Talk:University of Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article University of Michigan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Michigan (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for University of Michigan:

Maintenance items

  • Avoid excessive boosterism - try to maintain neutrality as much as possible
  • Update statistical information (at least annually)
    • Endowment
    • Student body profile
    • Research
    • Athletics

To add

  • Articles needed for:
    • School of Nursing
    • The School of Social Work
    • The School of Art and Design
    • Institute for Social Research (source of often cited Consumer Panel Survey)
    • Overseas Collaborations:
      • India: Business School
      • China: Engineering School

List of entities founded by University of Michigan alumni[edit]

The below table required a substantial amount of time to assemble, but was deleted by another editor. Therefore, it might be useful to have some third parties review the material for reshaping/redistribution/reformatting within the body of the article as and where appropriate:

List of entities founded by University of Michigan alumni[edit]

This table was deleted by another user, but took substantial time and effort to assemble. Might 3rd parties review and determine where/how the material might otherwise be integrated into the main article?

Entity Logo Ticker Co-Founder School
American Management Systems, Inc. In 2002, AMS had approximately 6300 employees, 986 million in revenue and 21 million in income and 51 offices worldwide. NASDAQAMSY Patrick Gross COE
Anixter International and Equity Office Properties Anixter International (NYSE: AXE) is a Fortune 600 (#509, Fortune 2006) company. In 2005, the company had $3.8 billion in revenue with a global presence that includes 200 locations in 45 countries (180 different cities).Equity Office Properties represented the 2nd largest aggregretion of property in the US...second only to the U.S. government. NYSEAXE. Sam Zell LAW
American Basketball Association NA Richard Tinkham LAW
Avis Rent a Car CAR Warren E. Avis
Borders Books BGP Louis Borders and Tom Borders LS&A
Cushman & Wakefield 75 Rockefeller Plaza by David Shankbone.jpg Private Louis Cushman
Fred Alger Management The firm has some $10 billion in assets under management. Fred Alger Management was founded in 1964 by Fred Alger, class of 1958. Private David Alger BUS
Devon Energy NYSEDVN J. Larry Nichols LAW
Domino's Pizza NYSEDPZ Tom Monaghan MDNG
DoubleClick Acquired by Google Kevin O’Connor COE
eGroups Acquired by Yahoo in 2000 for $413 million in Yahoo Stock Carl Page COE
Esquire Magazine * Arnold Gingrich LS&A
Federal Express NYSEFDX Roger Frock BUS
GeoCities Acquired by Yahoo! in 1999 for $3.57 billion David Bohnett BUS
Google NASDAQGOOG, Larry Page COE
Guardian Industries With more than 60 facilities on five continents, Guardian primarily produces float glass and fabricated glass products for the automobile and construction markets. It also makes architectural glass, fiberglass, and automotive trim parts. Private William Davidson BUS
H&R Block NYSEHRB Henry Bloch LS&A
Helzberg Diamonds One of the largest national jewelry chains, the company operates more than 260 stores in 37 states. Acquired by Berkshire Hathaway in 1995 Barnett Helzberg BUS
Juniper Networks Inc. A computer networking entity with a $14 billion market capitalization * Sreeram Veeragandham BUS
Landmine Survivors Network Member of coalition which won 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Not for Profit Jerry White BUS
Leo Burnett Company Worldwide, it handles 8 of the top 10 consumer brands. In 2002, Leo Burnett became part of the Publicis Groupe, the fourth largest communications company in the world. Acquired by Publicis EuronextPUB Leo Burnett LS&A
Lilly Endowment Inc. Lilly Endowment Inc., headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana is one of the world's largest private philanthropic foundations and the third largest such endowment in the United States. Not for Profit Josiah K. Lilly Jr.
Loews Corporation NYSELTR Preston Tisch LS&A
The Mayo Clinic Not for Profit William James Mayo MED
Merrill Lynch NYSEMER Charles Merrill LAW
New Line Cinema NYSE: TWX Robert Shaye BUS
ProQuest ProQuest still publishes so many dissertations that its digital dissertations collection has been declared the official U.S. off-site repository of the Library of Congress. Acquired by Bell & Howell Eugene B. Power BUS
Robertson, Stephens & Company Robertson Stephens was founded in 1978, and grew to become a leading, international major-bracket investment banking firm. As of 1998, the firm had raised $40 billion for growth companies in over 700 public equity and convertible transactions, and advised companies on over 270 merger and acquisition transactions worth over $29 billion. The firm's 50 equity research analysts provide coverage of 592 public companies. Acquired by Bank of America in 1997 for $540 million Sanford Robertson BUS
Science Applications International Corporation NYSESAI John Robert Beyster COE
Scientific Games Corporation * NASDAQSGMS John Koza COE
Skunk Works Skunkworks-logo.jpg LMT Clarence “Kelly” Johnson COE
Skype Acquired by eBay NASDAQEBAY in 2005 $2.6 billion Niklas Zennstrom COE
Stryker Corporation NYSESYK Dr. Homer Stryker MED
Sun Microsystems NASDAQSUNW Bill Joy COE
Syntel NASDAQSYNT Bharat Desai BUS
Taubman Centers Taubman was founded in 1950 by real estate pioneer A. Alfred Taubman. The company stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange in 1992 (NYSE:TCO) as a Real Estate Investment Trust. NYSETCO Alfred Taubman MDNG/ARCH
Tishman Realty & Construction The company is managed by John Tishman of whom it was said: "...we take note that he is the only builder in history to head the teams that constructed three 100-story towers—indeed, the first three supertall buildings in history: the John Hancock Building in Chicago and the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.” Private John Tishman COE
United Talent Agency Located in Beverly Hills, California, it is considered one of the "big five" talent agencies in Hollywood along with the Creative Artists Agency, International Creative Management, Endeavor Agency, and William Morris Agency. Private Peter Benedict LS&A
The Upjohn Company In 1995, Upjohn merged with Pharmacia AB, to form Pharmacia & Upjohn. Today, through a series of mergers, the remainder of Upjohn is owned by Pfizer. Acquired by Pfizer PFE Dr. William E. Upjohn MED
United Nations Flag of the United Nations.svg Not for Profit Arthur H. Vandenberg LAW
Walgreen's WAG Charles Walgreen PHARM
Wasserstein Perella & Co. Bruce Wasserstein left the firm in 2002 to head Lazard. Acquired by Dresdner Bank in 2000 for $1.5 billion Bruce Wasserstein LS&A
Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (or The WELL) Not for Profit Larry Brilliant SPH
World Wide Web WWW logo by Robert Cailliau.svg Not for Profit Robert Cailliau while at CERN COE
This list may be appropriate as a standalone article, but as noted by User:Madcoverboy, it is not directly related to the topic of the university and places undue weight on the subject. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems very SYNish to me no matter where it's placed. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

