Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 13

Lists of student common room presidents in an article

WP:NLIST says "a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable." Does this mean academic heads of institutions, or student presidents? Are there any other relevant guidelines that help for or against the inclusion of the list of student presidents in the article? Please join the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 UK student protests

A newish article on events that are still unfolding. Currently C class; it seems to me it might be a bit better than that now, but I am close in the sense that I have been watching it closely and have made a few edits. If someone who has had no involvement would care to reassess it for the project it would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hunter College

An unregistered editor and I disagree about some edits he or she has made to Hunter College. Can a third party please take a look? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Are we ok with this editor using Wikipedia to promote her sorority because she is willing to edit war with me over it? ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment and undid the IP's edit. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you (for weighing in, not for agreeing with me)! ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Professor of Scottish History and Literature, Glasgow

The article Professor of Scottish History and Literature, Glasgow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found lots of mentions of the tittle in connection with people who are notable, but no indication that the tittle meets WP:N, fails WP:V as well

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Washington & Jefferson College

I have nominated Washington & Jefferson College for Featured Article status, and I could use some help with the reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington & Jefferson College/archive1.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cornell University - SUNY Naming Dispute

We are having an article naming dispute concerning a unit that is part of both SUNY and Cornell and need the opinion of more editors. An article started as New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations on April 1, 2004. It was moved to Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations to be consistent with other Cornell unit articles on July 21, 2006. It was moved to ILR School on December 12, 2010, and then to Cornell University ILR School on December 13. Since that time, the Cornell business school article was moved to Johnson Graduate School of Management, so I contend that if we are going to reflect benefactors and official names in Wikipedia article names, we might as well stick to the official name of this school and acknowledge its benefactor -- New York State-- as well. You can join the discussion at: Talk:Cornell University ILR School#Requested move Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join the College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive

Hello! The Wikipedia College Football Project invites you to participate in the 2011 College Football Hall of Fame cleanup drive. We are seeking to improve the quality of articles related to the College Football Hall of Fame and ask for assistance from not only sports enthusiasts, but also anyone interested in academics, biographies, and history (to simply name a few). Working together, we can make Wikipedia even better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates and Articles for Deletion

Three templates and an article have been nominated for deletion and are of interest to this project. They all deal with business or law schools and categorizing or grouping them according to sports conference i.e. Big Ten law schools, Ivy League business schools. Please weigh in on the discussions as these will likely set precedent for the other templates and articles that are similar. ElKevbo (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sri Venkateswara College

This article could use some attention of some people from this project, I think. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo in Infobox Instead of Seal?

Please join a discussion at Talk:Saint Anselm College‎ about the use of a photo instead of the institution's seal. ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new WikiProject University of Connecticut

You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope:

  • The University itself, including the campuses, notable buildings, notable academic programs, and notable professors;
  • The Connecticut Huskies athletic teams, including the men's basketball, women's basketball, and football teams, their coaches, players, facilities, and history;
  • Notable alumni, including both athletes and non-athletes.

Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content:

WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles.

To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! –Grondemar

–Grondemar 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

USCollegeRanking.org

Does anyone know much about USCollegeRanking.org and its rankings? It's used in a handful of articles but I can't seem to find any information about how it produces the rankings except for the one or two it reproduces from other sources. On that basis, I question its reliability as a source for our articles but I'm checking to make sure that I'm not missing anything obvious before removing it from articles. ElKevbo (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a blog to me. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're missing anything. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TriOS College

Can someone with some knowledge of the Canadian trade/professional school accreditation process have a look at TriOS College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the light of this edit from a user with admitted COI? It looks to me like they are confusing registration with accreditation, but I would like someone with more knowledge of this subject to verify. Also, expansion and reference improvement to the article on the college would be welcomed, of course. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NAIA to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining a related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Membership cleanup

I'd like to clean out the inactive users from the WP:UNI list of participants using data from the toolserver. Is anyone opposed? -Mabeenot (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What formula do you propose to use to determine "inactive"?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
From the link, it looks like the formula is 1 year of inactivity in the whole English Wikipedia. Sounds good to me! --Anneyh (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats fair. The reason I ask is because I've seen editors use criteria closer to a month or less for other things. Just checking.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Society for Research into Higher Education

I brought the above article into the project. Presumably that's OK, and we include articles on similar organisations in other countries, on learned journals devoted to the study of HE, etc. Please respond if there might be a problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Paris University

Good afternoon,

I think it is very strange that University of Paris is not listed in the Universities created before 1500. I am not an historian but I thout it was common knowledge that University of Paris dates back to 12 th century.

John Callaghan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

University of Paris appears to confirm what you have observed. We are a volunteer organization. Feel free to add it but with an appropriate citation probably copied from the UP article. It is normally appropriate to comment on the article with which you have a disagreement. But if you didn't get an answer there, here is fine. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Macromedia University for Media and Communication

Or Macromedia Hochschule für Medien und Kommunikation (MHMK). [1] Could there already be an article on this institution under another name? Or should a new article be started? A private vocational university in Germany, it seems. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Including "Canadian" and "public" in lead of McGill University

Another editor and I disagree about whether the words "Canadian" and "public" should appear in the lead sentence of McGill University. Can someone else please weigh in? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I appreciate the help that has already been given but I'd appreciate some more. A small group of single-purpose accounts are now camping the article and edit warring over the word "public" in the lead because it's already in the infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This could use more eyes. It's fishy that all of these SPAs have been showing up. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 00:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for chiming in. I'm about out of patience in this very stupid "dispute." ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I submitted a RFCU.  RasputinAXP  02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up at Ohio State University

Currently there is a anon ip, using a Queens College ip address, removing information from the OSU page against a previous consensus that College/University articles should be consistent on their wording and begin the lead with the official name.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to invoke a previous consensus, it will be helpful to include a link to the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Here you go Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 7#Article consistency--Jojhutton (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty weak. I now care even less than I did before. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
In that discussion, no less than five editors favored the consistency, while no one was against it. Thats called consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

rankings

most british university pages have rankings section (as well as many other uni pages). right now it is given as a table. what i suggest is that we convert these data in LINE GRAPHS. the advantage is that it is a lot more clear whether the general trend is on the up or down and the overall stability of the position of the ranking. the disadvantage is that it is not instantly clear the exact position in the rankings (i.e. is this uni 17th or 18th?). i dont have the technical know-how of the wikipedia editing tools but i think a tool-tip type pop up can be used to get rid of this disadvantage.

comments?

also who is in charge?

--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're in charge, Greg. I mean, we all are, in a way. Not convinced about your suggestion; the tables are readable and converting them all into graphs is potentially a lot of work for little return. Also we need to think about comparison with unis in other countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I, too, am unconvinced that this change is merited or worth the effort. Such graphics would call undue attention to institution rankings, and Wikipedia is not an aggregator of university rankings. If a particular institution's rankings are trending in a significant way, then that trend is worth reporting in sentence form within the article itself. Danielklotz (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RAE results in UK university articles

The Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, 2008, gave results that are often picked from in our articles. The trouble is that the official quality profiles, at www.rae.ac.uk, are deliberately presented not as a league table. Given that we deprecate universities cherry-picking particular statistics, does anyone have an idea about how RAE results should be shown in the same way for all UK universities? Or not shown? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Subarticle for faculty/departments

I PROD'ed University of East London School of Law and the PROD has been reverted [2] because it is "the law school of a large university". My PROD was based on my interpretation of the Uniguide and the fact that the school is covered at University of East London, pretty much the same as the current article content except without the list of courses offered.

I could take this to AfD but thought it best to seek some general opinion first. Have I misunderstood Uniguide? I am aware that it is a guide and not policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Update - the article creator agreed with my PROD - note on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi (I'm the creator of said article) - I created it in good faith, although Sitush's interpretation of the UniGuide guidelines seems to make sense to me. I am of course happy to be corrected, and would appreciate the same sort of guidance/feedback that Sitush has requested. I note that the user that reverted the Prod seems to have a degree of experience editing university-related articles (At least, more than I do). If the article does (or could with more sources) meet guidelines for inclusion, I am happy to help add to it. In any case, I'm interested to see what the Wikipedians of WikiProject Universities think. Cheers, Darigan (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Sitush is correct on the interpretation of Uniguide. And in fact Uniguide is helpful here, because there is not enough material for a stand-alone article. The list of courses run isn't worth including. People should use a university's prospectus to know the exact course offer; it changes year to year; there is nothing particularly remarkable about the range of courses offered at UEL. The research centre mentioned is worth a couple of sentences in the main article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The guide is just that and is not formal policy. It is also contradictory, and does refer to split-off articles often being an appropriate approach. The article in question is low quality and in my own view the subject is on the boundaries of notability, as the university and department in question are not highly ranked, the level of third party coverage of the department and its activities is low and there are a limited number of notable faculty and alumni. However this is a large law school with around 1,000 students. I ask myself why Wikipedia should have articles on secondary schools of a smaller size and this law school, which is active in research, should not? I also ask myself why Wikipedia should have endless articles on TV episodes, minor 'celebrities' and other pop culture detritus but seek to delete articles on large law schools. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is 1,000 large? Doesn't seem a lot to me (300-ish students per cohort, maybe less if the 1,000 figure includes the academics).
I'm not getting involved in an "other stuff exists" debate - it is pointless. My main issue here is whether or not I have interpreted the guideline correctly, and I did say that it was a guideline rather than a policy. I am aware that the guideline permits exceptions but am less sure that this article is exceptional. Also, the guideline does not refer to split-off article often being appropriate, but rather that generally they are not appropriate but sometimes may be. This project seems likely to be the best place to ask what is actually a generalised question: it potentially affects articles other than the UEL one & so it would be good to have some sort of yardstick. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The guideline states that 'When university pages become too large or too comprehensive it may be beneficial to break off certain sections into sub-pages'. However the degree to which such guidelines should even be quoted, particularly in a narrow legalistic manner, is highly questionable. That same guideline describes Harvard as a 'smaller institution'(!?) and it is clear that the process by which such guidelines take form, and the weight that they hold, is utterly different from policies. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so is University of East London too large? Bear in mind that it includes more or less everything from University of East London School of Law already. Also, I was under the impression that guidelines created or used by projects - such as the Colleges & Universities one - have a weight almost as strong as policy itself. There is some interesting stuff at WP:OUTCOMES#Education also. This is all part of me trying to clarify things a bit. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The main article is not too large as it currently stands, based on a comparison to FAs and GAs in the same category. But the sub-article is too short. If there is additional information that belongs in the school of law article, then its existence as a standalone article may be warranted. Danielklotz (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've faced a similar question at Salford Business School, which I've been slowly chipping away at. It had become so bloated that the article was possibly longer than its parent institution's page, University of Salford. I still think there is much more to be removed from it, but I'd be interested in some other opinions. Reg porter (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, based on which it seems that the Law School article s/b scrapped or extended considerably. I'd favour the former because the latter simply is not likely to happen in any way that complies with WP policies/guidelines. If the subsection for it in the UEL main article becomes too big then it can always be split off.
Re: Salford - had a quick look, did a quick edit and may return later. Be afraid, be very afraid <g>. There is quite a bit of unnecessary and sometimes obtuse management-speak etc in there, which probably reflects student contributors from the school. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Have decided to take it to AfD. Thanks to everyone who has contributed here and, of course, feel free to say you as choose at AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New sub project idea

I have an idea for a new sub project idea, to see peoples views on the idea. "WikiProject UK Education" to focus more on education in the UK and focus on articles that current don't come under WikiProject Schools or WikiProject Universities such as Pupil Referral Unit, National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), School governor, Education Act 2002 and many more which are all related to the same topic but are all part of different projects or not part of an project, and as the other WikiProjects cover the whole world and not the UK, also there needs to be an effort to create articles which currently don't exist relating to UK education such as Governor Wales, List of primary schools in Bristol, Cabot Learning Federation, St Bernadette's Catholic Secondary School and hundreds more. Mark999 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To do list not updating

It seems that WikiProject Universities/To do full list is not updating. Anyone know what's up? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence University

On The Wikipedia Website for Lawrence University it failed to show that Lawrence University was in the Oberlin Group however they are clearly a part of the Oberlin group as the Wikipedia article for the Oberlin group evidently shows, I was wondering if that could be fixed to provide more accurate information on the collegiate associations that Lawrence University is a part of. I sincerely hope someone fixes this blunder so the webpage is proficient in providing more precise facts about Lawrence University, Thank you.

[hide]v • d • eOberlin Group


Agnes Scott • Albion • Alma • Amherst • Augustana (Illinois) • Austin • Bard • Barnard • Bates • Beloit • Berea • Bowdoin • Bryn Mawr • Bucknell • Carleton • Claremont McKenna • Clark • Coe • Colby • Colgate • Colorado College • Connecticut College • Davidson • Denison • DePauw • Dickinson • Drew • Earlham • Eckerd • Franklin & Marshall • Furman • Gettysburg • Grinnell • Gustavus Adolphus • Hamilton • Harvey Mudd • Haverford • Holy Cross • Hope • Kalamazoo • Kenyon • Knox • Lafayette • Lake Forest • Lawrence • Macalester • Manhattan • Middlebury • Mills • Morehouse • Mount Holyoke • Oberlin • Occidental • Ohio Wesleyan • Pitzer • Pomona • Randolph-Macon • Reed • Rhodes • Rollins • Sarah Lawrence • Scripps • Sewanee • Simmons • Skidmore • Smith • Spelman • College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University • St. Lawrence • St. Olaf • Swarthmore • Trinity (Connecticut) • Trinity (Texas) • Union • Vassar • Wabash • Washington and Lee • Wellesley • Wesleyan • Wheaton (Massachusetts) • Whitman • Whittier • Willamette • Williams • Wooster

--71.213.204.83 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Wyatt Bettis April 2, 2011

I added a note about the Oberlin Group to LU's page, though it seems like an utterly meaningless piece of information. Esrever (klaT) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

École normale supérieure

École normale supérieure has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

University of Colorado System

I am new to the Wiki thing, but I wanted to make using of the University of Colorado rebranding. I created one page (University of Colorado Colorado Springs) without notice, moved all the resources to the new page.

I would like more help from anyone if they want to help me, even with the University of Colorado Boulder page, because I may spark outrage if I don't tell anyone before I do anything. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SituAsian (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How official is the rebranding? If it is just a "public relations" move instead of an official name change, this may be premature. Does it require state legislation? If so, did was it adopted by the State Legislature? Racepacket (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

University of the Philippines Los Baños

Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños/GA1. University of the Philippines Los Baños is open for GA review. Everyone is invited in the discussion. Moray An Par (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

List of medieval universities

It's late for me and I feel a bit tired, so I'd rather ask here. I just found the list of medieval universities. I think this list make sense, because the list of oldest universities in continuous operation only lists universities that not only existed in the middle ages, but have a track record of continuity until today. But the list is very strange:

  • actually there are two lists, one per date another per country, this is easy to sort out, we need to move that to a sortable table,
  • the criteria of inclusion is university crated until 1600 whereas the latest end date for Middle ages that I know of is 1516,
  • there are no sources, but apparently the first institution listed is the oldest according to the Guinness book, is that compliant with our source policy?

Any advice? Feel free to carry out any necessary actions. --Anneyh (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Network of degree mills

Hi guys - you may be interested in this discussion - Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#.22Universities.22_and_User:Murtazajamali Le Deluge (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Limkokwing University

Hi guys, I'd like to get a teeny tiny bit of feedback on my changes at Limkokwing Uni if you guys get a chance. I stumbled on it this morning, realised it had all sorts of problems (link spamming, external links in the body, incorrect referencing and massive POV issues). Over the course of today I've been chopping and changing the article, and I have almost halved the content (quite significant editing). I am aware that there are still numerous issues with the article, but, I've been looking at for too long today. I've also made some notes on that article's talk page. It might make more sense to place any comments on the articles talk page rather than here.

By-the-by, I'll be logging-off soonish, but will return tomorrow (AM - GMT) to follow up on any comments made. Cheers Darigan (talk)

Timestamped to allow for bot archiving. Moray An Par (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern Polytechnical University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Polytechnical_University

Hi everyone I'm new to wikipedia and I've been editing the above University Stub page for a while.

I'm having difficulties learning how to create citation and bullet form sources. Can anyone help by creating one? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evasivemaneuver (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Use <ref name="name of citation">citation template</ref> after the paragraph, sentence, figure that needs citation. You should name them so that in another moment that you should need to cite the same source again, you'll only have to put <ref name="name of citation"/>. As for the citation template, use {{cite web}} for web sources, {{cite journal}} for periodicals (magazines, journals and some newspapers with volume numbers), and {{cite news}} for daily newspapers. There are many more templates but these are the most common ones. Explanation on how to use them are at their pages. I hope this helps. Moray An Par (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oblation (University of the Philippines)

This article covers a statue of a nude figure on the campus of the University of the Philippines. The statue has replicas on the branch campuses of the University. In addition, the alumni association, inspired by the statue has sponsored an art exhibit entitled "100 Nudes/100 Years", which is covered by the article. However, some editors claim that the statue has inspired an annual run of naked students called the "Oblation Run." The "run" has been deleted several times from the article, but other editors insist on reincluding it. I personally see little relevance between the "run" and the statue. While I assume good faith, some have considered the "run" material as a means of a particular undergraduate fraternity attracting attention to itself. Could experienced editors please weigh in? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources providing citable info on the "run"? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Some are, and some are typepad blogs. To me the issue is relevance. Why would a naked student run be relevant to the article about the statue? Racepacket (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
All but one are directly from news sources, I'm still working on finding an original copy (rather than one copied in an Alpha Phi Omega related blog" of the remaining one (Sidney Ventura in "Kampus Magazine".Naraht (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The well-publicized annual "Naked Bike Ride" at the University of Vermont has been deleted. While a making a rather defining statement about itself at this far-left school, it was just too embarrassing to report, and the editors decided to delete it. It's gets national headlines. So if it can be omitted for UVM, why not some other place? Student7 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. The run has significant coverage and is certainly notable. Even Filipinos not from UP know it. As for the article split, I support it. The subject simply shares a name but certainly the run and the statue are very different things with different histories, cultural significance and references. Moray An Par (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The coverage (pardon the pun) of the run has been moved to Oblation Run. However, Naraht wants a brief section with a {{Main}} pointing to the new article in the article for the statue. I thought that this was too much so I deleted it, and Naraht has added it back. I don't think that this is a big deal, so I defer to the will of the group. Meanwhile, a disgruntled Australian editor has chosen to escalate the matter to the Arbitration Committee. So, what does the project want, a simple "See also" or text regarding the naked run in the article about its namesake statue? Racepacket (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Who moved it to Arbcom? I didn't think that enough back and forth had taken place for them to get involved? Note, the brief text has a reference that specifically states that the Oblation is the inspiration for the run. I'm still sorting out how many of the UP campuses that have copies of the Oblation have ended up with copies of the Oblation run, but I know it is at least two.Naraht (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

University of Rizal System

Could someone please check this edit? It was performed by an IP that is responsible for some vandalism edits, and sounds somewhat unlikely. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The section shouldn't be in the article anyways. "Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section." (WP:UNIGUIDE) Moray An Par (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Loan forgiveness advocacy

One or more editors are using Student loan to advocate for student loan forgiveness. Maybe something should be said for the recent movement petitioning lawmakers to forgive student loans but what is being said seems out of proportion to its actual weight and biased. I don't have the patience right now to deal with any further but others should look into this and keep an eye on it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is some off-wiki canvassing asking others to edit this article so it definitely bears watching. A Twitter user is directing others to this webpage asking for help. ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That may qualify as WP:MEAT. I've watched the page and will help in reverting edits. If this doesn't stop for a week or so, maybe we can request for semi-protection. Moray An Par (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch, ElKevbo. I do think there is some room for an objective look at how certain qualities of student loans make them unusually arduous compared to other types of debt, but taken as a whole, it's a case of WP:RGW. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to Rankings

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk: University of Tokyo#Undue weight to Rankings. Knowledgable editors' comments or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo student websites

Can someone please stop by the talk page for University at Buffalo, The State University of New York to offer a third opinion on whether some websites should be included in this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS for university associations

I interested in drafting a manual of style/guideline for university associations (Why is there not an article on this? Another title?), consortia and networks something like the WP:UNIGUIDE. Articles under the scope of the guideline, will include De La Salle Philippines, ASEAN University Network, Association of Pacific Rim Universities, Association of American Universities, among others.

