Talk:University at Buffalo/Archive 1

James Starks

James Starks plays for the Green Bay Packers and is not listed under sports. Also, the sports section could be better organized. Also, Naaman Roosevelt for the Buffalo Bills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.200.148 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Flagship" status

15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) dropped the "flagship" status. Not true according to SUNY, as there is no official "flagship" campus. Any of the four University centers have equal standing under SUNY, and each can claim top honors in one category or another. Buffalo is factually the largest, and arguably the most comprehensive. But still, each of the other three centers offer undergraduate and graduate programs that Buffalo does not (likewise Buffalo has many unique programs, as mentioned in the article).

I went to UB, and I was under the impression that University at Buffalo was short for the official name, State University of New York at Buffalo. -James

I go to UB, and the university's website, and even SUNY's website seem to only refer to it as "University at Buffalo". "State University of New York at Buffalo" has been used at some point (i see it stamped on things like chairs or benches once in a while), but i'm not sure if it still is. -℘yrop (talk) 23:10, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Comprehensive Physical Plan

The first sentence appears extremeley unproofread - a total of 27,000 students in 160 years? Hm. Pirchlogan (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

---

UB nomenclenture

The University of Buffalo predates the SUNY system by some 100 years. When SUNY was established in the 1950's, the name was changed to The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNYAB). Buffalo State Teachers College became State University College, Buffalo (SUCB), an even less distinctive moniker by any means. Sometime in the late 1990's, The university centers began petitioning SUNY for more autonomy in operation of the university campuses. This has allowed UB to have more control over tuition rates, athletics, research grants, and capital projects. Part of this process is the de-emphasis of the SUNY portion of the naming of the campus. It was sometime around 2000 when all the signage around campus was changed to state the clearer and simpler University at Buffalo.70.16.37.152 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Endicott, New York and went to UB, and i've seen all sorts of insecurity about what SUNY schools are named. Right now, the school across the river is called Binghamton University, while growing up in the 1980's I knew it as SUNY Binghamton. Although my alma mater is now known as "University at Buffalo" (which i find somewhat arrogant), i knew it when i was going there as The State University of New York at Buffalo, a wordy moniker to be sure, but an accurate one. New York started their state university system much too late and now their attempts to distinguish themselves ring hollow and contrived.

My 2001 diploma reads State University of New York at Buffalo. Anyone have a more recent diploma? - James

Both are equally valid, which is irritating and confusing. Government and financial documents refer to it as the State University of New York at Buffalo. (Some non-governmental financial institutions refer to it as the State University of New York, Amherst, out of some sort of need to distinguish the two campuses as distinct entities. You have no idea how sad this makes me.) I believe that current diplomas now read "University at Buffalo," with "State University of New York" below the seal in smaller print. I am vaguely curious as to why you consider the "University at Buffalo" moniker arrogant, though, as I can't find anything particularly offensive about it, just as I can't see anything wrong with Binghamton University, or University at Albany (though it is awkward), or Stony Brook University. Mostly, I just wish they'd pick one term and stick with it... User:Tomlillis

My 2005 diploma says "State University of New York at Buffalo"; however, when I was a student I worked for the University Bookstore (North Campus), and according to administration, documents and wordmarks were labeled as the even less elegant "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York"...ugh. Now I live in Texas, and when people ask me where I went to college I just say "New York State University".

Update: I found the UB Visual Identity webpage with the naming conventions:

http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/visualidentity/elements_names.html

No. 1 (listed as the formal name) is University at Buffalo, The State University of New York; No. 2 (internal use and alumi) is University at Buffalo which sounds awful; No. 3 is UB, intended for extremely casual, internal use. Further, the page states that the name State University of New York at Buffalo is deprecated and should no longer be used. This begs the question, WTF does it say "State University of New York at Buffalo" on my 2005 diploma? This naming convention is pre-2005. I swear, they should just call it New York State University or University of Buffalo. Note that in Ohio, Miami University, University of Cincinnati, Ohio University, The University of Akron, and the University of Toledo are all part of the state system, but there is no reference to the State system. Why can't we just go that route?

No. 2 is a shortened version of State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, so the at Buffalo makes sense. I myself am a student at UB, and if I have to write it on some kind of space limited form, I use something like SUNY at Buffalo, or just SUNY Buffalo. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that there are two simmilary named schools, UB (University at Buffalo) and Buffalo State University, both of them SUNY Schools. University of Buffalo could be ambiguous, even though it makes sense to us. HeavyD14 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- University at Buffalo

Yes, the name University at Buffalo does sound awful. I think the administration of the school had to try and find some middle ground between SUNY at Buffalo, which no one uses, and UB (short for University of Buffalo), which is used by most people. The name University of Buffalo has been around a lot longer (1846-1962) than University at Buffalo or SUNY at Buffalo. I'll stick with the wisdom of our forefathers on this one and keep using the name University of Buffalo.

How about this for a name:..... State University of New York at Buffalo

Every year we can shrink further the font size of "State" and "New York at" !!!!Truthunmasked 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

- "The name change was enacted to clarify the position of the component universities in the SUNY system." What exactly does this mean? What "position" needed to be clarified? - Lykaon

Well, I think it refers to the position of the 'University Center' of UB over the SUNY 'college' refered to as Buffalo State College, SUNY Buffalo or "Buff State." (aka 'Teachers College') Buffalo State is the other SUNY-aquired institution in Buffalo. It is a smaller, separate school, often confused with UB in name. With two SUNY-Buffalo institutions, it's easy to see why SUNY at Buffalo and SUNY College at Buffalo would be confused.

- Shouldn't the Victory march be changed to:

Fight, fight for the State University of New York at Buffalo
Be proud to fight for your dear Blue and White.
So Hit 'em high, Hit 'em low, Throw 'em high, Throw 'em low
Fight for your dear old Bulls. (Go! Bulls! Go!)
Cheer, cheer for the State University of New York at Buffalo
Our spirit will be with you 'til the end...
So play the game as best you can
For the glory of our dear State University of New York at Buffalo.

That way, we can still show that UB is one of the component universities in the SUNY system!

Truthunmasked 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

varied contributions

Hi, one of the contributers put an automatic edit on any contribution from me! This web page amounts to an advertisement. I wanted to put some discussion about U.B. into what is otherwise just a promotional page. Can someone include on this page something negative about U.B.? I mean the theme of wikipedia seem to have the idea of everyone contributing to each article. The only negative things on this page are in the talk section. Clearly, while my contribution may or may not have the right style to go with the rest of the article, someone else may be able to fit this in or to modify the style of the article as a whole to accompany such a more objective contribution. Further, it seems that one of the authors of this article has included automatic deletion coding into the page! Maybe that is a Wikipedia tool, but I don't think any contributions into what is presented as an open contribution page warrant programming techniques. Couldn't he just manually delete it? My contribution was not bad! I would include it here, but it would be deleted too most likely! Ok, after giving some people a chance to read my complaint, then feel free in a few weeks to shorten it to the main point that promotional pages in the wikipedia should have some usefull, and I emphasize usefull so it doesn't turn mean negative content, carefully edited to soften the harshness while retaining the idea of adding depth-- 02:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can make contributions criticising the school, they just have to fit into the article, be encyclopedic, and satisfy a neutral point of view. What you were doing was inserting biased essays into the article blindly, which was not appropriate. Please review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Criticism of UB would be a very good contribution to this article, however; for example, a discussion of the controversial decision in the '60s to build the new campus in Amherst instead of in downtown Buffalo and its effects on Buffalo would be a very valuable addition. -℘yrop (talk) 04:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did put a watch on this, but more for copyediting purposes than anything else. I have no vested interest in promoting the university, but I don't know if a lengthy discussion on how people felt about the placement of North Campus is appropriate here. The criticism relates more to the city in general than the university itself; as such it would probably be better suited to the Buffalo, New York article. My edits were specifically directed towards clarifying the roles and expansion histories of the two campuses, not towards squelching dissenting voices. At this point, I think the article would be better served by the inclusion of a broader discussion of the acquisition and expansion process in general. This would include the construction of the Ridge Lea shanty-school, the "Berkeley of the East" movement, the volatile political environment at the school during the 1960's and 70's and the subsequent miltary and federal law-enforcement presence, Project Themis, and so on.

Again, I assure you that I'm not trying to build a wikiadvert here. I'm having a hard time maintaining an NPOV here myself, as I have a very overwhelming urge to critically discuss the way the school is slowly abandoning the humanities and less profitable pure sciences in favor of Informatics and commercially-oriented research... Well, I'm willing to work on it, anyhow. User:Tomlillis

Agreed. The student unrest of the late 1960s, early 1970s would be a welcome addition to this article. Flyerhell 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Horse's mouth

This page describes it all. The most formal name is University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. University at Buffalo is the less formal name, and UB is th eleast formal name and the preferred causal name.

http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/visualidentity/elements_names.html

"Although State University of New York at Buffalo is still an acceptable name, it is reserved for those instances in which the communication is directed primarily toward an international audience; as the international audience becomes increasingly familiar with our formal "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York" name, the "State University of New York at Buffalo" name should no longer be used." Cyferx 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• In line with Wikipedia naming conventions (WP:NC) I am going to move the article to the full name as stated on the page linked above: "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York." The current page will, of course, redirect to the new, complete name. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mascots

UB has 2 mascots, Victor E. Bull and Victoria S. Bull (http://www.ubathletics.buffalo.edu/spirit/mascots.shtml). I am not sure with the formatting of the page how to add these, but if they are not added in a few days I can do it. Flyerhell

It has been added Baboo

Sections

The University at Buffalo page is too messy and the Alumni list is half the size of the whole wiki. I think we need to make new sections and maybe create a List_of_University_at_Buffalo_People page.

ok, I sectioned off Athletics and Miscellaneous, somebody do History, Campus, Clubs.

