Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Graduation hat.svg   WikiProject Universities
Main pages
Main project talk
Participants talk
  Participants category talk
Project category talk
Portal talk
Infobox talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
  University stubs talk
Assessment talk
Collaboration of the Month talk
Outreach talk
List of articles talk
Accomplishments talk
Articles for Deletion talk
  Archive talk
Clean-up List talk
Task Forces
Student Affairs talk
Things To Do
  1. Work on articles that need cleanup. A randomized short list is here
  2. Work on the collaborations of the month
  3. Create a page for each and every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles.
  4. Place {{WikiProject Universities}} on every related talk page.
  5. Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.
  6. Continue upkeep of University Portal

Discouraging "Controversies" sections[edit]

I propose adding something to these guidelines explicitly discouraging separate sections in articles dedicated solely to "Controversies" (similar to the advice here). Too often, those sections become dumping grounds for trivial events that have little or nothing to do with the college or university and have no lasting impact. When there are important controversies of lasting importance, they should be integrated into the article in the appropriate section that provides readers with useful context. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Controversies do not flow in other sections like "academics", "athletics" etc, so important controversies would likely either not get added at all, or would be at risk for being deleted for being in the "wrong section". Seems more appropriate response to such concerns would be to discourage addition of trivial events, while including controversies sections but encouraging inclusion of meaningful controversies of lasting impact. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Strongly agree. History may be the default location for a controversy but others would fit into Campus, Student life or other sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Controversies can be fairly recent, so I’m not sure “History” is the best fit either. I suppose such content could often be moved to a new subsection under “History” called “Notable Events in Recent History”, but I still think a better approach is simply to leave the “Controversies” sections while discouraging trivial content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be fairly unusual for there to be a genuine controversy of lasting importance that wouldn't fit into one of the recommended sections that describe areas central and common to most colleges and universities e.g., faculty, research, student life. Can you provide any examples of controversies that wouldn't fit into those sections? ElKevbo (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I agreed that content in controversies sections could be included as recent history, but think that doesn’t solve problem of trivial content, which is why I think trivial content in general should be discouraged, instead of entire sections.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging "In popular culture" sections[edit]

The guidelines currently have a paragraph discouraging separate "In popular culture" sub-articles but I propose extending that discouragement to "In popular culture" sections in main college and university articles. The issues are the same and the reasons to discourage sub-articles are the same reasons to discourage sections: In most cases, the sections are Wikipedia-editor selected examples of links the college or university has to popular culture. The links are often tenuous and it's rare that any sources are provided that synthesize and discuss the role the college or university has played in popular culture. Without such sources, the section is pure original research which violates one of our core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Broadly agree. However, a few universities are frequently referred to in books, films, etc. and sometimes that is a notable topic in its own right. List of fictional Oxford colleges for example. This doesn't apply to the majority of institutions. "Cultural references" is a better section heading. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging mission statements[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines has an NPOV section in which it states "Avoid mission statements and goals. They are generally promotional." This seems as true for Universities as it is for schools, and I'd like to see something similar in these guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support – duh, the mission of any school is to educate students. (Eye whent too a reel gud skule. Deyir mison statment inkluded "Produce good speellers." But I didn't graduate.) No need to repeat that same fact no matter how artfully it is presented. – S. Rich (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Style discussion underway[edit]

FYI: MOS discussion related to this page

A discussion about the style of the academic course names is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Names of academic courses. Ibadibam (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Article title in native language[edit]

WP:ENGLISH would favor names in English, but I've seen many WP articles about international universities titled as per their native language, e.g., École nationale de l'aviation civile, Université de Montréal. Any guidelines here, please? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't so much that we favor names in English... it's that we favor whatever names that appear in English Language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME). It may be a cultural bias in the English Speaking world, but it is not that uncommon for English Language sources to present the names of French institutions in French. It much rarer with names of institutions in other languages (for example a Czech University... English Language sources almost always translate their Czech names into English). Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)