Talk:University of Toronto/Archive 2

College list

Why was the list of colleges deleted? Great work has been done on the U of T article, but I'm not sure if deleting the list altogether was the best thing to do. Orane (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still writing up an expansion to that section. Generally in Wikipedia we prefer to have prose that describe and explain the subject instead of a bunch of lists. Unless of course if the entire article is meant to be a WP:LIST. Jphillips23 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been here for many years, and I'm not aware of such a preference. If information that would be better written in prose is listed, then we have a problem (see prose line). But in a case like this, there is nothing wrong with having a list of the colleges.

Additionally, why do you insist on reverting any mention of UofT being placed at #1 in rankings in the intro, despite the fact that other articles have similar styles? You probably feel close to the article for some reason (it seems to be the only article you have edited) but please mind WP:OWN. Orane (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:Embedded list: "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.". It is more useful for a reader to see paragraphs that describe and explain the colleges;a list that names them off one by one isn't very meaningful. There is nothing wrong with lists in general, but that doesn't mean we should be using them in every case. Maybe we can think about creating a stand-alone list of colleges? This is the way that the Cambridge lists its colleges, and also the way Oxford lists its colleges as well. Notice how the lists aren't included in the articles themselves.

I don't really understand why you have a problem with the rankings. The rankings are still mentioned in the lead, and your version and mine are basically the same: The university is consistently placed among the leading academic institutions of the world. The only difference is that for some reason you seem to emphasize the Newsweek ranking and not the others rankings. In fact, it seems you were the one who added this sentence to begin with, and the original version is much closer to mine. Can you let me know why it's important to single out Newsweek?

And for the record, I don't feel particularly close to the article, although I do prefer to concentrate on one subject at a time. Other editors have made edits to my work in this article and I'm fine with it. But I do respectfully disagree with your edit. Jphillips23 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it says, "most of Wikipedia's articles..." It doesn't state nor imply that you can't have lists. It works perfectly in some cases (like 300). Additionally, the 'list of colleges' wasn't a list per se— it was a table. Anyhoo, if you have the time and are willing, then by all means, expand it.

I have no preference for the Newsweek ranking. I only used it since it was the most recent ranking, and it used data from a number of different rankings (including the Times ranking and the Academic Ranking of Universities) to come up with a aggregrate score for each university. U of T is placed at the top of all three rankings for Canada, so I could easily use another one. As it stands now, the ranking mention seems out of place, like an afterthought. Featured articles on universities have numerical rankings in the introduction. Why can't this? Orane (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding Residences....

How about adding a section about the residences and listing all of them? Dm ca 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, go ahead. If you need help, just PM me.

It won't be a problem, just copy/paste the residence table, the one which indicates each residence's attributes and available utilities. -- Ahm2307 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Heraldic Arms

I've never seen any official U of T document or website that uses the coat of arms currently located in the article's infobox; in fact, the tilted shield strikes me as incorrect. I know that the arms that the infobox previously contained are in official use, and so I'd say the update to the arms should be undone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.173.91 (talk) 18:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I've never in my life seen that one. It looks like something someone just designed, in which case it definitely doesn't belong. --216.13.92.212 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The tilted shield is called a shield accouché (I understand the word means something quite different in modern French) - it's not uncommon in very old European drawings of arms. The artwork itself looks to me like the work of a College of Arms artist, and may be from an original grant of arms. It's certainly not incorrect for the shield being drawn at an angle, but I've tagged the image as lacking a source all the same. — mholland (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the source to the image page...the image is from the "Society of Heraldic Arts" website. nat^tang 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response, Nat. — mholland (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks cool...I've never seen it EVER before, but it seems valid; it has all the artistic symbols, so I say keep it!Ahm2307 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it looks much better than the real U of T coat of arms, but I'd say 216.13.92.212 is correct in that it seems to be something someone just designed, without any official endorsement or use by the university. Also, I'd imagine that the shield accouché, though a real heraldic feature, wasn't actually asigned to U of T's logo, in which case it's just creative embellishment by the Society of Heraldic Arts. In any case, as nice as that new coat of arms looks, it's not the one in official use and so should probably be removed. — User:65.93.173.91, 24 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:55, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

It is not in official use, so it should not be used. Matter closed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderyp (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Official use" isn't the proper criterion - many universities do not use their arms at all, or use them only for degree certificates, preferring corporate branding on other documents. And Image:Uoftcrest.png is quite a poor rendering of the arms, in my opinion. It's black-and-white, not reflecting the proper colours of the arms, and isn't the rendering used by a majority of pages on the utoronto.ca website. Additionally, the image lacks a source and fair-use rationale. For the time being, I have reverted to Image:UofT Heraldic Arms.gif, but if consensus here requires an upright shield, there are several better renderings currently in use. — mholland (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, I'm a current UofT student, and I have NEVER seen that coat of arms being used anywhere, that includes official documents, signs, buildings, paraphernalia and so on. This is the most widely used shield, which appears on nearly all the official documents, building signs and even my UofT keychain! I've also occasionally seen this one being used, most notably the 2005-2006 edition of the UofT Campus Map. You might want to have a look at this site, as well as pages4-7 of this document, which points out what the official crest should look like. You might find this site quite interesting as well. -- 31 August, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.89.175 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<<< I've added an upright version of the tradition shield. This should be acceptable to most as the upright shield is used in the vast majority of university articles. Jphillips23 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that the two other campuses (Scarborough and Mississauga) are hardly mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.121.252 (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually saw the Heraldic Arms on Monday at the University. they're part of the war memorial near the tower/east side of UC. nat^tang 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Faculty of Music

Please take a look at the following UofT website: www.music.utoronto.ca

The Faculty of Music in fact offer a lot more than just bachelor's degrees: From Masters degrees to Doctorate degrees in addition to Operatic performance diplomas and certificates.

Please edit this Wiki-site accordingly. Thanks!

Endowment

Charities directorate lists U of T's endowment at roughly $2.2 bn. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/sec/SrchInput03Render-e?bn=119269751RR0001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.23.95 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability (WP:V)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Could we try to find reliable sources to back up unreferenced material in this article? In particular for the sections St. george campus and on?

Collegestandard (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Added {{refimprove}} template. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

way too long. deserves its own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

same with St George campus section. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree (in the St. George campus article, a short biography about Quetton St. George (for whom St. George Street, St. George campus, and St. George station is named after) can be added). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:U of T varsity blues.jpg

The image Image:U of T varsity blues.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

University of Toronto enrolment

What a waste Wikipedia is seriously. 30,000 people go to U of T (undergrad. Is this a joke?

http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/toronto_e.html#enrolment *******************

2008 enrolment * Full-time (undergraduates): 53,109 Full-time (graduates): 11,539 Part-time (undergraduates): 6,399 Part-time (graduates): 1,969

UNDERGRAD = 59,508 GRADUATE = 13508

TOTAL U OF T POPULATION = 73,016 GO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Who ever keeps editing U of T, stop it. Your figures just prove that there are many universities in Canada larger than U of T (which is completely false) when it is of popular belief that U of T is the largest university in terms of enrolment in Canada.

http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/toronto_e.html#enrolment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• True, but be civil. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone change the U of T enrollment stats, because my changes would just be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Use the edit summary to state the changes in the enrolment statistics and include its source. Remember to be bold. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 99.241.75.103 should have checked before posting his angry comments, because he was adding figures together from different campuses resulting in bogus and misleading figures. He even missed the note that's at the very beginning of this article, which is why he's the only one complaining here. Even in the city of Toronto, York University's Keele campus has more students. 209.195.68.170 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In my earlier comments, I meant that the figures are true for the three campuses combined, but false for St. George Campus only, which is the topic of the article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a problem. U of T is the largest university in Canada by student enrolment, but one would never know that by reading Wikipedia. One can determine the student enrolment of other great universities by reading the lead or checking the infobox. Not so for U of T. While much of the article focusses on the St George Campus, in fact, the article is about the whole university. Most of the statistics quoted (rankings, budget, etc.) apply to U of T as a whole and there is mention of the medical institutes and other campuses. Yet the student enrollment figures are for the St. George Campus only. Can we fix this? Sunray (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a problem, it looks like 99.241.75.103 simply confused the numbers by adding all the campuses together from another website. This article pertains to the main (sometimes known as St. George) campus, and the figures in this article (not just enrolment) are also for the main campus. You may be interested in University of Toronto Mississauga and University of Toronto Scarborough for information on the other campuses. By the way, York's campus at Keele and Université de Montréal's campus are both quite a bit larger, and I think it was pointed out here in an earlier discussion. Jphillips23 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Or how about mention both in the infobox. We could bracket the St. George campus number and a note saying that the number outside the bracket is the total enrolment figure while the one inside is the St. George campus itself. This way, both sides are happy and not ambiguous. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

<< It's not really necessary since there is a dab note right at the very top of the page which links to UTM and UTSC, and it is very easy for anyone to access information on the regional campuses. Most people already expect the current arrangement anyway, since people logically and practically think in terms of campuses, and this is consistent with the way it's done in Wikipedia for many multi-campus universities. University of Michigan is the best example to follow as it is a featured article and very similar to our situation of three campuses. That arrangemnt has worked pretty well for some time now.

Secondly, it is actually more ambiguous to mention both numbers in the infobox, for readers who are not familiar with the university in the first place. If the dab note clearly states the article is not about the regional campuses, it would be puzzling to then present them with two sets of numbers for everything. The current arrangement in the infobox makes more sense, since it presents readers with the numbers that actually pertain to the article's subject, but there is also a note after each number that reminds them again it is for the main campus (if weren't clear enough already). Combined totals are actually more confusing and less useful for readers who want to compare with other universities, which may have one or seven campuses.

Some articles on much larger universities (like University of California with ten campuses) actually have a separate page for the system itself (and include combined numbers on that page), but three campuses is probably not enough to make such a page useful for U of T. Michigan doesn't do this, although recently the editors there made a dismbiguation page for its other campuses. Overall though, the current arrangement is clear to the vast majority of readers, except perhaps the anonymous user above who seems to have skipped way too much text and overeacted. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the article

The article is called "University of Toronto", not "University of Toronto, St. George Campus". It reads as if it is forcing the idea that the main campus is the University of Toronto and the other campuses are separate entities. The article should ideally:

1. treat the subject as a large university with three discinct but interrelated campuses. While suggesting that the St. George campus is the main campus, the article should make mention, and contain a small section, of the other campuses (which should be pointed to with {{further|University of Toronto, Mississuaga}}) etc.
2. Fugures of faculty/staff and enrollment should be given in their totality, with mention of the figures for individual campuses, which should ease the burden of readers having to run for their calculators to add figures of total universty enrollment.

I hope these issues can be addressed. I'm too busy at the moment to implement them myself, and it seems I'm not the only one raising concern over it. Orane (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• PS: The University of Michigan article was featured four years ago. I doubt that it should be followed to the letter three years later, given the rapidity with which Wikipedia changes its conventions and policies. If concensus arises for the need to keep it this way, however... Orane (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This subject has already been addressed a few times before. First of all, this article is not named "University of Toronto, St. George" because there is no such thing. The main campus has always been simply "University of Toronto". This very issue was raised in Talk:University_of_Michigan barely two months ago (not four years ago), and it was decided, rightly so, that the Ann Arbor campus is simply "University of Michigan". Note that Toronto is hardly unique in this situation, as in University of Washington (not U of Washington, Seattle), University of Missouri (not University of Missouri–Columbia), University of Maine. Nonetheless, all of those articles deal with the main campuses, because those unsuffixed names are the names by which the main campuses are known. Even University of Wisconsin redirects to the main campus article under a suffixed name. It's just misleading to have an inflated figure that somehow lumps several campuses together. The bottom line is that University of Toronto is far from the only article that makes this arrangement; in fact, this is probably the most prevalent arrangement for multi-campus universities in Wikipedia, and the arrangement that follows common sense, since people think in terms of campuses (UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Irvine ... etc.). Again, this is a very common arrangment that follows common sense. I hope this settles it. If you believe that University of Michigan is no longer FA quality after four years, then it is a separate issue that I will try to stay out of.