Baboo

Most recent overhaul.

There's being NPOV, and then there's wackiness. I'm not going to launch into it myself without soliciting feedback, but the "Sprawl" section really needs to be incorporated with the history of the article and a general description of the division of the campuses. The complaining about the "lack of affordable housing" and the bus system also needs to be put into some kind of context. Most major universities have their own internal transit systems, believe it or not. I would know, since I spent a hell of a lot of time researching that fact last semester. The affordable housing thing is also questionable. I'm not an "invisible hand of the market" guy, but I really think it should be "lack of housing"--affordable or not, every housing unit is filled every year. Comments appreciated, anyhow. Tom Lillis 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just decided to check out UB's wikipedia entry today and agree that the "Sprawl" section needs some work. It is much too long (longer than the Academics section) and seems to belabor something that is not really going to be of much interest to outsiders. Tom is right that shuttle buses and insufficient housing are hardly unique to UB either. There also seems to be a disconnect between the student population cited in the "Sprawl" section, 50,000, and that in the fact box, ~27,000. The latter figure agrees with the UB website. --BCAttwood 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. It is not NPOV:

"UB has a total student capacity estimated around 30,000 total students, a number which is quite common among other “super university” schools. Though the school has never seen this many enrolled students, the design of UB is nonetheless accommodating of so many."

This is false. Even with the large amount of dormitories, UB does not have enough room to house every student. I am not sure about this year, but from the fall of 2003 on, UB has been housing students in local hotels.

"However, despite the division among academic discipline lines, the school cannot mask the fact that it is actually indeed two separate institutions displaced by several miles between them."

Two seperate institutions?

"Students on the north campus who find the isolation of Amherst, the suburb that surrounds the university, to be too stifling often venture into the diverse environment of the nearby city of Buffalo to enjoy its comparative diversity. Since most residents are not drivers, due to a variety of constraints, students from the north campus often find themselves isolated from Buffalo, despite being at the University at Buffalo."

This is COMPLETELY false. Busses run from North to South campus up until 2 AM over the weekend. A lot of students hang out on Main Street near south campus. Furthermore, South Campus is connected to the Metro, which many students utilize to take them downtown. Third, cabs run ALL DAY AND NIGHT between the North and South campuses. I don't know who wrote this section but I seriously doubt they ever attended UB. If a source is not presented for the "most residents not being drivers" idea I am removing it. I will work on this article tomorrow. Flyerhell 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: As promised, I have re-written the sprawl section to make it sound less like an advertisement for UB and attempted to paint more of an accurate picture of what the so called "sprawl" really is like. Let me know your thoughts on my additions/corrections. Thanks. Flyerhell 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the housing situation. To the best of my knowledge, all residnetial students live in a campus operated facility. They do, however, at the begining of the semester, force some first year students to live in "over-capacity," meaning there are three people living in a two person room. I'd know, as I was in one of those rooms. This is to be expected, as they do room assignments before they have a final count. In most cases they are resolved within the first week.

The reason for less overcrowding is the construction of a nearby primarily UB student apartment complex. This seems to be an atractive option, as many have moved there. Aparently they are really nice, but they werent' held to the highest construction standards.

The only time I know of students being housed in a hotel would be after a fire in a residence hall, and durring finals week. They kick out anyone in violation of quiet hours durring that time.

Also, most of the residents I know here don't have cars here, but that doesn't keep us isolated by any means. Everyone knows someone who has a car, and there are always the busses. In addition to the north-south busses, there are UB busses that go to a nearby mall and supermarket. And there is the city bus system, I don't know much about its operation schedule or routes, but they do make stops on the campus.HeavyD14 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that students were housed in local hotels in both 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years, as well as having the OC rooms that you mentioned. I am not sure if they were there the entire year (I think I read somewhere that students were still at one hotel in the spring of 2005) and I am not sure if UB continued to use hotels during the current academic year. The new apartment complex that you speak of is most likely the massive University Village at Sweethome apartment complex. As this entire complex was booked by the middle of spring 2005, it makes sense that there is a lot more room available in the on campus dorms. Flyerhell 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was the Red Roof Inn and the students were there for the whole year :) Baboo

UB is a commutter school plan and simple. Main street area and the heights are chuck full of students there are even students as far off as Downtown buffalo. Last semster fall 05 they housed two students in a motel due to a fire.

A friend of mine was housed during the fall in a local hotel. As I am aware (its also included in some UB housing notices i think) that hotel rooms are used as overflow, much as the aforementioned 'overflow rooms'. These are often cleared within one or two months of the beginning of the semester, although it does vary from year to year. As for being disconnected from the city of Buffalo, its a threefold problem, one being the difficulty to get into the city (downtown) from the north campus (many students don't wish to travel around 40 mins on two transit systems to get there), the lack of the University/NAFTA supporting student transit (i.e. Metro passes like other local schools), and the lack of student awareness/apathy of Buffalo. I am referring to day access of downtown with this more than the more utilized nighttime access of pearl and chippawa streets. 128.205.209.78 (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural gas buses?

Since when do the buses run on natural gas? Did I miss something? (See the Sprawl section). I'll remove it if nobody can confirm it.

Since 2003ish... Baboo

If the buses run on natural gas, why are there articles like this in The Spectrum?

The sentence doesn't sound right anyway, so I'm going to reword it. -Varco 06:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the busses, but the university definately has a fleet of vans that run on CNG. HeavyD14 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CNG buses are referenced as of 2001. The new contract for buses in 2005 included switching more. http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=665

Academics

Mathematics at UB have not been reduced to a supporting role. The department has many operations. My professor works for a software firm developing mathematical algorithms for graphics. Plus about 40% of the school's budget comes from companies for reasearch anyhow. Look, at Furnas Hall that whole building is reasearch. 69.162.218.114 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the statement and added a request for a citation to that section. -128.205.74.158 05:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've felt obliged to add my two cents to a Wikipedia discussion. I, too, think this article needs some reference to the controversy over the bifurcation of campus. A general article about UB might not require it; but this article, which seems to celebrate the division, demands balance. I was at UB in 1981, as Squire Hall was closing; here we are, more than twenty years later and, some of us, continue to grumble. Of course, the ire at the division of the campuses was fueled by a perception that the choice to expand to Amherst was designed, in part, to quiet student activism, divide and exhaust students, and so on. Whether there was any truth to that, I can't say. Bottom line: in the twenty-some years since I left, I've never failed to mention the exodus to Amherst when telling my UB story.

Also, this sentence can't be correct: "Additionally, UB's role as a crucial internet hub for the eastern seaboard during the internet's inception cannot be understated." Do you mean, "overstated."

UB userbox

If anyone wants it, I have created a userbox for those who want to advertise their UB student/alum status on their user pages (it also automatically adds you to a category, which I can see I misnamed now, but whatever ... Daniel Case 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate

Does anyone know how to find the coordinates?141.155.144.95

Housing Images

I added a heading to clear up what the pictures were of, Ellicott. This seems to be a limited scope, UB has much more housing than just Ellicott. We either need to add images of the other buildings, or scrap the gallery totally as in its current form it seems kind of silly. HeavyD14 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Template and other pages

I created a template for the University's pages. I think we should consider expanding the amount of UB info there is out there. Take a look at University of Pittsburgh for an example. Pete4999 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial?

Does anyone else think this article reads a bit like a commercial? I couldn't find any critical comments on anything relating to this topic. Surely someone has something to criticize about SOMETHING here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.20.178 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a commercial in the sense that it presents a lot of facts about the university? I don't see many uses of unnecessary positive adjectives. The thing is if you want to criticize (and there is a little in the academia section) you need to back it up with something other than weasel words like "some students" or such, because "some other students" might think UB is all puppies and ice cream. Like if you had a link to a poll that showed that 65% of students hate riding the bus between campuses or think that campus is stark, desolate, and depressing 9 months out of the year, that would be fine.BCAttwood (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unionized workforce discussion

This is antiunion cant, and as such, gratuitous reactionary drivel - socialism in faculty output ? Please. Also, adherence to basic standards of idiomatic English punctuation and grammar is suspiciously absent from this section. The only thing missing is a list of names of which "brilliant researchers" were "lost" to UB because of the evils of socialism. I detect traces of an axe being ground.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.137.172 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Teachings at USA University of Buffalo State University of New York

The very puzzling fact, that the United States school system uses material from Poland's Ministry of Education, such as the internet websites [http:/info-poland.buffalo.edu/] or [http:/wings.buffalo.edu/info-poland] from the University of Buffalo State University of New York in a very propagandistic way might come as quite a surprise to many people.

According to University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Nicolaus Copernicus (the Prussian Mathematician- Prussus Mathematicus) was born in "Poland" [1] and the long history of Danzig is disregarded and merely described as Gdask Poland [2]. One can only wonder about the reason for the US University Buffalo to use Polish Communist era propaganda, without identifying it as propaganda.

Not only that but the University Buffalo also "teaches 20th to 21th century new wisdom to children (info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/copernicus/children)"

Sample from the Buffalo University New York website info-poland Nicolaus Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Poland. He is a famous astronomer. An astronomer is someone who studies the stars, planets and solar system. Copernicus lived over 500 years ago! He was born in the year 1495 [3].