But I want to ask feedback from the WikiProject first regarding the following:

  1. Do we even need one?
  2. Inclusion guidelines/notability: Are all associations automatically notable?
  3. Scope: Should the guidelines extend to athletic associations? (WikiProject Sports doesn't seem to have one for them) Are de facto/informal associations covered? (eg University Belt)

Of course, there are many other things that have to be discussed, like what should its content be (prescribed sections), and other things. But I think those three are the most important as of the moment, being that no guideline exists yet. And I'm sorry if my examples are mostly, Philippine- and/or Asian-related. It's where I come from so those are the articles I am familiar with. Feel free to mention a number of other articles that may be covered by the guidelines. Moray An Par (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo (again)

Can someone pleas stop by University at Buffalo, The State University of New York? An unregistered editor has begun edit warring to retain material that is completely unsourced. I think it's also irrelevant information (it's a "In popular culture" section with two whole bullet points) but that's not the point. WP:V is not negotiable but the unregistered editor is edit warring rather than finding sources or trying to discuss the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

University of Redwood

In April, I nominated the University of Redwood for GA. It is a short but interesting article covering a non-existent school. I would deeply apprecaited it if someone could review it in the next couple of days. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Batumi International University

This article about a university in Georgia (country) is in poor shape. Not one of the sources in the article is both active and valid. I can't even find the web site of the university itself. Does anyone know if the university is operating? And can anyone find sources for this article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

College Rankings:

I recently tried adding ranking information about Wesleyan University from 50topcolleges.com. My edit was almost immediately deleted and I'm not sure why? I think that website offers a very unique and objective perspective on national college rankings. Their methodology is actually discussed a lot on collegeconfidential.com, and many have found it a helpful reference in terms of condensing the results of disparate ranking systems. Furthermore, it's a non-for-profit website with the sole purpose of providing free and accessible information about colleges. And I find it a bit frustrating that whoever is deleting my reference is perfectly fine only "advertising" profiters of the college ranking industry on wikipedia. Very discouraging!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btheory78 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Have others - media outlets, higher education experts, etc. - discussed this ranking system? In other words, is it somehow notable? ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In looking at the website, its rankings are arrived at by examining the rankings from Forbes Magazine, Revealed Preference, State University.com, US News & World Report, Washington Monthly, and Wall Street Journal – Top Feeder Schools. The rankings for each school are then placed in numerical order and the median rank is taken to determine the ranking for 50topcolleges.com (resulting in several ties). Essentially, the website gives an idea of where most ranking services would rank a particular school. However, its methodology renders its scope severely limited and it offers no information that is not already available by looking at the services it gets its information from -- it simply duplicates what is already available from other services, some of which are considerably more reputable. I don't believe this website is a suitable source for an encyclopedic article. City boy77 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I saw the same thing and removed them from Georgetown University.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Michigan University

I have done a lot of review on universities templates and looking at other school page setups. I feel that having a separate student life page Eastern Michigan University student life is not needed given large universities like FSU, OSU and Michigan dont event carry separate pages. The article was merged with the main page. Please provide a third opinion if this "student life" page is needed. Pwojdacz (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Clarification of criterion #6

This might be of interest to you. Moray An Par (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Old FLC

List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people is now among the oldest FLCs. Your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people/archive1 will be very much appreciated. Moray An Par (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would we edit a Talk page archive instead of editing the current Talk page??? ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It's transcluded in the talk page. Current FLC discussions are named archives regardless of activity. Moray An Par (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and helpful response! What an odd way to do things... ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well. It's failed anyways. It was closed last night because it failed to garner support after many weeks. Well thanks anyways. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I relisted it. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people/archive2. Please critique. Moray An Par (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

4icu ranking

I saw some university articles listing rankings by 4icu which seems completely irrelevant to me. 4icu "ranking" is a web popularity ranking which is meaningless when one compares universities. Before going ahead and removing them all, I thought I'll consult this wikiproject which seemed the most relevant, I didn't see the subject discussed in the archives, but perhaps I missed something. What do you think? --Muhandes (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't measure the academic excellence/prestige of the university so I don't see why it should be included. I agree in removing them. Moray An Par (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Their methodology is set out here. They are ranking the popularity of websites, not the merits of institutions. There is zero correlation between website hit counts and the quality of the institution, because different universities have different subdomains, intranets, etc. Also, institutions have different sizes and off different services to off-campus audiences. Hence, I agree that this ranking should not be included in any university article. Racepacket (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

AAUP censure

This edit to Idaho State University makes me wonder if we should include a similar note in all of the institutions currently under AAUP censure. Would that be useful and interesting to readers? Or is just weird academia arcana that only us higher ed nerds care about?

If this isn't info we feel should be included, editors should definitely look at the list anyway because it points to many historical events that should be noted on particular U.S. college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I have no issue with adding it, however, would want to see reliable non-primary source for this as it appears that the AAUP is acting as prosecution, judge and jury in this matter. Absent that I am going to revert the change above. Mtking (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What kind of sources would you like to see? I'm having a bit of trouble with this because the role of the AAUP is so well-understood in my world. We could easily find many references in The Chronicle of Higher Education and its much younger online competitor Inside Higher Ed, especially for more recent instances. Major media might cover these issues and regional and local media almost certainly cover these issues.
It might also be worth noting that being censored by the AAUP is like being non-accredited in the sense that it often indicates a problem but not always. Sometimes it indicates a severe difference of opinion between the AAUP and a non-traditional institution just like non-accreditation is sometimes the status of non-traditional colleges that are rigorous but incredibly independent of the federal government. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
AAUP seems to act more like a union group. Kind of like being censured by the national United Mine Workers, which was in turn, prompted by the local UMW group. Are all grievances by a union group recordable? It would seem to me that we need to follow guidelines on noteworthiness of the complaint. If it's the usual "Catholic institution is telling me I can't teach atheism", somehow that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy and more of a WP:SOAPBOX issue, which, if reported, seems kind of like WP:SPAM for the union group. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Illinois College Notable Alumni

We are having a bit of back and forth over whether Brian Sherwin "art critic, website entrepreneur, Senior Editor for a popular artist social networking site" should be included on the college's list of notable alumni. Could experienced editors give it a look? Thanks, John Milito (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer I believe is, he should be on the list as he has a WP article and he went to Illinois College, unless the list gets so long that it is split off to another page and only list of highly notable alumni remains on the main page. Mtking (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Could editors please respond on the article's Talk page so we keep the discussion centralized and organized? That would also help ensure that you're familiar with both sides of the discussion. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
We need more comments on this issue. The problem is that some feel that notability does not mean that a person is notable enough for the alumni section. Others feel that if the person is notable according to Wikipedia consensus the person is notable enough to be listed in the alumni section. As far as I know there are no established rules concerning the notability standards for alumni sections on college articles. From what I understand of the debate some feel that notable alumni are only individuals who are considered notable by the college itself while others feel that notable alumni can be anyone who is considered notable by a wider audience. That is the way I see it because all of the notable alums that are listed without argument are the same alums that the college promotes on its website as a marketing tool for attracting students and placing itself in a historic context.SunRiddled (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're trying to summarize my position then you've utterly failed to comprehend it. We do have established "rules" about what alumni to include in college and university articles. We do not apply notability to determine the content of articles (please, please, PLEASE read that policy; it's a core policy and it explicitly says what I've repeated several times in this discussion).
And you should be embarrassed and ashamed that you've tried so blatantly to poison the well by misrepresenting the discussion. No one is arguing that "notable alumni are only individuals who are considered notable by the college itself." Don't create strawmen or misrepresent others to lure others to your side of a discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to lure people to my side of the discussion. Editors are welcome to read the lengthy debate if they want and make a decision.SunRiddled (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
To get back to the core issue here, there are actual standards to include notables (people with articles)? On one hand, that is nice, on the other, it would seem to create a controversy with every addition that probably isn't worth fighting over. Particularly in a forked list.
For an non-university example, I once tried to defend Order of St. Gregory the Great against people who were not generally recognizable. For the record, the award is given out mostly to your otherwise average Catholic who has done a lot for the Church in the state. He would not normally have an article. To liven the organization up, the church gives out the award to people who are recognizable. Probably not the only organization in the world that does this. I tried to limit those notables to the Bob Hopes, Rupert Murdochs, etc. People who anyone would recognize. I failed and it is now, as most colleges (and places) are, loaded down with "people with articles." I don't see realistically how this can be stopped.
Most high school and places have "notables" that are mostly sports figures of the last few decades and music groups of the last decade who have somehow gotten an article. If this can be limited easily I would be happy to hear the criteria. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is to notify that there is a discussion started at WP:ELN regarding the use of a specific site for the external link section of some schools. Interested members of this project are encouraged to join the conversation that is taking place at WP:ELN#DigitalNC.org as External Link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor Not Allowing Use of College Seal in Infobox

An editor is edit-warring to prevent the use of the seal of Illinois College in the article's infobox. He or she insists that (a) we need permission from the college to use it and (b) it fails our fair use criteria. I'm not getting through to him or her and he or she is edit-warring to remove the seal. Can someone else please step in and help? Thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because 1.) it is not the logo the college uses presently to represent themselves. The seal is misleading to readers. 2.) the college states here, http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf that images of the seal should not be used without permission. They use the seal for official documents and for other things that they authorize. Such as merchandise. They make it clear that the new logo is the alternative to use to represent the college. They offer it freely and it serves the same purpose as the seal when used as a logo. The image policy has a list of 10 specific criteria. I see problems with several over the seal image. The seal is not even present on the front page of the colleges official website. The blue and white logo is http://www.ic.edu/ SunRiddled (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
While I usually don't understand the zealousness of WP:NFCC guardians, I must say I agree with SunRiddled here. If there is a logo by which an organization wishes to be identified, this, and only this, falls under WP:NFCC. However, I'm not sure why this is discussed here, it has nothing to do with the university, and will apply to any organization, so maybe Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is a better place. --Muhandes (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you look at Template:Infobox university you will see that the documentation says that the "image" should be "University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo." and that the "logo" should be "Use for an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic" so it could be read either way and if you look at other University pages it is used that way. So if SunRiddled feels the file does not meet the WP:NFCC he should list it on WP:FfD. Mtking (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the college doesn't allow others to use their logo—on that thought, I believe most institutions have the same practice. As long as it passes fair use, which it does, then it may be used. Moray An Par (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The seal, could in fact, have fallen into the public domain. When was it created and first published? Was it first published with a copyright notice? The point about fair use may be moot. (see here) CrazyPaco (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, either WP:FfD or try to get general consensus on the subject of seals where logos already exist at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or similar.--Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I still don't agree that it is fair use. You are all avoiding the fact that Wikipedia says that if the image is copyrighted and an equivalent image that is free to be used is found that free use image should be used. Does the policy not say that? It also mentions that if a copyright owners desires that authorization be used that permission to use the image should be received. Does it not suggest that? Illinois College makes it clear permission should be granted for use of the seal. The blue and white logo is free to use and is the logo the college currently uses to represent itself. Do wikipedia articles about sports teams use the logo from decades ago? No. The seal is not even the official branding logo of the college at this time. The blue and white one is. The college is also a private college not public. That makes a big difference. Do what you want. That is what will be done anyway.SunRiddled (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
First, there is no image equivalent to the seal or coat of arms of an organization. Those are long-lasting (dare I say timeless?) images that long outlast and predate the various wordmarks and logos that come and go. Second, there is nothing in our policies that says that we must obtain permission to use copyrighted material. Fair use - and by extension our fair use policy - exists specifically to avoid that situation so that copyright holders can not squash criticism, research, and other very important uses that are not always pleasing or important to copyright holders. Third, the seal is indeed used by the institution. It's not the primary image it uses to market itself but it's very important to the institution, much more so than any wordmark or logo. Finally, it doesn't matter one bit if the institution is public or private.
I'm sorry that you're frustrated and feel like we're ignoring you or arguing with you using arbitrary judgment and application of rules. This is a very, very large and diverse community with over a decade of history. It can be difficult to jump in such a dynamic community, especially when you don't have the benefit of all the experience others possess. Keep asking questions and keep pushing us! But please balance that with some restraint and humility. Some editors will try to tell you that issues are settled just to avoid discussion but sometimes we are being genuine and trying to give you good, useful advice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Put the fair use battle on the back burner. This is what I don't understand. Why use a seal that serves a private or formal function and has limited use otherwise compared to a logo that the college currently brands itself with ranging from sports to acadmic efforts abroad? The blue and white logo makes more sense in my opinion. I can see that an editor is already asking why two logos are present. If it comes down to one being used I would think it would be the logo the college currently uses to represent itself in ALL forms of public relations. Tell me why I'm wrong.SunRiddled (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be asking two questions and they're both very good questions. They may be better placed here but there is so much overlap between the two venues that I don't think it matters much.
Your first question seems to be: Why do we use the seal when its use is very limited and its not what the institution uses to publicly brand itself? I've asked that question myself and the answer I've been given is that the seal is more intimately tied to the institution and outlasts the ephemeral wordmarks and logos used in marketing efforts. That seems to be a reasonable answer. But I'm not sure it's sufficient to justify the prominent placement of the seal because it's simply not recognized by most readers. I've lobbied to have the wordmark placed at the top of the infobox but had little success.
Your second question seems to be: Why are both the seal and the wordmark in the infobox? I'd like to hear the answer to that question, too, from those more involved with the creation and use of the infobox. Personally, I think it might be because even though some editors insist that the seal is the right image to use in the infobox they know that it's not helpful to readers so this is how they try to make it work anyway. I think there are two issues that need to be addressed: First, are we still within the limits of our fair use policy if we use two copyrighted images in the same infobox with both serving essentially the same purpose? Second, is it useful to readers for us to use both of these images? Precedent and history suggests that we've already answered "yes" to both questions. ElKevbo (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ElKevbo, I do think that both should be there instead of choosing one over the other. I'm still iffy on the use of the seal but if a balance must be found both logos should be present. I noticed someone added the new logo back. What about the image of the building that was there before? It is a historic building. Should it be used in some way or is the building itself notable enough to warrant an article? We can talk about that on my user page if you want.SunRiddled (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please bring it up on the article's Talk page if necessary (I don't think it is). If it's a decent photo and it's freely-available then it probably should be in the article, especially if the article is bereft of photos. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this conversation, but I'm in agreement with SunRiddled. I don't think the purpose of the infobox is to find some mythical "timeless" image that is connected to a university, like, perhaps, its seal. I think instead that a good university article relies on an image that a casual reader could be expected to connect with the institution, much as a wordmark or a logo might suggest. The image that the college places on its homepage seems like the best choice to me. I understand it's not going to change anyone's mind here (since, as far as I can tell, "consensus" on Wikipedia usually translates to "We've always done it this way"), but I'd certainly be in favor of ditching the colleges' seals. They have very limited utility in my book. But this is just the voice of one crying in the wilderness, at least on this particular issue. :) Esrever (klaT) 19:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I certainly don't think adding both images is the right solution, either. As I've noted before, the non-free content criteria (specifically 3A) pretty clearly forbid the use of two images when one will do. If both convey the same information ("This image identifies XYZ College"), then using both is against our own policies. Of course, if one image (say, the seal) doesn't convey that information, then it ought not be used at all . . . Esrever (klaT) 19:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Further addendum: I do think ElKevbo is right in that we certainly don't need permission from the college to use their seal. That's the very definition of fair use. Whether using the seal is the best idea is my point in my previous two comments, but our ability to use that seal is a pretty clearly established principle (and—IANAL—pretty clearly established US law). Esrever (klaT) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"The image that the college places on its homepage seems like the best choice to me." That sounds like a total non-sequitur to me. Could you explain? —Bill Price (nyb) 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears I'm late to this conversation as well. I support the use of seals at the top of infoboxes rather than the university's most recent branding. The reason, as ElKevbo alluded to, is that seals tend to be more permanent and have a longer association with the university while logos come and go with each new marketing campaign. Universities tend to have only one seal in official use at a particular time. In contrast, a university may utilize multiple versions of a logo or several completely different logos concurrently for different occasions or to appeal to different audiences. We can't include every logo in the article's infobox and I don't think it's our responsibility to choose one of their various wordmarks over the others. As to what the university's administration prefers, Wikipedia articles are not meant to promote the article's subject and there is no reason to use a university's logo simply because the university prefers to market itself using the logo instead of the seal. Besides, we shouldn't have to update the infobox image every time the university redesigns its website or prints a new brochure. Just my two cents... -Mabeenot (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
To Bill Price's point, I think that most colleges places an easily recognizable logo on their homepage. That seems like a better visual representation of the college than a seal that appears on perhaps nothing more than a school's diplomas. Which one is the general public more likely to see and recognize? To Mabeenot's point, you make it sound as if the average college reinvents itself three or four times a year. How often do most colleges create new logos? Once a decade? I don't think it'd be too much trouble to update the infobox that often, but that's just me. Esrever (klaT) 04:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum redux: Let's say a company (take United Airlines as a f'rinstance) changes logos. Do we use some logo that they've historically utilized? No, we update their logo with their newest, most recognizable branding. I don't see why we hold colleges to a different standard. Esrever (klaT) 04:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Minor question: Can we agree that "newest" is not the same as "most recognizable?" As a practical matter, that seems apparent to me, especially when a new logo or wordmark is introduced or even when a new one is soundly rejected by the public. Philosophically, I refuse to give organizations that level of control over their Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What about articles about sports teams? From what I've seen the newest logo are used on those articles. Why should colleges be any different? Considering that Illinois College is the same college that Jacob Tucker attended I would think the new logo has been seen by millions and that if the average person recognized any logo from Illinois College it would be the new logo. How many have actually paid attention to the old seal outside of graduates and people buying coffee mugs? The new logo is a current representation of the college and technically does serve the same purpose of the seal. If it changes later just add the new logo as is done with logos of other subjects. I don't think we can view colleges only in historic context. They are thriving communities that change with the times. If the article was just about the history of Illinois College I can see why the seal should be used. It is not just about the history of the college though. If both can't be used it is my opinion that the new logo should be chosen over the seal.SunRiddled (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I will agree that newest does not immediately translate to most recognizable, but I do think the two often go hand in hand. Esrever (klaT) 22:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with everyone's comparisons to company logos and sport team logos is that neither of those entities (to my knowledge) have a never changing "official" logo and then another often changing marketing logo. John Milito (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because you're conflating the logo and the seal. I doubt very seriously that any college truly "identifies" itself through its seal. That's what the "often changing" logo is for (though again, I don't see a lot of evidence that colleges change logos all that often; YMMV). Esrever (klaT) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The University of Pittsburgh primarily identifies itself with its seal. It seal has also changed approximately five times since 1908. The University of Pennsylvania's shield is its primary mark of identification, and it is what has sat atop its infobox from the start. Penn's seal is completely different than its shield. Harvard is an example that makes heavy use of its seal for its primary logo. There are other examples, but the point is there are always exceptions. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
For example, there are two gigantic metal seals on campus, one set into the floor in a classroom building and another outside. They would know better than to set a giant marketing logo permanently into the floor for obvious reasons. I don't know if my personal experience on this one school really matters in the scope of the project, but I know the logo was different while I attended just a few years ago. John Milito (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's the argument that many people seem to make when supporting the use of the seal in the infobox. It has significant merit as seals are intended to be - and usually are - long-term symbols that are changed very infrequently if ever.
Where I differ from many editors is that I believe that the seal is not terribly useful for most readers as a way of quickly and uniquely identifying an institution as implied by its placement at the top of the infobox. The seal is usually not well-known and heavily used by institutions such that they're recognizable and identifiable by the general public. Let's face it: We only "recognize" the vast majority of college and university seals because the name of the institution is part of the seal. The same is true for most wordmarks and logos but those are also promoted and marketed so heavily that they become readily identifiable and recognizable by the general public (which is why they exist; this is a bit tautologica1). My argument has never been to remove the seal from the infobox but to demote because it in most cases simply it's not nearly as useful and recognizable as the wordmark or logo for most readers. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This is my point: "a few years ago". I don't think changing the logo in a university infobox once every "few years" is a particularly onerous task. And again, I think that logo—which is, I'm guessing, more likely to appear in marketing materials, admissions publications, and TV commercials—is a better visual representation of a college or university than a seal that appears only in the floor of a classroom building or on a diploma. Esrever (klaT) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And to ElKevbo's point, I'm fine in principle with demoting the seal, but as I've expressed before, for the non-PD seals, I think it's a violation of the NFCC to have two fair-use images in one infobox. Others may be able to make a more compelling argument for their inclusion, however. Esrever (klaT) 17:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If fair-use is your primary concern, we could remove both the seals and logos from the university infoboxes entirely and replace them with a picture or collage of pictures from Commons that is representative of the university (similar to what is currently being done for cities). It will take some effort to create and collect all those images for every university, but you wouldn't have to worry about whether we're using too much fair use material. Of course, we'd be arguing about which picture to use for each university... -Mabeenot (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, which probably got buried, my guess is, due to the fact seals have been around a lot longer in general, most are in the public domain at this point. Any pre-1923 seal; anything first published before 1964 and the copyright wasn't renewed (or ever filed) is in the public domain; and things first published through 1989 without a copyright notice and not subsequently registered are in the public domain. (see here for more details) My guess, and experience looking into these things, is most colleges didn't bother to stamp © on the seals when they were first published back in the day, and if they did, they didn't renew them. In that case, most probably need not fall under fair use, but instead are trademarked public domain. This is a good justification for their preferred use in the infobox compared to logos, which almost certainly are both © and ®. However, this can require quite a bit of extensive research to determine. A compromise could be to approach this the way countries are done, which typically display both the nation's flag and seal (or coat of arms) in the infobox. You could display the seal and logo in that manner at the top of the infobox, but this begs the question of NFCC #3a. The key here is that they can't convey similar information or can't be duplicative (e.g. Penn's use of the shield twice in its infobox may not be complete kosher). There are all sorts of NFCC issues that could arise and it could be messy. However, IMO, using both would most certainly would be the best aid in identifying (and conveying visual information) of the article's subject to the reader. I think it is important to realize though that you can't always force a square peg into a round hole for the sake of standardization. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University

(In suburban London, not Jamaica.)