University system article needed?[edit]

I've been thinking about this for some time, especially since the minor kerfuffle last year relating to Dearborn and Flint students football tickets, that there should really be a Wikipedia article explaining the relationship between the tree entities. Public opinion seems to be either that they're the same university (untrue) or that they're entirely separate entities (not necessarily true in some senses). As near as I can tell, the actual status of the system is never spelled out anywhere and there seems to be no appropriate place for it currently on Wikipedia. So, should we take the route of the University of Minnesota system, University of California, University of North Carolina, etc? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My understandings, which may be wrong and should thus be researched, are as follows: 1) The university is not legally constituted as a system (as I understand it, this can be found in the establishing documents or constitution, but where, I do not know); 2) there is one President (Coleman); 3) the application process runs off of a common pool; 3)given that 98% of each is attributed to Ann Arbor anyway, the university reports research volumes and endowment as Ann Arbor only; 4) the university itself uses the phrase "satellite campuses" (also uses branch in some cases); 5) the budgeting is done through Ann Arbor and controlled by Ann Arbor. 74.64.126.54 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the internal organization of Michigan. But the Department of Education says that there are multiple campuses, each with unique IPEDS IDs. That's the metric we use in my research shop to determine if an institution is a separate institution or a "mere" branch campus of another institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Endowment[edit]

The Detroit News is a reputable source of information, not "pure speculation." In addition, University numbers are cited. The number represents the most current number available.

"The endowment is now worth $6 billion as of June 30, compared to an all-time high of $7.6 billion in 2008, according to university investment figures released today."