This matter concerning the government of Poland teachings at University at Buffalo New York are repeatedly removed by User:Radeksz [4] , who calls the legitimate concerns "random stuff', "deleting trolling which is completely irrelevant to this article" (Nicolaus Copernicus or "completely irrelevant content, that does not belong on the talk page"

What are others (Americans ?) opinions (besides the onesided Polish, like the deletetions by Radeksz) about this matter? An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

How to handle clubs and Greek Life

Two items First, i just went through and removed a random reference to a campus club, moreso because it was the only one of over 100 listed, and thought that it seemed to be kinda a push/ad for that club than anything else. But it does bring up a legitimate point. Id say that clubs in general have a much larger impact on UB than Greek Life (sadly), yet there is really no mention of them here. Now, as there are so many, should we go about listing them in this article, or should there be a different page covering Undergraduate Student Association and Graduate Student Association, complete with club listings/links?

Also, the greek life list does seem to be taking up alot of the page in a list; would it be better perhaps to have it its own sub article to improve the quality of the UB article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtheweather9 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The content on the greek system as well as student organizations is often given undue weight in many university articles. Because Wikipedia is not a directory, I would recommend removing the list of greek organizations in its entirety and replacing it with a mention of how many fraternities & sororities there are perhaps mentioning if there are any unique local (non-national) chapters. Similarly for the student organizations, these are almost always not notable in any capacity (i.e., most universities have acapella groups, dance troupes, political groups, cultural and religious organizations, etc.). I would emphasize only those that are especially notable (especially unique and has received lots of coverage) or prominent (student newspaper, radio, tv, government). Madcoverboy (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

UB Seal

I feel like the UB seal on this page is very small. If you look at Miami University, Michigan State University, and practically all other universities, the seal is very big and is the icon of the University. I think we need to 1. get a different seal image because the one we have now is grainy and looks pixelated when enlargened and 2. make the seal BIGGER! DavidHarary — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHarary (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Student websites

Another editor has repeatedly insisted on including in this article links to and text describing three websites: [5], [6], and [7]. I contend that these material doesn't belong in this encyclopedia article. This information doesn't seem to be significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article, certainly not without evidence of importance or significant interest (i.e. where are the references?). This is an encyclopedia article and not a directory of links related to this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ElKevbo, they have no place in an encyclopaedia article. Mtking (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

External links should be kept at minimum per WP:UNIGUIDE. Preferably these should be the official websites of the university and the alumni organizations. The first two links do not need linking since they are just pages of a larger site which is already listed in the article. The third one doesn't merit inclusion since it's a forum. Moray An Par (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

The alleged "changes of unimportance" is actually significant both to the current students, prospective students and the general public, given that the University at Buffalo is undergoing dramatic changes under the "UB 2020 Flexibility and Economic Growth Act" These links are vital to insuring real-time information to Wikipedia, in fact the HUB was mentioned under the The Spectrum the university's paper http://www.ubspectrum.com/life/hub-premieres-with-mixed-reactions-1.2143983, these changes are significant, also the forum is crucial in communications within the Buffalo region and University at Buffalo in discussing and invoking changes in the "UB 2020 Flexibility and Economic Growth Act" In fact the recent incumbent president has discussed the vitality of this communication outlet http://www.buffalo.edu/president/blog.html and is a honorary member of the forum, I suggest all interested parties to first read "UB 2020 Flexibility and Economic Growth Act" before concluding your description on the editing. I am more then willing to comprise provided there is a better agreement to satisfy these significant changes within the Buffalo and SUNY University at Buffalo regions" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.254.191 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok - that makes some sense. It would have been very helpful and courteous if you could have told us all of that instead of edit warring.

With that said, I still don't believe these links or mention of them should be in this article. As an encyclopedia, we don't really need real-time information in most articles; in fact, it's often helpful or necessary to have some distance from a subject to help us better judge what is of lasting importance and what is not.

Additionally, please note that this is not a communication venue or hub for persons interested in this institution. We're not a media outlet or directory of web links but an encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that all contributions should be encyclopedic, well-sourced, and not pressing a particular point of view, keeping articles up to date is an essential task. The problem is that it takes a bit of practice to do such updating well. People new to Wikipedia focus on the information they are adding rather than how that information will fit into the entire article. The result can be a puzzle piece that sticks out rather than a smooth patch. Please don't give up on contributing to Wikipedia — just take some time to learn how to do it in an effective manner. Racepacket (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I understand that some may argue against the alleged "directory of web links", however i assure you that once you understand the urgency and depth of these recent developments you will agree with the necessary addition of these links into the former article, I am aware that you may not desire "real-time information" however as you yourself pointed out, a encyclopedia should have information of "lasting importance" that are of significant value to the overall cultivation of knowledge, To a viewer interested in learning of said former article (in this case, University at Buffalo) then they should be informed of these recent developments (my previous comment about the development of (UB 2020 Flexibility and Economic Growth Act, of which I am also currently developing the article for) to decline them is to depreciate the quality of these web-pages, which many of us rely on! As i pointed out in my previous comment I am more then willing to comprise on some sort of middle ground, I do apologize for the editing war, it was not my intention in any way to come across as discourteous and I hope we can find some middle ground that does not leave the general public at a loss for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.254.191 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your enthusiasm for bringing timely information to people interested in this university, but an encyclopedia article is not intended for promoting the subject, nor is it a tool to be used as part of a university's strategic plan. This article already provides a link to the university's main website, and the university is free to promote its planning and communication goals on its own site. I agree with ElKevbo that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for these links. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IP editors

I am pleased to see more people starting to contribute to this article. May I suggest that you create a signon rather than contributing as an IP address? I would also encourage you to become an active member of WP:WikiProject SUNY, which is a group of editors interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of the SUNY system. Thanks again for your contributions. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New photos 2011 Update

Hi all, I'm replacing old photos with newer, more vibrant looking photos of UB's campuses. They look really nice. Fyi, I've been editing this page for quite a while — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalofan4255 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:5611 104554588778 102104268778 2236050 6740344 n.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:5611 104554588778 102104268778 2236050 6740344 n.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Headline and Intro with Nomenclature.

Okay, the University says specifically that "It is not appropriate to refer to the university as the State University of New York at Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, SUNYAB or similar variations."- http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/editorial/ub_glossary.php. Therefore, the heading intro title should not say "The State University of New York at Buffalo is...blah blah blah'. It should say, because of this quote right here- "The formal name of our university is 'University at Buffalo, The State University of New York'" that exact title right there. Even on extremely official documents, such as diplomas, it reads "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York". The of the University is right there, in front of our eyes. The "State University of New York at Buffalo" is not appropriate nor formal for anything or anyone to refer to. If anyone has any disagreements, please discuss it below. Do not change the heading until you have discussed and made and agreement with anyone who agrees with I just said. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalofan4255 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "State University of New York at Buffalo" should no longer be used at all in this article.Fruitful47 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support the use of "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York". I firmly believe that "State University of New York at Buffalo" is no longer needed per the concerns listed above. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that while the Official name of the university is "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York" then that should be mentioned in the lead, I have no problem with changing the name of the article to something else in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. Mtking (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:66039 446557207859 8447447859 5081358 559414 n.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:66039 446557207859 8447447859 5081358 559414 n.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:The bell tower of Hayes Hall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The bell tower of Hayes Hall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Lippes Concert Hall in Slee Hall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lippes Concert Hall in Slee Hall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:North Campus Panorama.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:North Campus Panorama.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:The UB Seal adorns Crosby Hall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The UB Seal adorns Crosby Hall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Biomedical Research Building.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Biomedical Research Building.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Crosby Hall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Crosby Hall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hayes Hall on South Campus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hayes Hall on South Campus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:UB's Bulls take the field.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UB's Bulls take the field.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Buffalo Life Sciences Complex.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Buffalo Life Sciences Complex.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bronze Buffalo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bronze Buffalo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:UB Logo Topiary.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UB Logo Topiary.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:University at Buffalo students.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:University at Buffalo students.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UB students 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UB students 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:President tripathi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:President tripathi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:University at Buffalo south campus shot1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:University at Buffalo south campus shot1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UB south camous shot 3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UB south camous shot 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UB south campus title shot4.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UB south campus title shot4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2UB south campus shot 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2UB south campus shot 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UBhealthandscienceslibrary.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UBhealthandscienceslibrary.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UBlibrary1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UBlibrary1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Flagship"

What is need to show that this is in fact a Flagship Uni is a reliable sources that is independent of the University, if that can't be found, then it must be removed as per WP:V. Mtking ^(edits) 05:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

None has been forthcoming so going to remove, it should only be re-added when independent reliable sources can be cited. Mtking ^(edits) 21:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mtking, Here's your independent source: http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/General_University_News_2/Governor_Spitzer_Sees_Stony_Brook_University_As_Flagship_Institution_in_the_SUNY_System.shtml