Kingston University and its "controversies" (or not) have previously appeared here. Well, it recently sprouted another "controversy" -- because after all a controversy simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known. Or so we are informed, by an editor who also points out that

There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to you [i.e. me, Hoary] for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum.

Gosh! In "a public forum", no less. Infamy, infamy, they'll all have it in for me. Well, you are thereby warned about me! (RFC and worse coming up, no doubt.)

Meanwhile, our reading public is unlikely to have much interest in tittle-tattle about Wikipedia editors and deserves a decent article, or at least an innuendo-free article, on Kingston University. More eyeballs, please. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Think that needs an administrator to look at it as it might be in breach of Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks. Mtking (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the archive of the talk page (Talk:Kingston University/Archive 2) I notice that some users have been blocked for WP:SOCK, do you think the same user has returned ? Mtking (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Socks? Yes, "Catface1965" and "Dbasemgr69" were the same. It seems that Howard Fredrics would edit as either of two IPs, and that his wife is now editing. The top page of Fredrics' website (here) has (separate) material about her and "Kingston University Employs Disgraced 'Sex Abuse Therapist' As Visiting Professor". -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Still think an administrator needs to look the whole situation as if it is his wife editing then WP:SHARE has not been complied with as far as I can see. Mtking (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Even if the usernames blocked for puppetry are Fredrics' (and certainly "Catface1965" shares Fredrics' interests), and even if Fredrics was using two IPs to edit here (as I think happened), I see no reason why his wife shouldn't edit WP in general. But since it appears that three years ago she was involved in a relevant legal case, I don't think that she should be editing this particular article. On the other hand, there shouldn't be double standards: people paid by Kingston U (or anyone else) of course shouldn't be editing the article either, and remember, we learned today that: There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to [me for my] Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum, a release that I await with considerable amusement fear and trembling. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Duke University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

College

After a puzzled post on the humanities refdesk, I thought we ought to turn our attention to College, tagged as in need of an expert for quite some time. I wonder whether the article should cover non-English speaking countries at all, because WP isn't a bilingual dictionary. There is more than enough to explain in relation to the US, UK, Australia, Canada and India. At the moment we are told all about the usage of Spanish colegio and that "university college" is the usual English translation of a word that in Swedish has skola rather than any word cognate with "college". What do people think? We also should find more references. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We have been through this sort of thing before. If the usage and definition is the same, we don't need (and shouldn't try) to come up with a separate non-English word. "School" is "school" whether it is English or Chinese. If the Swedish skola only offers welding to left-handed second generation immigrants ages 34-37, that is another matter!  :) But a college to English speaking people is "grades" 13 through 16, representing years of study, rather than being named grades. If the Swedish skola does that, it is a "college." If it is confusing and consists of part university, part college, part something else, again, it may need to be revisited. But we don't use foreign names when avoidable except for their article names (not avoidable there).
Thought: turn college into a dab which might include a pointer from the French (for example) to middle school.
Have another major article which discusses the English definition of college for all countries, regardless of nomenclature. In the new article, get rid of the phrase "English speaking" as though only English speaking countries had institutions of higher learning! Student7 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The dab page idea is certainly worth considering. Otherwise, what I think you are saying is that articles should be about substantive questions, not definitions. I'm completely confused about your "grades 13 through 16". If you leave all other countries aside, and only take the UK, we have at least the following:

  • Constitutents of universities, e.g. Kings College, Cambridge
  • College as an assembly, e.g. College of Surgeons
  • College as independent higher education institution, e.g. Worcester University College (most now universities, but not all
  • General further education colleges, e.g. South Devon College offering all the education in an area that isn't either school or university, except that some of it with 14-16s and even with 16-19s overlaps with what is done in schools
  • Sixth form colleges, e.g. Woodhouse College
  • Secondary schools that are called "college" either generically "X School, A Technology College" or as part of their name, Eton College.

Perhaps we shouldn't structure by country at all, but by institution type. It's not going to be easy, but it's worth putting everything on the table now and seeing what we can do to enlighten, rather than confuse, the reader. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Using your list, and the one that was there already at college (disambiguation), I moved the monster list of non-English "differences" there. The English differences should be severely edited, too IMO. I can't say that the dab couldn't use a bit of help.... :) A bit too long. A lot of that stuff should have gone into "Education in X" articles. Loading "college" down was inordinate IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ACTOR

The "European Business School (Cambridge)" -- neither a business school nor in any Cambridge you've heard of -- claims that it

is placed on the Approved College and Training Organisation Register of the UK Government Skills Funding Agency of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. [...] The Approved College and Training Organisation Register (ACTOR) is the Skills Funding Agency’s on-line, e-Tendering application for the procurement of education and vocational training services.

Googling quickly reveals that ACTOR really does exist, but I have trouble understanding what it is, whether the "EBSC" is on it, or what being on it means. If anybody here with knowledge of higher education in Britain thinks ACTOR is article-worthy and would care to have a bash at an article, I for one would be interested to read the result. (Or perhaps ACTOR should be part of some existing article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned on the Skills Funding Agency article. It is the list of FE colleges, organisations providing apprenticeship training and other non-university post-school education and training. The various schools on the list are eligible for UK government funding through the Skills Funding Agency if their courses comply with requirements. Inclusion may also mean that international students may get visas for studying at those schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Got it, I think. Yes, "this claim is meaningful IFF [X]"; however, not-[X]. Or "this claim may be meaningful"; but then again it may not be ... same old same old from the institution making the claim. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

A content dispute has broken out there, all explained on the talk page. Can we take the opportunity to have a good thorough look at the article and what it should cover? Could it in fact be merged with Higher education? Or perhaps some of the content needs moving elsewhere? High-importance article for the project, I think. Would appreciate as many takes on it as poss. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made a merge proposal. Please come over and vote. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir,

I am very please for your infomation around the world that could help people to open their thinking.I have an idea that need respond from you is to input Kasetsart University History in your linkage webpage relate to Facebook ( not provide information ) , that would be please for your kindly to add that mention topic,I hope your organization will be highly in progress for human. Looking forward for your kindness.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Anucha intaphan ( Thailand ) info-en-o@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.187.93 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Formatting fixed by Bluap (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are being asked to link to the Facebook page of the university. We link to the official webpage and that is sufficient. We never link to university Facebook pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Ave_Maria_University#.22Controversial.22 about how much space the college's founder should have in the lead. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/University of Pennsylvania. I encourage others to take part in the discussion and join the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Harvard GA

An editor nominated Harvard University for GA. I believe the nomination is extremely premature and would request other editors' input so that it can be speedily close so to minimize the waste of other reviewers' time. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone good with college sports?

I am working on the article University of Pennsylvania; however, I'm not incredibly good at writing sections on sports. Can someone do an overhaul of University of Pennsylvania#Sports? Should individual sports have articles, or should there just be a couple paragraphs on Athletics since Penn Quakers should cover the various sports. In addition, the section on rugby seems a little bit like boosterism. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Honorary Alumni/Degrees

User:Yosesphdaviyd added Mike Tyson and Don King to Category:Central State University alumni based on the fact that they each received honorary degrees from the school. I removed them, as I can see no evidence that honorary alumni are added to alumni cats in general on WP, and moreover, I cannot find evidence that an honorary degree confers alumni status equal to that of a graduated student. Can someone address this question? MSJapan (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, honorary degrees are essentially "prizes" given to visiting celebrities (including senior academics). I do not think that recipients should be included with the alumni of the university. Bluap (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Esrever (klaT) 01:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt replies. I agree as well, but User:Yosesphdaviyd does not, and will continue to revert changes. Would you mind, therefore, correcting both his edits and his mindset? MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No way should recipients of honorary degrees be included in the college's alumni category. No way.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Possible compromise proposal. Create Category:Central State University honorary degree recipients, place Mike and Don in there and put that category in Category:Central State University alumni and also in Category:Honorary degrees.Naraht (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see that as a viable category.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

US News & World Report bias

Can one or two folks please check out the recent history of College and university rankings and then stop by Talk:College and university rankings to comment on the latest section? Another editor is insisting on replacing information in the article with different information to the point of edit warring and calling me names so a third opinion would be most welcome. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration of month achieved after several months

Someone should write a Signpost article about this WikiProject. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Higher Colleges of Technology

This article has been subject of an edit-war for what looks like well over a year. I've full-protected it for a month and seek new, external input on the dispute. I've brought it here because the page is part of this Wikiproject. Thanks, — Scientizzle 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Separately list veterinary students in infobox?

An editor is insisting on listing vet students separately from other postgraduates in the infobox at Iowa State University. I think it's unnecessary. Can someone else please take a look and weigh in? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Coach biographies in CalPoly article

A new editor has repeatedly inserted lengthy biographies of every coach of California Polytechnic State University's softball team in the university's main article. He or she is willing to edit war to retain this information and has asked that it remain because he or she is working on a class assignment. Can someone else please step in and help this new editor understand that this information is inappropriate in this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni Sections

I have had a brief look though the archives, but would like a clarification on Notable Alumni sections and the inclusion of names, I believe that only people with their own non-redirect articles should be included, as the only way to test notability is with an actual article. Can this be clarified ? Mtking (edits) 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Many people (including myself) regularly edit articles this way, removing entries that don't have articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is the general principle. There are occasional exceptions. There may be someone who ought to have their own article but doesn't yet, and this can be left as a redlink. Another case might be someone who is CEO of a company that has its own article, or is otherwise clearly linked to a notable activity. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would say to that pen the article first then add the link, otherwise if two editors disagree on the notability, there is no way to resolve it. I can think of lots of companies who might have articles who's ceo would not come close to meeting the WP:GNG. Mtking (edits) 08:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That blanket approach without exception is not appropriate. I recently restored to an article an alumna whom another editor removed because she did not have an article. However, she is a silver medalist Olympic athlete so her notability is assured even though she doesn't yet have an article.
Further, it's well within the realm of possibility that there are people who are important and interesting within the context of an institution even though they don't meet the threshold of notability required to have their own article. Remember, WP:N explicitly does not govern the content of articles.
I support the existence of an article for alumni as a very good rule of thumb and best practice but not as an iron clad requirement. We must have flexibility to make case-by-case exceptions. ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And note that our content guidelines already state that "Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included" (emphasis added). ElKevbo (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up for some fun?

NACBO's list of 2010 endowment numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.95.183 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this and the newest set of rankings filter out into articles. If we convert these data into a machine-readable format, we could probably find a bot operator to automate updating this information, at least in the infobox, right? ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong titile in Tenth of November Institute of Technology.

I have read article Tenth of November Institute of Technology. But, I feel disturbed about the title. I think the right title is Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.201.238 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

African Americans in higher ed

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

QS World University Rankings refspam?

EQuacquarelli (talk · contribs) is adding ranking refs to http://www.topuniversities.com/ (QS World University Rankings) to a multitude of articles. It reeks of refspam to me. The article on this QS has a bunch of refs, but apparently no third party coverage about the site itself. The site looks like an aggregate/spam effort --CutOffTies (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for article review

The article Northern State University has been tagged for cleanup for a couple of years. While some of the sections seem rather long they aren't unreadable. Could someone take a look at the article and see if it is ready to have the cleanup tag removed and if not write some notes on the talk page about what needs to be done? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

University housing for families and school zoning

In the United States many major public universities have dedicated housing facilities for families. What people in this project should do is, if a major public university does not have this already:

  • 1. Check if the university has student housing earmarked for families with children
  • 2. Identify those units
  • 3. Locate them via a campus map (PDF/JPG preferred) or a street address
  • 4. Identify the school district the complex is inside
  • 5. Identify specific school zones, if applicable
  • 6. Post the school zoning information in the article that contains in-depth information about university housing - This is not considered inappropriately directory-like. Because it is an essential component of a family area (a subdivision, a residential tower, etc.), it is automatic for inclusion in the article.
  • 7. Post the information in the articles of the high schools and/or other notable schools

One gets bonus points if he/she finds reliable sources that state exactly how the presence of university housing impacted the school, or vice versa. An example is here, regarding the University of California Los Angeles: UCLA_student_housing#Graduate and one about the University of Texas at Austin List_of_University_of_Texas_at_Austin_buildings#Residential_buildings

DO NOT post school zoning info for university residence halls/apartments dedicated for single/non-family students. Since it is not possible for school aged children to live in those buildings, the info would be irrelevant. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blackboard Inc.

For anyone watching this board, I've been working with the company Blackboard Inc. for the past few months to evaluate their current article and work on proposing a version that's both more accurate to the company's history and current status, while also fulfilling Wikipedia's goal of describing significant aspects of the company as an encyclopedic topic. The existing article is very much not that; for a long while it has been mostly a couple of bulleted lists naming their products and then some loosely written material about its legal issues. All in all, not a very good Wikipedia entry.

What I've prepared as a potential replacement covers both existing topics in more detail, plus additional relevant aspects of the company verified with reliable sources, privileging Wikipedia's guidelines while also presenting a better company overview. I've posted this proposed replacement to my userspace, here: User:WWB_Too/Blackboard_Inc. (FYI, the company's non-free logo has been commented out, and the categories have been disabled.)

Because of the potential conflict of interest inherent in my relationship to the company, I'd like to ask members of this WikiProject for feedback and, if you think it's ready, to exchange the current, lackluster version, for my more developed draft. If you have any suggestions, please add them to my note on the Blackboard Talk page or, if you think it's good to go, let me know (or move it yourself). Final note: I've posted this here at the suggestion from an editor at WikiProject Education, where I had posted this request previously. Thanks for your time, WWB Too (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

With assent from an editor at WikiProject Education (and no objections elsewhere) I've gone ahead and copied the article into the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos to the NRHP county lists of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites that are on university campuses." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wesleyan University

Hello, there is an IP editor whom is adding an amazing number of citations to this article, almost all of which are from Wesleyan or a Wesleyan site. This is counter to Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Neutral_point_of_view, where "Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations". Right now there are at least 200 self published out of 300 citations... probably more. I've also pointed out at Talk:Wesleyan_University#Student_life_section_issue that less than 10 of the 50 citations in the "Student Life" section are valid. I am asking here for help, given the near edit war that occured last time I dealt with this individual Talk:Wesleyan_University#Hartford_Courant_citation over an invalid source. Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is too long and full of detail that is only of interest to students or applicants. It's too promotional. I cleaned some stuff out a while ago. It needs a bold approach. If you just want to do it, please go ahead. If the IP complains, direct them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
And the structure no longer matches our article guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Itsmejudith! That's why I'm asking for help... I know just going after the Student Life section is going to be nasty (even though I'm giving a MONTH for it be changed). But if I try to ax like a third to half the article (which IMO is about right) without help... well, that's just not drama that I need. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just truncated the articles by 60 citations and 22,270 bytes, but it's still a drop in the bucket given how far out of spec it is. If anyone else would like to lend a hand, I'd welcome it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

University sub-project banner templates

I noticed that WikiProject United States has included WikiProject West Virginia University in its banner template alongside their collection of states and municipalities. Considering how many university sub-projects there are, our banner template would probably be a better place for universities. Should we try reaching out to the university sub-projects to consolidate our banners templates? The sub-projects would retain their independence, but we'd gain more consistent assessments between sub-projects, tidier article talk pages, and possibly a little more coordination between the sub-projects and WikiProject Universities. We could use the banners for WPUS, MILHIST, or WP Holidays for inspiration. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lehigh & Clery Act

Can a few editors please stop by Lehigh University? Another editor and I disagree on whether the actions that prompted the creation of the Clery Act are sufficiently important/notable enough to include in the university's article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Are we really okay allowing alumni censor negative but historically important information? ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry template

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{Infobox college rivalry}}. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional input

For anyone who can offer additional input, it would be much appreciated. I started a discussion at Talk:University of Montana – Missoula#Name of article since the term "University of Montana" almost exclusively points to the main campus in Missoula and "Montana State University" points to the main campus in Bozeman. Currently University of Montana and Montana State University are disambiguation pages. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

universities in foreign languages

Central European University is in Hungary. Yet its courses are conducted in English (or so I read). I wonder what other universities exist in continental Europe that similarly have all their courses in English, or that have enough in English to allow a students to take all their courses in English, should they wish to do so. Surely there are others -- but I don't know how I might use Wikipedia to locate them. None of the categories that the CEU article belongs to is helpful. Is the CEU article missing a helpful category or two, or have I sleepily failed to notice something else? -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but my first reaction is that it will be very difficult. What if the English-taught classes are confined to one subject area, for example business studies? Perhaps a student could study all in English but their choice of modules would be very restricted. Naturally the university would want to play that down. I raise these cases because I have a feeling they are more common than continental-Europe institutions that teach all in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all that you say. I see no simple approach to this -- but as long as we say, no, it can't be done because there's no simple approach, then we make it very hard for people to find information that might well help a lot of them. (Actually my interest here is as reader rather than editor. I don't much mind if the information is within Wikipedia or instead somewhere else. If anyone could recommend a book.... Though yes I realize that this is a question for the "Reference Desk", not for here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yearbooks

I've started a resource here at WikiProject College football to compile links to online archives of college yearbooks. I thought this might also be useful for this project. Yearbooks are great resources for pulling images (many of which are now in the public domain), checking historical facts, and fleshing out details. Many yearbooks are available at archive.org, but it helps to know the name of a given school's yearbook when searching. If you know of any good archived caches, please add them to the list. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a place where we could list this and other useful tools and websites? ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

German universities lacking project banner

There seem to be a few of these. Will do some, but if someone could help me check them all, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Honorary degree holders

How can we be consistent on this? Usually listing honorary degree holders among notable people is unhelpful, because it is so easy for an institution to boost its prestige a bit and get some publicity by throwing out a few honorary degrees. But then we have some featured lists of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to treat them differently than we treat other content i.e. require verifiable, reliable, and preferably third-party sources? If the only sources are from the college or university in question then there's a really good chance that the information isn't notable or important enough to include in an encyclopedia article, right? ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What about if it's reported as part of a news article like "XYZ important person spoke at the graduation of ABC University after receiving a honorary degree"? Allens (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Good points. The news article could be in a very local paper, source could be independent and properly fact-checked, reliable, but the information only of very local interest. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK universities seem to offer honorary degrees precisely in order to retain good links with the people and institutions that matter in their local areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like WP:DUE should be a consideration. If something is only mentioned a few times and only in passing then it probably shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

College and university dating article

Some UNI regulars may be interested in College and university dating. It's a rather new article that has grown rapidly. I have some personal concerns about its quality, coverage, and indeed the appropriateness of the topic itself but please take a look yourself to see if those concerns hold any water. ElKevbo (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton College "Rape Culture" "Controversy"

An unregistered editor and I disagree at Hamilton College (New York)‎ about the inclusion of an alleged controversy regarding a 2010 presentation about Hamilton's "rape culture." More specifically, we disagree about the sources being used and whether they substantiate the claim that the incident should be included in this encyclopedia article. Can someone else please stop by and offer an opinion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

COI at Dowling College?