AStudent (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Whether or not the figure is not pure speculation (which it is, because audited numbers are not yet available), from the discussion page above you will note that local papers are not dispositive:"Please only use the NACUBO study numbers for listing the endowment. This is the most reliable, comparable, and authoritative source for this information because they use common standards and benchmarks across all universities. A local newspaper quoting some hearsay about the endowment being down $2 billion as a result of market conditions does not meet the conditions of a reliable source. One would no more strip out enrollment numbers from the Common Data Set and replace them with some approximate number found in the Lansing State Journal. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.129.101 (talk)

Disagree, the article clearly cites University report. I've cited a source, you've failed to sign your name. 75.185.95.219 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.108.0.247, 6 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

One of part of the article reads: "UM's financial endowment (the "University Endowment Fund") was valued at $7.57 billion in NACUBO's 2008 ranking.[51] It was the seventh largest endowment in the U.S. and the third-largest among U.S public universities at that time, as well as the fastest growing endowment in the nation over the last 21 years"

This is incorrect.

It was the seventh largest endowment in the U.S. and the second largest among U.S. among public universities at that time. Moreover, you should not in parentheses that it was behind only the University of Texas System in this regard, not an actual university (e.g. the University of Texas-Austin).

Please fix.

66.108.0.247 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɔ ʃ 01:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Updates needed[edit]

I've made some changes to the lead and academics section to tamp down on boosterish claims. However, I have to note that much of this article is cited to sourced dated 5 years ago (WP:LINKROT) including annual data that is certainly out-of-date, employs improper (e.g., yyyy-mm-dd which is no longer supported) and inconsistent citation formatting, and has a tentancy to employ citation bombardment and citation clutter to self-published sources to substantiate some claims. In the academics section, in particular, I note the absence of any discussion of number of degrees offered or awarded, core undergraduate curriculum\requirements\courseload, academic calendar, honor societies, popular degrees, or financial aid and student debt. I hope other editors take heed of the need to improve and maintain the quality of this featured article in a timely manner, otherwise I'll nominate this article for WP:FAR in September. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Checklinks analysis here indicates at least 9 dead links. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am starting to address the issues concerning reference links and formatting, as well as updating information in the article. As for the information concerning academics, a look through information pertaining to undergraduate curriculum on UM's website shows that there is not a single set of standards that applies to the entire university (it seems each college and school sets their own requirements. If that is the case, information pertaining to undergraduate curriculum would best be addressed in the individual colleges/schools articles as opposed to the university article). As for references that appear to be self-published sources, I looked at other featured university articles, and it seems that many sources tend to originate at the university's themselves. Hence, I am not sure to what extent "self-published" references can be tolerated within such articles. PentawingTalk 19:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have believed that I have addressed every concern that has been raised. If there are any more, please list them below. PentawingTalk 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Since it is not possible to address every issue at once, I have created a list below:
  • Replace dead links with live links - Yes check.svg Done
  • Update statistical information - Yes check.svg Done
  • Check reference formatting - Yes check.svg Done
  • Add alt text to images - Yes check.svg Done
  • Add information about financial aid - Yes check.svg Done
  • Add information about university-wide honor societies - Yes check.svg Done
  • Add information about number of degrees offered and popular degrees (if possible) - Yes check.svg Done
Looks good to me. I clarified some prose on the honors and dropped in some info on the President too. Thanks for the good work Pentawing! Madcoverboy (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Started the Kines page[edit]

I started the Kines page and linked it to the main UM page. It is a bit more then a stub but probably a little less then a start. Any help is always greatly appreciated as I am pretty new to this. Quickone (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary degree at Michigan?[edit]

The article includes this statement:

The university has "very high" research activity and the "comprehensive" graduate program offers doctoral degrees in the humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields as well as professional degrees in medicine, law, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. [emphasis added]

