Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Universities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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

CfD nomination of Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium[edit]


Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium has been nominated for mergingwith Category:Royal Military Academy (Belgium) alumni. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Standard wording for Carnegie classification[edit]

There's an edit-war on University of Miami and similar edit-changes spreading across other articles about how to state what the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is in college/university articles. Could WP:UNI help come up with a boilerplate standard? Or should this instead be switched into the infobox, where phrases and token identifiers are common and we don't need to figure out sentence structure? DMacks (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would use the categories directly copied from their website:

R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity R2: Doctoral Universities – Higher research activity R3: Doctoral Universities – Moderate research activity

One can state that a university is classified under "R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity" in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

The Carnegie Classifications have a methodology:

They state:

"These measures analyze the relative level of research activity. They do not address issues of quality, impact, or significance. The resulting categories do not imply quality differences."Bcf1291 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not add Carnegie Classifications ("R1", "R2", "R3") to the infobox. There is already too much information there.Bcf1291 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We should probably try to avoid country-specific information in the main infobox, so I would oppose putting the Carnegie classification, which is US specific, in there unless a very strong case is made.
In general, "doctoral university" and " research university" are effectively synonymous. Using "R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity" as a direct quote may be a solution if there is a dispute over wording, but could easily lead to clumsy text. Paraphrasing is encouraged generally on Wikipedia – to quote MOS:QUOTE, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". (Yes, I am aware of the irony of quoting a section that says paraphrasing is preferable to quoting!)
Appropriate paraphrases of the Carnegie classifications would therefore be acceptable, e.g. "Big Name University is a research university classified as having "highest research activity' in the Carnegie classifications." Similarly, "Big Name University is classified among 'R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity' in the Carnegie classifications." is fine. But "Big Name University is classified as an 'R1: Doctoral University – Highest research activity' in the Carnegie classifications." is not, it would have to be "R1: Doctoral Universit[y]" if given as a direct quote, so it might be better to reword or paraphrase.
While the "Doctoral Universities" section can be paraphrased, I would strongly suggest putting highest/higher/moderate research activity in a direct quote as only one institution can actually have the highest research activity, and what higher research activity is higher than would need to be defined.
Robminchin (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the Carnegie Classifications are also on Wikidata. See with property pointing to the various Carnegie classifications for the University of Miami. If the English Wikipedia community decides to include that Wikidata information in its university infoboxes, it would solve the issue. Runner1928 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Reading the article about this classification scheme, it looks like there are lots more orthogonal classes (various enrollment profiles, campus setting, etc.). And although it is US-centric, it applies to all US colleges and universities. Because it is (per our article) designed to allow comparisons, I think it is not as useful to bury it in random places in the prose. If it doesn't fit in the main infobox, maybe it could go as a new box template in the Rankings section? Although it's not a numerical ranking from best to last, that would help put it somewhere that everyone can find it and easily pull the wikidata. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For the full classification scheme, rather than just the basic, it might be worth an infobox of its own. All of it seems to be on wikidata, so if anyone can work out how to link things through the infobox should be fairly simple – if that's what people want. I'd keep the basic classification in the text as well though. Robminchin (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
We could add standardized text to articles using one or more of the different classifications and it may be worth exploring but I agree that it's easier to begin with a template. Although we could create a template and add it to articles by hand - which is where we'll want to start to pilot this, of course - it would certainly be preferable to either link it to Wikidata or have the template added to articles using a bot. We don't have to make that decision yet so I recommend putting it off for a bit until we come to agreement (a) that this is a good thing to test in a few articles and (b) on some of the wording and placement of this template.
I am strongly opposed to adding this hypothetical template to the "Rankings" section of articles; this is a classification system, not a ranking, so this would not only be an error on our part but misleading for readers. My initial thought is to add it right below the infobox. There are a few articles that already have a template or infobox right below the university infobox; I haven't been cataloging them but I think they're either maps (e.g., Institute of American Indian Arts) or historic program/marker information (e.g., Pennsylvania State University) that would probably be more appropriate in the "Campus" section.
Regardless of what method we use to initially add this template and update it (the classifications have moved to a 3-year update cycle with an update expected this year) we need to figure out how to link Wikipedia articles to the entries in the classification database. The primary key for this should be IPEDS ID. I think that someone added this as a parameter for the university infobox a year or two ago but I don't think that the parameter has been populated for most articles. In January I grabbed a dump of all institutions and some data from the IPEDS database(s) and began mapping it to Wikipedia articles but I'm only about halfway through the list (it's tedious and it's really easy to get sidetracked into editing articles instead of just documenting their existence!). If anyone else wants to contribute to this mapping project (which was primarily intended to document exactly how thorough - or not! - our coverage of U.S. colleges and universities is), please let me know. There is certainly not a 1:1 mapping between (6-digit) IPEDS IDs and Wikipedia articles (e.g., there are some institutions with one ID for which we have multiple articles and there are also institutions with multiple IDs for which we have only one article) so creating this mapping is a manual process. (This lack of a 1:1 mapping and my ignorance of how the resulting mapping decisions were made in the Wikidata data is one important reason why I'm creating my own mapping.)
Finally, I briefly note that there is some apparent confusion on the classification project's webpages. The original classification scheme created the "R1" language that has permeated U.S. higher education culture to denote the largest/most complex/most well-funded research universities. There has long been discontent among some higher ed scholars that this has been used as an implicit ranking and the 2005 classification did away with this language. The 2015 classification reintroduced this language however it's inconsistently used on the program's website; I opine that there is still discomfort with this language so our colleagues at Indiana University are trying to hedge their bets by only using the language in some places but not in others. In any case, it's resulted primarily in confusion that we'll be forced to deal with if we move forward with this template: Do we include the "R1" kind of language or omit it? For what it's worth, I favor including it; despite being somewhat misleading (I never would have brought it back...) it has permeated U.S. higher education culture and although very, very few people could precisely define it the language, especially "R1," is frequently used as shorthand by faculty and administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't go in the rankings section, there's far too much risk of it being mistaken for a ranking. The idea of a separate infobox in the lead seems best to me, at least as a trial, or in the "academic profile" section, if it exists.
If IPEDS goes in the general infobox, it might be better to have it as a two-parameter "national reference number" and "national reference number name", or some such, so other systems, such as the UKPRN in the UK (and I'm sure other countries have similar systems) can also be added without needlessly multiplying the number of parameters.
Robminchin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────1. Going back to the original topic of this thread, I may have stumbled onto an easy way to describe an institution's Basic Classification: Simply say that "The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education classifies <institution> among "<specific category>."<reference>. This is the language I edited in the lede of University of Wisconsin–La Crosse and it seems work well while avoiding us having to go through elaborate and unnecessary steps to rewrite the classification schemes into language that makes sense to readers and works well in different kinds of sentences.

