cite them. David.Kane (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added "highly selective" on this page and at Amherst College and added a citation to the US News rankings, in hopes that this compromise will satisfy all parties. Npdoty (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still can't imagine ever opening an encyclopedia and seeing it refer to a school as "highly selective", just because that's not how encyclopedias are written. It's not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. But, it's not worth it to fight it. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase should not be in the article, not only because it is not encyclopedia language, but also because the numbers don't suggest Williams is "highly selective". It maybe "selective," but certainly not highly so. The acceptance rate is more than double that of some other schools (Princeton, Stanford, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.115.207 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The citations we've given above (and the citation for the claim in the article) note that Williams is the second most selective liberal arts college in the nation (out of 100 or so). I'm sure there are American universities with considerably lower acceptance rates, and I suspect that there are graduate programs or educational fellowships with acceptance rates a good deal lower than Stanford's undergraduate acceptance rate. I think it makes sense to quantify its selectivity over all the liberal arts colleges, would you disagree? Npdoty (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that highly selective would be subject to ALL colleges, not just the liberal arts... It should at least say highly selective when compared to other liberal arts colleges or something like that. But whatever, this article was probably all written by rich egotistical snobs who went to Williams, so if it makes them feel good about themselves, might as well leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.115.207 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As David.Kane mentioned above, this phrase has been applied to Williams by US News & World Report, an outside source, not "rich egotistical snobs who went to Williams [... to make] them feel good about themselves." 09amw (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly selective should not appear in the first sentence of the lead, nor the anywhere in the lead, nor anywhere in the article unless you wan't to start throwing out admission percentages, yields, etc. Per WP:PEACOCK, show don't tell. "Highly selective" imparts no actual information - it's just a trojan weasel word for underlying academic boosterism. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course "highly selective" imparts "actual information." It tells you that Williams is hard to get into, that many more peopl apply than are accepted, that a high percentage of those accepted decide to enroll. That is what "highly selective" means.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I not that there now appears to have been 4 separate editors this year alone who have attempted to remove the spurious "highly selective" from the lead, each time reverted by User:David.Kane under the auspices of consensus when it is increasingly clear that the consensus, is, in fact, to strip this imprecise and POV term from the lead. I am removing it again (entirely expecting that it will be reverted in bad faith despite extensive discussion and consensus to the contrary). Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why assume bad faith? There has been extensive discussion. There are different opinions. If you seek to make a change, seek consensus. It is not my fault that other editors have not even tried to do that.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the wording, albeit with the removal of "highly" since neither of the cited sources use that word. Whether it belongs in the lead is one thing but it's impeccably sourced and definitely belongs in the article. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means include it in the article. It just has no place in the first sentence of the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have no place in the first sentence? The first sentence of the lead should highlight what Williams is and, ideally, specify clearly what category of things it belongs in. The fact that Williams is "private" and a "liberal arts college" are important parts of that identity, as is the fact that it is highly selective.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think selectivity is important enough to be in the lead. I suspect many of the people who read the article are researching the college to determine whether they should apply for admission. This is an important piece of information for those people. There is no consensus about removing selectivity from the lead in this or other discussions on the this subject (see Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism). The only consensus is to avoid phrases like "highly selective" in favor of phrases that can be referenced, such as "more selective" when referenced from the Carnegie Foundation.Vantelimus (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Highly Selective" may as well be copyrighted by the publication that benefits from using it. USN&WR sells magazines using this kind of language. At the end of the day, is "Highly Selective" a term that is easily understood outside of that magazine's definition (i.e., accepting just X% of applicants instead of Y% or more). Is it a path Wikipedians should go down, using these peacock terms?... And, no, I do not care if there is a reference. I am not writing to Wikipedians now, am I. I am writing to the subset of Wikipedians who are related to and pro-Williams. Your arguments are not bad. I especially like the one about consensus. [Yeah, consensus amongst the subset of editors who probably like Williams!] Since other editors are increasingly paying attention, enjoy these days of "Highly Selective" and "consensus". COYW (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC) If I were running a school, I would go around recruiting at expos, give peppy speeches and encourage young up-and-coming students to apply. Maybe my school would get a few good students, maybe not. For certain, my school would benefit by having a larger number of rejections make it look, statistically, "selective". Isn't this what happens in real life? How pink is that?! (Since some of the people on here are wearing rose-coloured glasses, they do not see it.) More reading on rankings here: http://officialmbaguide.org/whatswrong.php -and- http://www.somewhatfrank.com/2005/09/wsj_mba_ranking.html -and- http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/why-wall-street-journals-mba-survey-bogus It is about MBA rankings, but they illustrate some of the problems of rankings in general. Even if you do not agree, admit there is a problem... and it is not an either-or one. We should check out the bigger issue of rankings beyong this page. For example, on the Schulich MBA page, I would instantly edit out the stuff that passes on this Williams page. I won't bother doing that... I want to invite everyone one level up where we can get admins to actual administer. COYW (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Those interested in a broader discussion of this topic should take a look at the ongoing standardizing conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism. Npdoty (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll pipe in here. The bottom line is that ranking exists in academic institutions, however we might variously define it. There is a first-tier, a second tier, and a third tier of law schools and med schools and so on. Such definitions may in some cases be boosterism, or subject to debate on the margins, but they also allow us to make very quick, snap assessments of what an institution is-- the very definition of what we 'lede' with. It may be subjective to say that UC Berkeley was once widely considered the world's best public university, but a phrase such as "highly selective" conveys to potential students and others the very concrete fact that Williams admits a percentage of applicants that is below a particular, very low point, and thus is very competitive. Similarly, one may say that Deep Springs is the most selective College in the US, and convey something very precise. That's very critical information to convey, and something expected by many, is lost if it is left out. Even if we might also use such information for "boosterism" or even "peacockery" at other points. 1kenthomas (talk)