There's been a lot of activity at the Dowling College article in the past 24 hours, with an IP editor and a new user providing some helpful additions mixed with some boosterism. Both editors have contributed exclusively to this one article. Would anyone be willing to help me check these additions to make sure they weren't copied from somewhere? -Mabeenot (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Directory of universities offering Doctor of Business Administration‎ degrees

Is it appropriate for the Doctor of Business Administration‎ article to have a large directory of universities that offer the degree? I don't think so. One or more unregistered editors disagree. Please weigh in! ElKevbo (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting specific seasons on university navboxes

I wanted to know what this WikiProject's policy is regarding the placement of individual sports' seasons on the university-wide navbox. If no policy such exists, it's my opinion that they should be removed because they're arbitrarily chosen and have little to do with the navigation of the university itself. The two examples I'm referring to are {{Western Michigan University}} and {{Oakland University}}. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like poor practice simply because the navboxes would need to be changed at the new season. Also, it sounds like it is a USA thing, while the project is trying to establish good practice that applies globally. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't add them, but I'm not familiar with how important those seasons may be to the individual universities. I do not think standardizations for navboxes should include such rigid inflexibility that it prevents the additions of articles or categories that would best guide a reader to the most successful understanding of a topic as determined by the consensus of editors with expert knowledge on that topic. That said, I would start a discussion on the talk pages of those templates about why inclusion of those seasons may be inappropriate for those navboxes. Those seasons are likely better placed in a navbox for the individual sports teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that they should not be there, this just adds to clutter on the main university navbox, if it is so important for the uni, how about creating a sports specific navbox that lists the seasons that can be add only to the articles on that uni's sports teams (assuming that the uni's sports team is notable enough for it's own article). Mtking (edits) 09:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It may be justifiable to link to a List of University of X football seasons or some such thing, but I think linking to individual seasons is hard to justify. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

University of Pristina

There is a split proposal regarding the University of Pristina and opinions would be welcome[3].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It is really difficult to work out what to suggest without knowing what is happening on the ground. Have you seen University of Louvain, a university that split a long time ago?

National and Overall University Rankings - Keep an eye out

I've noticed that many university articles are utilizing either (i) a custom rankings table or (ii) the standard rankings infobox yet missing particular rankings from it. It seems that in some cases the latter was a result of attempts by users to purposely exclude rankings that they deemed unfavorable (e.g. there seem to be many cases of Forbes rankings excluded), which is against Wikipedia's policies as outlined here. I would like to raise awareness to anyone reading this: if you are an active Wikipedia contributor and happen to visit a university article, please check to see if a standard infobox is being used for the rankings list, with up-to-date rankings included for all applicable parameters. For a comprehensive university, at the time of writing, there should usually be 7 values available. See Template:Infobox US university ranking for more info. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that there are similar problems in relation to UK universities. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Good advice. Also, try to eliminate any academic boosterism. --Coolbb (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOOSTER!--GrapedApe (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Inactive single university projects

I've been looking through the single university projects, and I see that 27 (out of 31) of them are inactive. (The other four ones are only minimally active.) See here for a complete list.

What do members here think should be done with them? Should they be merged to this project? Or would you want them as taskforces? Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

With regards WikiProject Big 12 Conference is active as I'm an active member of the project and WikiProject University of Oklahoma has just finished being Merged with WikiProject Oklahoma.--Dcheagle 08:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the update. So now we have 25 (out of 30) inactive projects. --Kleinzach 09:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Endowments

I have noticed many flagship universities are claiming the entire system's endowment as their own. I don't think the individual universities should be credited with the endowments of branch campuses and professional schools. It is inaccurate and misleading for a single university to claim the endowments of other independent institutions. The university system article should claim the system's endowment, not the flagship campus. Is there support for this change? +Treydavis3 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. This kind of consistency is one of several reasons why we should rely more on second- or third-party sources like NACUBO for endowment figures instead of popular media reports or institutional reports. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think NACUBO is a large part of the problem. NACUBO compares apples to oranges by listing the system endowments for some and university endowments for others. I've found that U.S. News and World Report provides the most accurate endowment figures so that apples can be compared with apples. +Treydavis3 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please provide a few examples? ElKevbo (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Both sets of figures are from 2010. NACUBO Endowment Study 2010, USNWR search
University of Texas System from NACUBO: $14,052,220,000 -- University of Texas (Austin) from USNWR: $2,589,413,402
Texas A&M University System & Foundation from NACUBO: $5,738,289,000 -- Texas A&M University (College Station) from USNWR: $350,542,439
University of Missouri System from NACUBO: $974,900,000 -- University of Missouri (Columbia) from USNWR: $510,554,667
The University of Alabama System from NACUBO: $854,382,000 -- University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) from USNWR: $631,947,260
Texas Tech University System from NACUBO: $775,224,000 -- Texas Tech University (Lubbock) from USNWR: $434,150,719
Louisiana State University System from NACUBO: $578,588,000 -- Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge) from USNWR: $385,764,281
The main campuses are claiming the endowments of the health science centers and other universities within the system, and I think it is inaccurate and misleading.+Treydavis3 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Those don't seem to relevant examples. Can you please provide some examples of institutions about which you believe we are making incorrect claims? And can you please provide a source more professional and trustworthy than USN&WR? ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How is the USNWR endowment data not credible? They get their endowment figures from the U.S. Department of Education's IPEDS Data Center. That data compares apples to apples, not apples to oranges like NACUBO does. I never said anyone was making incorrect claims. I said that it is inaccurate and misleading for these schools to claim their systemwide endowment as their own endowment. The endowments that UT Austin and Texas A&M claim are ridiculous because they are claiming the endowments of about 15-19 independent institutions as their own. That makes those examples relevant. Off the top of my head, the University of Houston is one school claiming a systemwide endowment larger than what NACUBO says their system endowment is ($662.2 million on Wikipedia vs. $553,066,000 systemwide endowment on NACUBO vs. $495,128,238 university endowment on USNWR). +Treydavis3 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If IPEDS data is available then it should be used. However, it's possible that some institutions don't report endowment data for individual institutions, at least now in ways that make the reported numbers comparable with others'. Some systems rabidly insist that their all of their constituent campuses are really one large, disconnected campus and they try their best to preserve that idea.
And since you asked: I don't trust USN&WR data because of the known history of institutions misreporting data to influence their rankings. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

University of Roehampton affiliations

I've been doing some minor cleanup on the University of Roehampton page, but while I've been working I've discovered that Roehampton seems to no longer be a member of either Million+ or the Association of Commonwealth Universities, both of which the article claims it to be. A cursory Google search reveals ghost pages for Roehampton from both associations and it's removal from the Million+ wikipage is very recent. I'm wondering if there might be more to this (it seems odd that I can find no notices of them terminating their membership anywhere), and if so if it might have a place in the article? I'd like to hear from someone with a bit more information, hopefully, before taking doing anything more to the article. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they may have quietly decided not renew their Million+ membership, perhaps considering that it did not represent value for money, rather than making a public decision to leave. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly... it appears a lot of universities have left Million+ over the past 18 months. Still doesn't explain the ACU thing, though. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Ole Miss"

Can someone please stop by Talk:University of Mississippi? Another editor believes that an origin story of the university's nickname, "Ole Miss," as documented by professional historians should not be included in the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of departments

Seeing the recent deletion discussions about invididual departments, and having just stumbled at Department of African American Studies - Syracuse University and (worse) Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, I think we need to discuss the notability criteria for university departments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Department of Bengali, University of Karachi

I bundled all the University of Karachi Department articles in one AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Department of Bengali, University_of_Karachi, if anyone wants to weigh in.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am agree with Manicjedi as well you may delete it. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Could people take a look at Gloucester County College?

Hi. Could people take a look at Gloucester County College and give info about what's needed for further improvements, change the article rating if applicable (currently down as start-class, but that was before major changes including many, many more references), and advise on the possible expansions I've listed on Talk:Gloucester County College (particularly given that I'm trying to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest)? Thanks! Allens (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

University Seals on Commons

Keep an eye out for university seals (and other images) that are uploaded to Commons. If they're currently under copyright and included in Wikipedia under fair use, Commons admins will delete them as Commons only hosts free images. Unfortunately, they will not move the image to en so we will have to start from scratch to find and upload the image ourselves. ElKevbo (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes! Kevbo speaks the truth! I will DR a university seal and upload a fair use one every time I see one. Please, everyone, don't upload a seal/logo to commons unless you can show that it's PD--GrapedApe (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion of List of Chancellors of East Carolina University

Would some experienced editors here take a look at List of Chancellors of East Carolina University. Seems to me that the garishly colored tables and the unprofessional comic sans organizational tree should be changed to match standard format. Anyone else agree?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. ElKevbo (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I cleaned it up to make the formatting match FLs for university presidents. Thanks to User:Esrever for further cleanup. (Note: I have copy and pasted this discussion to Talk:List of Chancellors of East Carolina University).--GrapedApe (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Universities will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in university history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholarships in University of Missouri–Kansas City article

Can I please get a third opinion in Talk:University of Missouri–Kansas City in the section at the bottom labeled "Scholarships?" Another editor and I disagree about the inclusion of a handful of scholarships in the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire

I made some changes to this article to try to reduce the peacockery. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take an objective look at it as well. Thanks! Mesconsing (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but another editor undid many of the changes. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so another outside edit would be great! Mesconsing (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Pristina

There is a split proposal regarding the University of Pristina and opinions would be welcome[4].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also see two section above that one. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Split proposals

There are some proposals and as many opinions as possible will be welcome Talk:University of_Pristina/RfC: split proposal--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adamson University (again)

Cruft is an ongoing problem in relation to our article on this Catholic university in the Philippines. I recently took out chunks of detail, for example the listing of every degree course on offer. Two editors who are only active on this topic have added chunks back. I suspect COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I made an effort there but I have a feeling the cruft will return. Disavian (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Frontier Fiesta

Attention needed at Frontier Fiesta (University of Houston).--GrapedApe (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Ivy League university presidents

List of Ivy League university presidents suffers from a severe case of Ivy League-cruft. It is a list of all of the university presidents who presided over an Ivy League institution. There is nothing there that is not already included (or should be included) at all of the individual List of Presidents of XX University articles. I think this article should be dismantled into its component institution parts. What say the project?--GrapedApe (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Not useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The Ivy League was not even founded until 1954. If it is to exist, then only presidents from 1954 on should be listed. Are we to have a similar list for every academic and athletic conference? Seem superfluous. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League university presidents--GrapedApe (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

50 years of rings

Is Wikipedia the place to record intricate details of 50+ years of class ring design variants? What if I told you that this cruft took up 25,489 bytes of a 37,374 byte article? Some free-thinking new users seem to that kind of material is perfect for wikipedia, and they keep reverting my removal of it. See this exciting discussion Talk:MIT class ring#Is listing every depiction of the Ring really necessary?.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a class ring before. It is mildly interesting that such a thing exists. I would like to know if it is a really important part of student life in a major American university. Other than that, I don't think we need to carry much detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Most universities and high schools in the US have class rings. MIT's Brass Rat ring and Texas A&M's Aggie Ring are both major parts of those universities' cultures. Most others school's rings don't have nearly the importance or tradition placed on them as those two. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I posted a note at College_and_university_article_guidelines a few days ago, but it's occured to me that it probably isn't watched as much as this page is. Would anyone like to weigh in? Best & thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some sluething and have posted my findings on insidecollege.com here. IMO since it's a repository from a marketing firm it should be added to the list of unreliable sources. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Highly selective" in lead

Another editor and I are disagreeing about whether the lead of Bucknell University should include the phrase "highly selective" or something similar. Please weigh in since there seem to be only two of us conversing. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The source of the phrase is the US News', which calls the university among the "most selective" colleges in America.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are now three of us conversing so I guess that's an improvement but we still don't seem to be getting anywhere. Additional input would be most welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese grad students at US universities

Not sure where this goes, but I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Help

Hello all. I'm writing an article on Kevin Gillespie, the upcoming President of Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I'm hoping that someone would be willing to help me expand the article. Thanks! Also if anyone out there could tell me if there is a difference for JPG and JPEG files when uploading pictures to my page. The picture I want to add is JPEG and I'm having some difficulties uploading it. Is this normal or am I just completely off base with trying to upload this particular file?? Ad532119 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)AD532119Ad532119 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave it some basic formatting and an infobox. Not a bad start. Disavian (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, for pictures, I suggest you upload free images to Wikimedia Commons. AKA you can't just take a photo off of the internet, you have to own the copyright to it. Disavian (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Irish International University

One editor who appears (in this edit) to be related to "Irish International University" is most insistent (same edit, as well as various others) that this is not the same as "Isles International University".

Very possibly it isn't. However, I'd be very surprised if they were unrelated. If anyone here would like to dabble in coverage of the murky world of "universities" of this kind, do please have a duckduckgo for reliable sources on the matter, and contribute.

Incidentally, the irrepressible Jeff Wooller (see the top of the IIU article) seems to have moved on from "Jeff Wooller College" (London) (whose address was the same as that of Davies's College) to "Jeff Wooller University of Management" (Kaduna, Nigeria) ... as you'll soon discover, in this realm of education, names proliferate. -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in the article as indicating that they are the same is this news media story from Malaysia, where Irish/Isles is/was located. The source does say they are one and the same. Apparently the name changed shortly after "Irish International" got a lot of negative publicity in the UK. It's understandable that "Isles International" would want to disassociate itself from its former name, as the negative publicity is probably interfering with their ability to attract paying customers. --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie (2nd nomination)

Single-chapter university social club Tryon Coterie is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie (2nd nomination). --GrapedApe (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Stale merge requiring comment

Please comment on an old merge proposal (American Friends of The Hebrew University to Hebrew University of Jerusalem) at Talk:Hebrew University. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seattle University page has a problem

There's a problem in the Seattle University page. On the Notable alumni section, the notes and exterinal links sections on the right side of the Notable alumni table. It needs to be solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DoneNaraht (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Template Infobox University Student Union & Activity Center

Template:Infobox University Student Union & Activity Center is up for debate on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 19 Please add your opinion on this. If other Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities peeps feel this should go I am all for it but we all know how unique this is. This template is used on almost every school with a wiki page dedicated to it's student union or student center. My count when I made this template was around 35 schools with university/college union/student center page. The discussion has arose because there was confusion between Template:Infobox University Student Union & Activity Center and the old version of the student org know was a Template:Infobox students union. Now the question is should Template:Infobox University Student Union & Activity Center should be merged with Template: Infobox building. I would hate to see all that work go to waste. Pwojdacz (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Eastern Michigan University Student Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eastern Michigan University Student Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Michigan University Student Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Help Requested: WCET page

Hello all. I created a page for the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) which is a higher education non-profit organization. However, because of the conflict of interest policies of wikipedia, I am posting this here to ask for assistance in editing the WCET page so that it might be published. I declared my COI in the talk page of this page. And am turning to this community for help. I'm new and am not sure I've followed the correct procedures but do welcome any feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CaliMorrison/WICHE_Cooperative_for_Educational_Technologies#Request_review_at_WP:AFC

Thanks, Cali CaliMorrison (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University: a new draft

I work for Strayer as an Online Community Manager and I'm writing here to ask for assistance with a new draft that I have proposed for the Strayer University article. As I am aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, conflict of interest and reliable sources I'd prefer not to edit the article myself and I have asked for posted requests at the Paid Editor Help and on the Strayer Talk page. Although there has been discussion of the draft, I am aware that the editors involved have limited time to respond to updates and I would like to ask if editors here with experience of working on university-related articles could also assist me.

Considering that the current Strayer University article is somewhat limited, the new draft I propose expands on the current article to include more details about the university’s long history, its programs and its organization.

With this draft, I’ve aimed to correct any details in the article and include only relevant, encyclopedic information to help tell the University’s story. There is a fuller explanation of the changes proposed in the draft on the Paid Editor Help page as well as a discussion of the draft on the Strayer Talk page.

I look forward to feedback from editors on this project and will try to respond to any queries as soon as I am able. --Hamilton83 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alumni sort order

One of the articles I occasionally edit, Santa Clara University School of Law, has an alumni list in an apparently random order. I plan on sorting it.

What's the consensus on preferred sort order of alumni: by name or by year? TJRC (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a distinct consensus, but one thing that is- the alumni/noted people section should be more than just a list, also make sure to cite each person. I've effectively brough a number of articles from stub and start status to C, B and GA and have also seen other users group the alumni section by the various fields those people are notable for, such as: politics and government, business, science, literature, arts and entertainment, and athletics. Since your article is about the Law school there's likely going to be less diversity with the majority of people notable in law, politics, government and maybe business or academics. Hope that helps! Bhockey10 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Within a list (whether an all-school list or a topical list), most school articles sort the alumni alphabetically, but I've worked on a few articles that sort them by class year. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sustainability offices in articles?

Over the past year or so, I've noticed a huge increase in the number of U.S. college and university articles that have had information added about their sustainability office, department, or efforts. I have some suspicions about who and what drove many of those additions but I'll keep them to myself (a) to avoid poisoning the well and (b) because I have no proof.

