Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

Latest comment: 7 days ago by Robminchin in topic Third opinion requested
WikiProject iconHigher education Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

  WikiProject Higher education
Main pages
Main project talk
  Participants category talk
Project category talk
Infobox talk
Manual of style
Article guideline talk
  Higher education stubs talk
Assessment talk
Collaboration of the Month (inactive) talk
Outreach (inactive) talk
List of articles talk
Articles for Deletion
Clean-up List
Popular pages
Task Forces
Student Affairs talk
Things To Do
  1. Work on articles that need cleanup.
  2. Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles.
  3. Place {{WikiProject Higher education}} on every related talk page.
  4. Combat boosterism wherever it appears
  5. Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.

Request for Expert Contributions


Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to invite your expertise and collaboration in improving the quality and accuracy of the Wikipedia article draft on Don Bosco College, Panjim. As experts and contributors in this field, your insights and contributions would be invaluable in ensuring that the information presented is comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

The current draft can be found here: Draft:Don Bosco College, Panjim

We are particularly looking for improvements in the following areas:

  1. History: Detailed historical background and significant milestones.
  2. Academic Programs: Comprehensive list and descriptions of academic programs offered.
  3. Notable Alumni: Information on notable alumni and their achievements.
  4. References: Addition of reliable sources to improve the article's credibility.
  5. Notability: Information and sources that demonstrate the college's significance and impact.

Improving the notability of the draft is crucial for its acceptance as a full Wikipedia article. Notability can be established through reliable secondary sources such as news articles, academic papers, and books that discuss the college in detail.

Contributing to Wikipedia is a collaborative and transparent process. You can make edits directly to the draft, or if you prefer, share your suggestions and sources here, and we can incorporate them accordingly. Your contributions will be properly cited, ensuring that your work is recognized.

Thank you for considering this request. Your participation would greatly enrich the Wikipedia community and help disseminate reliable information to a global audience.

Best regards,


If you have any questions or need assistance with editing, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Note: This request has been made in good faith to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing and citation. Please ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability and no original research.

Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York City) has been nominated for discussion


Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York City) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Graham (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

University system alumni and faculty cats


Should the alumni and faculty cats for a university system such as University of Wisconsin System be made into container cats so all the articles must be diffused into the different colleges or are there too many exceptions to make this useful? For example, Category:University of Wisconsin alumni or Category:State University of New York faculty would be container cats. One issue is some of the subcats for colleges would have small numbers, which may raise objections. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not a category expert, but I'd say that we should always be categorizing someone by the specific school they went to, so a diffusion tag seems appropriate. Sdkbtalk 15:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
They should have relevant subcategories but be aware that not every bio will have sources that stop to make clear exactly which component they were in. You also have the issue of people who were at the institution before it became a system (e.g. Wisconsin) plus outside the US the importance of universities vis a vis component colleges can vary widely, sometimes even within the same institution. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Someone at UW-Madison before UW became a system should still be categorized under UW-Madison, I'd say — it's undergone a bureaucratic/name change, but the school itself is still the defining element. Sdkbtalk 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at List of people associated with the University of London of List of University of Calcutta people, for example, there are a number of people for which the specific school is unknown, which would carry over into any categorisation. Even with the US, it might not be possible to tell (to continue the example above) if someone graduated from UW-Madison if the source only gives UW and no graduation date.
As WP:DIFFUSE is a general rule, people whose specific school is known should probably already be diffused rather than placed in the upper category. It might be better, therefore, to use {{Category diffuse}} rather than {{Container category}}. Robminchin (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
An additional confusion is that some institutions are organised so that someone can be an alum of a specific school but not of the parent federal institution. Many people attended University College London (or other London colleges) in the 19th century without ever matriculating in the University of London (Mahatma Ghandi being probably the most famous example), so it's not clear that diffusion is even possible in such cases. Sometimes institutions have left a federal arrangement to become independent (e.g., the University of Roehampton, Imperial College, Newcastle University, or the University of Dundee) or have moved from one federal arrangement to another (e.g., Regent's Park College, Oxford, part of the University of London 1901–1927). All of these would probably have to be considered non-diffusing as they aren't simply sub-categories. Robminchin (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Current discrepency between Wikipedia Guidelines


There is currently an inconsistency between the criteria on this page Wikipedia:College and university article advice with:

"In general, most legitimate colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia."

and the page on Notability

"All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.)"