2. How do we want to move forward with the creation of a Carnegie Classifications template? I recommend we mock one up as a simple table and try it out in a few articles about different kinds of institutions so we can get a feel for what works and what doesn't work e.g., placement in the articles, precise wording, graphical layout and organization. If that works well and we want to move forward, then I'd recommend a formal RfC to get wider input since this is something we would add to a few thousand articles. We could include some of the most pressing questions in that RfC e.g., will the data be pulled from Wikidata or added via a bot, will there be a mechanism for editors to propose that certain articles be excluded/opt out. If this sounds like a reasonable place, I'd be happy to give this initial mock up a shot in project or draft space. ElKevbo (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Notable people" section at Full Sail University[edit]


Hello again! On behalf of Full Sail University, I've submitted a request here to expand the "Notable people" section with a sourced list of notable instructors and alumni, similar to other university articles. I do not edit the main space directly because of my COI, and I'm seeking help from editors to review and implement the proposed improvement appropriately. Thanks to any WikiProject Universities members who are willing to take a look. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Swansea University coat of arms is up for deletion[edit]

The file File:Coat-Of-Arms-Swansea-Uni.png is up for deletion. Please visit c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat-Of-Arms-Swansea-Uni.png to discuss this deletion. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

University of Chicago Law School[edit]

Need some eyes on this article. Discussion can be seen at Talk:University of Chicago Law School#Mass reverting of edits. Lorstaking (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?[edit]

Hello! At Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) § RfC, there is an RfC on the question "Should there be an article on Emma Sulkowicz?". You are being notified because the page is tagged as being of interest to this WikiProject. :) -sche (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)