Efs

says this is pronounced /eefs/, which is not English. can someone correct it? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not proper English. The nickname is a diminuitive of Ephram, the given name of the founder of the College. 09amw (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on first sentence

There has been some dispute as to whether or not the first sentence of this article should reference how selective Williams is. For many months, the phrase "highly selective" has been used. Since I view that as the default, I have put it back in. Some editors think it is appropriate and objective, since a reliable source (US News) reports it as fact. At least one editor points out that "highly" is not used by US News, so perhaps "selective" would be better. Other editors assert that any claims to selectivity are weasel words and an unacceptable example of academic boosterism. So, as best I can tell, there are three plausible choices: "highly selective", "selective" or nothing. I do not have strong opinions on this topic. But I feel strongly that any editor seeking to change the default choice should seek [[WP:Consensus|consensus] here first. Please voice your opinion here, if you have one. David.Kane (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having waited a week, I conclude that there are not any editors interested enough in this issue to discuss and reach consensus. So, the first sentence will stay the way it is. Feel free to re-open the discussion at a later date. David.Kane (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better to reach a general consensus for all articles than on a case-by-case basis. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism, then we will abide by it, obviously. But there is no consensus there yet and there seems to be some dispute about Madcoverboy's good faith in the discussion. In the meantime, do not change the lead sentence until consensus is reached either here or there. David.Kane (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Madcoverboy's current rewrite is pretty darn good and inspires me to read the rest of the article to find out why Williams enjoys the ratings it does. You can't ask for much more in a lead. Vantelimus (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