Wow insults always work, however the Governor making the a political claim is NOT independent Mtking ^(edits) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That source merely says that the institution is "poised" to become a flagship. If the governor formally appoints the institution a flagship, let us know. Until then, the source doesn't say anything more than in one speech the governor opined that the institution may someday become a flagship institution if his plans or recommendations are followed. ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. UB and numerous other sources site that it is a flagship institution. Here are more sources: http://www.jewelryne.ws/physicists-establish-dynamic-jahn-teller-effect-in-defective-diamonds/ http://www.insidecollege.com/reno/SUNY--University-at-Buffalo/1100132/school.do http://education-portal.com/articles/SUNY_at_Buffalo_-_University_at_Buffalo.html and here's the one straight from the University itself: http://www.buffalo.edu/about_ub/ub_at_a_glance.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.80.11 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the claim that this institution is a flagship then surely you can do better than 2 websites that are of dubious value and exist solely to promote their clients, the institution's own website, and a spam blog. ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright here's three more that I think may surprise you: http://www.suny.edu/facultysenate/DivAccessEquityExcellence.pdf http://www.suny.edu/provost/missionreview/mou/StonyBrook.pdf http://www.suny.edu/chancellor/pdfs/InsideHigherEd7-20-09.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.80.11 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised that you would bring to our attention (a) a document that explicitly says that "SUNY does not have a flagship university" (p. 3), (b) a document that utterly fails to mention that Buffalo is a flagship (instead, merely saying that Stony Brook is "analogous to flagship institutions in other state systems," (p. 2), and (c) an interview with the then-Chancellor of SUNY articulating her rejection of the idea that the SUNY system should have flagship institutions. If these sources were intended to support the idea that Buffalo is a flagship university then you've completely undermined your case and you should stop wasting our time. If you had another objective, please enlighten me because I'm afraid that I missed it. ElKevbo (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing so far produced gets close to the requirements of reliable sources that are independent of the University. So to save time, what is not going to be acceptable here are any sources that are :

1. Are from the University;
2. Are from the State University of New York (SUNY);
3. Are from the Governor of New York;
4. Are from any branch of the Government of New York;
5. Are from Blogs or other sources that would not be considered reliable sources by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Hope that helps, and stops editors wasting there time. Mtking ^(edits) 08:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

University Center

Alright be that way...Buffalo, SBU, Albany, and Binghamton are all flagships...but instead of flagship I'm going to put "University Center". You can't delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.160.157 (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"University Center" is not a valid type, and is also not sourced - removed. Mtking ^(edits) 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid type. Look here: http://www.suny.edu/student/downloads/Pdf/2012_Admissions_qf_stateop.pdf

It clearly says "Campus Name (by campus type)" at the top. And that is a publication of SUNY, the state system of New York, the same system that governs the University at Buffalo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a type, and even if it was it would need those reliable sources that are independent of the University to show it was. Mtking ^(edits) 21:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It says it right there that it IS a type. The "Type" of institution is needed in this case because there are three levels of SUNY schools: -University Centers and Doctoral Granting Institutions -State Colleges -Community Colleges.

It is needed in this case to clarify that UB is a SUNY Center. It says it even in Binghamton University, University at Albany, State University of New York, and Stony Brook University. Stop trying to say it's not because I am totally right in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT what the type field is used for in the info box (see Template:Infobox university), please do not re-add until consensus exists for this. Mtking ^(edits) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Then tell me what "types" are appropriate and tell me why "University Center" is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly what is a "University Center", secondly who uses it ?, thirdly did you read the notes attached to Template:Infobox university as it gives examples there. Mtking ^(edits) 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did read "Public, private, four year, undergraduate, graduate, etc.". Other institutions, such as the Michigan State University use "Flagship", and other titles to specify a "type" of institution. A University Center is essentially a flagship school in the SUNY system. This is commonly understood throughout the northeastern United States and is seen as such. More importantly however is the fact that SUNY does not deny any University Center the right to call themselves a "Flagship". That is why you will commonly see it on official documents written by each University Center. Here is an example of that usage:http://www.buffalo.edu/about_ub/ub_at_a_glance.html

Now the point that I'm getting at is this; if a school such as MSU can use the term "Flagship", then UB and the other 3 SUNY Centers should be able to use the term "University Center" because a University Center is the same thing as a Flagship. The term "University Center" is SUNY's way of calling the school a flagship.https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/education/25suny-t.html?ref=education — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd term but it's well-supported by sources so as long as those sources are cited - here and in the main SUNY article - and the term is clearly and explicitly explained I don't see the problem. ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a recognised type of uni, where are the independent sources detailing what a "University Center" is. From what I can see it is a fudge for the SUNY system. Mtking ^(edits) 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd and it is a SUNY-specific designation but they are well within their rights to do that. But I'm not sure what your objection is to including this information since it's verifiable and seems important to understanding where this particular institution fits in the SUNY system. ElKevbo (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It has no place in the info box as it is not an accepted type of Uni, it seems only to be used in relation to SUNY, and the only sources are non-independent ones. Mtking ^(edits) 04:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it is the equivalent of a flagship. The term "flagship" isn't listed in types either, but it became acceptable...so "University Center" has every right "Flagship" does. It should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What is an "accepted type of Uni" and why would you insist on independent sources when the designation is an internal one? ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of WP:PRIMARY, a uni can call it's self what ever it likes, but if others don't follow the lead it is not relevant. as for "accepted type of Uni", one that has it's own wp article. Mtking ^(edits) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you would need an independent source for something that is just pure fact. Here's an independent source:http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2010/08/16/daily11.html

I also don't see why "University Center" would need its own WP article. If it's really needed though, I can simply make a WP article on SUNY centers :).

And 3 other universities call themselves "University Centers" as well: University at Albany, Binghamton University, and Stony Brook University. In this case...UB isn't the only university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.56.139 (talk • contribs) 00:34, November 2, 2011‎

I have made a compromise edit to the wording, if you want it listed in the "Type" the clear intent of which is to only included recognised types of university and not this self-appointed type limited to just one state, the "Type" would have to have to have it's own non-redirected article. Feel free to create one by all means, however it is likely to be deleted or redirected in short order. Mtking ^(edits) 06:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I made no such compromise and there is another wikipedia administrator (or whatever you call it) who agrees with me. This is a 2 against 1 scenario so stop changing the page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.84.130 (talk • contribs) 09:12, November 2, 2011‎

Please indent and sign your comments; it's very difficult to follow your comments otherwise. ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the university that has awarded itself this title, it's its system.

How about we (a) omit the title from the infobox (since it is so uncommon as to be virtually useless in the infobox) and (b) include the title in the lead with a link to the appropriate section in the main SUNY article.

Unregistered editor, it would be particularly helpful if you could flesh out the section in the main SUNY article that discusses the unique classification system used by SUNY. Last time I checked, it was a rather short section with few real references and little explanation. ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ElKevbo, in fact that is exactly what I did with this edit which the IP editor undid - so reverting it back. Mtking ^(edits) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would echo ElKevbo's observation about the lack of detail on "University Center", at the SUNY page, for the wiki-link to remain it needs to explain what it takes to be one etc. Mtking ^(edits) 01:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of only Center is totally confusing, it needs to be "University Center" (in quotes) to make it clear that it is a SUNY designation. Mtking ^(edits) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Crest vs Seal

I have spoken to University Communications, themselves, and it is appropriate for wikipedia to use the crest instead of the seal. The seal is meant for only certain purposes while the crest is used for all other purposes. Because of that, the crest should be used within the article's infobox rather than the seal. Davidhar (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP does not normally take notice of what University Communications departments would like; common practice on WP would appear to indicate the use of the seal; I checked the first 10 other Unis listed on Template:Association of American Universities (Arizona, Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Colorado, Florida, Georgia Tech) before giving up and all of them used the seal. So why should this be any different? Mtking ^(edits) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about what other universities have done. UB is special because the seal and crest have equal significance. But, the seal is used for other purposes that are not related to wikipedia. Because of that, the crest should be used. You also obviously failed to look at Harvard, McGill, Dartmouth, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There appear's to be a fundamental misunderstanding in what you think WP is about. It is an Encyclopaedia it is NOT a tool to be used to market oneself. You say "I don't care about what other universities have done" they have done nothing, editors here have decided how articles on unis should be presented, and the use of the seal is what has been deem appropriate for the lead image. Mtking ^(edits) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You think that it is more appropriate for the seal but that doesn't make you right. I know that WP is an encyclopedia and for WP to present the University at Buffalo in the most accurate form, it must present the crest, not the seal. And it is appropriate to not care about what other colleges have done because each college has their specificities. Every college's WP is going to be different from each other, that's just common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree totally, it is important to present a each article in a uniform way. Mtking ^(edits) 23:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that each university needs to have a seal/crest/symbol to present themselves as the first picture right? Well that's what the crest does. The crest presents the university in the most accurate light. I would know...especially since my parents went here back in the 80's and I'm attending the university right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't work for the university and with a handful of exceptions we've standardized on using the seal as the topmost image in the university infobox. If you believe that we should make an exception for this university, you have to offer something much more convincing than "the university said so!" ElKevbo (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read my above message. The crest is the most accurate form of an image that represents the university. It's really that simple. I thought wikipedia is an encyclopedia that holds the most factual, accurate information, right? If that is the case, then the crest should be used rather than the seal. I can't give you more evidence on that aspect other than telling you that university communications approves and my family and I have been associated with the university for over 40 years now. Davidhar (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the university's crest or seal are at all useful for the general public. But we've standardized on the seal and until that consensus is changed (and I've tried changing it several times!), it's our standard. We need more convincing evidence than what you have presented to make an exception. For example, can you provide evidence that the crest is in widespread use? ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And that's what I've been trying to tell you, is that it is in widespread use. I don't have specific pictures, but immediately when you walk inside the student union, you'll see the crest (which is huge) on the floor. Also, if you go in diefendorf hall on south campus, you'll see the crest again on the floor (created in tiles). Really the only times you'll see the seal is on transcripts and the occasional old south campus building (which is built into the architecture).Davidhar (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want to re-iterate that Wikipedia is not and cannot be employed by university marketing departments to portray the university as they deem appropriate. The long-standing and much-litigated ([8][9][10]) consensus has been to use seals over other graphic identities across all university articles because these are stable, most formal, and indelible markers of the university which do not change every time a new administration comes in and wants to "rebrand" the university with some slick new logo. Moreover, because seals are generally much older, their copyrights have expired which makes their inclusion on Wikipedia much less problematic. You will need to provide a substantially more compelling case than "do what the marketing department says!" to justify reversing these precedents. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read my previous reasons WHY it's more accurate to include the crest than you would know I'm not just reiterating what the marketing department has said. It's simply more accurate to put the crest on the front page rather than the seal. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Also in this case, the crest happens to be older then the seal, so your argument fails to convey any sense of meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the crest