A new editor has recently added several paragraphs to the College of Charleston article about the college's sustainability office. This seems like as good a test case as any so please weigh in on the article's Talk page so we can start to determine if a common approach can be developed about this kind of content. ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The same concerns apply to UK universities as well. There are at least two award systems, so lots of universities can claim they are in some sense the greenest. And they do. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch Management Institute: new article

A few weeks ago, I posted on this Talk page to ask for help with the Strayer University article, and would now like to request assistance with a new universities-related draft I have prepared. This draft is for the Jack Welch Management Institute, an online business program founded by Jack Welch and now owned by Strayer University. There is no article for the Jack Welch Management Institute at the moment, although I believe that it meets the notability guidelines: there are multiple reliable sources that feature the institute and provide enough detail for an overview of its history and academic programs. Also, readers are currently incorrectly directed to the Chancellor University article from a search for "Jack Welch Institute". While the institute was founded at Chancellor, it was acquired by Strayer University in November 2011, so this redirect is no longer accurate. Based on the reliable secondary sources, I've created a new draft article and added this to my userspace. As I mention above, I work for Strayer and due to my employer's connection with the institute, I'd rather not move the article into live space myself. I hope that editors from this WikiProject will be able to help. I've also left a longer message at Paid Editor Help, with more detail about the draft. I look forward to editors' feedback on the draft. I will watch this page and respond to questions as soon as I can. Thanks. --Hamilton83 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dartmouth fraternities

Dartmouth College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Could I ask for some eyes on this article, please -- a growing number of newbies/IPs are showing up to delete a well-sourced passage about the college's fraternities -- example edit here. The page was fully protected for a week, and now that this has expired the same tussle is up and running again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we need help here! Many new and unregistered editors are edit warring to remove this material and their arguments appear for removing the material seem to be...lacking. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Chancellors in the United States

Please see the discussion I have started at Talk:Chancellor (education). Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Colleges and universities in Tennessee

I can't help but notice that many articles on smaller colleges in Tennessee are tiny stubs, yet articles on colleges of similar size outside of the South and even in other southern states are much larger. I have significantly expanded the article on Tennessee Wesleyan College and I would appreciate some help on other colleges' articles, especially from skilled editors. In particular, I feel we should add some Tennessee college userboxes in the article Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States. Is anyone interested? Thanks! Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Marc Houalla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marc Houalla is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Houalla until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gérard Rozenknop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gérard Rozenknop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Rozenknop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency

I would like to see the "Forbes List" get disallowed from University "Academic Rankings" sections.

This list, simply stated, is NOT an ACADEMIC RANKING. It is sporadically included on some university pages. I recently saw that they were deleted from the University of Wisconsin-Madison page and I agree with the rationale for their deletion. This prompted me to go back and re-delete them from the Northern Illinois University page. These have been deleted in the past by SEVERAL editors, including myself, but keep getting reinserted by a contributor with suspect motives.

His language in past description were blatantly biased and written from his slanted POV. I tried several times to rewrite them in a neutral tone but he kept removing them and reinserting his biased language. I reported him which resulted in both of us being warned but he continued to keep doing what he was doing and in subsequent edits he has made misleading statements to the effect that he "had me banned" or something, which is not true but he is doing what he does and manipulating through language to try to set his opinion and account as fact and that he was in the right when that was certainly not the case.

A look at this contributor's history clearly shows he has a history of picking fights and he employs the same devious and juvenile tactics with others.

I will not engage with him.

So I let it go, but eventually after I saw that yet another editor removed the Forbes List and he AGAIN reinserted it, I went back to the page and rewrote the section to include Forbes' own explanation of the flawed methodology included so those reading (if unaware) would become aware of the absurdity of the list. To my surprise, he let this stand with nothing more than a "non-edit" where, of course, he had to get the last word in from his soapbox. He is continually shifting the burden of proof and setting himself up with transparent fallacies. Again, I do not engage those who are incapable of reasonable discussion.

But after I saw the Wisconsin edit I decided to go back and delete the Forbes listing from the page because the Wisconsin editor's description of the Forbes List as being "flawed and highly suspect" hit a chord because not only is he/she correct but that description was generous and downright kind. Everyone should be able to see this.

Of course, the caustic contributor comes out of the woodwork and undoes the edit.

These Forbes listings are NOT ACADEMIC RANKINGS and do not really try to disguise that fact as it is clear from their own description of the methodology used. But some contributors here are obviously not getting it.

Please formally and permanently exclude the Forbes List from the ACADEMIC RANKINGS section of University pages.

Or at least be consistent, if one University is allowed to not included them based on their suspect methodology and their nature of being non-academic ratings, then all Universities should be allowed to use this same rationale.

Or at the very least, as the authority "WikiProjects Universities" please undo his undo and tell the contributor on the Northern Illinois page that Wikipedia works on consensus and that when SEVERAL editors to that page (along with MANY more in the Wiki community) agree that this listing is a fraud, and is not a reputable academic rating, and should not included in the content AND that he is the ONLY one who wants them included, that HE HAS BEEN OVERRULED and should cease and desist with his tantrum.

Keep up the good work.

Tigerwiki2 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But what is an "academic ranking"? How is this one different from the others? Frankly, I'd like to remove all of the rankings of this sort -- they're all bogus, as far as I'm concerned, and they're fodder for much misuse by universities themselves and their minions who come to edit the articles here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
As bad as Forbes rankings are, and I agree they are really among the worst of the college rankings out there, there is no justification for deleting them based on any one personal POV of their quality. Forbes is a reliable, third-party, published source whether one disagrees with their ranking methodology or not. It could be a different matter if those rankings are given undue emphasis given the context of the article or are used in a way that violates WP:Promotion. However, speaking to the point regarding removal of all rankings, published college rankings are popular throughout the world and there is really no justification for complete removal of factual sourced ranking information from university articles. They are a fact of life for every university these days. Also, Wikiprojects are not necessarily an authority on any one topic nor do they own articles. Please be aware that Wikipedia works by building consensus with civility and that people are not "overruled". CrazyPaco (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Criticism of Forbes rankings, if cited from reliable third-party sources, could be added here. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • All lists are bunk. But, the Forbes list is regularly cited among media, just like the equally US News and Princeton Review lists, which makes it a viable subject for inclusion. --GrapedApe (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Two cents:

(1) Some lists would appear to use more reliable, precise, and/or objective methodologies than others. Take, for instance, a ranking list of the tallest basketball players. Which do you think would be more appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia infobox: (a) a ranking list where the methodology is entirely based on appropriately measured heights, e.g. in a controlled scientific environment, or (b) a ranking list where the methodology is entirely based on the general public's casual comments about people's heights, e.g. as at www.celebheights.com? I started a new discussion about the Forbes' ranking list below, partly because I didn't see this one until now. However, the new discussion below highlights some additional concerns that demonstrate the dubiousness of the Forbes list in comparison with other ranking lists currently used.
(2) Regardless of its reliability, the Forbes ranking list clearly doesn't belong in the 'University rankings (overall)' infobox, because it's a ranking of the undergraduate institution, not the overall university. Please see Template talk:Infobox US university ranking#Forbes ranking doesn't belong.
--Coolbb (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidential salary in infobox?

A new editor is adding salary to the university infobox for university presidents. This is a new idea, or at least an unusual one that is not regularly practiced. I am personally opposed to it but this new editor is willing to edit war over the issue so can others please weigh in so I can learn if I am the stubborn outlier in this instance? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just ask yourself one simple question. Does it need to be in there? Well, does it punk? ......Oh crap, just had one of my Dirty Harry flashbacks again. Answers no, if you were still wondering.--JOJ Hutton 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that it would be OK, so long as the salary was published in a third party publication, like this in the NY Times. If it's just being located in an internal university document (like trustees minutes), I'd say not to include.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Not for the infobox, at all. These salaries are commonly cited to make a point. The UK university vice-chancellors' salaries can all be reliably sourced, although the source usually carries footnotes about what is in the remuneration package. It wouldn't be valid to make comparisons across countries. If it can be sourced, then I think it should go in the Organization section. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Forbes Ranking -> Ludicrous

First and foremost, the Forbes entry currently included in the Template:Infobox US university ranking is an undergraduate institution ranking, not an overall university ranking. Please see the explicit description provided by Forbes:

America's Top Colleges
Our annual list of America's best undergraduate institutions focuses on educational outcomes, not reputations.

As the infobox title clearly suggests, the infobox is for 'University rankings (overall)', and therefore a ranking of only the university's undergraduate institution does not belong in the infobox.

Secondly, regardless of the fact that it doesn't belong in the infobox, Forbes' ranking methodology is one of the most dubious I've seen from a notable publisher.

Where to start? For one, RateMyProfessor.com student evaluations and Who's Who in America listings, which are (needless to say) highly subjective and extremely incomprehensive, together account for a massive 27.5% of a university ranking. ... Seriously, wow.

The fact that RateMyProfessor.com ratings were even used ... is itself ludicrous. The ratings are not only highly subjective and extremely incomprehensive - many (if not most) professors aren't even listed - but very liable to exaggeration (e.g. 'zero' bombs) and/or deception. It's all too easy for any stranger on the internet to submit multiple negative or positive ratings for a given professor, and this is facilitated by the fact that virtually anyone can vote on any professor: whether or not they have been taught by that professor or have even visited a university that they taught at.

This last point, which demonstrates the ease through which RateMyProfessor.com ratings can be manipulated by anyone in the public, has serious implications. It doesn't seem unfathomable, for instance, that a few cronies could use that fact to easily manipulate a university ranking in the Forbes list, so that, for example, Princeton ends up way in the lead at #2, which is its 2011 Forbes ranking. Princeton, by the way, happens to be the alma mater of Forbes' editor-in-chief, Steve Forbes.

And yet, at a weight of 17.5%, RateMyProfessor.com student evaluations account for 12.5% more than Student Retention Rates in factoring in student satisfaction? And comprises over 60% of the student satisfaction category in the ranking methodology? Something seems very, very wrong about that.

Then there's Who's Who in America. It's very questionable that a small selection of Americans whom the directory's editors perceive to be the most notable in America would comprise a sufficiently comprehensive or objectively chosen sample of alumni, to contribute to an entire tenth of a university ranking, or a massive third of the post-graduate success category in the ranking methodology.

Forbes also factors in a Forbes/CCAP Corporate Officer's List in the ranking. Although it weighs in at only 5% of the total, and a sixth of the post-graduate success category, it still raises questions like, 'Why only Corporate Officers?' or 'Why Forbes?'.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the Forbes ranking methodology, in its current state, is simply so dubious, that it is unfit for purpose as one of the main university rankings to be used on global Wikipedia infoboxes or other such components, in addition to the fact that it just doesn't belong in the 'University rankings (overall)' infobox because it's a ranking for the undergraduate institution only, not the university overall.

I have seen numerous editors note their concern about the Forbes ranking list, but I am surprised that it has been allowed to persist as it has on Wikipedia in its current state. --Coolbb (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. If anyone is interested, there is discussion at the actual infobox template talk page, Template talk:Infobox US university ranking#Forbes ranking doesn't belong, including proposals on resolving the Forbes ranking issue. Input is welcome. --Coolbb (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Foundation degree

I have taken off the "expert" tag from this article, which is in scope of the project, but would be grateful if someone else could give it a quick read through. Either based on knowledge of the UK system, or not, because it has to make sense, for example, to a prospective international student. There is an abundance of reliable government sources that could be drawn on, but the only issue is knowing what detail is worth including. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Appalachian State University

Is there a chance the Appalachian State article could be added to clean-up and/or expansion lists? I've improved the page, but I can only go so far before I start violating WP:OWN and WP:COI. And frankly, I'm fresh out of ideas. DavidSSabb (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Should "History" be at the top of university pages?

I noticed that at Miami University, the "History" section was beneath the student section as contrary to other featured articles from this WikiProject (such as Texas A&M University, Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State University and Georgetown University). I moved the history section back to the top of the article, but this was reverted by Evidian8 as he rightfully pointed out that a number of midwestern schools feature the "Students" section at the top (such as Ohio University, Transylvania University, Northern Kentucky University). Is there any sort of precedent on which style is preferred moving forward? Nomader (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The structure guidelines are [[5]]. One could argue for different orders of sections, but it's good to be consistent, and this is what I, for one, have been working to. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Each university seems to be unique. The case for History to be beneath Students and Campus follows from the model history is what has happened. The activities of students and the campus as it is precedes the accumulated history of the institution. Articles, such as Ohio University, portray this concept well, accurately, and because of the collaboration of its contributors. For that, certain articles that do not display history immediately at the top of the article should be respected. Miami University's article was indeed featured with History below both Students and Campus; however, the case could be made for better presentation or appearance of that particular article, and in so doing, justify a reorganization. But, the present form should be maintained closely because Miami University previously was featured with History above each, and its present form is the result of an arrangement for better appearance. (See 'view history' of the article).--Evidian8 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My only concern is that all of the universities which have reached Featured Article status seem to be built in the same (general) structure, with History appearing at the top. I suppose chronologically it makes sense; in order to understand why a University has certain clubs or academics, you place the history section at the top (and it explains how a university was founded, how it came to have the land it has today, etc.). This was actually how the Miami University page was organized up until recently. But to be clear I understand where Evidian's coming from as well. Nomader (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as I'm navigating the page and looking at other articles (not only about universities but about other companies and entities as well), I really feel that it makes more navigable sense to put the history section at the top of the page. Everything from Stuyvesant High School, Michigan State University, the Tuck School of Business, to things that aren't education-related (I picked random FAs) such as Imagination (magazine), Halkett boat, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, Washington, D.C., and Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) seem to explain things with the historical background to the item first before discussing what the current legacy is or a school's current reputation. This may seem like pulling hairs, but I just think that readability-wise, chronology in cases outside of some exceptions seems to be the way to go, especially for university articles. Nomader (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Point 1: I'd like to restate that just because one page has 'History' listed in a certain order does not make it appropriate, proper, justifiable for another page. The order has more to do with how some pages were originally formed. Many of the pages, especially university pages, have changed as a result to achieve better readability, especially for prospective, future, or current students surveying options. And, due to the most recent changes, I think it's retroactive to go about placing the 'History' again at the beginning despite the augmentation of certain articles since History's move. Point 2: The best improvements to pages do not seem to be standard. That is, the best changes are not a result of convention, but instead "fung shway" of the boxes, images, charts, headings, et cetera. As far as Miami University's page goes, it was changed as a result of substantial concerns over just that, as well as incomplete information that was instrumental in offering an accurate portrayal of the institution. Point 3: Miami, I am predisposed to think, would rather match its sister institution Ohio than reverting to the likeness of another institution, as it competes heavily -- perhaps mostly -- to secure its students with Ohio. Regarding Featured Article status, not all the pages have been the same, and to assert that it is due to their having a certain order is facetious. Advice to Future Conflicts About Subject: I am not disturbed when edits have been changed, and I advise against wearing one's heart on one's keyboard (not suggesting Nomader does) as well. I have seen many great sandbox creations become articles, only to be changed or altered in a way which seems detrimental to the portrayal of information. But I think: My edits, although of places I have lived or been at for much time, or people I have met, are no more authoritative than another anonymous user who may have similar experiences. A solution to this kind of hampering is to have wikipedia users vote on the layout of select articles every time a substantial reorganization to attractive pages is proposed. As far as Miami University's article is concerned, I think it would be an injustice to revert back to moving the present headings, and that, ultimately, the best changes will be to its content, its syntax, and imagery. --Evidian8 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I am unequivocally opposed to the idea that a college or university should wield control over its Wikipedia article, including a desire that it be formatted similar to articles about peer or competitor institutions. We write encyclopedia articles, not admissions brochures or college guides, and editorial independence is critical.
On the topic of article layouts and placement of "History" sections: I believe that we should stick with the project's article layout guidelines unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from them. Editors who believe that articles should be different should make their case in the article's Talk page and seek consensus for that article to differ given the established consensus represented by the guidelines. I personally believe that articles that have undergone a (successful) Featured Article review should be grandfathered in as the FA review should be considered a de facto argument for exceptions to the standard guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with this, except I don't know what "Grandfathered in" means, am keen to know because it sounds like a cool expression. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
See Grandfather clause. It means we aren't going to go back and change everything based on new rules. 72Dino (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to Evidian, no worries; I have complete respect for the work you did at Ohio University, and I didn't want to start a revert war over what could seem to be a petty organizational topic. To clarify on a different note, I think Kevbo in this case is referring to articles that have already gone through Featured Article review/nomination as exceptions to the rule if they aren't currently structured per the guidelines from the WikiProject. Should we move the sections back to their other positions? Nomader (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added a note about this discussion at Miami University's talk page. Nomader (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to second ElKevbo's analysis of the situation. Starting with a history section treats the subject in a more systematic manner than starting with whatever student demographics or rankings the school would like to promote. We're an encyclopedia, not a college guide. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to the alleged (that Miami or Ohio universities are somehow wielding control over their articles), I will clarify for the newcomers. I explained Miami and Ohio universities often are similarly, structurally, and historically portrayed in various mediums. They can be described as something as "sister schools," although we might not use that language on their campuses. The two schools are four years apart in age, and share rivalries like those of Duke v. UNC, Harvard v. Yale, etc. I understand their likeness is not a sufficient reason for their articles to be organized the same way -- but I did not offer that as a reason. I will add, though, to my insight that an insistence on complying to one standard is why so many pages undergo revision: adherence to the same organizing methods has caused some pages to appear more accurate, attractive, or helpful than others. I do not believe any one wikipedia page sets a precedent of standard for all university articles, and find that compelling. I'd like to see feedback from editors who agree.--Evidian8 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on this discussion from what I thought was consensus, I reverted the Miami University article back to having the history first but in a minor edit I was reverted by a new user, Fidelity6, who stated in the edit summary, "This goes against the revision of the article as it is, and as it historically has been edited. Please do not do this again. Thank you." So, I checked and found that this version is not historical; it was changed only in May by an IP with no edit summary. I have no desire to get into a revert war over something like this (or anything at all for that matter), so I'd appreciate it if people from this WikiProject could weigh in on this matter. Did I read the consensus wrong above? Nomader (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor was very new, so I pointed the editor to WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure and to this discussion (and reverted the article back to your version.) 72Dino (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • By convention, the History section is at or near the beginning not only of university articles in Wikipedia but also of articles about cities and many other topics. Logically, History comes first because the story of the past often sets context for the present.
Note that Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. Structure of articles about universities is governed by policies for an encyclopedia, not the desires of either students or university personnel who mistakenly think Wikipedia is intended to be a guidebook to universities. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of convention, but an encyclopedia of growth. As well, the problem with re-formatting certain pages is that many have been reorganized by users for the very purpose of readibility. Certain pages ought to be discussed on their talk pages for case-by-case bases. Additionally, there is not a consensus on this subject. This discussion does not act as a consensus. I'd like to restate that just because one page has 'History' listed in a certain order does not make it appropriate, proper, justifiable for another page.--Evidian8 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)::I just brought Ohio University in line with WP:UNIGUIDE and was reverted twice by User:Evidian8. I'm not sure if these brand new editors are willing to learn about consensus and instead revert to their desired version, even though the version is not consistent with other university articles. 72Dino (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Evidian8. The guide that has been referenced is just that: a guide. It's not a constitution or a mandate. For the people who have problems with this, please discuss changes on the individual talk pages rather than trying to format every page the same way. The effect just keeps getting cloudier and cloudier and needs to be addressed by those users who know the pages best at the talk pages. I also agree that this discussion does not serve as a consensus. Thanks for your time.--Fidelity6 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. For users, the WP:UNIGUIDE is actually hotly debated as it is, as well. It ought not be taken as mandatory. To quote the bard himself, "Sweet are the uses of adversity which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head." As far as the respectful arguments, I believe this discussion is a microcosm of the larger debate of a free encyclopedia itself: is it that all encyclopedias by nature become matters of convention, or are they supposed to be a glance of the times they are written? With that, I am in consensus with User:Evidian8 and User:Fidelity6. As a longtime editor and financial supporter of Wikipedia, I do not donate my time and money to a project that limits, inhibits, or suppresses the subjects it documents. Instead, I work for a more real representation of the actual subject. How are, for instance, students treated at Ohio University? Do they deserve their own section title? I believe so. The subjects become part of the article themselves, rather than formatted out of some kind of pseudo-cosmopolitan belief in uniformity. With respect to the other argument, it seems users have significant insight in to how some pages have been created. There are so many topics that still lack pages, and they can serve as formats for how one seeks to make a page. I will end with yet another quote from the Bard: "We cannot conceive of matter being formed of nothing, since things require a seed to start from... Therefore there is not anything which returns to nothing, but all things return dissolved into their elements."--Tomthedentist (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Tom, if you are a longtime editor, why was your account created yesterday? 72Dino (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I kept a different account that no longer exists. Please put personal talk on my talk page to keep discussion on subject.--Tomthedentist (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The only people for whom this guide is "hotly debated" is this strange cadre of new editors focused primarily on a handful of articles. In fact, can you please let us know if there is a relationship between the three of you? ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No relation; talk on personal talk pages. You need to see the talk of the WPGuide to see who disagrees. You'll realize where the fundamental argument originates. Disclude derogatory words like "strange" from your postings. I'll report violation if you persist with pejoratives. --Tomthedentist (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of students

Hello

I am editing Aarhus University and am trying to find out what a "student" is at a university. Some guy (ip-address) thinks that phd's, those studying lower than bachelor/undergraduate level count and those taking a master like the MBA as well. I think it's only undergraduates and postgraduates that count as actual students. What do you think? I really want to get this issue settled now.

