Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

University of Miami

1) We have received a GA review at Talk:University of Miami/GA3 and could use some seasoned editors to make the suggested improvements over the next week.

• The nomination failed due to article "instability." Your improvements are still welcomedn and valued. Racepacket (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate business school article

2) One GA review concern prompted me to split off University of Miami School of Business Administration into a separate article. Another editor, at first acted under the misimpression that the school was only an undergraduate program merged it back to the main article. It would be helpful to have a third opinion as to whether such a split is beneficial or permissible. I have asked the other editor for some latitude to develop the article, but he is threatening repeated deletion. So I am userfying it at User:Racepacket/UM and would appreciate some input. 3) The editor has a number of remarks objecting to the GA process. and saying that we should be content to have the University of Miami article Class B. I thought that WP:UNI had a goal of elevating all college main articles to GA or better. Am I mistaken about this? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Article now moved into the mainspace, but your further comments are still welcome. Racepacket (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just a friendly notice that User:Ryulong has nominated it for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Miami School of Business Administration Thanks Racepacket (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Research coverage

Two different GA reviews have correctly pointed out that the Research section of the UM main article needs beefing up. We are now on hold and I am trying to address the concerns expressed in the review. However, there is another editor who does not share GA-status as a goal nor shares my understanding of what a Research section can cover. He has moved the discussion of research projects conducted by specific schools out of the main article into the school-specific articles. Also, I have included "Harvey" a teaching mannequin that was developed at UM, but he deletes it as inappropriate. The question is whether a good research section can include 5 or 6 examples of innovations which give a school a nation-wide research reputation. Please comment at: Talk:University of Miami#Research. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Harvey" mannequin is entirely trivial when there is so much content on the rest of the research performed at UM, especially when all you wrote was this and you used Answers.com as the reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Colleges of University of California San Diego

Do people think we need an article on each of these colleges? There are few independent sources cited. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the colleges covering the graduate and professional schools are pretty good. The undergraduate residential colleges are thin. Perhaps you should search google news for outside coverage. Racepacket (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of De La Salle University

I have done a GA Reassessment of the De La Salle University article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet current GA Criteria. My review can be found here. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope question

Do the articles about individual academics fall under the scope of this wikiproject? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Campus of Michigan State University GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Campus of Michigan State University for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama

I received an email stating there no records of Obama attending Columbia. It stated that no student, (in the years he claimed to have attended) remembers him. DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ANSWER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.162.227 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Willamette University College of Law

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Willamette University College of Law/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of University of California, Santa Cruz

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of United States Air Force Academy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project banner is on the article talk page. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it to WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Michigan State University academics

Michigan State University academics 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. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Litchfield Towers

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Litchfield Towers article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review can be found here. I have found that the artice does not meet the current GA Criteria. As such I have put the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Michigan State University Libraries

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Michigan State University Libraries article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review is here. I have found that the article does not meet current GA Criteria and as such I have put the review on hold pending work. I am notifying all interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I assume that most members of WikiProject Universities do not check this talk page on a daily basis. (I don't.) Hence, the the "sweeps process" is going so fast that 1) we don't have time to react or 2) organize a meaningful response. It would be nice if we could have some advanced notice of which articles are going to be revaluated and their time frame for doing so, so that we can line up volunteers to interact with the review process. There are 47 GA articles left in the Wikiproject and it would be useful to divide up a response to their reassessment among available volunteers. Racepacket (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Departmental Pages

Greetings. This is another question in regards to the possible scope of this project. Members of my department and I are thinking of putting together an article on just our department: its history (being somewhat long), and its current standing. It is admittedly borderline WP:COI, but we do have references at the ready. Thoughts? Owensmartin (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that there is a need for an article on a single department? Is the main article on your university already too long to cover the interesting facts about your department? And are there enough good independent references? Better brief coverage in the main article on your uni than a weak article on your dept. Just some thoughts. You can draft the article in userspace and get feedback on it before you proceed to mainspace. Post here if you do that. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a fairly rich history to the department going back some 75 years. It is something academics and enthusiasts would be interested in. I think I will develop it on my user page and then upgrade. Thx Owensmartin (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation Categories