The addition of the the crest as a stand alone image should be reverted, as it fails two parts of the WP:NFCC (3a, and 8. This is yet another case of a Davidhar, an editor with a clear WP:COI (as he admits to above) trying to make this article "look better" or "reflect the wishes of the university". Mtking ^(edits) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not what I'm doing at all, you're putting words in my mouth. What I'm doing is trying to make this article more ACCURATE. I have a simple solution to help make this article more accurate and representative of the university, and that is to put the crest in place of the seal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You failed to address the issue of WP:NFCC . Mtking ^(edits) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's basic common sense that the crest has importance and significance with the university at buffalo (answers #8). Also, I'm saying to ONLY have the crest, which obviously answers #3. You should know that KING, because apparently youre the king of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Davidhar, personal attacks will imperil your ability to contribute and diminish the weight of your argument. Make your case on a substantive grounds without lashing out at other editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't handle MTKing anymore. Look at his own talk page...others say the same thing as what I'm about to say. He stalks certain people and will delete and undo any edits certain people make on certain wikipedia articles. For example, I uploaded relevant pictures that I took of UB in May of 2011. He not only took them off the wikipedia article without reason, but he also chose to delete the pictures, calling them out on being copyrighted (again, they weren't copyrighted, they were pictures that I took myself). He also takes WP law and manipulates it to make it seem like I (and lots of other editors) have broken numerous WP laws, when in fact I had done no such thing. I'm tired of him and his remarks because he simply isn't right all the time...and this article needs to change in so many ways, yet he polices it like it's his. Other people have shown MTking this too before, and I'm showing it now: WP:WIKIHOUNDING .Davidhar (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not WP:WIKIHOUNDING; I am NOT and an admin so not able to delete anything, the pictures you are talking about were metadata stamped copyright to the uni, you (it is my understanding) claimed they were taken for a uni project which makes them work for hire and as such the copyright does not belong to you but to the uni as demonstrated by the metadata on the images. You on the otherhand have continued tried to edit this article in a way so as to promote the uni. the latest example here inclded the phase "including esteemed nationally ranked programs" where "esteemed" is a peacock term so loved by marketing departments, all programs are nationally ranked so that part adds nothing and this was followed by a list of subjects anyone would expect to be available at any "The College of Arts & Sciences" at any uni in the world. The whole section is backed only by a link to the departments home page. Mtking ^(edits) 04:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you are mistaken. I said MAY of 2011 not recently...and you did delete those pictures. And if you care so much about 1 word, then why haven't you deleted "prestigious" before AAU in Iowa State University? You STALK me and this article while not focusing on other articles that may have the same minimal "problems". And by the way, only around 170 universities are NATIONALLY ranked by the USNWR and only around 80 university departments (within the colleges of arts and sciences' of each university) are NATIONALLY ranked as well. Therefore putting that information down IS in fact notable. The College of Arts and Sciences at UB are very well esteemed because of this and have made the college quite prestigious. I wouldn't expect you to know this however since you're from Australia and have no reconciliation with universities and colleges within the U.S. Davidhar (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to delete any picture. I am not stalking you but since you edit almost exclusively on articles relating to "University at Buffalo" it might appear to be that. Mtking ^(edits) 06:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my previous concerns. And you put the tag on those pictures and the next day, they were deleted. Davidhar (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I can't remember what they were ans as an admin won't delete a picture without a reason there would have been one, if you have a look at the file page it will tell you.Mtking ^(edits) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive

As per WP:Archive as this page is over 50k I have set up archiving on threads untouched for 90 days, may need to adjust that. Mtking ^(edits) 11:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New Photos

I will be placing new photos onto the article within the next few months (I just got an iphone so I will be taking 8 megapixel shots of buildings around campus). To start out however, I'm going to put up an older photo: File:Early university at buffalo 1900.png. It's a good picture of the first building that the university owned. You can discuss about it here. My suggestion is to put it up in the history section. It's very relevant to the article and that specific section. Davidhar (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This picture is clearly relevant to the history section and I have no issue with it, there should be some reference to it in the text and assume that is coming shortly. However as for new pictures, please remember that this is an Encyclopaedia and not an extension of the uni marketing effort, any new images have to be clearly relevant to the subject, just adding pictures of buildings on site just because it is the new arts building or the new library and/or to make the article look better is not acceptable. Mtking ^(edits) 08:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The best thing to do is to create an organized gallery page at Commons, which can be linked from the article here via {{Commons}}. --dave pape (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there already is some reference to the building, "The first lectures were delivered in a wooden building over the old post office, corner of Seneca and Washington streets."[5] The first building specially built for the university was a stone building at the corner of Main and Virginia streets, built in 1849-50, through donations, public subscription, and a state grant." That quote is describing the building in the picture. Also, one more thing. The " File:Official UB crest.jpg " picture is used on the University at Buffalo College of Arts & Sciences. I have a newer version of the file, a PNG format (which has a transparent background). It's also smaller. Can someone help me upload it and replace the current one with the newer one I have? Davidhar (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of College of Arts and Sciences

I find this ridiculous. The article for the CAS was created, maintained, referenced well, and cited, yet it was still deleted. Why? It is completely notable and whoever deleted it had no right in doing so. There were 5 active contributors to the article and if anyone gave any straight glance to the article's content, they would automatically see the notability within the college of arts and sciences. I am appalled with some very specific wikipedia editors. The article lived up to wikipedia law, code, and ethics, yet was still deleted. Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University at Buffalo College of Arts & Sciences, there are multiple editors who agree with me that the article is notable, yet mtking still deleted it. I can't believe this...it's beyond outrageous. Davidhar (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I did not delete it. I did not even do the redirect.
2. It had zero independent reliable sources supporting the article.
3. WP:AfD is not a vote, it is a policy and guideline based discussion, and it was clearly shown that University at Buffalo College of Arts & Sciences as written did not meet them, which was the point I was makeing all along at Talk:University at Buffalo College of Arts & Sciences.
4. Only two editors expressed a wish to keep, and one gave no supporting sources and the other gave two, one that did not even mention the colleage and the other was written/distributed by the university.

Mtking ^(edits) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you even went on to read the history of the university, you would have found that it was not only written by someone who was not a part of the university, but it's also not even distributed by the university! It's distributed by harvard and Buffalo's own public library. And the article DID have reliable INDEPENDENT sources. And it wasn't "clearly shown", I disagree completely, and obviously the 2 other editors disagree too...it again is only in your opinion that it is not reliable. FYI, after deleting it, you didn't place the articles contents within the CAS section, which is what 2 other editors said to do. Davidhar (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I did not delete it.
2. I did not do the redirect.
3. The NYT source did not mention the CAS
4. as for the book - look here seems that they do distribute it.

Mtking ^(edits) 07:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

Please be aware that images should only be used when they increase the readers understanding of the subject. They also need to be free to be used here.

Given the recent attempts to beautify this page with copyright images, if you wish to add any more images to this article, please propose it here so others can check that they are not a copyright violation and to check that consensus exists that they are suitable. Any added without clear consensus and/or whose copyright status is anything but clear are likely to be removed onsite. Mtking ^(edits) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the images added to make the article look better, please discuss here how they improve the understanding of the subject.. Mtking ^(edits) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a picture of the alfiero center to the UB school of management article and section. The alfiero center is the headquarters of the school of management. I added a picture of clemens hall and a view of the spine to "North Campus" because those two pictures are shots of North Campus. I added a picture of alumni arena in the athletics section...because that's one of the main venues of the athletics program. All of these pictures improve the understanding of each subject that is explained within the university at buffalo articles. Davidhar (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But none of that was added to the article, why is it important for the reader to see a picture of the The Alfiero Centre to better understand that the university has a school of management ? Has the building won some notable award ? does it have some revolutionary layout that helps the students learn ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well for one, you deleted many other pictures other than just the alfiero center. And UB's school of management was ranked #9 in the nation by the wall street journal...and ranked within the top 15% of all business schools in the world. Because of that, UB's school of management is world renowned. Just look at some of its notable alumni...including the CEO of Coca Cola, J.Crew, the Gap, owner of the Boston Bruins, and the wealthiest man in China (and founder of Baidu). The Alfiero center is a state of the art learning facility and is the main home of the school of management. I don't think you need an independent source to tell you this. What's your problem with having north campus photos on the page? Clemens hall and the spine are very important to UB's north campus. I would know. Showing pictures of UB's north campus would help readers visualize what exactly they're reading about. Also, Alumni Arena is the second largest indoor on-campus facility in New York State (largest is Syracuse's Carrier Dome). Alumni Arena has recently been upgraded, and it is in the best interest of readers of wikipedia to see such a significant building on campus. Davidhar (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you don't think they are relevant to the article. 128.205.84.201 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No you need to explain why they are important to the understanding of the subject. Mtking ^(edits) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please see the post above^^ Davidhar (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have, but why (for example) does a picture of a building help the reader understand "School of management was ranked #9 in the nation by the wall street journal" - answer, it does not, how does a picture of the "The Alfiero center" convey or help the reader better understand that it is "a state of the art learning facility" - answer, it does not. You need to explain why these pictures are not just a random collection of images from around campus added only to make the article "look" better, more suited to the university marketing effort than an encyclopedia entry. Mtking ^(edits) 23:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me make something clear to you, it's not marketing. If it were marketing, I'd be hired by the university. Number 2, these buildings are completely relevant. Why do the following AAU schools: Stony Brook University, Duke University, Michigan State University, all show buildings that are also relevant to their respective articles? Showing the reader pictures of the campus essentially helps the reader grasp what the university is like. You're answering your own questions, which is not appropriate. I actually think that a picture of the Alfiero Center (and you don't need to put it in quotation marks) does help the reader understand the School of Management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you maybe confusing reader with potential student, we are dealing with this article, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to add pictures here, until such time as you can show how they help they should remain off the page. In answer to you comment about being hired by the university, your WP:COI is noted. Mtking ^(edits) 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the article could use more pictures around campus. That said, not every building on campus needs to be documented nor does every picture in the article have to be of the campus. User:Mtking's bar for inclusion is needlessly high, in my opinion; buildings which are iconic, large, major centers of campus life, or are otherwise notable should probably be included to illustrate the campus for the reader, not to convey a precise message. While I appreciate User:Davidhar's efforts, the quality and composition of some of these shots simply aren't of sufficient quality to warrant inclusion: [11][12][13][14][15] Ideally, photos of campus should include the entire facade of the building and surrounding context (no closeups of details unless particularly notable), should have strong contrast and colors (shooting buildings in snow on cloudy days is rather grey and unappealing), and care should be taken to avoid including distracting details such as cars, ads, and people. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the quality of the images is also an issue, however I don't think expecting pictures added to assist with the understanding of the subject, rather than be just an indiscriminate collection is an "unnecessarily high bar", there is the option for adding {{commons}} (see below) to deal with that. Mtking ^(edits) 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I will upload better shots within the next week of both North and South campuses (downtown campus is pretty inaccessible for me). However, I disagree with MTKing. He thinks that many of these pictures (and many of the subjects that are spoken of within this article) are not notable. I'm an out of state student...and have known about UB's accolades practically my entire life. MTking has no real association with American universities, because he is from Australia. Therefore, I don't think he should be the one to judge whether or not some subjects are notable or not. But let's get back to the topic on hand. As Madcoverboy said before, pictures of the campus help illustrate the campus for the reader. Showing the Alfiero Center, for example, will help illustrate what the school of management means to the university and what kind of impact it has on the education for students and faculty alike. If possible, I'll get one picture of each school's building (with high quality of course) to represent each school. All 13 schools within the university are significant and all are ranked within the top 15-20% of the nations programs. The Pharmacy school, for example, is ranked 21st in the nation by USNWR. The pharmacy school was also the 2nd component of the university, and helped establish the university itself. There were some shots that MTKing took down that have legitimate notability and quality. This: File:Alumni Arena UB.jpg in particular, is a good example. It shows each of the recent renovations of the arena (videoboard, new sound system, and new lighting system), and shows preparations for the basketball team (which by the way, has garnered a lot of recent success and media, but MTking might tell you otherwise). Davidhar (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The School of Management rankings section

20 lines on rankings of this department with only two lines on it's history when there is also a uni wide ranking section is clearly promotional and not balanced and is another case of WP:BOOSTERISM. Don't mind a sentence added regarding the key ranking for this department but not a whole section. Mtking ^(edits) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Don't need to enumerate every single ranking the business school has received from every publication. A sentence or two on the major rankings from USNWR, WSJ, and Bloomberg on the overall ranking for the overall school in the rankings section should suffice. Certainly don't need to provide rankings on individual degree programs (eg, executive MBA, part-time, etc.) or subcomponents of rankings ("salary growth", etc.). Moreover, the language used in the removed text was clearly non-neutral ("lauded"), weasel-worded ("one of the highest"), and otherwise boosterish. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the School of Management

Can someone please explain why the #9th nationally ranked, School of Management Article was deleted? Davidhar (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No sources. Mtking ^(edits) 06:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly a full out reason to delete an article. I'd like you to recreate the article. I was actually going to create references within the next week or so for that article. 128.205.59.220 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Before, you said that the rankings section is "boosterism". Pure facts is not boosterism. Opinions are boosterism...and nothing within that section was opinionated. It was merely facts. Davidhar (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MTKing, you should recreate the school of management article. If you have no rebuttal and you don't create a new one, I'll recreate it myself. Davidhar (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it had no sources, nothing to demonstrate it met the inclusion guidelines, if you think there is, post them here and let others review them, if they are found to be significant enough for a stand alone article then it can be reinstated. Mtking ^(edits) 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

I just spent the last 3 hours doing some much needed cleanup around the article to remove cruft which has accumulated, improving the quality of the prose, and introducing some desperately needed context and information. I leave it to other editors to pick it up from here but some thoughts on what could use further expansion:

• UB2020 is recentism and needs to be merged into Administration and organization or history -- probably split between both
• Academics needs to be fleshed out considerably more so to discuss the academic calendar, academic honors and honors college, core curriculum (if one exists), and programs distinguished by large enrollments
• A "People" section which covers demographic information about the student body (ethnicity, geographic distribution, graduation rates, etc. -- some of this is already discussed under academics), statistics about the faculty and notable faculty and their accomplishments, and finally notable alumni.
• A "research" section with information about sponsored funding, patent activity, undergraduate research participation, notable research centers and facilities, and historically-important findings.

As always, I would encourage editors to look to other university FAs and GAs for examples of the topics, organization, content, and tone which should be conveyed in this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the academic organization if one thing takes place: have separate articles for especially notable schools within UB. I've said this before, but every school within UB is ranked within the top 15-20% in the nation and each is significant. UB as a whole spends about $350 million a year on research alone. Each school participates in its own research field. Many notable alumni have come out of these schools. I propose new articles for the following notable schools: Arts and Sciences (largest school with 15,000 students), Management (9th for recruitment and 75th overall), Health and Medicine (36th in the nation), Pharmacy (ranked 21st in the nation), engineering (52nd in nation), architecture (only public architecture school in NY), and dental school (only public dental school in NY as well). A law school article has already been created. Davidhar (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any new articles on the departments, Arts and Sciences (as you point out the largest) was found not to meet the inclusion criteria at AfD, as per the above section the one on the School of Management had no sources, so before you spend time creating them, post here the sources you think mean that they meet the guidelines and let others review them. Mtking ^(edits) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the school of management was notable and you could have just added sources yourself to help the article, but instead you chose to delete it. There is now minimal information about each school and if you all intend to keep it that way on the main UB article, then I strongly suggest creating wikipedia articles dedicated to the specific school's information. The information is completely notable and justified. You might not think so, but there are many sources out there that do. UB is the only school within the AAU at this point that does not have any articles dedicated to the schools and colleges within each university (besides the law school...which is still being disbuted by mtking).Examples of Sources:

• http://mgt.buffalo.edu/about/rankings
• http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/university-at-buffalo-suny-01157
• http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/university-at-buffalo-suny-03113
• http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/university-at-buffalo-suny-02124
• http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Buffalo-General-Hospital-First-in-WNY-138076843.html
• http://www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID=31717
• http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2012/01/12/ub-research-takes-turn-toward.html
• http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/downtown/article705789.ece

Davidhar (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

what are you saying with those ? the university gets press coverage ? never doubted it, they (along with most other uni's) spend a lot of money on a communications department. Mtking ^(edits) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No that's not my point. My point is to to prove to you that the university and its sub-sect schools are completely notable and worthy to have their own separate articles. Again, you may disagree, but I don't really see how you can have judgement on this subject since you are from a totally foreign country. Davidhar (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In the article, User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines, it specifically says, "The idea that anything which millions of people are familiar with (such as playable characters in globally released multi-platform games) being either unimportant or non-notable is not just absurd and illogical, but idiocy. Just because something does not seem subjectively important to a handful of Wikipedians does not negate its relevance to countless others and if we know it is not just made up, but say have insufficient sources to construct development and reception sections, we would still at least redirect for the convenience of our diverse readership. Redlinking is reserved for that which we must protect the public from." That goes under just basic common sense. The page also says this at the top, " This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received coverage in reliable primary as well as at least one reliable secondary source independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". There are over 200,000 living alumni from the university at buffalo right now. They live in over 130 different countries and all 50 united states. Famous politicians, astronauts, civil rights activists, athletes, CEO's, billionaires, researchers, nobel prize winners, have graduated from this school. To say that the school of management, which has been ranked as a best business school in the nation by every business school ranking; is not notable in its own right, is idiocy. To say that the founding school of the university, where people like Herbert A. Hauptman helped change people's lives, is not notable, is idiocy. To say that the university at buffalo is not notable enough to include certain pieces of information, like I just said, is idiocy. MTKing, this falls under basic common sense. I highly doubt you have the common sense to judge whether a public research university from New York is notable and highly needed. That's not because I think you are an idiot, but because you live in Australia, a country which probably doesn't get any UB publicity. MTKing, before you rebuttal this argument, I strongly suggest you leave this subject to the hands of other wikipedians. Other wikipedians may have a better understanding of the university at buffalo and may provide proper insight to these subject matters. Davidhar (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

the "article" to link to, is not an article, it is one editors ideas, that one editor User:A Nobody is banned not only by a community imposed ban, but also by an ArbCom restriction on his return (see here), so that page is really of no relevance. What is of relevance is the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines they are agreed but the relent project. With regard to your WP:NPA I will take up at your Talk page. As for who should leave editing this page, it should in fact be you given your clear WP:COI and I quote "COI editing is strongly discouraged.". Mtking ^(edits) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point that I just raised above. Please respond to my argument. As for the "attacks", I don't think stating the obvious is offensive. I only said that because you are from Australia, I personally don't think you have any jurisdiction to say what can and can't go in the universities articles. I don't think you have enough knowledge of the subject. That's not a personal attack. Again, I am not marketing. I am stating simple facts about the university. Saying, "The University at Buffalo is a really good school", is obviously not neutral or factual. However saying, "The University at Buffalo has been ranked 111th in the nation by the USNWR", is neutral and factual. That's just basic common sense. If you don't think so, than I personally doubt you have enough knowledge to be editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you before (by other than me) calling other editors names does not help your case, you have made no attempt to show how any of the university departments meet the inclusion criteria for there own article, I am sure that they exist, I am sure lots of people studied there, I am sure lots of people work there, but the agreed standards for them having own article are (and I quote)"If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article (e.g. Jesus College, Oxford, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania). In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article in the absence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources." (see Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines). So you need to show how they are before you go and create articles and since the largest department has already be found lacking, and redirected here at an AfD, the rest will probably follow that way. Mtking ^(edits) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This pissing match between the two of you is tiresome. I've outlined some concrete steps that could be taken now to improve this article immediately, none of which have been taken because the discussion immediately diverted into bad-faith recriminations and wikilawyering. Either commit to improving the article along the lines which have been outlined or take a break and cooldown from this tendentious editing. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have examined both this and this versions of the page, which are two samples of Davidhar's final work before it was reverted/replaced to a redirect by Mtking. One thing that really caught my eye is the non-neutral state of the article. It seems like an advertisement, and I think this might contribute to some of the notability issues here. The citations are rather bare and most importantly to me they lack any author/publisher information, but I can see by the URLs that most of them are in the mtg.buffalo.edu domain. I would strongly advise you to avoid such sources, as they tend to be self-promotional and this in turn feeds into the article itself, which is supposed to remain neutral to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Instead, I would recommend that you find neutral sources from third-party authors/publishers, who can stand back and really analyse the School of Management. This will most likely shed a more accurate light on the notability of the article. Without this information, I'm not convinced this is a really notable subject. At the very least, we should strive for more neutrality. Both can be achieved using third-party references. Best, Jessemv (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

University at Buffalo is ranked 380 on the current college ranking list at Forbes magazine. It is not ranked 450. This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.60.230 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

South Campus New Photos

I have uploaded a good amount of photos of UB's South campus. Please place them around the article. Readers should see what the campus looks like because it will give them a better understanding of the history and subject matter of the university. If nobody places them on the article in 10 days, I will place a few in appropriate sections of the article.

• commons:File:Crosby_hall_shot_1.jpg
• commons:File:Crosby_hall_shot_2.jpg
• commons:File:Outside_crosby_hall_shot_3.jpg
• commons:File:Outside_crosby_hall_shot_4.jpg
• commons:File:Crosby_hall_shot_5.jpg
• commons:File:Campus_green_shot_1.jpg
• commons:File:Campus_green_and_crosby_hall.jpg
• commons:File:UB_south_campus_shot_1.jpg
• commons:File:UB_south_campus_shot_2.jpg
• commons:File:Parker_hall_shot_1.jpg
• commons:File:Parker_hall_shot_2.jpg
• commons:File:Hayes_hall_shot_1.jpg
• commons:File:Parker_hall_shot_2.jpg
• commons:File:Health_and_sciences_library_shot_1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to add any of them, there is a link to the bottom of the article to the commons catagory with the images, that is enough. I am happy for other established editors without a WP:COI to add one or two if they feel it realy is appropriate. Mtking ^(edits) 00:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MTKing, stop hassling me about COI! They are completely appropriate pictures, I don't know how you can deny that! Davidhar (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you be exceedingly careful with your edits. I noticed that you still haven't really addressed the neutrality points that I brought up in the previous section, and as a student who's probably as loyal to University of Buffalo as I am to Utah State University, I understand that it can be challenging to write from a neutral perspective. But that's what has to be done. If not, and the non-neutrality of was from someone closely associated with the subject, that's a sign of COI, that's all. In regard to the pictures, in my opinion Shot 1 of Crosby Hall is better than Shot 2 and 5, I don't particularly like the Outside Crosby Hall shots, Campus Green Shot and Campus Green And Crosby Hall would both be interesting, except there are some weird shadows going on (including your own shadow) and these are distracting. IMO, UB South Campus shots aren't super informative/descriptive, and Parker Hall Shot 1 is better than Shot 2 and would be neat except that there's a big tree branch in the picture, Hayes Hall Shot 1 is visually distracting and isn't focused on anything in particular, and the building in Health and Science Library Shot 1 is intriguing, but there are also some weird shadows and the shot isn't focused on building since you're standing off to the side. If you are trying to get quality images for use on Wikipedia, I would recommend that you talk to some professors about how to take good pictures. They should mention things such as symmetry, focus, lighting/shadows, distractions, etc. There are many things which go into a quality photograph, and I think you should take a look at images on other university articles for some ideas. Jessemv (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jessemv, I didn't respond because your response irritated me so much. Notability is not a fact. It is not merely an opinion either. Notability comes somewhere in between that is hard to articulate. I'm going to first respond to the school of management. The School of Management had its own standoff article for almost a year until MTKing saw minimal sources. He didn't recommend deletion because of lack of notability, but because of lack of sources. Right now, the afc has 24 notable sources. You can check them yourself. As for the notability, you can see the facts, figures, and people associated with the SoM. The CEO of Coca-Cola, CEO of The Gap, J.Crew, and Director of Apple Inc., owner of the Boston Bruins, and many other extremely notable people have graduated from the SoM. Nobel Prize winner of Economics, Ronald Coase, has also taught for the SoM (well before he won his Nobel Prize). There are over 3,000 students in the SoM right now, and there are 33,000 living alumni right now as well. The school conducts more research than any other business school in upstate NY. The school also has a campus in SIngapore where American students can study and earn credits at. I'm not sure how that isn't notable, while the Cox School of Business, Isenberg School of Management and countless others are, with only 3 sources from the school itself. If your comeback to that will be, "then nominate it for deletion", then I will dare you to do that first since you have done that to UB's SoM. Also, if you do happen to think the SoM is notable in its own right, then why don't you and MTKing try to help me find more sources to help establish it? I find it hypocritical to judge whether an article is notable or not, and then not viably try to find proof of its notability yourself, let alone help establish it. As for the pictures, I uploaded many for the editors to choose from. I am not a professional photographer, but from the looks of Utah State University, neither are any of the editors for that school as well. Does wikipedia need good pictures? Of course. But does wikipedia require a professional photographer for every single picture? No. I think this comes down to general common sense and common judgement of whether some things on wikipedia should stay or go. If you haven't noticed, I haven't edited UB's article at all within the past few weeks. Instead, I've come here to suggest edits. Now when I finally upload good pictures, I get turned down once again, because of my COI. That's mere discrimination. I'm uploading another pictrue of the health and sciences library that is "straight." If you don't think any of these pictures are reliably good pictures, then I have no more faith in wikipedia and I will stop trying to make this article informational in its own right.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UB_health_sciences_library_straight.jpgDavidhar (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to have an article on the this department, it has be explained to countless times, for example on your talk page that you need independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just routine coverage of ranking tables. The number of times you can find the name a Google search and add those links into an article is not an indication of notability. This is now reaching the point of disruption and is in danger of being the new example of a classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Mtking ^(edits) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Davidhar, first off I'm sorry that my response irritated you so much. That was not my intent. Both of those are pretty bad examples, since you'll notice that Isenberg School of Management has numerous flags all over it and one of those is a suggested merge (similar to what's happening here) and Cox School of Business has a number of problems. Action may be taken on those, that's not my concern, and decisions like notability should be based on Wikipedia policy instead of pointing out examples which may or may not follow those policies. Maybe they should be nominated for deletion, I don't have an opinion on that right now, but especially in your last example some major cleanup and fixes have to be done for sure. I don't recall nominating SoM for deletion so I'm not sure where that came from. Also, Mtking's last post in the previous section used quotes to make an excellent point, and he also has a good one in Talk:University_at_Buffalo_School_of_Management. Madcoverboy has also offered suggestions. I'd recommend you address their points. Mtking is more familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines than I am, and my response in the above section was focused on improving the references and fixing neutrality issues, both of which are important to establishing notability. We're also under no obligations to edit any article, but we can use Wikipedia policy to make a decision one way or another, as Mtking as already done. I do appreciate you taking the time to upload those pictures, and saying which ones I thought were better than others in order to help other editors (including yourself) choose which ones to put in the article for public display. Since hundreds of people a day might look at your image, it seems to me that only the best images should go in Wikipedia articles unless it is infeasible that better ones can be taken. All I was asking is for you take a moment to consider the camera angle, the lighting and shadows, and some other factors which if managed right can produce a top-quality image to be proud of. You are totally welcome to make edits, so I'm not "turning you down", but rather informing you as to what you need to be careful of. Without any regard to your last closing statements, I do truly believe that UB_health_sciences_library_straight.jpg is a significantly better image than what you had before, so well done on that. I'm sorry that your not happy with the way your editing is going. Please take a moment to review some of the relevant policies such as Wikipedia:Citing Sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability and as long as you follow those policies I'm sure you'll be able to write some really great articles. Jessemv (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesse, I think you have gone through this process in a mature way. Just a few questions. If I am "welcome to make edits", then why has MTKing repeatedly said that I should be denied access to edit UB and I need to go through the talk page first? Right now, I'm doing exactly what he said...but now I'm just getting turned down again. Until I actually see some of my offered edits actually implemented, I'm still going to feel unhappy with editing on wikipedia. Another question; madcoverboy said a redirect would help. That means that the information from the SoM afc could be transferred to the main UB article. If that's possible, then why did 99% of sub-sect colleges information get deleted? Now the article just shows a very general brief introduction to each college and school. Jesse, can you answer me this question...if you truly think that the SoM is notable, will you help me create the article? It's very hard to create one by myself, especially if I'm being ridiculed left and right by MTKing. Davidhar (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not ridiculing anyone, if you had followed the advice on your talk page and on the AfC in the first place then you would have found this a lot easier. With regard to the department, before trying to write anything you should start by posting to Talk:University at Buffalo School of Management the sources that are independent of the department (see your talk page for guidance on that) and that address the subject in detail (not just mentioning the name, and not ranking tables which are just routine), then others can look at them to see if they do demonstrate notability. As for making changes to articles about the Uni, have a read of WP:COI compliance I and, I assume other editors, will have no issue with you making non-controversial edits (such as removing spam and reverting vandalism, fixing spelling and grammar errors or adding citations) but anything else should be proposed at the articles talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I thank you for your mature and calm response, I sure appreciate it! By "welcome to make edits" I'm saying you are free to do so. Everyone is, even people without accounts. That's what makes Wikipedia great and something I thoroughly enjoy. However, there are certain changes that are against building an encyclopedia. One thing I always like to keep in mind while editing is "If I got a physical encyclopedia from the library, and turned to this subject, what would I expect to find and how would the text be phrased?" In a nutshell, I think this basically encompasses Wikipedia policy, but it is pretty generalized so that's why we have specific policies for specific criteria. I get exciting about certain subjects, and its really tempting for me to cast them in a super-positive light while citing statements from the subject. However, in the end the article is much better if you go for third-party references (maybe at the exclusion of primary sources else if that helps) and write the article from there. This takes skill, and I'm certainly not perfect at it, but it's something that I suggest you strive for. Mtking was of the opinion that you were unable to do this, and thus suggested that you be forced to stop editing UB articles, since in Mtking's opinion it was inevitable that your edits would push the UB articles away from neutrality. Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's main pillars (Wikipedia:Five pillars) and its certainly important. I however have faith that you can in fact write from a neutral standpoint if you really try. You might even consider building something on your computer, fixing it up and tweaking it until you're sure its neutral, notable, and encylopedic, and then see what we think about it. However, IMO you're going to have to get a lot more notable things about SoM to convince everyone that it's notable. Mtking had some good examples of notable colleges in the above section, you should look at those as a guideline of what we're after. I guess I tend to give people more slack than Mtking does, by default I generally believe people have impressive skills and can accomplish what they set out to do, and I believe that until they show me otherwise. Some people look at things the other way around. Idk, that's just my outlook. As for notability of SoM, yes there were some famous important people that went there, but I don't think that necessarily make the school notable by itself, you're going to have to get some real facts to really convince me and especially Mtking. Based on your last version of the article, I think that the one statement that best demonstrates notability is "In 2012, USNWR ranked the School of management as the 75th best business school in the nation, which is the highest ranking of any other public business school in New York state". But that's only one statement, and in fact contradicts the statement in the lead which says "consistently been ranked as a best business school". Best business school compared to what? How many other schools were they comparing? Who said that? See our point there? I'm in a neutral position, probably much like Mtking is, so I don't particularly have an underlying opinion one way or another. I'm not entirely convinced that it's really notable, but I'm sure I can be if you provide some really solid evidence from third parties. Otherwise, we're just going to have to follow Wikipedia policy. I'm watching this article, so I'll see any changes you make. I'm willing to help you, but I would suggest that you try to create it yourself. Writing for Wikipedia has certainly improved my writing and analysis skills. Jessemv (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think something should be noted; wikipedia can be edited many, many times. Therefore, I think it's commonplace to make mistakes. Have I tried to write in a neutral way? Yes, I think so. Have I deliberately written in a biased view? No, again I don't think so. Again, wikipedia is meant to be edited by multiple people. That's why I'm asking you to help me make the SoM more neutral. I'm also asking you, Jesse, to review the sources yourself and not necessarily rely on MTKing's opinionated judgements. I just added a few more sources, most of which referenced alumni. Like I said above, it's not just alumni that contribute to an articles notability. I have provided a lot of proof why the SoM is notable in its own right. It's not just alumni...it's everything. I also edited that one line in the first paragraph in the article. Davidhar (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll see about taking a look. I've got some big tests and assignments coming up pretty soon, but I'll see what I can do maybe in the next few days or so. I saw your entry in Articles for Creation and the work in progress there, I'll examine it further tomorrow. Night, Jessemv (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok great, I have some major tests as well this week and I should be busy too. Thanks for everything Jesse! Davidhar (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding University at Buffalo nomenclature.

I highly recommend the new edit, including the revised "common names" be accepted in this wiki page. Previously, the page seemed to be lifting writing from the university's official identity page (http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/editorial/ub_glossary.php); however, what the university administration would prefer is inconsistent with what is reality. "UB" is a term used primarily locally within the Buffalo community and a part of the Western New York region, or amongst alumni circles wherever they may reside; it is therefore inappropriate to only mention that term as secondary name, as Wikipedia is directed at a national and international community of users. The term, on its own, would only be appropriate if it were instantly recognizable on a national scale (in the way that NYU or MIT are for example).

Furthermore, on a national level, "SUNY Buffalo" is by far the most commonly used name to refer to the University at Buffalo. It is exceedingly rare for members of the academic community in other states or lay people to know of, use, or recollect the university's desired short name, "University at Buffalo." SUNY Buffalo is instantly recognizable, however, to people not intimately associated with the university or the SUNY system, but who are at least somewhat familiar with the college.

In addition, the previous second paragraph was scrapped altogether. It is unnecessary and poor presentation to spend so much space discussing the university's nomenclature. It is irrelevant to knowledge seekers to know why the college adopted its current name. Read the second paragraph to yourselves several times. Do any other major university wiki pages dedicate so much extra space so early on to such a topic? Don't bring it back, or at least bury that item somewhere later on in the page if you must insist on having that superfluous item included. Renard2006 (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the information above. And I for one am a student at UB. I reside outside of Boston, MA...and have called the University at Buffalo "UB" before I could remember. My guidance councilors in High School also referred to the university as "UB" as well. You're stating something that is not tangible, at least not on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.157.234 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I also use the term UB frequently, but only when I'm speaking to fellow alumni or people who are from the region. I'm afraid this term simply is not recognizable nationally or internationally among people who aren't alumni or from the western New York region. If you expect Californians to know what you're talking about by simply saying "UB", you're mistaken. It just doesn't have that degree brand recognition. SUNY Buffalo stands a much better chance of carrying meaning in those situations. Renard2006 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's some recent proof for you. Yesterday this article came out...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120723151028.htm. Notice how science daily uses the term "UB". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.157.234 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That article starts by using the term University at Buffalo and then simplifies to the abbreviation UB. That is employed method for any name in any article or essay for the sake of brevity. If they began that article with simply "UB" without any other specification, the vast majority of their audience would have no clue what institution they were referring to. The abbreviation UB simply does NOT have the same recognition nationally as the abbreviations of a select handful of other institutions, for example New York University (NYU) or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). People need to get over that. SUNY Buffalo, again, is a more commonly known name for the school on a national scale. If you must require references, then hopefully the New York Times is a publication with sufficient enough weight and popularity to settle this debate: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/fracking-research-and-the-money-that-flows-to-it/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renard2006 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay buddy, you're completely screwing up this page without consensus on the talk page first. Please ONLY provide major edits if you have consulted other editors. You're wrong about Millard Fillmore founding the university, by the way. Read here: http://library.buffalo.edu/archives/ubhistory/presidents.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.157.234 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A reference to Fillmore as "a founder" does not support an unqualified statement that the University was "founded by" him. The sources indicate that there were a number of founders, of whom the one most responsible for obtaining the charter was probably Fillmore's partner Nathan Hall, and also that Fillmore's position as Chancellor (while certainly worthy of mention) was mostly honorary.[16][17] The recent edits by Renard2006 that were reverted here appear to me to be improvements and should be restored. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If Millard Fillmore founded the University at Buffalo, then George Washington founded the United States. Arxiloxos explains it very well. I am not "completely screwing" up this page. Some of its sections require significant editing. Certain sentences are redundant, and others are presented in a disorganized manner. Some entire sections need significant overhaul. For instance, commentary on US News rankings in the introductory first paragraph is premature; in the next paragraph, after a brief foray into information about the public medical, law, pharmacy, and architecture schools, the article then meanders back to rankings information at the end of the second paragraph. This is poor paragraph design. And how is the Times Higher Education World University ranking of 210-225 even relevant or helpful? It neither gives more useful information about the university nor distinguishes it. Plus, if you're going to make edits and comments on this page, please sign with your user name. Renard2006 (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)