--Mottenen (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about higher education in Denmark. In the U.S. context, we typically count as a student anyone attending a class for credit. When reporting student counts to the federal government, here is what is required:

Students reported are those enrolled in courses creditable toward a degree or other formal award; students enrolled in courses that are part of a vocational or occupational program, including those enrolled in off-campus or extension centers; and high school students taking regular college courses for credit.

Note that this definition does include undergraduate and graduate students at all levels, including those seeking vocational degrees. It would also include people enrolled in non-degree programs such as professional or certificate programs.
Incidentally, this number can be reported in two different ways. First, it can be reported as a headcount which is simply a count of all of these people. Second, it can be reported as "Full-time equivalent (FTE)" which is a way of weighting part-time students so they only count as some fraction of a full-time student. Both numbers are useful and important in different contexts. And it's certainly appropriate to separately report undergraduate and graduate students if the situation warrants and it's clearly noted. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm from the UK. What we would normally do there is to count undergraduate and postgraduate students separately. Someone who is employed in the university as a researcher and is still working for their PhD would be a part time student. They would be counted in the full time equivalent postgraduates. Does that make sense? I think it's consistent with the Bologna Agreement. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Joël Courtois for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joël Courtois is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joël Courtois until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 90.84.146.218 (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bard College

Can a few folks swing by Bard College to take a look at the contents, edit history, and Talk page? An SPA and I are having a few disagreements and it would be good to have some additional input. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Single chapter college club w/o sources

For some reason, this single chapter college club w/o sources keeps surviving AFD through lack of participation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie (3rd nomination). Unless policy has changed and hosting off-campus dance parties is enough to engender notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How do other projects handle deletion discussions related to their topic(s)? I don't think it would be a good idea to list all of them here as I wouldn't want this Talk page to be overwhelmed by AfD notices but surely there is a way we can provide a centralized list for project members or other interested parties to monitor. ElKevbo (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

James Holmes as a notable UCR alumni discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:University of California, Riverside about whether to include James Eagan Holmes (the Aurora, CO, shooter) in the University_of_California,_Riverside#Alumni subsection. Interested Project members are invited to comment. --S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

University seals in infobox: Fair use?

An editor has started an RFC at Talk:Georgia State University‎ contending that using seals in university infoboxes violates copyright law and Wikipedia norms and policies. Please join the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

College rankings disaster zone

Looking for opinions on Case Western Reserve University#Rankings. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hah! The picture of Dennis Kucinich in the middle of this section makes me think that it's really some kind of Wikipedia performance art. In any case, you certainly have my blessing to delete much of it and refactor all of it to bring in line with other university articles that have been highly rated and heavily edited by many editors. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for alumni inclusion in university article

An interesting discussion is brewing at Talk:University of California, Riverside about whether James Eagan Holmes should be listed among the notable alumni of the university. This discussion may have widespread policy implications so you are encouraged to participate. ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let participants in this project know this

I'm currently working on task as a member of WikiProject Redirect involving creating redirects from a college's corresponding .edu web address to direct towards the college. During this time, I have looked over a few of these articles and don't see the "WikiProject Universities" template on the talk page. So, expect to see some more eligible articles show up for WikiProject Universities here soon! Thought I'd try to help this project by finding more eligible articles as I do this task. (I'm not going to assess these articles that I put the template on as I am not an expert in this topic; these new articles should show up as "unassessed" in this WikiProject's eligible article search.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

HACC

The article for the small system of community colleges in Pennsylvania formerly known as Harrisburg Area Community College has an unusual title: HACC, Central Pennsylvania's Community College. Six years ago this issue was raised on the talk page but the discussion quickly went dormant. I would like to request input on this issue (on the talk page) and assistance in changing the title to simply "HACC" if that is the best course of action. Thank you. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for a new Task Force

I'm not part of this project, but I have been doing some work on articles that has me go to a lot of university articles. After all of what I have been seeing, I have a recommendation for a task force: "Buildings". It could represent buildings on campuses, (Example: Girls' Domestic Science and Arts Building would qualify for coverage by this proposed task force.) Thanks for your consideration. Steel1943 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1969 is the year Georgia College became coeducational from an all womens' college

I am a two degree two different times graduate from Georgia College (& State University) the information is inaccurate about the date it turned Coeducational. It turned Coeducational from a Womens' College in the year of 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.199.182 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of learned societies with weak coverage

You may find this discussion of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD for campus shuttle buses with zero references

Surprisingly, we have to do this again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenie Bus (2nd nomination). Please help.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation in college names

I was consulting an article which referred to the Balliol College article and clicking on the link noted that I was redirected from that title to Balliol College, Oxford. As such a disambiguation was clearly unnecessary and against various guidelines such as WP:Common name, WP:Precise and WP:NCCS, I moved it to Balliol College. I've just noticed, however, that all Oxford University, and Cambridge University colleges are disambiguated. I looked for article naming guidance and found Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Naming_conventions. The advice there under Disambiguation is "Do not disambiguate unless a naming conflict exists." However, under College and university articles it says "For universities that are part of a larger system, in general the university name is followed by a comma and the name of the city in which the institution is located. For example University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Diego. Some systems use at, which is acceptable (University of Colorado at Boulder). Most university websites should provide clarification, but in general it is preferred that all institutions in the system use the same naming convention. This may be overruled by common branding."

I wondered if Oxford and Cambridge colleges were being classed as part of a larger system, though the examples and link (University system), weren't clear if that was so. I looked at the first 50 incoming links to Balliol College, Oxford, and all but two used Balliol College and had to be redirected (they now go direct, and only the two Balliol College, Oxford are redirected). The Balliol College website says "Balliol" or "Balliol College, University of Oxford". I looked through the talkpage archives on the article itself on this project and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford but couldn't find any previous discussion.

What is the feeling regarding such disambiguation? If the consensus is that it is helpful and desirable, then perhaps the guideline could be made clearer to include Oxford and Cambridge colleges. If the consensus is to follow the wider Wikipedia guidelines, then the articles would need to be looked at for renaming. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

From memory all the Oxbridge colleges articles were named that way on the basis that it's the most common standard form at both. There was an attempt to draw up a guideline for UK collegiate universities many years ago but it never really got anywhere because everyone was pretty happy with where the Oxbridge ones were, whilst the London colleges are more independent with their own brandings, and in some cases comma wars (I kid ye not) where the guideline would inevitably be challenged. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Timrollpickering about this being the most common standard form. At the time of writing, there are 371 links in article space to Balliol College and 1,697 to Balliol College, Oxford, so the sample that you found was very unrepresentative. All Oxford and Cambridge colleges have included ", Oxbridge" in their name since this edit of mine in August 2007 (after this brief discussion). It avoids having to remember whether a particular college has a duplicate (or near-duplicate) in name at The Other Place or elsewhere. Taking Balliol as the example, "Balliol College, Oxford" is commonly used (within and without Oxford University) to refer to the college even when the ", Oxford" could be dropped, and this has been so for many decades e.g. recent BBC news story, recent Financial Times story, mid 19th-century list of clergy, modern history of Cambridge University, 19th-century book of Oxford college statutues. FWIW every edition of "University Challenge" I have ever seen with an Oxbridge college uses ", Oxbridge". I don't think that there's a problem here. If it needs writing into some guidance somewhere for form's sake, then so be it. BencherliteTalk 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The current form works well, and using ", Oxford" rather than ", University of Oxford" cleverly sidesteps the near certain edit wars over the exact relationship between the Colleges, the University, and the Collegiate University. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

UVA and its status as a Public Ivy

Can one or more editors please look into the discussion at Talk:University of Virginia and the edit history of University of Virginia? I thought we had worked our way to something of a consensus but apparently an unregistered editor disagrees and insists that the article include the editorial comment: "It is important to note that the term Public Ivy is an informal term, and not an official body that has been used in the U.S. to compare public universities to the schools of the northeastern Ivy League in some way, usually in academic quality or in social prestige." He or she is now stooping to personal attacks, too, but I don't care much about that as long as they're only aimed at me. ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of higher education accreditation discussion

A discussion about criticisms of higher education accreditation is now underway at Talk:Higher education accreditation in the United States. Interested Project members are invited to join in.--S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Campus news sources

Hi guys, I'm fielding a frenzy of deletion nominations for Georgetown University topics, which you can see at the main page here, mostly based around the rejection of student newspapers as reliable sources. Now this topic has come up before, and I certainly think we prefer the mass-media to campus options, but I worry about the precedent it sets for all university articles. There's an ongoing discussion about this on one of the nominated articles, but any assistance with these deletion nominations this week is greatly appreciated!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Britain's most beautiful universities

These pictures with comments at The Daily Telegraph provide citable refs to various buildings and why they may be of note within individual articles. I'll get to having a closer look at including them myself one day but it won't be now! -- Trevj (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits made to City College of San Francisco Article

I've been reverting a lot of edits to City College of San Francisco recently and it would be really good if some others can help watch the article. Many new editors have recently descended on the article making edits that seem to be unnecessary and often unsourced. Moreover, many of the edits exhibit very poor grammar. The number of edits, the number of editors, the timing of the edits, and the grammar used in the edits makes me suspect that one or more classes of students for whom English is not a first language have been given assignments that involve editing this article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Xi Nu

Opinions and !votes needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Xi Nu.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Columbia University alumnus

There's been a thread on WP:DRN opened by a fairly new user who wants to add information about an alumnus who appears to be notable. The edits have been reverted by an IP with terse edit summaries. It would be good if a few of us could have a quick look and give the editor some guidance. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the Columbia University talk page. This appears to be a disagreement about what should be included in the main article at what should be included in the List of Columbia University people. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Professorships by Institution

Category:Professorships by Institution, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming, along with 10 of its sub-categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories nominated for deletion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob247 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 October 2012‎ (UTC)

University of Illinois College of Law‎

Can someone please take a look at University of Illinois College of Law‎? I recently removed some minor information that appears to be sourced to material obviously written by the college. An editor (who appears to only edit that article) reverted my edit without discussion. Since this seems to be an article watched by very few people, it would be good to have someone else take a look and provide input. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you - reverted back to your version. Disavian (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Faculty of Law, University of Mostar

It has been proposed that the above article be merged into University of Mostar since April 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Man American (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

user:Euroflux

Euroflux (talk · contribs) has been blocked for editwarring, but made several changes to Grand Ecoles categories that you may wish to examine. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Epoka University

Can I please request some input on this article, where newbie/SPA editors are deleting sourced material. It's not an article with a lot of watchers, and since more than one editor is deleting the material I can't keep restoring it by myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bennett College

It looks like there have been some recent SPA edits to Bennett College, so if one of you have a second would you mind looking at the changes to see which we can keep / which need to be exterminated? Disavian (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Much of the material added was directly copied from the college website so I reverted back to a version that seems to be (mostly) clean. I also added a couple of other citations for other direct quotes in the article that previously were not cited or otherwise indicated that they were direct quotes e.g., the college mission. My apologies if useful edits were wiped out; please feel free to restore them! ElKevbo (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's probably the best that we can do here. I initially noticed because one of them acidentally (somehow) edited {{Alum}}: diff. Disavian (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like they haven't given up. Here's my two cents. Disavian (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The POV-pushing is getting silly. diff. Disavian (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

State universities

This is to inform the project of Talk:State university system#Proposed move to State university system (United States), a proposal designed to counter systemic bias and achieve uniformity of article names in this subject area. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Houghton College

Can someone else please take a look at the recent history of Houghton College? Another editor is insisting that we include several unsourced facts and facts that don't match the cited sources. I've tried talking with him or her several times to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another single-purpose editor has become involved in this edit war and has reinstated these edits without an informative edit summary or discussion in Talk. WP:3O has refused to help (and they would do so anyway now that a (supposed) third-party has become involved). Help! ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Category Sorts on U of New Mexico (for example)

When doing category sorts for U of New Mexico, does it fall under U or N? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:37, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Surely there is something in the Manual of Style that provides guidance on alphabetization? If not, I think that it would depend on the context. If it were a context in which there were only U.S. universities included in a list then I might be tempted to file UNM under "N." But I'd probably tend toward filing it under "U" in most cases since it's a proper noun with a title that begins with "U." It's a bit obnoxious in some cases to have a huge clump of "University of" items in a list but that's a problem with how they're named and not necessarily a problem with the organization system. ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CUNY editing their own article?

A single-purpose editor, 80thstwebservices, has been exclusively editing City University of New York and related images. The username is a bit odd and it makes me wonder if it's a role account for the university's Web Services group? They have a Web Services group and some offices at 80th Street. And I can't find any hint of any other group named "80th Street Web Services" or anything similar. Can someone else take a look at this and let me know if I'm being too suspicious? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoever it is there editing style is inappropriate. I've added a pile of tags and am keeping an eye out there. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Childhood Bilingualism Research Centre

Hello everyone. I've just proposed the merge of Childhood Bilingualism Research Centre into Chinese University of Hong Kong, and I would be very grateful if editors here could give their opinion. The discussion is at Talk:Chinese University of Hong Kong/Archive 1#Merge proposal. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Article in need of love

I just stubbified Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology as it was a massive puffpiece written by a researcher of some sort. It would be nice if someone could come in and turn it into a proper article on a university rather than its previous incarnation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

College and university dating

College and university dating, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous School name Redirects?

Is there any problem with creating redirects to Colleges and Universities from any name they've legally had? I'm thinking in particular of Redirects from [[X State College]] to [[X State University]] and similar. I'm not looking to create all such Redirects, just as I find they'd be, IMO, useful.Naraht (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as no other schools have used the same name, you shouldn't have a problem redirecting the old names. For schools that have/had similar names, you may need to create a disambiguation page. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup, like Maryland State College.Naraht (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi

Some more eyes on the Notable Alumni section of this article would be good. Mtking (edits) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Ivy League

Ummm, hmmmm.... thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Input on Hillsdale College#Notable alumni

I've been having a discussion at Talk:Hillsdale College#Notable alumni removals and thought it would be a good topic to ask fellow project members to chime in on. The issue is that I removed several entries from the Notable alumni section that were properly sourced, but were not linked to any article on the actual person, and thus do not appear (at least at this point in time) to be notable. As far as I understand from the article guidelines, featured university articles, other discussions, and other similar notable people lists (like for cities), meeting WP:N (and most likely having an article about that person) is a requirement (or at least the general idea) to be on these notable people lists rather than simply having sources, even reliable sources, that verify the person went to the school. I would appreciate any further input from project members! Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better to have posted a neutral description of the issue instead of presenting only one side of the issue. Since you didn't do that, I'll briefly state that WP:N is a core policy and it is crystal clear that it does not apply to the content of articles. We can leave further discussion there (or completely move it here - let's not have it in two places simultaneously!). ElKevbo (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I simply stated what I did (removed the names with no articles), why ("As far as I understand..."), and asked for input from group members. Nowhere do I ask for support for my position; I asked for "input" which can mean support or disagreement. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The consistent reason that JonRidger has given for a lack of notability is that a given individual lacks a Wikipedia page. Is this a standard that is generally applied? It seems like numerous college/university pages fall short of the standard that JonRidger is applying to the alumni section. Alumni entries for judges, CEO's, and an Academy and Emmy Award winner were removed under that interpretation of notability. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN for University of Cambridge

I have nominated University of Cambridge as a good article. Since it falls within the scope of your project, I thought you may be able to help or want to take part in the process. Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:California State University, Northridge

A Request for Comments has been created at Talk:California State University, Northridge#RfC: Should Northridge or Los Angeles be used as the location in the infobox? on which location should be used in the infobox: Northridge or Los Angeles? Additional feedback is welcome. 72Dino (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comments at an Afd

Any comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) would be appreciated. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Meteorite universities and research centres

Over at WikiProject Geology/Meteorites we're having a month long focus to eliminate red links either by starting new articles or by finding appropriate link targets within existing articles. We'd be very glad of WikiProject Universities' help with any of the following:

-Arb. (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"the most prestigous"

Hi, I removed SOME of the weasel wording from Warsaw School of Economics article, but an IP reverted it. I don't want to rollback even once, not to enter an edit war, and to stay away from a COI. However, I would like to kindly request any editor passing by to glance and intervene. In my view, stating about any school that it is the "most prestigious" without any sources is basically an overstatement and weasel wording (hello, we don't write so of Harvard...). Additionally, all recent major rankings (the Financial Times, as well as the local Polish ones) point to another school as taking the lead in quality (but naturally, I do not advocate praising the other one neither, just saying). Pundit|utter 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

4icu and Webometrics rankings

Just a heads up, the user R.manavazhagan (talk · contribs) has been adding links to 4icu and Webometrics rankings to some university articles, creating a new section for the rankings near the beginning of each article. –Mabeenot (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lists of senior staff

UK universities are particularly keen on including a list of the great and the good who have presided over their august institution since education was carried out with sticks and stones. Should we include such "List of Chancellors", "List of Vice-Chancellors"? Even if most of the people are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? What section would such lists best belong in? I am not keen on having the lists in the History sections. What about in People? Thanks for any comments, especially if you have dealt with this in relation to other countries' institutions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge both have separate list articles for lists of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Of course some other universities only have about 3 of each, so that wouldn't be an option. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Rankings of Otterbein University

Can someone else please take a look at the awards paragraph in the "Academics" section of Otterbein University? I think it's out of hand, has several POV problems, and much of the material is unsourced. Another editor disagrees, however, so a third opinion is necessary. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

University rankings template

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking#Additions and subtractions regarding exclusion and inclusion of rankings in this template. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The whole premise of this template is troubling--I would support a deletion altogether. If they are to be used at all (something I do grudgingly accept), these rankings need context within the article, not a hit-it-and-quit-it infobox. Anyone agree?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd rather have it deleted than remain in its current state where the template editors are essentially editorializing on which rankings are the most legitimate and which academic endeavors are most worthy to be highlighted in a school's article. However, the issue is being recognized and discussed so we should wait to see what comes out of the current discussion. If it was customizable or at least all-inclusive within sensible parameters to allow flexibility and compliance with standard Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, notability, peacock, and spam (that presumably already govern school articles and the College and university rankings article) than it would be perhaps be a useful tool for editors. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lame Edit War Over Bucknell University's Faked SAT Score

Seeking comment at: Talk:Bucknell University#Rankings in the lead. TL;DR: One editor believes that it is important to continue to cite rankings that we know are based on falsified SAT scores, others would like to see the rankings removed completely.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland)

I have just proposed that the new article Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland) be merged with the main article University of Queensland. If you are interested, I would be very grateful if you could comment on the merge proposal over at Talk:University of Queensland. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal for the University of Georgia

Hello all,

I have started a proposal for a WikiProject for the University of Georgia. The UGA article and all related pages including Georgia Bulldogs is in need of much improvement and expansion. If you're interested in joining, please add your name to the supporter list. The University of Florida started it's own WikiProject and that gave me the idea. There is much work to be done! Your support and attention is much needed and much appreciated! The University of Georgia page is a part of this WikiProject.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. DMB112 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Fictional alumni

I had added this section at the UNIGUIDE talk page, but I'm thinking more eyes may see the question here. Some articles include fictional alumni, i.e., characters in a film or book. Has a consensus been reached earlier to include these characters in the "Noted people" section? I couldn't find a discussion on this. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Also, I would rather that sections be titled "Cultural references" rather than "In popular culture". Many universities have serious cultural references as well as popular ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
"Cultural references" is a great idea! The Great Gatsby would be one example of a serious cultural reference. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
ONLY IF those cultural references are themselves explicitly discussed in reliable sources, right? Otherwise we get what we currently have in many articles which is a "In popular culture" section littered with every obscure television, cartoon, and anime reference to the college or university no matter how minor or slight the reference. Like everything else we write about - if it's worth writing about in an encyclopedia article then surely it's because others have already written about it. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the great feedback. I was looking specifically at all the fictional alumni at List of New York University alumni#Other. Before I incur the wrath of User:Mangoeater1000 and come under attack by his many sockpuppets, I wanted to make sure there was a consensus for any change. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks like there is already a section at New York University#In film and literature with the same material (a completely unsourced section.) As the information already exists in prose form, it should be okay to remove the fake alumni from the list article. 72Dino (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because another article has an unreferenced, unencyclopedic section doesn't mean it it's OK elsewhere. Do it, or don't, but you're not going to get the blessing of WP:UNI for it.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Uni rankings template

Comments are needed at Template_talk:Infobox_US_university_ranking#Template_2.0. —Eustress talk 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine

I recently added an RfC at Talk:St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine regarding the inclusion of information about student loan eligibility in the article. Please comment if you'd like. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Otterbein University

Would appreciate assistance at Otterbein University, which is being overrun by a small army of weird POV-warriors who make up numbers and delete sources.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing self-promotion of the University of the Sunshine Coast

The University of the Sunshine Coast (together with its previous VC/President) has been given a rosy write-up by . . . an employee of the University of the Sunshine Coast. Perhaps some disinterested people here could keep their eyes on this article, whose spam-encrusting has been going on for years. (Cross-posted from WP Education in Australia.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories that need creating

As a side-effect of something else I was doing, I found myself with a list of ~5000 categories to which articles had been assigned but the categories did not exist, it's probably about 15% of the total red-link categories. It was easy enough to apply a few crude filters to them to split out a few hundred relevant to this Project, many of them alumni and faculty ones. Some of them need bringing in line with Wikipedia standard formats, some of them are probably too detailed, some might need some Project discussion about what standard format should be applied - but they could all do with eyeballs from several people, particularly ones who know more about US colleges than I do!!! The list is at User:Le_Deluge/categories-education - feel free to hack it about how you want, it was just thrown together for convenience. Le Deluge (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Projects for universities

By the WikiProject Council's count, there are 30 WikiProjects covering individual universities and conferences, with all but five labeled as inactive. Taking a closer look at those five, all of them should be labeled inactive. WikiProject Universities also lists additional regional and university-specific projects (bringing the total count to 49 WikiProjects about universities and conferences) that have been added without much discussion and are mostly inactive. What purpose do these really serve?

There's a new proposal at the WikiProject Council in which an editor wants to create yet another project for their university with the rationale that other universities have one and their university deserves one too. I fear that proposals like this are how we got to our current glut of dead WikiProjects. Since a WikiProject is a group of people working to improve articles and not a status symbol for universities, I feel we need to do something to consolidate all these dead projects and discourage editors from creating one simply for the sake of having it. I propose turning any existing university, conference, and regional projects that have collected some useful resources into task forces of WikiProject Universities. Inactive university projects that do not contain any useful information would be nominated for deletion. Any university-specific banners would be redirected to the WikiProject Universities banner. Obviously, this would be done after an attempt was made to contact each project to ensure that the project is truly inactive. Anyone else feel this way? –Mabeenot (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. There are only a handful of universities in the world that merit more than a handful of articles dedicated to that particular uni. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll start notifying the affected projects of this conversation. Do we want to standardize the naming of these task forces? Some of the existing projects use their university's official name (ie Pennsylvania State University) while other use a semi-official abbreviation (Georgia Tech) and others use a nickname (Mizzou). Since all of the projects will be under subpages of WikiProject Universities, will it be necessary to include "University" in each task force's name? I'm also wondering if we should try organizing these task forces into regional working groups since there are already projects for Indian and Bangladeshi colleges. We could have a UK working group that would oversee the Oxford and Cambridge task forces, and in the US we could use the existing conference projects as working groups that oversee the university task forces within their conference. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

These Wikiprojects are not necessarily "under" UNI nor owned by another Wikiproject. They operate autonomously and collaboratively, often with multiple projects. For instance, Georgia Tech is as much as a partner with Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/Atlanta task force as it is UNI. Mizzou is a child wikiproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missouri as much as UNI. I would recommend consulting the individual WIkiprojects themselves for their naming preference because the entire point of their existence is to draw in and encourage editor coordination and participation. "Georgia Tech" is by far the better recognized name for that institution, just as Virginia Tech is, or UCLA. Naming choice and Wikiproject page style, frankly, should be the call of their own community of editors (who are most familiar with the topic to begin with) just as personal user pages are customizable. These aren't articles in the main space; they are communities of editors and rigid standardization is unwarranted. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, projects that still have an active community of editors can call themselves whatever they like. My question pertains to the abandoned projects where no community currently exists on Wikipedia. Should we name the task forces something standard to better organize them or let these projects keep the current smattering of naming schemes? As for the jurisdiction of these WikiProjects, all except Cal State and OU are technically independent projects. They may be described as child projects of WikiProject Universities or a variety of state and national projects, but ultimately none of these projects are beholden to anyone. That's part of the reason why many of these projects were born and died without anyone noticing. –Mabeenot (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what your intentions are with regard to deeming certain university Wikiprojects as "inactive," but I can assure you that Wikiproject University of Florida is very much active, with a very active subproject for its sports programs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I notified all of the university projects that this discussion exists in the hopes that we'll get more feedback, regardless of whether the project was active, inactive, or somewhere between. This also helps us find out which projects still have active members watching their project's talk page. Thank you for letting us know WikiProject University of Florida is still kicking. –Mabeenot (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, OU Task Force was moved under the banner of Wikiproject Oklahoma last year there may not be many of us but were still kicking. As for Wikiproject Big 12 I'm also a member there but I have no idea how many others on the projects member roles are still around and active. I may do a roll call just to see if there are any others around.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly won't oppose the move, however I really haven't seen any advantage of merging any of the wikiprojects. They still are sister projects to the main WP:UNIVERSITIES anyways and they still try to keep some standardization between them. As mentioned above, most of our WP got merged into our state wp, and then those got merged into WP:USA. I haven't seen any advantages of that. We seem to have become an inactive task force, instead of an inactive wikiproject. Oldag07 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the pulse check on behalf of WikiProject Stanford. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the value of collapsing the University projects into one collective project. On the one hand, for public universities, putting them under the banner of the state projects makes some sense. Private universities are a little bit different and I'd hate for them to get lost. But then again, if subprojects or task forces are created, there is really no difference. The main thing is that you have a core of people actually working on the project. In our case, there could definitely be more activity, but we are chugging along. --Esprqii (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I was expecting a little more discord and passionate pleas not to touch one's project. Instead, even the active projects seem to respond to this proposal with "meh". I see several benefits to turning most of these projects into task forces of either WikiProject Universities or the appropriate state projects. WikiProject Universities will be able to keep closer tabs on them with a unified banner. Projects that are clearly inactive could have their talk pages redirected to WikiProject Universities so that new editors will get their questions or concerns addressed by an active group of editors. As task forces, the organization of WikiProjects in the WikiProject Directory will be clearer and we can point to the fate of these projects when future proposals are made to create additional single-university projects. Finally, with a clearer picture of how many task forces are under WikiProject Universities' scope, we can do comparisons using WikiWork or other metrics to see where additional effort needs to be spent. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Consolidation and mergers are good. I support this idea! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Georgia Tech is active, has an FAC going on, etc. I'm looking forward to pushing forward with a lot of research-related content, but I've just been on vacation lately and thus not on Wikipedia as much. Also, it's hard to tell from the project's main page that it's active, mostly due to the templating I use for the layout. And I don't believe that consolidation with some other tangentially related Wikiproject will improve the WP:GATECH - the only active editors on pages about Georgia Tech are members of the project, nearly all of whom went or were employed there. Disavian (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also prefer WikiProject Georgia Tech remain a school project vs. task force of a larger project. Keeping these projects on smaller scale allow these projects to remain more manageable and focus on their objectives. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there any conceivable advantage to consolidating the WikiProjects? I don't know why there is a mindset that WikiProjects need to be highly active, or even slightly active. WikiProjects are useful organizational tools and when combined with User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing, a tool that isn't as well known as it probably should be, they are very useful for directing editors to fix problems in their areas of interest. There's also an issue with making them task forces of WikiProject Universities. WikiProject University of Pennsylvania includes Penn alumni; however, it would make no sense to list an alumn of UPenn in WikiProject Universities. Ryan Vesey 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I second what Ryan said immediately above. The most interested and motivated WikiProject participants are going to alumni of the particular universities. Yes, there are some WikiProject Universities participants who do great work removing boosterism and trying to maintain consistent standards from one article to another, but there are many, many more editors focused on their alma mater or a handful of colleges and universities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Flagship? Flagship!

I have tagged a "List of Flagship Universities" on the Flagship page as Original Research, in addition to the description given there of flagship universities. (Also, it's wholly unsourced.) This is a conententious topic and has been long debated. I have my doubts that anyone can produce a definitive and properly-sourced list of one single flagship institution for each state. (Although it does help to put a fine point on an issue that otherwise is spread around several dozen university infoboxes.) Please feel free to contribute on the Flagship talk page or the article itself. Thanks. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More here now: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/U.S. Flagship Universities -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hello, I've initiated a peer review request for the List of historic schools of forestry article, and would appreciate comments from WP:Universities editors on ways it can be improved. Ultimately, I would like to nominate it for Featured List status. Please add your suggestions at this link. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:CityofLondonCollege1883.jpg

File:CityofLondonCollege1883.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories of Alumni

Hi. I'm trying to sort out the categories for alumni of Bath Spa University and would like to know if I should group them into sub-categories for the institutions they actually graduated from, that were later amalgamated into Bath Spa University, or put them into one single container category? For example, we have graduates from: Bath Academy of Art, Bath School of Art and Design, Bath College of Domestic Science, and Bath Teacher Training College. What is considered good practice in this case? David Bailey (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Where known, separate institutions is best. See Category:Alumni of Birmingham City University for a good example. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get to work finding out what institutions they graduated from and will sort them accordingly. David Bailey (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Organized campaign to add environmental information to articles

A recent edit linked to this external webpage documenting a push by Campus Climate Challenge to add this kind of material to Wikipedia articles about U.S. colleges and universities. It's well done with good recommendations on what and what not to do here. But it's still an advocacy organization using Wikipedia to promote their cause. What, if anything, do we need to do about this? ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's well intentioned, but it also seems to violate WP:UNDUE--does any school need four subsections on their energy policies? No. For schools for which the energy information is truly relevant (maybe schools whose environmental records are notable, for example), then I could see adding a couple of sentences about such things. Esrever (klaT) 23:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like clear WP:PROMOTION to me, not to mention thoroughly WP:UNDUE. I'd revert or at least trim substantially. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Campus Climate Challenge

I have recently learned about a third-party coalition (see Campus Climate Challenge) encouraging students to expand coverage on university environmental records, suggesting students add an entire section with four subsections to uni articles. Not sure if this is the right place for discussion (or perhaps Wikipedia:United States Education Program?)... I support the idea but am concerned about its execution -- mainly about text placement and length, as the coalition website is encouraging. I don't feel a dedicated section to Environmental Record is right, seeing as how that puts it at the same level as uni-critical information like History, Campus, Academics, and People (see WP:UNIGUIDE). I believe such information is most appropriately integrated to the current structure, with campus-related environmental record info being put in the Campus(es) section and environmental curriculum info being put in the Academics section, etc.

Anyway, myself and others are already engaging in local discussions about the concerns as they crop up on individual uni articles, but I believe a high-level discussion about the matter is needed somewhere. Regards. —Eustress talk 22:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I work with Energy Action Coalition (the coalition behind the Campus Climate Challenge) and just want to chime in here and say thanks to Eustress and ElKevbo for starting this conversation and that I'm eager to hear what other editors think. The toolkit linked above is something we put together based on conversations with a few more experienced Wikipedia editors and my digging through a few dozen Wikipedia help articles, but it's intended as a starting place not finished product. It's my hope to improved it over time based on feedback from students and the Wikipedia community, so that we can guide the students we work with to participate in this community as constructively as possible.
On the substantive question at hand, I'll hold back and see what others think, but I will say that I think a school's environmental record is notable information and if it doesn't fit into an existing section could merit it's own section, but I agree that the length and placement of some of the contributions we've seen so far probably give it too much weight in the context of the entire article. Look forward to continuing this conversation! JeffM2001 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
My main consideration is that if the content is valid and informative, it shouldn't be deleted or buried. IMHO, this content should be integrated with discussions of fundraising and budget, but I see economic/environmental impact as being linked. As long as participants share a commitment to presenting quality information without assuming that their personal biases of what is important or not important supersede that of others, I'm sure a positive outcome will result. With respect to university pages, I would think that the interests of actual university students should help guide the conversation. My understanding is that this is a project driven by university students, which should be taken into positive consideration. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, have added a short note at WP:Env about this discussion, as I think editors there may have contributions to this discussion. WP:Env includes an 'Environmental Record Task Force' that may be relevant here, as well. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Assignments.—Wavelength (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The editors are college students, but I wouldn't call this an assignment. We're not "compelling" students to contribute, grading them, or anything remotely like that. Our only interest is improving Wikipedia's coverage of college/university environmental records, and we are providing guidance/coaching to volunteer editors who want to assist in that effort. JeffM2001 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that sections on Environmental Record are quite common for corporations and individuals. Do folks see a reason they shouldn't be included for colleges and universities? —JeffM2001 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I count a little over 200 articles with "Environmental Record" sections in your search so that doesn't really come close to denote something as ubiquitous on Wikipedia when there are over 4 million articles. Plus WP:OSE. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a clearcut case of WP:Soapbox and possibly WP:COI as well. I don't oppose inclusion of information on green initiatives at universities, but per User:ElKevbo and User:Esrever above, it seems largely WP:UNDUE. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on what viewpoint you believe we are promoting? Our goal here is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of universities' environmental records and provide guidance and coaching to students on how to do so in a neutral and fact-driven manner. I'm eager to hear from the Wikipedia community how we can improve out efforts towards that end, so before you just dismiss us out of hand, would really appreciate if you could engage on the substance of this, what you object to, what we could do better. See also: WP:AGF —JeffM2001 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Energy Action Coalition is engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI. There is no AGF here, your website straight out says you "Join the call for all college & university presidents to divest from fossil fuels and move to 100% clean energy..... leading the fight for a clean energy future, and colleges & universities are our battleground... and later... REPORT BACK! SHARE YOUR ACTION TO SHOW SOLIDARITY! How to report back: It’s critical that everyone report back on their action so that we can share it with the world. To report back, simply FILL OUT THIS FORM." ([6]) Admirable or not, yours is still a group with a motivated political and social agenda and it is engaged in blatant advocacy here and the fact that you are collecting information on edits that are encourage by your organization suggest you are using your campaign to increase your organization's standing or visibility. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX. You are trying to WP:PROMOTE your cause by engaging in the systematic insertion of information of (IMO) WP:UNDUE weight that is well beyond the WP:Scope of typical college and university articles. I'm not opposed to the organic addition of environmental/green information to wikipedia articles, but this is sort of overt campaign seems to be blatantly against basic Wikipedia policy that upholds WP:NPOV which leads me to wonder whether we should start semi-protecting university articles or whether the broader Wikipedia community should be made aware of your agenda. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I get it, there's new people here coming on to your turf. It's fair to be suspicious. I would be too. But let's look at what's actually happening. So far, I've seen 8 articles where students have added or attempted to add information on their school's environmental record. The information added has been factual, NPOV, and well-sourced. None of it has advocated for a particular position or promoted Energy Action Coalition or any other organization. I would agree fully that in some cases the contributions have been too long and placed too prominently, so that they give undue weight to the content in the context of the full article. These are new editors, they're willing to learn. I'm willing to learn. If we can step back a minute from the accusations and your assumptions about our motives, I'm confident we can come to a consensus about what length and types of content are appropriate to the scope of college/university articles. —JeffM2001 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are encouraging people to contribute to Wikipedia with a NPOV and cited documentation - please don't let anybody discourage you. If you're whipping up the masses to propagandize the world - well, I never liked whipped masses very much. It sounds like you know the difference. You might organize some sort of feedback for the folks you're encouraging, let them know if they are getting carried away, and clean up any resulting messes. But it sounds to me like you know what you're doing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
They know what they are doing alright. They are pretty much directing their supporters to insert exactly what information they desire to promote their cause. It is one step away from cut and paste with the example they provide on their website. Things like, and I quote "has the school signed onto the President’s Climate Commitment or made another commitment to action on climate change? How are they doing with follow through?" or "The school’s endowment is heavily invested in [[Mountaintop removal mining|MTR]]". The utility or appropriateness of such metrics is debatable and/or controversial to begin with. At most schools, these are minor issues, if that, except for varied environmental student advocacy groups that may focus on such causes, such as this one which is trying to enlarge their pet issues through what seems in some cases to be prominent and UNDUE placement in Wikipedia articles. How one justifies whole paragraphs on such topics being inserted en masse as fitting within the SCOPE of 100 and 200+ year-old, very complex institutions with 100s of constituent colleges, institutes, and groups without it being ADVOCACY is beyond me. Their "Battleground" does not belong on Wikipedia. The more I think about it, the more wary I am. Beyond this issue for the topic universities, this type of advocacy agenda has the potential to open up every interest group to direct their supporters to insert whole paragraphs of tangentially-related information across whole categories of articles en masse in order to elevate the apparent importance of their particular cause. What's next, groups directing their supporters to insert whole paragraphs on the gluten-free or vegan food choices in school cafeterias? Frankly, the tone and very existence of their web page screams COI. If these things were pertinent to the understanding of the article topics, which are universities NOT environmental causes, they will find their way into the articles without advocacy groups directing their members to do so. The issue isn't necessarily the information, some of which is UNDUE but some of which is not, but the methodology that is being employed by this group to advance their agenda and that methodology's potential to impact Wikipedia's reliability well beyond the topics of environmentalism and higher education. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Arguing with you doesn't feel like it's going to be productive, so I will wait to respond until others have weighed in.—JeffM2001 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Crazypaco. The Campus Climate Challenge website describes the following objective: "Join the call for all college & university presidents to divest from fossil fuels and move to 100% clean energy." Therefore this group plans to use Wikipedia to promote their bias POV to meet specific objectives listed on their website. -Mistercontributer (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Stepping back a bit, I think that the root question is to ensure that the article is balanced. That is to say, does the proportion of the article devoted to each section correspond of the importance of that section to the topic of the article. For some universities, especially those with a long history, we have to use Summary Style, and the university's enviromental record might not be of sufficient importance. For other universities, it is possble that the environmental record is of major significance to the article (for example, a university that was fined billions of dollars for polluting rivers, or a university which won awards for being the first university entirely powered by wave power). As with everything, we need to take a balanced look. My gut feeling is that a boilerplate text that is perhaps suitable for a particular class of universities (e.g. US state-funded universities founded in the last 50 years) probably is not suitable for other universities. Bluap (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For-profit / not-for-profit status and accreditation granted for U.S. universities

As pieces of both valuable and expected information for every U.S. college or university, there should be two specific points covered somewhere in each article.