I have been playing around with the thought of categorizing institutions by their accreditation body. Thoughts? Would this fall into the scoop of this WikiProject? --IntensifyIt (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This would definitely be the right WikiProject and it might give us an excuse to expand the articles on each accrediting body. I know most of the university articles already include this information either in a navbox template or in the infobox as an "affiliation." Maybe your new categories should be linked the the existing navboxes. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles on university buildings being erased

Over the last two days, User:Namiba has systematically erased about twenty-two articles on university buildings, typically by removing all content and redirecting the article to the university's main page or one on the campus when it exists. The user does not believe that university buildings are generally notable. I don't believe there was any decision or consensus that prompted this action. I brought the article on New South Hall to an AfD discussion, but most of these articles received no warning or discussion before being blanked by the user. I'm first off looking for some help at the AfD, but also some guidance as to what buildings notability, and also how we should act in these situations when they're challenged like this.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools targeted in this drive include the University of Kansas, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Virginia Commonwealth, UC Berkeley, Georgetown University, Yale, Brigham Young, and the Rochester Institute of Technology.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is still on-going and includes the University of Chicago and UC Santa Barbara. There should be a lot more discussion on this. User:Namiba does this based on Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, which is an essay, not a policy. While I think an essay is fine for discouraging college students from starting articles on their favorite dorm or fraternity, wholesale deletion of existing, well-sourced articles is a different matter. I admire User:Namiba's dedication, but believe that he is taking being bold to a point beyond consensus. Racepacket (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that large-scale PRODing/redirecting is usually a bad idea, but I also agree that some of the halls the user PRODed don't seem terribly notable and might get deleted if brought to AfD. If folks want these articles saved, they should demonstrate notability by finding significant coverage in reliable (and independent if possible) sources rather than just dePRODing them. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at a few of these AfDs and think that this would be a good opportunity to develop a guideline on residence hall procedures. Specifically, I think the default position should be for each university to have a housing or residence hall article, that discusses all of the housing provided by the university at that campus. If there are particular residence halls that are standout notable, they can have their own article, but the vast majority are not. Collectively the housing of a university is certainly notable, and if people have created pages for each building, there's enough content to expand into a housing article.

This has a few advantages over the separate articles that have been targeted. In most cases these residence hall articles are mere stubs, they're prone to vandalism (particularly from those that live in them, on Saturday night) but not prone to be watchlisted by frequent contributors, they need to be separately maintained, and they don't provide any context about housing on the university as a whole. A collective article for each campus would allow for a full description of housing on a campus, its history, as well as each residence hall. Shadowjams (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowjams. I think that we need to define the exceptional circumstances in which a dorm would be notable, and recognize that most of the articles that are being written about them are not going to meet it. (the most frequent circumstances are being an individually listed historical landmark, or a major work by a famous architect--these are general criteria for buildings, not specific for universities) There will always be sources of some sort, as for any large building, but for most they will rarely be truly independent and not often substantial, and the material in the article will be almost entirely non-encyclopedic . But on practical grounds alone, it would be good to have a suitable combination article for each university. Most universities have too many of these to keep on the main page, and a list with short descriptions of the history would serve as a place for people to add material. If we keep them out altogether, they'll just keep coming back, and, as with a whole range of borderline subjects, a compromise like this is the best solution. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We dodge a few bullets with the University of Chicago dorms at the Afd:

• Burton–Judson Courts - keep
• Maclean Hall - merge
• Broadview Hall - merge
• Breckinridge Hall - no consensus (kept)
• Blackstone Hall - delete
• Max Palevsky Residential Commons - no consensus (kept)
• Pierce Tower - speedy close
• Stony Island Hall - no consensus (kept)
• South Campus Residence Hall- no consensus (kept)

The problem with the University of Chicago is that it has a house system, which in many cases represents one or two floors of a dorm. A lot of UC's housing was purchased from prior owners (having served as a YMCA or Hotel) and are remote from its central campus. In contrast, Cornell University has two major groups of dorms (on West Campus and North Campus) so they are covered in just two articles. I agree that we need to discourage articles created as a Saturday night drunken impulse. I would suggest giving each college-specific wikiproject discretion on how to structure its coverage. We can then have a WP:UNI criteria for those institutions that do not have college-specific wikiprojects. Regardless of what we decide, I think it is better to work out here than by doing a flood of AfD nominations. I suspect that if I were given more time, I could have found more reliable sources for the articles in question. Piling on the AfD nominations at one time made that impossible. Racepacket (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to deal with it here rather than through AfDs. We need a unified policy done here. If individual college projects want to have additional policies that's fine, but as a practical matter many of those projects aren't highly trafficked and a single criteria will be much more useful and visible. That criteria should be the guiding one. Much as the WP:ATHLETE criteria covers all sports, we should have a WP:DORM guideline that covers campus housing.

The criteria itself is up for grabs, but it should be consistent across all schools (or written so that it can be). However it's written, I think the discussion and nominations above suggest that the default position for most dorms is to be included in a housing article, not as stand alones. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Symbiosis International University

A merge has been proposed to fold into this main article many smaller articles about the University's colleges and departments. I've already redirected a few of the smaller, unsourced and stubby articles to the main article. However, some of the other articles are larger and sourced, but I still doubt most of them are notable enough to have their own pages. I thought I should bring this up here before much more material gets merged. If you're interested, take a look. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this: Talk:Symbiosis International University. PDCook (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Endowment source

An unregistered editor editing University of San Francisco‎ is insisting that we publish the endowment figure published by US News & World Report in place of or in addition to the figure published by NACUBO. The two figures do not match and I have engaged the editor in discussion on the article's Talk page. This discussion may set a precedent so I invite other interested parties to join the discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with enthusiastic new editor at UConn School of Law article

Can someone else please wander over to University of Connecticut School of Law and help me engage its main editor in conversation? He or she claims to be new and in need of guidance and I'm afraid that continued reversions and heavy handed actions by me will not be good. The apparent copyvios are the most concerning but they could also be interpreted as poor attempts to paraphrase and otherwise legitimately use available (uncited) sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and tone it down a bit. If the editor RVs it I'll try to talk to them. Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured List: List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni

Is there anyone here who would be able to review List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni for Featured List status: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni/archive1?--GrapedApe (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian universities

Please! change the official name to portuguese official name of brazilian universities. For example: Federal University of Bahia to Universidade Federal da Bahia. and other pages such as University of São Paulo to Universidade de São Paulo. Help the name of Brazilian Universities!

User:Hentzer (8 April 2010)

It's standard to use the Anglicized version of official names. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Isles Internationale Université - another clone of discredited Irish International University

This 'institution'http://www.iiuedu.eu/ is yet another variation of the unaccredited (and discredited) Irish International University (as admitted here http://www.iiuedu.eu/about/history.html).

The Wikipedia entry Isles Internationale Université currently has a copy of marketing material directly lifted from the web site and may well be aiding giving a misconception of legitimacy though having a Wikipedia article. This appears to be a bit of a shell game, as the previous incarnation (English Spelling) "Isles International University" now re-directs to "Irish International University" on Wikipedia Isles International University, and the actual web site now has a defunct home page with all links deactivated http://www.iiuedu.ac/

I suggest that the Isles Internationale Université entry also be immediately re-directed to "Irish International University" and added to the list of related names used.--Savlonn (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.

The website of this enterprise makes for intermittently hilarious reading, for those of us who still have critical faculties. Here's a particularly lovely tidbit:

The IIU Press and Research Centre is a Division if the Isles International Université, which withholds all needed resources, state-of-the-arts tools and facilities to enhance the Université’s students, researchers and Faculty highest quality cutting-edge research work performance, research work’s results and findings presentation and publishing to gain worldwide exposure.

If you're too sleepy to get it, start by noting that real universities provide resources, whereas this place withholds them. As indeed it does, or anyway I can't see a single press item shown by this "Press and Research Centre.

Oh yes, and we're told that Up to December 2008, MPU has published over 174,000 books and monographs. (Take that, OUP!) All of them "reliable sources", no doubt. -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - you can't accuse them of dishonesty with that particular sentence. They do indeed withhold all needed resources, state-of-the-arts tools and facilities... Savlonn (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead image of College

There is an interesting discussion beginning at Talk:College regarding what image should be used in the lead. Additional input is welcome. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Diploma Mills

I looked at the diploma mills list and I didn't see Titan High School but when I tried to enroll in college with a diploma from there then no college would actually accept a diploma from Titan High School. So, can someone please let me know if they really are a diploma mill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.97.119 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

State University of New York at Geneseo‎

A few more eyes on this article would be most welcome. An unregistered editor and I disagree on the inclusion of an unsourced statement proclaiming that this institution is the most prestigious in the SUNY system. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that such a statement needs a source. Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as SUNY Binghamton is the only SUNY school in the Public Ivy list, I would say that Geneseo isn't the most prestigious. FireAllianceNX (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ryerson University

An editor is concerned about neutrality in this article, has posted to the neutral point of view noticeboard about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still many problems with the article. I have made a few fixes, but it really needs to be rewritten. Racepacket (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

A disruptive editor has been making a lot of trivial, POV, and COI edits to UW-Milwaukee articles. It seems as though he's trying to turn them all into college brochures. Could someone neutral please take a look at them? Thanks. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Engineering and Applied Science
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Health Sciences
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Letters and Science
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Nursing
• Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
• Peck School of the Arts
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Architecture and Urban Planning
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Education
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Information Studies
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Freshwater Sciences
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Public Health
• Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business

In addition to this please consider Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines which would seem to state that they may not be notable enough for own articles. Further to 75.2.209.226 COI point - I have posted on WP:COIN here Codf1977 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The parent article University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee is certainly appropriate, but I tend to agree that all of the subsidiary schools that are within the university do not require brochure-like pages of their own. Whether the school has separate enrollment is a good metric (i.e. professional schools, medicine, nursing, law, all should have separate articles, but schools within a college, liberal arts divisions for example, should not). Shadowjams (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

can I have some other opinions on two of the above :

• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Information Studies
• University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Freshwater Sciences

a SPA (Askeovq (talk · contribs)) account has been "questioning" the Notability tag on the articles (also see my talk page for the discussion) - I am of the mind that they are not significantly notable enough for own articles - Askeovq believes I am POV pushing. Codf1977 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Ivy‎ babysitting

Ok, someone else can take a turn babysitting Public Ivy‎; I'm removing it from my watchlist. Every couple of days someone adds an institution not included or deletes an institution that is included in the books from which the lists are derived so someone needs to be watching this. I'm just tired of doing it. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingston University

(Not Jamaica but suburban London.) The article Kingston University has attracted a number of "controversies". I'm inclined to remove one third or more of them as trivial, poorly sourced or both, and to block any IP who persists in disagreeing. However, I'm busy with "RL", tired, sleepy, and bored by Kingston University; so perhaps that all adds up to another reason why I shouldn't both argue on its talk page and wield the cluebat. Those without an axe to grind are welcome to take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has issues - I have posted to WP:COIN - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kingston_University_COI_and_NPOV. Codf1977 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing it raises for this project is whether we think it is ever appropriate for a university article to have a "Controversies" section. In this case it seems like a rag-bag of every contentious issue the university has been involved in in recent years. I would reorganise it but I think some of these issues simply need to be deleted, and I'm not sure which. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be the best way forward. But given what we have now the line on this one (for me) would be drawn at those that directly effect the education offered (as that is the primary purpose for a University after all) - so that would have me delete Anti Semitic Group on Campus and what is left of Workplace stress. I would leave National Student Survey exaggeration and External examiner controversy, but would edit them down a bit in accordance with WP:UNDUE. As for Injunction to stop harassment of student I would remove the bit about the locks being changed and water being turned off as it is not clear as to what happened and why it happened. But I think that the rest should probably stay as it goes to show actions of the University towards it's students. Codf1977 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't out of the woods yet. Please keep an eye on it, peoples. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take the "controversies" heading off. As a general rule for the project, wouldn't it make more sense to have a heading "academic quality", which could contain the academic league table ranking alongside any reliably sourced information about problems? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Indiana Wesleyan University/Talk:Indiana Wesleyan University

It's been a while since I've actively edited, and I'm being told to just leave this article alone. I think it needs a lot of work. Would love more eyes on it, either way. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Edit for Midpeninsula Free University artlicle

The expanded edit of the article has now been finalized. A full explanation of the edit is to be found on the discussion page of the entry for the "Midpeninsula Free University."

James Wolpman (Midpeninsula Free University) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Public Ivy

Is a template for Public Ivy necessary? What is to then stop the creation of templates for every arbitrary list published for schools listed in any particular category? E.g., why not then a US News best publics template or a US News Best Values Template, etc., etc? Should this template be WP:TFD? CrazyPaco (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If a template's subject itself has its own article then I would generally think that creating a nav template is acceptable. In this case there is a Public Ivy article, so I think a nav template is fine here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well there is an article on almost every ranking too. I think it is unnecessary to have a template for any of them, and Public Ivies is ultimately just a ranking (albeit without a real methodology). I believe it is setting a bad precedent, but I'm reluctant to TFD it. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Community Pages & College/University images

Wikipedia is now being used as a primary source to populate Facebook's new Community Pages. Since the first images on college/university pages are usually seals and not wordmarks (the more accepted, recognizable images of many schools), could we talk about whether a switch in formatting for college & university pages (to allow for wordmarks displayed first) is in order? In one specific case, the Boston University seal has been noted in their official brand guidelines as unsuitable for use on social media platforms, and the wordmark is standard, but due to the changes with Facebook and Facebook Community Pages, the seal shows as the default image.Jmackintosh (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(moved to bottom)

I guess I don't understand why this something that needs to be fixed by Wikipedia. This issue is caused by a decision on the part of either Facebook or Facebook users based on Wikipedia information and a decision on the part of Boston University governing its control of its seal.Naraht (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that BU's usage guidelines aren't really our problem. And I agree that in a perfect world Facebook would consult with others before making changes or implementing new features - but I'm not holding my breath.

I advised Jmackintosh to bring this issue here for wider discussion because it raises a broader issue. I'd like to know why we give university logos - images that are unrecognizable by the general public - such prominence. That seems to fly in the face of our guidelines and practices where we make a significant effort to eschew formality in favor of approachability and readability. It seems that simply swapping seals and wordmarks would not only solve this silly Facebook issue but also be more in line with our general practices. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is frequently the case that wordmarks are actually logos of the sports department of the university, rather than logos of the entire university. Further, not every university even has a wordmark, but virtually all have a seal. In Boston's case, their visual identity standards prefers the use of the wordmark. But, that's just Boston's case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please share some examples of American colleges or universities that (a) do not have wordmarks and (b) have commonly-recognized wordmarks that are exclusive to their athletic program? I am skeptical because I suspect that such examples are relatively rare.

I think that a compromise of "If an institution does not have a widely-recognized wordmark then we use their seal as the topmost image" would be good. But I still haven't heard a convincing reason for using these archaic and unrecognizable symbols instead of the much more widely-recognized and -used wordmarks.

(Of course, I am only speaking of the American context. I am sure that the situation is different for institutions in other countries with the possible exception of Canada whose practices are typically similar to their neighbors to the south.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we need a project wide rule on this. Can't editors of a page decide on that among themselves? But if there is to be one, it shouldn't be so to conform for Facebook.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually prefer a seal at the top of university articles rather than a wordmark. Wordmarks, like all other promotional aspects of a university, are frequently changed to follow the latest design and marketing trends. In contrast, a university's seal (usually) remains stable over long periods of time. Plus, seals frequently include useful information like the school's complete name, date of founding, and location. Wordmarks only include a fashionable rendition of the name frequently accompanied by a promotional slogan or graphic. I also agree with Hammersoft that not all schools have a wordmark, although there are some schools (particularly technical and community colleges) that do not have a seal. To further complicate things, what do we do when a university uses a variety of different wordmarks in official publications sent to different audiences? Ultimately, it is not Wikipedia's concern if Boston University or any other school forbids the use of their seal on social networking sites. Facebook created the situation and Facebook has the power to remedy the situation if Boston University decides to make an issue out of it. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are also schools like the University of Pennsylvania that use a separate shield or crest at the top of their infobox instead of their official seal. Editors and Wikiprojects most familiar with the particular institution are probably in the best position to judge what is the best identifying mark to use in the lead infobox. I agree, however, Wikipedia should not be instituting policies or guidelines to conform to Facebook. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that Wikipedia should not alter its policies or precedents because of misuse on the part of other organizations. I likewise also agree with Mabeenot's argument that seals should remain the primary graphic identity associated with universities as these are generally historically stable as opposed to wordmarks which come and go with administrations' and society's aesthetic tastes, often have other valorizing characteristics such as location, founding date, and other contextual information, and are ultimately placed on the most representative documents of the university: the degrees it gives its graduates. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's restart the discussion because I feel that we've gone offtrack.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that we need to alter our guideline merely because one or more institutions have different internal guidelines. We don't work for those institutions and we are under no obligation to follow them. And fair use gives us significant latitude to use images even when institutions don't like it.

But there are two issues that we should address:

1. Why do insist on using seals as the topmost image? I contend that these images are unfamiliar to most people and our practice of adhering to common names and usage demands that we rethink this policy. I don't agree that it would be terribly difficult to agree on the most recognizable image for most institutions (and for some, that image will be the seal or coat of arms; I think the Ivies would definitely fall into this category). I do have sympathy with the argument that seals are consistent whereas other images change over time and are often motivated by marketing and image concerns. I also recognize that I seem to be in the minority in making this argument and I'm not going to live or die on this issue.

2. We should recognize that other venues and entities are reusing Wikipedia content in very different contexts. I am not suggesting that we immediately change our practices or that we must ever change what we do. But I do believe that it's short-sighted and unconstructive to completely ignore those venues and entities - or worse - to thumb our noses at them and insist that whatever they do is "their" problem, not ours. Technically, that is correct. But it's not politically viable or socially realistic.

If it would be useful to place these two topics into their own subheadings, please do so (I thought about it myself)! ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing guidelines and policies on lead

A separate issue that these new Facebook community pages now raise is the need to develop a more thorough consensus on interpreting and enforcing guidelines and policies related to neutrality and undue weight with respect to college and university leads. I have (zealously) campaigned in the past few years against including semantically empty booster phrases such as "prestigious", "elite", "highly ranked", and "highly selective" with some success (a few liberal arts colleges' identities seem to be primarily animated by the fact that they turn down 60-70% of applicants) and also campaigned with less success against including rankings and related ephemera ("consistently ranked in the top X") in the lead. I do not intend to revisit those debates now as the consensus seems to have been (though I disagree with it) that these are "stylistic" choices which are the prerogatives of each article's community. However, to the extent that articles about prominent universities such as University of California, Los Angeles and New York University obviously have problematic leads loaded with ranking-cruft, statistics dumps, and other accolade trivia, should we revisit the WP:UNIGUIDE to provide more guidance and structure or engage with these articles individually? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to do both (overarching policy and individual articles) because editing one is useless without editing the other. I even have some unpublished research where I performed content analysis of a bunch of college and university articles and compared their contents with the WP:UNI guidelines/template and I found quite a bit of divergence from the guidelines, even in good and featured articles. So it's not enough just to edit the guidelines; you have to enforce them, too (common sense, right? :) ).