But UM doesn't offer a veterinary degree does it? It does offer veterinary externships, has a postdoctoral veterinary program, and provides other training to veterinarians. Jeff Ogden (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  • UM does seem to offer pre-veterinary degrees (see the following link [1]). The information in the passage is from the Carnegie Classifications, which is linked from the references section. I personally don't know why veterinary medicine is listed, but it is there in reference. PentawingTalk 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference above is to the Pre-Veterinary Medical Association. That is a student organization and not part of an academic department or program. The Carnegie reference is about a category that includes medical/veterinary, that is medical and/or veterinary. In UM's case it is just medical. Jeff Ogden (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a change to remove "veterinary medicine" from the list of professional degrees offered at UM. Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merit network[edit]

This was once in the ToDo list, but with the recent response, I feel that placing this in the talk page itself is more appropriate for further discussion. PentawingTalk 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Add a page for history of Merit Network? -> details in separate article

Many institutions try to stake a claim to the foundation of the internet. UM's 1966 study must certainly rank backward in time, as does its work on the NSF backbone, UCAID (university corp. for Internet Dev.), as well as its role -- via Van Houewling's (sp?) on Internet2). It would seem that all of these events, and the history in the above link, might be worthy of elaboration [2]

  • This might be a good idea, but keep in mind that:
  1. the Merit Network is a non-profit corporation in its own right, and while it is administratively attached to the University of Michigan, it is a legally separate entity that is governed by the four-year public universities in Michigan of which the University of Michigan is but one;
  2. Merit, rather than the University of Michigan, submitted and won the NSFNET cooperative agreement in 1987;
  3. in addition to NSF Merit had three partners in the NSFNET project, IBM, MCI, and the State of Michigan and later a fourth, Advanced Network and Services (ANS), was added;
  4. because Merit is administratively attached to the University of Michigan, the NSFNET cooperative agreement was administered through the University of Michigan's office of research administration (DRDA), but the award was to Merit and not to the University of Michigan;
  5. UCAID and Internet2 are really two names for the same thing, and like Merit, they are a non-profit corporation with some administrative ties to the University of Michigan, but again like Merit, a legally separate entity and in UCAID's case one with a nationally representative Board of Directors;
  6. there are Wikipedia articles on Merit, UCAID and Internet2, and NSFNET, although some of the articles could be improved;
  7. Doug Van Houweling was Vice-provost for Information Technology at the University of Michigan from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, he was UofM's representative on the Merit Board of Directors during this time, he was Chair of the Merit Board of Directors at the time Merit submitted its winning NSFNET proposal, he was a member of the NSFNET Executive Committee, he was Merit's representative on the ANS Board of Directors when ANS was formed, he stepped down from his Vice-provost's position and became, until very recently, the head of UCAID/Internet2;
  8. no single individual or organization can claim credit for the creation of the Internet;
  9. may individuals and organizations in universities, government, and industry in and outside of the U.S. played important roles in the creation of what became today's Internet, Merit, the University of Michigan, and Doug van Houweling are certainly among them. Jeff Ogden (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain Field Station[edit]

Someone added a section concerning the Rocky Mountain Field Station into the history of the University of Michigan, of which the section has no particular relevance. I have moved the material here in hopes that someone might be able to add onto it so that it can be in its own article. PentawingTalk 05:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Michigan runs the 120 acre Rocky Mountain Field Station in Wyoming, which celebrated its 80th anniversary in 2009 with new housing, and expanded course offering. The camp is a teaching and research facility offering courses in geology, ecology, renewable energy and humanities. With partial funding from U-M's Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute and the Office of the Provost, Camp Davis also is installing renewable energy systems that will serve as a demonstration project for students in the various courses. The typical student to instructor ratio is 10:1. Nestled in the mountains just south of Jackson Hole and tucked between the Hoback River and Bridger Teton National Forest, Camp Davis offers access to some of North America's most scenic and interesting geological, ecological and historic sites
I made a little edit under the Residential Life for the new dormitory, North Quad. I provided more details of what services North Quad offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlainy (talkcontribs) 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Michigan_Wolverines#Solid_Maize_Block_M_vs._split_block_M.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Should University of Michigan have a project[edit]