1) It needs to cover whether a non-state or federal institution, i.e. private institution, is for-profit or not-for-profit. This is a relevant and important fact for those using these articles to help them select a school to attend. It can normally be verified on the institution's website and if it is not there, can be looked up on 501c3lookup.org.

2) There should be clear discussion of the accrediting agency. If the institution is regionally accredited, it would be a best practice to include that in the line discussing it, i.e. “Sample University is regionally accredited by the Sample States Association of Colleges & Schools Higher Learning Conflagration”. Inclusion of the word regionally is important as many professions requiring a degree actually require one from a “regionally accredited” institution; for example, a commission in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Ray Trygstad (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. These points are important. Have you seen the guidelines at WP:UNIGUIDE? The type of the university should be in the first paragraph. Currently, our text says that the article should say "public/private". "Private" should indeed specify profit/non-profit. The accreditation should be in the section Academics/Academic profile. If this information is missing for any US university, please feel free to add it, or bring that case to our attention here. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The term "regional accreditation" has no meaning to a large fraction of the people who read Wikipedia articles about universities. IMO, articles should identify (and link to) an institution's legitimate sources of approval/accreditation, but generally should not augment that identification with a description of "regional accreditation", "national accreditation", etc. (The linked articles should provide that kind of information.) --Orlady (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith; I had not seen WP:UNIGUIDE. Should we specifically add add that "Private" should indeed specify profit/non-profit? As it stands it does not say that. Also would it be appropriate to insert the discussion about regional accreditation in this guideline? I am hesitant to step in and start editing a guideline--that's a lot different than just editing an article. Ray Trygstad (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding profit/non-profit may well make sense in a US context, but we need to be careful to avoid making WP:UNIGUIDE too US-centric. Note that even the public/private distinction doesn't really make much sense in many countries. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. But this - requesting a single word be added to the article - doesn't seem like a big step in that direction. ElKevbo (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
UNIGUIDE isn't mandatory. As ElKevbo says, a single word isn't much -- and if the public vs. private and nonprofit vs. for-profit distinctions don't make sense, then that information need not be added. The words "as appropriate" could be inserted in the guideline to help make that point. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no problem with this proposed change as long as it is done carefully. The suggestion above seems sensible to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The public/private divide no longer applies in the UK, but it is information that a UK person reading about an American university might want to know. I agree with the point above that the accrediting body should be given but that it would be superfluous to add "regionally accredited" on top of that. If someone is interested in the accreditation they are able to click on the links and find out what the accrediting body is. I just did that to remind myself of the US system, and there is plenty of good information to be found with just a few clicks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I completely disagree that it's superfluous to include the words "regional" or "national" when discussing accreditation. I do agree that the distinction is lost on most people but that doesn't mean that it's not important or worth including. We can - and at least one editor has - make the argument that "private" and "for-profit" are superfluous but it's still a good idea to use both to ensure that we're accurate and clear. The parallel also holds when one notes that we're literally discussing the inclusion of one word.

The discussion above is good and should continue but let's break out the final recommendations so they're clear. I recommend:

Based on our discussion above and my experience, I doubt this is a controversial recommendation. I included the phrase "when appropriate" so we don't paint ourselves into a corner when dealing with institutions where this clear dichotomy doesn't quite apply e.g., Cornell University which is ostensibly private but is a land-grant college with three entire colleges that are state-supported.
  • When an institution possesses only regional or national accreditation, the appropriate adjective (national or regional) should be included in the article's description of the institution's accreditation. When an institution possesses both types of accreditation, the adjectives can be omitted.
This recommendation may be more controversial and require more discussion. It may also need some additional verbage about this only applying to U.S. institutions but I'm not familiar enough with non-U.S. systems of higher education to know for sure.

I further recommend:

  • Institutions that are not accredited should be clearly labeled as such in the first sentence of the lead as this is critically important information for readers to know about.
I believe this is already quite common and I don't think it is a controversial recommendation. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I trust those of you who understand the American system well to ensure that American universities are clearly classified. Please don't feel that in those articles you have to go out of your way to accommodate non-American readers. If I find out that x institution is a private liberal arts college but I don't know what such a beast is, then so long as there are links I can educate myself. Accuracy is a prime consideration here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Education Management Corporation?

I'm hoping to find an editor here interested in reviewing a new section I have proposed for an article about Education Management Corporation, which owns The Art Institutes, and other schools. Currently the article includes no section on the company's history, so I've prepared one. I have titled this section Growth and acquisitions and have added the draft to my user space here:

I have prepared this draft on behalf of Education Management Corporation and, because of my COI, I am looking for editors to help me review what I have written and ultimately add it into the article once consensus has been reached. So far I have received feedback from one editor, which you can see on the EDMC Talk page, but I would appreciate additional opinions as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

HEC Paris

Hi,

I am in conflict with some HEC fan who tries to transform the article about this business school into a ridiculous advertisement brochure, with sentences such as "HEC Paris has produced, by far, more CEOs than any other European business school or university and even stands ahead of all US universities and business schools with the sole exception of Harvard University."

Would someone intervene to help the article have similar standards to those of other university articles ?

Thanks in advance,

--Acrit (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Chaudhary Vinay Kumar: notable?

Does Chaudhary Vinay Kumar meet the notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia? It asserts that he was "the founding Director General of Jannayak Chaudhary Devilal Vidyapeeth." I'm guessing from context that the director general is probably akin to the president of a western university, but I'm not clear on the stature of Jannayak Chaudhary Devilal Vidyapeeth. I'm guessing that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC; the closest being criterion #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society."

Apart from this, the article is sorely in need of improvement ("He finally started his heavenly journey.."); but I don't want to start cleaning up if deletion is called for. But at the same time, I don't want to initiate deletion if he passes muster. (I came across it while following up on a serial IP vandal.) TJRC (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

University of Dayton‎ employees editing university's article

It will be interesting to keep an eye on University of Dayton‎. Several employees of the university have declared themselves and begun making substantial edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Reed-College-Eliot-Hall-fall-lrg.jpg

image:Reed-College-Eliot-Hall-fall-lrg.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with revisions to Education Management Corporation article

Hello, I'm looking for help with a revision to the Education Management Corporation (EDMC) article. EDMC is the parent company of The Art Institutes, Brown Mackie College and several other for-profit universities, which is why I am reaching out here.

I have written a revision for the article's existing Political activities section to provide more detail on the company's lobbying and advocacy work, and because I have undertaken this project on behalf EDMC, I won't be editing the page and would like to find assistance from a neutral, knowledgable editor. I've had a bit of help in previous requests about this topic, but I'd like to widen the circle to reduce the burden on them and seek a wider consensus.

If you can help, my request on the EDMC Talk page explains the changes I've made in more detail and links to the draft in my user space. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

People & Planet Green League

I'm intending to go through the UK university articles and include mention of this award in the Campus section, for "First class" awards only, and for 2013 only. It is the best known of the green awards schemes in the UK. And I'll take out mentions of it in the lead, and remove other green credentials if they seem to have been cherry-picked. An exception would be awards for buildings in recognised architectural schemes, and there I might ask for advice in WikiProject Architecture. Please let me know if that doesn't sound appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

sounds just right to me, It would be helpful to extent this to the US also. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Now I just have to find a bit of time to do it! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Freeman Logo Small.JPG

File:Freeman Logo Small.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Vera's Finishing School For Boys Who Want to be Girls

Hi, should this school be categorized under "universities and colleges"? I'm not certain. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Académica de Coimbra move request

Hello. There is an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association#Requested move 2. Since it has now been relisted twice it seems time to notify the three tagged projects; WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Universities and WikiProject Sports. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Input requested: Edit warring at Gadsden State Community College

Can someone please take a look at the recent editing history at Gadsden State Community College? Another editor and I are disagreeing about the inclusion of some information related to the recent ouster of the college president. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would probably be best to discus this at the talk page before bringing it here. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree in principle but experience has shown that new editors who are willing to edit war to whitewash articles are very, very unlikely to be dissuaded solely by a polite request made in the article's Talk page. In any case, I appreciate your help and I've followed through with your suggestion (although I did once again revert the unregistered editor's edits because they contained copyright violations). ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proliferation of prestige-boosting in leads

Predictably, no sooner had Harvard included language in the lead asserting its prestige, we have editors making similar claims at Yale, Stanford, and Princeton explicitly using it as a precedent to do the same but with substantially shakier references. User:ElKevbo, as always, has done an admirable job pushing back on these. However, we need to remain diligent on pushing back on these claims simply because they are mentioned in passing within a second-rate news article, admission rates are being used to justify prestige, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not opposed to - nor should anyone oppose - these articles including this information provided it's sufficiently supported by reliable sources. Regardless of what we think of ranking systems, endowments, dates of founding, and other indicators of reputation and quality, there are a handful of universities that can legitimately claim to be among the most prestigious in the world. Their articles should include that information, especially when their prestige is itself one of their defining characteristics and is essential for readers to know if they are to understand the topic.
But such strong claims must be well supported by impeccable sources. To the best of my knowledge, only at the Harvard article have editors provided references of sufficiently high quality to support such a strong claim. ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional suggestions Education Management Corporation article

I posted here back in June when I was looking for help with some revisions to the Education Management Corporation (EDMC) article, and I figured I would try here again to possibly find help with a new request for the same article. To refresh: EDMC is the parent company of The Art Institutes, Brown Mackie College and several other for-profit universities; I've been working with them to research, write and offer more informative, balanced, well-sourced language to improve these articles.

This time I'd like to offer a revised version of the Programs section of EDMC, which discusses the schools it owns. This request should be fairly simple to review since this section lacks the controversy of some of the other sections of the article. The most pressing issue with the current Programs section is its lack of sources; in writing this revision I've looked to update the overview of these schools based on what was available in independent sources, though in a few places I have relied on the EDMC website to fill in details I was unable to find elsewhere.

If you think you can help with this, please take a look at the more detailed request on the EDMC Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

minor point: the notable people should be listed only under their actual institutions, not in this summary.( & the article on Logan Neitzel was deleted in 2009, so she shouldn't be listed as a notable alumnus anywhere). DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I'm afraid I didn't see this reply until just now. The edit was made by another editor, and Neitzel is still included. It's verified, but if it's determined that he should go, I wouldn't protest. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Central State University

The Central State University article is using File:Central State University Presidential Seal.png, which has been nominated for deletion. Shouldn't this be using a different image? This is described as the president's seal. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitworth University article

Hello to all,

I have noticed that Whitworth University's article page does not match any of the other universities of similar reputation. Whitworth University is ranked among America's Best Colleges according to Forbes.

Its page is not edited under Wiki projects for Universities, thus I would like to ask any of the other editors to edit the article and make it look representative like other top private schools in the United States.

Regards Jovan92 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Jovan92

Hi again,

Thanks for the edit! But it strikes me how and why is Whitworth University rated as low important when colleges with lower ranks are rated as B or C? 94.230.179.78 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your question is a bit confused; you should start by reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Assessment for some useful background. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of lawsuit and deletion of rankings template at Lehigh University‎

Another editor and I are disagreeing at Talk:Lehigh University‎ on two issues and we'd love input from other editors. First, he or she is insisting that material about a lawsuit that was recently decided in favor of the university and against the student who filed it be included in the article. Second, he or she is insisting that the rankings template and some ranking information be deleted from the article. We're at an impasse so we'd appreciate if you could contribute your opinion. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Argosy University improvement

Hello, I'm a consultant to Education Management Corporation (EDMC) and I am hoping to find an independent editor (or two) to review a revised draft I have prepared for one of EDMC's schools: Argosy University. I want as many editors as possible to be aware of the issue; because of my financial COI with this topic, I will not make any direct edits to the article myself.

The article has not been updated much in recent years, and sections about controversies could be better-written. If you are interested in reviewing my proposed draft, please take a look at the message I've posted on the article's Talk page, where I explain my proposed changes, and provide links to compare versions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese junior colleges proposed mergers

Eleven short articles on junior colleges affiliated with other colleges or universities in Japan are currently proposed for merger. In most cases, the junior college articles were recently created and are very short. Please see the following discussions.

Thank you for your attention. Cnilep (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but on balance, I think it might be best to keep them as stubs. For one thing, the junior colleges seem to be separate institutions, not part of the universities they are linked with. Rather like further education colleges in the UK. And I saw that the first one on your list has roots back in the 19th century. But if an institution is only really an arm of the university, as in a collegiate university, then merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should material be removed from articles because the topic isn't mentioned in our guidelines?

At Liberty University material was removed on debt buy-out by Sun Myung Moon on the basis that debt buy-out isn't mentioned in Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines (and that no university articles mention debt buy-out). It's currently being discussed at Talk:Liberty University and I'm wondering if we need to make it clear in the guidelines that they don't exclude material in this way. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, guildelines of Wikiprojects don't in themselves justify inclusion or exclusion of information over Wikipedia's general article guidelines and policies. Per WP:PROJ, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Wikiprojects can discuss and guide, but individual content additions and subtractions should still be discussed in the context of what is best for each of the individual articles themselves, per WP:Consensus and WP:TPA. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of having guidelines if they are not meant to be followed? I understand that they are not binding rules, but if an inclusion/exclusion is outside of the guidelines then it should make sense that the onus should be on the editor going outside of the guidelines to make the case for inclusion/exclusion? The purpose of the guidelines was to help provide conformity among similar topics to emphasize the encyclopedic nature of our work. It also helps to prevent WP:UNDUE and improve WP:SCOPE. Encouraging use of the guidelines then seems like a legitimate argument unless the editor going outside of the guidelines can make a strong case for exemption. Wolfy54 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the that any deviation from guidelines should be well reasoned and within general Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just like any other edit on Wikipedia. Guideline use should be encouraged but that does not circumvent WP:CONSENSUS at the individual article level. Wikiprojects don't own articles and articles can fall under the topic of multiple Wikiprojects. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it the entire subject of controversies or just debt buy-out that Wolfy was objecting to, but I can't help but notice that in the same article there is a 'Finances' section, I don't think that's in the guidelines either. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It is in the guidelines. Most of the information under "Finances" fits under the broader category of Organization and Administration. When I re-organized the page back in November of 2011 (see the Talk section), I tried to comply with the Colleges and Universities guidelines. Finances didn't belong under the major categories so I stuck it at the end until I could come back to it later. I haven't had time to research the school's organizational structure and relationship with it's board of trustees, etc to fill it out. The information on student loans is probably unnecessary, but the endowment and major fund raising initiatives described in the first two paragraphs is specifically called out in the guidelines. At some point, hopefully "Finances" will be moved to it's proper place and not called "Finances".Wolfy54 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ranking table added to Public Ivies.

What do you think? Please see discussion and leave comments at the Public Ivies talk page. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There has also been a series of edits adding a sentence about the Public Ivies to a prominent location in the lead of several university articles. (see here for William & Mary). To me, these additions seem to be WP:UNDUE and perhaps out of context since it isn't prominently discussed in the text of the articles. Often, the included references aren't even the appropriate ones (eg, listed only in Moll's but including refs for both Moll's and Greene's book). Thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please help

Hey there, I am a South African Wikipedian and I have not managed to get help from editors from WikiProject South Africa on improving the articles for the University of Johannesburg and Damelin, a public university and a private college here in South Africa respectively, so I've come here for your help now. While I don't mind editing on my own, I am having trouble locating crucial information for these two institutions and any help on them would help a lot! Thanks. :) Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GAN for New Brunswick Theological Seminary

If anyone from this WikiProject wants to take a whack at a GA review for New Brunswick Theological Seminary, the Reformed Church in America's seminary in New Brunswick, New Jersey, I'd appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please help

Hey there, I am a South African Wikipedian and I have not managed to get help from editors from WikiProject South Africa on improving the articles for the University of Johannesburg and Damelin, a public university and a private college here in South Africa respectively, so I've come here for your help now. While I don't mind editing on my own, I am having trouble locating crucial information for these two institutions and any help on them would help a lot! Thanks. :) Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GAN for New Brunswick Theological Seminary

If anyone from this WikiProject wants to take a whack at a GA review for New Brunswick Theological Seminary, the Reformed Church in America's seminary in New Brunswick, New Jersey, I'd appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of Washington Monthly rankings

DISCUSSION MOVED
Discussion has been centralized at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking; please participate there! ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone else please have a word with User:Steeletrap? He or she is removing the Washington Monthly rankings from many articles despite being asked to hold off on those edits until we've had a discussion about them. He or she is welcome to challenge the necessity or desirability of having those rankings in articles but he or she is not welcome to attempt to disrupt many articles in the process. (Yes, I'm particularly peeved that he or she appears to be willing to edit war over these edits.) Strangely, he or she has opened a discussion on one (Why just one? Why this one?) article's Talk page; please consider participating in the discussion. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

First, it's she. Second, I have sound reasons for this "mass removal", which I provided as edit summaries. Inclusion of the Washington Monthly Rankings is WP:Undue because those rankings radically contradict all of the other (mainstream, reliable) rankings. For instance, Texas A & M, University of California at Riverside, and University of Texas, El Paso are ranked well ahead of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale (1). Some of the Criteria sued to detemrmine the rankings highly dubious, such as rate of ROTC participation (which has roughly as much weight as Research expenditures). It is WP:Undue to include these fringe rankings alongside the notable, mainstream ones they contradict. Steeletrap (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ranking something a varied and complex as university is an absurd endeavor in its own right. Each published methodology represents a separate view point and certainly will contradict each other because they are measuring very different aspects of the same institution. IMO, either all view points should be included or they shouldn't be used at all, which is my personal primary problem with how the ranking template is set up to begin with (and discussed here). But picking and choosing inclusion of sourced opinion (eg rankings) based solely on an editor's personal opinion of the outcomes of the employed methodology has no place on Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. All major rankings should be included, and Washington Monthly is certainly one of them. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, this has nothing to do with who is "right" or "wrong." (though I have to emphatically reject your apparent view that the criteria of the mainstream rankings -- test scores and high school grades of students; size of endowment; reputation among peers; employment/grad school prospects -- are arbitrary.) The question of which university is "better" is inherently subjective in any case. However, on Wikipedia, we go off of what mainstream sources say. Mainstream rankings do not say the University of Texas, el Paso, is a better school than Harvard, Yale and Princeton. The school has a 99.8% acceptance rate. (1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
I agree with Paco's arguments vis-a-vis varying levels of insanity, inanity, and absurdity in ranking methodologies' POVs but come down on the other side as to my preferred outcome -- that rankings should be omitted entirely and the substance these rankings purport to synthesize be discussed instead. If A&M is notable for having lots of ROTC, great, let's unpack that. If Harvard is notable for having lots of money, great, let's unpack that. But there's little consensus for this and the accommodation we've reached instead is to include a summary of notable rankings. WM explicitly markets its method as being purposefully orthogonal to other approaches so it's not surprising that institutions come higher or lower than popular perceptions. WM's rankings are recognized by other reliable sources as worthy of discussion, so UNDUE simply doesn't apply here as it's not a fringe ranking (though there are plenty of those linkbait as well). The purpose of the infobox is in part to prevent editors from erecting post-hoc justifications for excluding rankings that are unflattering to their institution on the basis on methodological qualms. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that it's clear that these actions are a bit controversial, will you please agree to stop the edits and not edit war with others until we resolve the discussion, Steeletrap? Discussing your concerns at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking is the best way to go about this; continuing on your present course of action is disruptive to the point (no pun intended) that I imagine that it could lead to a block. ElKevbo (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. You have my word in that regard. Please spread word of this discussion to other members of the project. Steeletrap (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
Does anyone object to me copying over much of the discussion above to Template talk:Infobox US university ranking so we can centralize the discussion in the most appropriate place? (I recommend that location because some discussion has also begun at Talk:University of Chicago so we have to choose some location to which we can copy two separate threads.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Great idea. I was getting sick of trying to follow all of it and respond in one place and feel like I wanted to in another as well but saying the same thing. Chris1834 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education/Archive_8&oldid=1241709649"