David.Kane, please stop reverting my changes because it doesn't have "highly selective" as you so clearly demand needs to be in the lead. This compromise addresses the concerns of the majority of editors who have expressed an opinion that such information might warrant inclusion in the lead and other editors concerns that putting it in the first sentence is undue weight and unverifiable. You don't WP:OWN this page any more than I do, and while I can certainly go WP:CANVASS to get other people to join this discuss and reach an explicit consensus, you could also simply WP:AGF and accept that WP:BOLD changes may ultimately reflect a new consensus. Give the edit time for other editors to evaluate and stop reverting. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like some brief mention in the first sentence, but I also think the compromised rewrite is reasonable for now. I've added a similar paragraph to the lead at Amherst College to try it out for style. Npdoty (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Since the article was in a pretty sorry state before, I gave it a once-over to condense unnecessary headers, add citations and basic information (accreditation, organization, etc.), reorganizing some information (recent developments into history, putting faculty, students, alumni under a people header, moving extraneous information under student traditions & activities). I imagine that the only thing some people will care about is the fact that I removed the unverifiable, peacock "highly selective" from the first sentence of the lead again, but again, it's clear that they can't be appeased. There are more substantive edits I'm willing to make, but if these editors persist in requiring "highly selective" in the lead, then I can find other articles to direct my attention and effort towards. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is better to reach a consensus for all universities & colleges rather than look at them on an individual basis. Sure, innovation comes about by breaking the status quo, but we can always talk first about new editing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism [2] page. Regarding the recent unhelpful edit in the lede, I just hope people like that have it in them to edit also the 13th, 26th or 58th-ranked school (Mind you, there may not be a 58th-ranked liberal arts college... in the Northeast... starting with the letter W... or however else the list is narrow and meaningless). COYW (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MIT?

Starting in the 1930s, there was a collaboration between Williams College and MIT, where a student could earn a B.A. from Williams and then a B.S. from MIT. A Williams professor said, "It was more of a recruiting tool than anything else. Most students caught Purple Valley fever and stayed at Williams. In 1941, my first year here, I think about sixty kids signed up, and not one went through with the program. We sent less than one student a year to MIT." However, a 1952 report said, "Sixty-eight students, on average, have enrolled in the past four years in the Collaborative Program. Those few that completed the program always performed well enough to rank Williams at the top of the fifteen colleges (that) sent students to MIT."^[3] Seems significant enough for a mention. Strikehold (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting finding. Obviously my time at MIT was a few decades after the program, but I had never heard of it and I'd like to think I have a better grasp on that institution's history than most alumni... Definitely throw it in and I'll see if I can find something on MIT's side to back it up. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually just stumbled across this as I was researching Ferdinand P. Beer. I learned that he (an engineer) taught at Williams College for four years under the auspices of the program and thought it was odd, since Williams is a liberal arts school. So I looked into it, found the above link, and thought I'd let the regular editors of this page decide how to handle the addition (if at all). Strikehold (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have links to sources? Interesting given the unique history of Physics at Williams. KenThomas (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Yard by yard"

An edit was recently made that suggested that there were two different versions of a traditional fight song. But now the article contains the full text of the song twice and it appears to be character-for-character the same. Can someone who knows the difference make the change? And is the difference notable enough to include the full words of both versions? I also think the tradition could use a citation. Npdoty (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I've removed the duplicated song and the claim that there are two different versions. Those better informed can add it back in if they find the difference in lyrics and consider it notable. Npdoty (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mathematics Dept

Williams' mathematics department is remarkably excellent in terms of teaching, and I believe Williams has an abnormally large percentage of math majors for a Liberal Arts school. Might this be worth a mention within Academics?

For example, Professors Colin Adams and Ed Burger have both won the Cherry Award for superb teaching Williams Record and others have similar honors. — Law of Entropy (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:WilliamsCollegeSign.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WilliamsCollegeSign.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ironic columns.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ironic columns.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation of Armigeri

In college parlance, I have always heard this translated as 'soldier,' not 'esquire.' E. Williams also served particularly as a soldier, and died on the field of battle leaving a bequest to found Williams, making the translation 'soldier' particularly apt to why the motto was chosen. I'll do more research, but suggest a change in translation here. (P.S. Section #s are messed up, above; the math sections do not seem to belong subordinated to Yard by Yard :). 1kenthomas (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)