This discrepancy has led to several university articles to be deleted as can be exemplified List of universities in Ecuador at some point most if not all the Universities had an article. I believe this divergance in criteria is leading to Systemic bias at least with regards to higher education in Ecuador. I've proposed to translate the existing articles for universities in Ecuador found in, but wouldn't want to go through that process if they are going to be deleted for notability. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A couple of sentences further on, the article advice says: "This notability advice is an application of the general notability guideline to the articles this project covers, not a replacement of said guideline. Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions." The opening sentence is simply an observation, not a notability criteron, so there is no divergence. The general notability guideline does say that: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." If there is significant coverage of universities in Ecuador in Spanish-language sources (which still need to be reliable and independent), this can be used to establish notability.
However, I just looked through the red links at List of universities in Ecuador, and only three of them were previously deleted – most have never existed. The ones that were deleted were due to them being promotional, not (specifically) because of a lack of notability, so the notability guidelines don't appear to be the issue here. The most recent deletion is also lacking an article on the Spanish language Wikipedia, which appears to have been repeatedly deleted (and is now creation protected) due to being promotional (see [1]). It looks like there's no systemic bias, just the normal rules against promotional content being applied. Robminchin (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Robminchin
Thank you for your feed back.
I will proceed to update List of universities in Ecuador with the information on Universidades de Ecuador which has a better distribution of the current situation of universities in Ecuador.
I am an Alumnus of Universidad Del Pacífico - Ecuador the article mentioned as the most recent deletion. I wrote the article in 2009 a 6 years after graduating, I'll admit that the article at the time was copy of the blurb used on the universities web page, which at the time was marked as NPOV and corrected. I then used the existing articles at the time (which is the reason that in my mind the list had more blue links) to format and correct the article. The deleted article is consistent with Past Practices, and from checking the current entries kept the same format. I still recieve the Alumni Newsletter so if there was something relevant that I could source, I did.
I would appreciate input to understand how the deleted article which as per requet was duly refferenced with sources available online, differs from say Politecnica Salesiana University which isn't sourced or Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja which is just a list of the careers offered. HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't part of that deletion discussion, but from what was written it sounds like the nomination was due to the tone of the article appearing promotional rather than that the institution failed the notability criteria. A possible question over notability was implied by pointing out that that references did not provide significant coverage, but that was "in addition" to the main issue of the article appearing promotional. Further discussion did talk about notability, and no sources were provided to demonstrate that the institution was notable.
You should take care with the reliability and independence of the sources as well as their depth of coverage – the alumni newsletter wouldn't be considered an independent source, for example, but it might point you to news stories that would be independent sources. That the article was originally based on the blurb from the university's web page would also have been an issue, because of copyright, but it looks like that wasn't mentioned!
One of the frequently referenced principles on Wikipedia is WP:Other Stuff Exists. This says, in a nutshell, that you shouldn't worry (too much) about what other stuff is out there that maybe also should be deleted – each page stands on its own merits. I'd also note that a page that is considered to be promotional is far more likely to fall under WP:Blow it up and start over than an unreferenced stub – making it much more likely that a promotional article will be nominated for deletion, with its notability then being questioned, than an inoffensive stub. It also makes it less likely that people will spend much time and effort defending it (and that there is more than one Universidad del Pacifico in Latin America can also complicate finding sources).
Having said that, a quick Google News search for '"Universidad Del Pacifico" Ecuador' throws up results from reliable independent sources such as El Universo[2] and Times Higher Education[3] that are specifically about the institution rather than passing references and so should count as significant coverage. Unfortunately, it seems these (and other sources thrown up by that search) were not brought to the attention of the deletion discussion.
If a university is up for deletion, it's always acceptable to post a neutral message on the talk page here to say that it's taking place (see various notices above for examples) and link to the discussion. Robminchin (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Once again thank you for your feedback. As you mentioned the Alumni Newsletter was never used as a source, but relevant information from the newsletter was researched and sourced respectively. I understand that the sources weren't brough up during the deletion discussion, this is because I took it as a given that the sources were cited within the article.
Would you recomend that I contact the admin that deleted the discussion and request that it be relisted onto this project in order to get more insight onto the deletion discussion? HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Culinary Institute of America request