Looking at Category:WikiProject Universities, it seems like University of Michigan might want to start its own project. I would start it myself, but I am already running WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, volunteers from WikiProject Universities tend to look in more on those schools that do not have their own projects with their own set of volunteers to watch and improve articles. So the question comes down to whether there is a viable group of editors willing to take on the tasks. Racepacket (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we should create the project. There are a ton of Michigan Wolverines football fans and Ann Arbor, Michigan is a WP:FA. Between people interested in A-squared and Michigan Football, I think we have a lot of interested editors. I am about to start the project myself, if no one else steps up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to help and contribute, but I'm new to Wikipedia so I wouldn't be experienced enough to actually run the project or anything. Michigan is definitely big enough and important enough to have its own project, though.Lonewolf371 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony, did you ever start up this project? I agree that there would probably be some interest. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start it because I will end up trying to run it. As stated above, I am already running WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARD. I will help you get it started if you want to run it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps[edit]

this FA should mention the name of the University's newspaper? I created a redirect here from Michigan Today. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently it's some sort of regular electronic newsletter instead [3]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Michigan Today is an online publication for alumni that is updated 10 times a year. There is the University Record, a weekly newspaper targeted to faculty and staff. It is a UofM publication. It isn't currently mentioned in the article, but is used as a source several times. There is also the Michigan Daily, the pretty much daily student newspaper that is already mentioned in the article (5 days a week during the fall and winter terms and weekly during the spring and summer terms). Jeff Ogden (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheletics Changes[edit]

Someone with better skills and less boosterism should make these changes. Go Blue

Michigan Stadium hosted Big Chill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Chill_at_the_Big_Houseon 12/11/2010, highest attendence ever for hockey game, 104,173 according to Guinness.

Michigan Stadium set attendence record for football (Announced each game as "Largest crowd watching a football game anywhere in America today.") on 9/10/2011 against Notre Dame, Michigan Stadium's first ever night game, 114,804. http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091211aaa.html

Michigan will play hockey in the Big Ten hockey conference starting in 2013-14 season. http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/03/21_big_ten_officially_announces.php

Shoud be a mention of number of varsity sports, 14 men's and 12 women's. http://www.mgoblue.com/school-bio/mich-varsity-sports.html

Thanks

12.165.172.4 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Sean

Academic rankings by department[edit]

I first undertook to clean up this recent addition (which took material from the lede, moved it into text and expanded it to describe four or five liberal arts programs within the U), to even out the overemphasis on the Department of Philosophy and make the language a bit more objective (i.e. simply stating the rankings) but when I began to look into the refs I found a kind of hodgepodge of sources of widely varying utility, and decided it was easier to simply restore this part of the article to the general University rankings that had previously existed in the lede. For instance the material cited the the Gourman Report for the Psychology rankings, which has not been published since 1997. The Sociology rankings (from US News) and Philosophy (from the Philosophical Gourmet Report both date to 2009. The former is a pretty good source, if a bit stale, but it is hard to know what to make of the latter. The Humanities ranking was 19th, which is respectable but doesn't seem worth raising as a special point. The Poli Sci ref seemed sound (US News) and recent.

I am sure that each of these sources has, or had, credibility within certain fields or among students looking for the right school, but as I said it's a pretty random assortment of both departments and sources and finally I think it's a mistake to begin to rank to rank individual departments within the University from different sources of differing reliability. I'd add too that Wikipedia is not a catalog and students who are interested in individual departments within the school should not be looking here to help them decide.

Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Academic rankings in lead[edit]

Setting aside my underlying cynicism about the multiplicity of services and firms that claim to be able to rank a wide range of schools and universities along a single dimension of "quality", if an article is going to present the results of those surveys and studies, it should be somewhere in the text of the article, in an appropriate section, and not all lumped together in the lead paragraphs. Leads are there to provide an overview of what's in the rest of the article, and the material I recently removed fails this test in two ways - first, it was unnecessarily detailed - we don't need to know that Michigan was ranked 18th by one study, 14th by another, and that one of its schools is in the top 15 or 10 of another survey still. Second, the material presented in the lead isn't covered elsewhere in the article. So in short I don't think it belongs there, no matter what might be found in articles on other universities on Wikipedia.

I would also like to add that in addition to not belonging in the lead, I am wary of entire sections devoted to academic rankings, for the reason that they are cluttery, of questionable significance once you get past the first two or three, and lend themselves to endless bloat as people add various rankings by different sources of individual departments, etc. That sort of information is nearly impossible to craft into readable prose, and is of questionable incremental benefit to the reader.

