Template talk:University of Toronto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UTSC and UTM[edit]

I think there should be better distinguishing done for UTSC and UTM among the other "places" of the University of Toronto. UTSC and UTM aren't just "places" like Robarts or Convocation Hall, which are specific buildings. UTSC and UTM are campuses of the U of T, just like St. George, and they each have their own specially named buildings. Also, the {{University of Toronto}} navbox seems to give undue weight to the St. George campus topics and completely disregard topics relating to the other two campuses, such as The Underground, UTSC's student newspaper, which could be kept under Culture, but is being removed by someone. Thus the navbox seems to be poor in uniting all topics regarding the University of Toronto, and I'm quite unsure why. EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I see that there was a suggestion above to create a separate article for the University of Toronto St. George. I strongly condone this idea. Although I also understand Jphillips23's response to the idea about differences in university systems, it should at least be strongly mentioned in the "St. George campus article" about the presence of UTM and UTSC and their relationship with the main campus, which the article currently fails in doing so. It also completely lacks the fact that the University calls it the St. George campus. EelamStyleZ (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There should be such distinction. I wanted to add the mention in the University of Toronto article that it refers to the St. George campus specifically. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the past, some researchers and professors are cross-appointed across different campus so their researches are not isolated to one campus. Same goes to reputation, athletics, culture & student life, and peoples. Many students are involved in other campus' activities away from their home campus. There's no clear-cut solution to the article other than maintaining status-quo. As for UTSC and UTM listed among other "places", I think we can create a new heading in the navbox under the category "campus". The Underground newspaper is based in UTSC so it is reasonable to keep it under UTSC article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Creating a new section called "places" in the navbox might be redundant but it is an option for distinguishing UTSC and UTM as satellite campuses of St. George. However, I still feel various articles relating to UTSC and UTM must be linked in the navbox. Otherwise, that navbox would only relate to the St. George Campus. For example, UTSC is made up of various significant buildings and places. Each building may not have an article yet but I am considering starting one for those that are notable enough. Once created, I'm willing to link them in the navbox under "Places". UTM and UTSC should thus not be merely "places", but "campuses". Perhaps they can be kept under a renamed "colleges" section called "colleges and campuses"? EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the concern here deals with the navbox, not this article itself. I suggest that further discussion be carried out at Template_talk:University_of_Toronto. To sum it briefly, the problem is that right now we only have one navbox trying to do the job of covering three campuses. It would be far easier to have a navbox system that matches the division of scope that exists in our articles, so that we can give UTSC and UTM their own navboxes. Otherwise, we end up with a bloated, confusing navbox that tries to do triple duty without offering sufficient or fair coverage to the satellites. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I did consider taking this to the template's talk page but feared it wouldn't get noticed anyway. Separate navboxes could help, but would end up without any links at the moment as there aren't many articles pertaining solely to them. In the meantime, is it possible to tweak the navbox a bit to "promote" the two campuses to a unique section in the navbox? EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
With more and more UTSC- and UTM-related articles being created, it's only a matter of time before they need navboxes anyway. Even if there's some way to "promote" the two campuses, we still have a problem with articles like The Underground added to the Culture section, without a way to identify that it is associated with UTSC or that Hart House is located in the main campus, or that CFRE-FM belongs to UTM, and so forth. As more links get added in different sections, it just becomes harder to make things clear and fair. I also originally thought that we can wait for more articles first, but your comment here shows that this might be a good time to get started. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I can get started on the navboxes shortly. The main consideration for navboxes is clarity and direct relevance, not necessarily the number of links. And over time they will certainly develop and evolve with more links. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a section called "satellite campuses" can be created with the sub-sections being "Scarborough" and "Mississauga". Under those subsections, respective links can be kept. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Since this is resolved, I will move this discussion to Template_talk:University_of_Toronto for future reference. The discussion can continue there if necessary. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
We should also fix the navbox template and move UTSC/UTM out of "places" and put them under a new heading "satellite campus" OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I had UTSC and UTM at a special "above" section at the top of the navbox but it was undone later. I still think it would be beneficial if it returned to that spot or (now preferrably) at the bottom/footer of the navbox. A section titled "satellite campuses" would span two rows just for the addition of two links, which I think needlessly takes up space. EelamStyleZ (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I put UTSC/UTM to a new section, at the "below" of the template. Any comments/suggestions? EelamStyleZ (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks awkward and out of place. I don't see any harm of having a new line for the 2 links since it's cosmetic and might display differently according to different people's browser/screen resolution. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved UTSC and UTM to a new group of links titled "campuses", but that looks more awkward to me since it seems a bit empty and kind of widens the navbox leaving slightly wider gaps above and below the image on the right. Nevertheless, it does rightly serve the purpose of grouping UTSC and UTM as satellite campuses, rather than just "places" which would be a less accurate description of the two. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed it back to the "below" layout, since it's less awkward and easier to distinguish those links. I do think the links belong more in "Places", now that UTSC and UTM both have more than enough promotion and visibility with their own navboxes. "Places" is a more general and flexible term that can mean buildings as well as grounds and campuses. Having a section with only two links usually means that the section is too narrow and specific.