Hi editors, I'm Robin, here on behalf of The Culinary Institute of America as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I posted an edit request up on the school's article Talk page to update some of the statistical information in the article, would anyone here be interested in reviewing it? Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like @ was the one that brought that article to GA status. they might be interested in looking at the edit request if they're willing to come out of their retirement (and we hope they will). Sdkbtalk 06:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor of Nursing Practice § NPOV issues regarding educational requirements. Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help Formating


On the page List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the images to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in [spanish] --HarveyPrototype (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:VPT may be a better venue to get technical help. For what it's worth, the Spanish version looks pretty miserable on my current computer - the images are all stacked at the top of the article and then the table is below it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the input, it seems that when tab isn't occupying the full screen that's what it looks like.
I was editing with two screens side by side and that made it look terrible. HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Assistance requested at North Idaho College


Can someone else please take a look at the recent edit history of North Idaho College and the related discussion in Talk:North Idaho College? Two editors disagree about the inclusion of some material and would benefit from input from other editors. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Doctor of Philosophy#Requested move 24 May 2024


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Doctor of Philosophy#Requested move 24 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robminchin (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

When should an institution that is closing be added to the proper disestablishment category?


There seems to be disagreement among editors about when an institution that is in the process of being closing should be added to the appropriate disestablishment category. Here are two recent examples:

All of these editors are editing in good faith. No one disputes that these institutions are in the process of closing. There is, however, disagreement about when it's appropriate to place these articles, and presumably others in similar situations, into the appropriate disestablishment category. So I think that is the question on the table: When is it appropriate to place an article about a college or university that is closing into the appropriate disestablishment category?

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to do this until the institution has actually closed. Even after the last class has been taught and the last class has graduated, there is still significant work that usually takes months - ensuring that teach out plans are carried out, transitioning institutional records to the party who will be responsible for maintaining them, closing out financial records, etc. During that time, the institution still exists as a corporate entity even though it does so in a very different state than it did when it was a fully functioning educational institution. So I don't think it's correct to say that it's been completely disestablished at that point.