Others please share any additional thoughts. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that much of what you had said needs to be said in WT:UNI and not here. I don't particularly agree with the current consensus (reflected in WP:UNIGUIDE) but it does seem to be stable. And that consensus is that (a) a brief, well-written, and broad summary of recent rankings is acceptable in the lead and (b) a section dedicated to rankings and prestige is allowed and even encouraged to a degree. I think that trying to omit rankings altogether is a losing battle and if you believe that they should be omitted then limiting them to a brief statement in the lead and a dedicated section is the best you're going to get.
So the issue with this article is not that rankings were included in the lead is that the specific statements were way too long and too detailed for the lead. A concise, well-written summary would be acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that. My main gripe was in fact the lead, and added the latter, broader part largely because by that point I'd built up a bit of steam! I stand by everything I said (rankings are often marketing fluff as much as anything, they're cluttery and prone to bloat) but reasonable minds can differ of course, and in fact I don't actually have too much trouble with the guidance at WP:UNIGUIDE, which endeavors to limit the information to a single section and counsels restraint in the lead. I do think that rankings of individual departments within a school are better located in articles devoted to those departments (particularly at a large school like Michigan, where rankings could go on for several paragraphs) but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Color box presentation[edit]

I think the new color template - with a box split diagonally showing each of the two colors - is attractive and a good addition to the page. That being said, the template as it is currently constructed renders oddly in (at least) Safari 5.1.7 on a Macintosh running Lion. Rather than a box with a simple two color diagonal split, the first color is repeated as a vertical bar to the right of and adjacent the second color, giving the impression of a lopsided V-shaped wedge of a second color overlaid on the background of the first color. I've left a note on the Template's Talk page to try to explore this issue some more. As I said, I think it's a nice edit (when I load the page in Firefox it renders fine) but until this glitch is sorted out I think the color presentation should remain as it was. JohnInDC (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the template's Talk page, with an image showing the problem: Template talk:Legend striped. JohnInDC (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Protests[edit]

I am trying to build a protest section with information from the University's own library. If there is no such section, everyone who ever protested at the University of Michigan will think their protest deserves it's own stand-alone Wikipedia article. See Black Action Movement to get an idea of what I mean. My hope is to consolidate these before they get out of control. --Sue Rangell 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the History section already includes material on protests (most of which centered on Vietnam), rendered in better detail, perhaps you could add it there. Or, is it your plan to expand the protests section to include the many other protests and other campus activities that gave rise to, e.g., Students for Democratic Society? Right now the new section is giving quite a bit of attention to a series of protests which, while notable in the University's history, aren't really the lead item in the U's protest history. JohnInDC (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this pre-emptive addition is not going to achieve its purpose, namely since the BAM article likely to survive the deletion process easily, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Action Movement. That being the case I am going to remove the section now because it doesn't really add anything to the article that isn't already stated in the History section, save the passing - and oblique - reference to the BAM protests. I'll see if I can add a sentence to the History part to weave it in there. More generally, I think if a movement or protest group is notable, its article will stand; and if not, not. This isn't the place to fix that problem. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
BAM is in fact already mentioned by name in the larger History of the University of Michigan article; I think the only issue for this article is whether those events deserve a specific additional reference in History or if the note re the existence of that article is sufficient. JohnInDC (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

University Student Public Performances[edit]

Added a small paragraph under the Student Activities sub-section. It briefly describes some flash-mob performances and the recent Harlem Shake music video that was taken on the Diag. I thought it was appropriate since flash mobs and public performances like that are a cool part of the U-M student culture/experience. Thoughts?mkuchen (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue here. I've removed it because the events don't appear to be historic or meaningful to the University's history in any sense, nor are they likely to be unique or unusual on a college campus today in the United States. It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia article about the University of Michigan - not a school brochure, or recruitment tool - and as such should pretty much be limited to the sort of information and material that isn't just of immediate or passing interest. For example, think forward two or five years when flash mobs are passé and no one remembers what Harlem Shake is - does the paragraph still make sense, is it still something that should be here? By and large my rule of thumb is, if it's something faddish that would likely be removed one day, supplanted by whatever else is au courant then, then don't put it in in the first place. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1 needs reviewers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)