But on the topic of content: I generally support your edits and your continuing fight to keep the leads NPOV. It's a thankless task so: Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why what Facebook does as a second order user of Wikipedia articles is any of our concern. john k (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't exist in an isolated, hermetically sealed bubble and it's folly to think that we do. It's unethical and unproductive to build a vast store of information and then not care how it is used. ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that our articles should be written not based on Wikipedia's own mission, but based on the missions of other groups which use Wikipedia content for their own purposes? If Facebook wants to use Wikipedia articles inappropriately, that's really their business. Wikipedia article shouldn't be designed so that they'll look good on facebook. They should be designed so that they'll be good articles on Wikipedia. john k (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that we should be cognizant of the other uses to which Wikipedia articles and information are being put. When appropriate, those uses should play a role in our decisions and discussions. They should not be the final word or the controlling factor but we can't continue to put our heads in the sand and ignore the impact of our efforts outside of the walled garden of Wikipedia. It's immature, unethical, and ultimately unworkable. (Note that these are the same arguments on which WP:BLP is built - recognition of the impact of Wikipedia outside its walls.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, ElKevbo. BLP rules exist because Wikipedia articles can affect the real world and we wish to act ethically by showing sensitivity to how living and recently deceased people are portrayed. However, I do think that Facebook's use is a slightly different situation; specifically a for-profit organization/company enhancing their "product" by incorporating Wikipedia content. It is not our moral duty to benefit Facebook's social networking business. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But I'll just say that worrying about second order users is silly in general. Wikipedia articles themselves will almost always have far more impact on the world than any mirrored content. We should aim to have good, responsible articles because wikipedia articles themselves are important, not because of mirrored content, almost always by for-profit entities, which we have no control over. So I'm going to say again that it's Facebook's job to determine whether Wikipedia content is appropriate for them. If they judge wrongly, it's not really our business to make it appropriate for them by changing our content. Our article content should be based upon the community standards we have devised over the last 9 years, not the standards that would make our articles more appropriate and useful for for-profit companies that take content from us for free. Obviously, there's many areas where problems with wikipedia can be amplified by mirror sites, and we ought to be aware of that. But the fact that an incredibly wealthy university doesn't think use of its seal is appropriate for social networking sites, and that a gigantic for-profit social networking company run by a gigantic asshole has decided to indiscriminately use Wikipedia articles, and failed to notice that these articles sometimes go against the guidelines set by universities? Please forgive me if I fail to care even slightly. Brown University and Facebook can work this out for themselves, and I really fail to see how it has anything to do with us. john k (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of the Vellore Institute of Technology article back to VIT University

Hi. This is regarding the moving of the VIT University article to Vellore Institute of Technology recently by *Truth* (talk) . I have suggested that the article be moved back to its original location at the (Talk) page on the article. The rationale behind this has been clearly explained, with evidence, on the aforementioned (Talk) page. Views on this move are welcomed. Please check the discussion at the Vellore Institute of Technology (Talk) page. Thanks in advance.

--Manoj Prajwal (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

English counties without a university

I know this is not the place to ask, but mentioned here is that Herefordshire is one of only three English counties without a university. What are the other two? TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall, but see Combined Universities in Cornwall. Suffolk - no longer: University Campus Suffolk. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, University Campus Suffolk is a typical new article in this project, being written up entirely from the uni's promotional material. It just needs more removal of marketing-speak, and a search for some independent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with IP user's boosterism at Brown University

IP user 152.99.242.24 has been adding peacock terms and other academic boosterism to the article on Brown University. After reverting the user's edits and giving my reasons for doing so, I tried to compromise by incorporating some of the new information using less-biased language. However, the IP user continues to add booster material and reverts other editors without commenting on why. I'd appreciate the help of someone more experienced with handling these situations. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hereford College of Education

Does anybody know what year this college was established? I've Googled it to death with little success so thought I'd ask here. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

After all that and I just found the answer. Apparently it was 1902

UGent!