If you really, really wish to lump the figures together and summarize each campus for some reason, then maybe we can agree to create a University of Toronto system summary article, like University of California, University of Texas System, and the Maine examples above. But I don't see how this will be useful for very many people, and is it really necessary given that Toronto does not have ten campuses like California? Maybe a good compromise is to create University of Toronto (disambiguation) like the Michigan example. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, since there had been so much confusion over the University of Toronto, whether it refers to the entire system or just St. George. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep this article devoted to the St. George campus ONLY. Every other university article does it this way. It's also a fact that the downtown campus has different admission standards and we should not blur the distinction between the campuses, which is what will happen under Orane's proposal. It will just make zero sense and cause confusion. BTW, as a Canadian student I can assure you that when someone mentions University of Toronto, 99.9% of people understand that it means the downtown campus. Nobody hears U of T and assumes you are talking about UTSC or UTM - there's not even the slightest chance of confusion. I actually know a friend at UMich, and he can tell you the same thing. UMich = the Ann Arbor campus, and because of different standards it's very important to separate it from Dearborn and Flint. Therefore keep things the way they are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the YorkU, Nipissing University, University of Guelph, McMaster University, UBC, McGill University articles includes all their campuses. Anyways, the University of Toronto, according to their Faculty and Schools page [1], treats the two satellite campuses as if they were faculties, like the "Faculty of ArtSci" or "Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering".

Jphillips23 + Johnny: You cannot possibly treat UofT like a University System (i.e. University of California, University of Quebec) because it isn't. At UC and UQ, each "campus" is actually an independent affliate University. Utoronto campuses, while autonomous from St. George, they are not independent. The way they are ran is very similar to the way the utoronto colleges are operated. nat.utoronto 17:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nat, it is not correct to treat the Scarborough and Mississauga as faculties. If you observe the university governance structure, you'll find that the principals of Scarborough and Mississauga are at the vice-presidential level and report directly to central administration, unlike the deans of faculties which are under the provost.[2] This is quite similar to the governance structure at U of Michigan and makes it different from the universities you listed (which only have minor branches that are rarely considered separately). I did not wish to get this technical before you brought up the point since it's not that important at the practical level.

You are right that Toronto is not a university system with many campuses like U of California, which is why I don't think we should create a Toronto system article; I only proposed it as perhaps a way to reach a compromise. Also, don't forget the California is still one big institution with a central administration that awards a single UC degree. The difference here is that U of Toronto and Michigan both have a main campus that also houses the central administration, while California and Texas are true university systems where each campus reports to the central administration. Nonetheless, in either case the campuses are mostly autonomous, as you pointed out. On the practical and common sense level, people do not think in such technical terms and will still talk about Mississauga, Scarborough, Dearborn, Ann Arbor, UCLA, etc. I agree with the anonymous user above: it's very important to keep the campus articles separate since the distinction does matter a lot. I encourage you to look at University of Michigan and perhaps even ask the editors there, as its situation is very close to this with three campuses organized in similar fashion. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created University of Toronto (disambiguation) as a compromise that follows the example of University of Michigan (disambiguation). In Talk:University_of_Michigan, the disambiguation page resolved a very similar problem involving an editor that tried to add info on satelite campuses into the main article. I know the anon user above advocates no change at all, but this should be acceptable to most people as it was in the Michigan article. Although I don't think we should create a university system article (for reasons mentioned before and also by others), the disambiguation can be easily redirected to such an article later if there is a need to create one. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation is a start. I disagree with the anon that UofT automatically means St. George campus. When I tell people I go to UofT, they always ask, "which campus, downtown?". They never automatically assume that it's the downtown campus and not the others. Secondly, I'm quite sure that the other two campuses are included in the major umbrella of the university, because I asked my professor about it. And, while he lectures at the downtown campus, he is actually the person who is now considering and interviewing the applicants for teaching positions at UofT Scarborough. It's not that very distinct. Orane (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Orane, with all due respect, I've re-read your posts and I think you may have gotten the wrong idea about some intentions here. Nobody is trying to suggest that Scarborough and Mississauga don't belong to U of Toronto, just as nobody denies that Dearborn and Flint are part of the University of Michigan, or that Berkeley and UCLA are part of the University of California. Nonetheless, there is no question that the campuses in each of those universities (and many others) are substantially distinct with their very own distinct identities, culture and administration, both in operation and in common perception. That's why the clearest and most logical way for readers is to keep the information about each campus, including the main campus, within their own articles. Doing this does not imply that Scarborough and Mississauga are not part of U of T; in fact, the disambiguation as well as the lead paragraph already make this point very clear. At the risk of sounding repetitive, there are many university articles that are arranged the same way with no problems. So if you are worried about that implication, you needn't be worried. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)