In the future it might be better to remove those two links altogether so that we have one navbox for each campus, which will reduce the amount of overlap and potential confusion. That said, let's keep it this way for the time being. Jphillips23 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree with the last point. UTSC and UTM are an integral part of U of T, just like its constituent colleges — how does it make sense to exclude them from the navbox? Doing so would only imply the three as being independent from one another, which isn't the case. I can understand the prevention of overlap of topics, however, such as cultural topics of UTSC and UTM. Also, separate UTSC and UTM navboxes don't seem necessary at the moment, yet I've added red links to the UTSC navbox as potential links to articles, and I'm wondering if any of them could ever pass notability. If they don't, we will have to consider deleting those navboxes and keeping any relevant links under a "see also" section at the UTM and UTSC pages. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I echo EelamStyleZ's concern. UTSC and UTM are part of UofT so separating them out of navbox doesn't make any sense. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
One solution is simply to include, as Eelamstylez77 pointed out, UTM and UTSC in colleges. I referenced this in an edit, referring to the section of the University of Toronto Act which specified them as Constituent Colleges. Of course, one issue is that this reduces their visibility, so for now I see the use in also including them on the bottom border of the template. Another is that under the Act, UTM is called Erindale College - Erindale College is the de jure name whereas UTM or University of Toronto Mississauga is the de facto name. A section simply listing these as "satellite campuses" may work better than their presence on the bottom border however, since it is not clear exactly what their status is at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, this discussion settled two years ago: UTSC and UTM are already included in the template. The campuses have evolved beyond far recognition since 1971; they have expanded, changed names, and became separate autonomous units headed by vice presidents. A better solution is to separate UTM and UTSC into their own templates, and leave this template for the main campus only. This matches the way their corresponding articles are currently organized. But in any case, the template is fine as it is. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear to have been settled. The classification of "main campus" also does not apply in any legal, binding, or functional way - people are admitted to UTM or UTSC individually just as people are admitted to colleges at UTSG individually, not the so called "main campus." The division is thus more than arbitrary and since the template does not include each college, it is incomplete. Separating UTM and UTSC into their own templates would only confuse matters more as to their being satellite campuses rather than colleges under the same university, as they are. The template which includes both UTM and UTSC as colleges is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There never was any proposal (except from you now) to put UTSC and UTM in the colleges section using their former names from 1971, because they are not called or regarded as colleges any more, even within the university administration. The proposal discussed two years ago was to have a section in this template for the satellite campuses. The template as it is now has been the settled form for the past two years, if one inspects the template history. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
To satisfy these new concerns, I've added the label explicitly stating "Satellite campuses" to the section, at the risk of being overly obvious. It seems to be the simplest solution, and should leave zero possibility of confusing or offending anyone. It's easier than resorting to defunct names from 40 years ago on the basis of a legal technicality. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering the fact that there is no official status "Satellite campus," which is even a rare term to hear within the university and never within the administration, I would recommend keeping them within the colleges section. However, since you seem to prefer a more popular view of the two colleges which are not at St. George, i.e. that they are satellite campuses, and insist upon including this within the template, as might others, I would recommend a compromise. The compromise is to combine both approaches, one the official, i.e. within colleges, and the other: to maintain your alteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The compromise was labeling them as satellite campuses, thus eliminating even the most remote chance for confusion (despite this not having been a problem), which was your original concern. This compromise has been done already. Despite your claims, the "official" approach by the university is to call them campuses, which simply reflects what has been reality for decades, like it or not. I am not sure why you keep trying to force these changes, but I am afraid they defy common sense and reality too much to be workable. The established version of this template is settled and has worked well for years. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)