It's UGent, not Ugent!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.218.40 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorn University

Could someone who knows the United States system well comment on whether this article needs adding to the project? Is it actually a university? Does anything need to be added about its accreditation? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unaccredited. In fact, I can't even find anything supporting notability. I would support deleting the article entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! For info, I am sporadically going through the enormous backlog of articles in need of wikification, applying the search term "university". Perhaps there is a bot that would do it better? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Chapman University, Argyros School of Business and Economics

Can I have some other eyes on the above (relatively) new article. I am not sure that it meets the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines in that as a constituent academic school I am unable to find (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) sources that show it as especially notable or significant.

I have asked the various IP editors intent on keeping the page so to provide but as of now none has been forthcoming.

I may be wrong and it may be especially notable and I am just not looking in the right places.

Codf1977 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

go on there must be someone ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University, Harvard of the West

Can a few editors please weigh in and keep an eye on Brigham Young University? An unregistered editor is edit warring to retain a claim that BYU is the "Harvard of the West." The sources are weak but the editor refuses to discuss the edits outside of a handful of edit summaries although multiple editors have removed the material. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Started a discussion on talk. I see this going to WP:3RR though. As an MIT alum, I had a laugh since I've heard Harvard characterized as the BYU of the East given its large Mormon enrollments, especially in the business school. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

US Athletic Conferences

Several US institutions are moving or considering moving to different athletic conferences. More specifically, the Pac 10 and Big Ten conferences appear to be making offers to many of the institutions in the Big 12 conference and those offers are being taken up or seriously considered. So please keep an eye on the relevant articles, particularly since many of them are being edited on the basis on rumors in advance of official, public decisions. ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a request for semi-protect of the Big 12 Conference at WP:RPP, but I don't know what happened to it... Madcoverboy (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

LaGuardia Community College

Greetings! I need a couple eyes on LaGuardia Community College, I do not think the Corruption and Dissent section has enough sources. One editor in particular is only interested in re-inserting the same edits when it gets disputed or deleted. Although the deletion IP seem to come from the institution itself, this article needs a middle ground or something with more sources. I am not sure how this is handled. --FireAllianceNX (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That section definitely needs to go unless reliable sources can be found to support them.

Moreover, the entire article is quite pathetic and desperately in need of a rewrite. What little bit is there was clearly written either by someone associated with the institution or someone working from institution-published materials. Cripes, the introduction doesn't even tell us what the subject of the article is but instead gives us a bullshit history lesson about who it's named after and then lists some meaningless aspirational platitudes! ElKevbo (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article's cruft wasn't worth keeping. I salvaged what little neutral and useful information there was and slapped an expand tag on the article. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

It would be most helpful if a few other editors could weigh in on this article. There is a SPA camping the article and it's getting nasty. I dropped a line at ANI to see if someone would be willing to block this editor but in the meantime another editor or two could help keep this article in line with our policies, guidelines, and expectations. ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; the primary editor involved has been chastised by multiple administrators and blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know how to handle this situation as I am pretty new to edit (and apparently edit wars) FireAllianceNX (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here, which was the right thing to do. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Newport Students' Union

Would welcome some guidance on the above page please. Lots of WP:FANCRUFT - ideas on how to clean it up would be good. Codf1977 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be merged back into University of Wales, Newport. All UK universities have similar students' unions. Two to three paragraphs in the main university article should be sufficient. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that summarizing the material into a paragraph or two, moving it into the main article for the institution, and redirecting this article would be a good move. This article is way, way, WAY too long given the relative importance of the subject. And let's not even go into the (lack of) sources used... ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the University of Wales, Newport had a section on the union, I have been bold and just done a redirect, I have posted to talk page my reasoning. Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good solution. I think a future policy of this project should be that students' unions (and fraternity houses and similar) don't merit their own articles unless there is evidence that they are notable in their own right. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gdańsk Medical University

I've wikified the above, but it is still a bit disorganised and in need of references. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add any references, but I did move some stuff around and fixed a tag. FireAllianceNX (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Virtual university

Another article in need of wikifying. Not currently in the project - should we bring it in? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I support merging it into distance learning. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)