Other editors who have been directly involved in these edits should have received an automatic notice since I linked to their user account above and I welcome their perspectives and recommendations. And other editors are also invited to share their thoughts and advice. ElKevbo (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for posting this question. I guess the answer depends on whether one thinks of "disestablishment" as a done-deal or as a process. In the cases of Wells College and Goddard College -- two institutions that are in the process of closing in 2024, I would think that it would be value-added to readers to indicate that they were (being) disestablished. Why wait until the last door is closed, the last light turned off, the last bill paid? It might be years... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For me, it's natural to interpret these categories as being about institutions that have been disestablished, not institutions that have been or are in the process of being disestablished. But I don't ever work with categories, much less these specific categories. Is there any established practice for their usage or any relevant documentation or history in how they are used? ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not that I'm aware of with disestablishment categories. We do have clear precedent with the opposite though: categorizing things that will start happening in the future, like Category:2028 Summer Olympics.
Of course this assumes the "almost certain to take place" exception is met in WP:CRYSTALBALL. But even that's not full proof: the 2020 Olympics ended up being held in 2021. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I would favor adding categories as soon as there are reliable sources that a end of classes is planned by a certain date and concrete steps are being taken (like a teach-out plan).
The WP:CRYSTALBALL section of the content policy wants to avoid speculation but has a pretty clear exception: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place".
In general, categories need to be WP:DEFINING and I can hardly think of anything more defining than a school closing next month! And the point of categories in general is to aid reader navigation and it seems likely that someone looking at the Wells College article might wonder what other colleges are closing this year.
Thanks for opening this discussion. I look forward to other viewpoints. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that I added a neutral notice over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization to encourage more viewpoints. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wizzito: Pinging you to make sure you see this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a great discussion and I'm glad we are having it. I usually tend to try and copy-edit condense sometimes add to colleges that are closing and I know there is lots of back and forth on this. My two cents: we should prioritize what regional accreditors and state department of educations say. You have some weird cases like King's College in NY, that still says they are open despite not having any students for over a year.
I think that when spring classes end, or when graduation happens is usually too early, but most of these places are ceasing instruction around June 30th of each closure year, just following these sort of closures the last 5 years or so. Just because there are accountants still doing 990s for another year or two doesn't in my book mean the college is still open. For some of the weird cases like King's and ASA, we add a note or two and let time do what it will. Jjazz76 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A couple of further thoughts: (a) With disestablishments categorized by year, I would think that listing an institution as a "2024 disestablishment" could be done anytime (perhaps even in a prior year) that that disestablishment was formally announced. Why wait? (b) The term, "defunct", I relate to somewhat differently. With respect to educational institutions, for all intents and purposes, I would think of "defunct" as when there no longer were any matriculated students. So, for schools that were in the process of closing, "defunct" only after graduation, the end of all classes, etc. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that's actually a good point and a good idea. The time of the announcement does seem like a fine time to add the disestablishment tag, even if it is somewhat speculative. The reversal of closure announcements is pretty rare (Hampshire College, maybe one or two others.) It also helps remind us of which institutions are closing which is often news when the announcement is made and everyone just forget about it afterwards. Cleaning up the NY State College list a few months ago, there were at least half dozen colleges that had closed years before that were still on the list because everyone just forgot about them.
Using the tag in this way is also a useful way for us to monitor for those that jump the gun and put "this institution is closed" when it still has a semester and summer session left of classes.
I actually used the tag last night to double check the institutions that had already closed in 2024, but these were of the sudden closure variety where a college just closed up shop and shut the doors mid-semester. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or where the spring semester ends earlier than other institutions like Oak Point University. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for late response, have been busy. I generally agree with ElKevbo's position that we don't add the categories until a stated closure date. But I recognize there are some institutions where the exact date is not said. wizzito | say hello! 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think some feel a sense of urgency to report this type of event. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a crystal ball. Articles are supposed to reflect actual happenings, not projected outcomes. Same as with announcements of new chancellors--we don't update the Infobox until installation has taken place. It is fine to add text indicating the closure announcement and its source. However, the institution is not defunct until the date has passed and/or there is a source backing its actual closure. Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear on not forecasting outcomes. Rublamb (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We agree on the defunct part. But we're both citing WP:CRYSTALBALL but landing on different sides of the conversation for adding the disestablishment date. The relevant passage to me was the exception when "the event is notable and almost certain to take place".
Is your concern that some of these schools will find last-minute funding/students and not close after all? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This ws a real issue at St Benet's Hall, Oxford where I reverted any statement of actual closure before October 2022, although closure was effectively inevitable from May 2022. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well that actually happend with Sweet Briar College in Virginia, so yes. Rublamb (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recommend recat upon actual closing, and not upon announcement. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with FieldMarine. Don't change the cat until the establishment is actually closed. Sure, mention the expected closing in the article, but until it closes, it shouldn't be in the disestablished cat (any more than we would add one that was expected to open in, say 2028, to the established in 2028 cat now). Meters (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Input requested at Talk:Higher_education_in_India


There is a content dispute discussed at Talk:Higher education in India § Global competency and alignment section that would benefit from wider input. (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Third opinion requested


A third opinion is requested in a discussion between two editors at Talk: University of Cambridge#Endowment size. Robminchin (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply