Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Multiple articles and discussions being contentiously edited to add or remove "prestige" and rankings in the lede

It appears that there are several editors who are currently disputing the inclusion or removal of statements about prestige and rankings in the lede of multiple articles about US colleges and universities:

• Brown University: Undisputed removal of a general statement of rankings
• College of William & Mary: Dispute about general statements of prestige and rankings
• Columbia University: Undisputed removal of a general statement of rankings
• Johns Hopkins University‎: Dispute about a general statement of prestige and rankings
• Northwestern University‎: Dispute about a general statement of rankings
• University of Arizona‎: Dispute about inclusion of a 2021 NSF research funding ranking and language around the university's membership in the Association of American Universities
• University of Chicago‎: Dispute about a general statement of prestige and rankings
• University of Michigan‎: Dispute about a general statement of prestige and rankings
• Yale University: Dispute about a general statement of prestige and rankings

There are probably some other articles but I think this list is sufficient to illustrate that these edits, many of which have been disputed by other editors - sometimes with discussion taking place in Talk and sometimes without any substantive discussion, are somewhat widespread. It's a relatively small group of editors involved in these edits and discussions but there are a relatively small number of editors who regularly edit college and university articles in general so that's not surprising or concerning.

There was an RfC in 2020 that specifically addressed this content. That discussion was closed with these consensus findings:

"[T]here is consensus that, to include text on "reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)" in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:

• maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the * lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
• following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
• ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
• being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
• adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
  • by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
  • by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone.
• [T]here is a consensus that if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met.

... Although not specifically addressed, in this RfC, the general principle of WP:ONUS would of course apply — consensus must be obtained before reinstating material challenged on the grounds of V, RS, NPOV/WEIGHT, or any other policy."

It might be desirable to remind one another of this RfC. It may even be desirable to revisit it or centralize discussion of these issues here instead of across multiple articles. ElKevbo (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the editors involved in these edits in the articles specifically mentioned above: @Robminchin:, @Roaringwikifan:, @Drevolt:, @Pbritti:, @Wozal:, @Deng92.9:, @GGO111:, @SassySalt:, @92.96.253.251:, @Comprehensive-design:, @2600:1700:291:4a40:4560:19f6:7640:7c56:, @2600:1700:291:4a40:5c48:32a6:4f15:d36:, @73.24.189.66:, @Karvlig:, @Filetime:, @Zizyfuz:, @Botanicalgardens500:, @Magnolia677:, @Cfls:. Apologies if I missed anyone! ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no general objection to the inclusion of statements on prestige where there are suitable sources, but such cases are few and far between. In most cases, there is (or was) a claim of prestige made on the basis of one or two rankings, not citing any sources that actually reached the conclusion stated. This clearly doesn't meet the general standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, even before considering whether putting it in the lead is undue. Robminchin (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of consistency across pages on Wikipedia in general and a deference towards those with a better comprehension of the general subject matter, I wholly second Robminchin's statement and appreciate ElKevbo taking this step. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nicely said, I completely agree with all of this. Drevolt (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

It seems from following the discussion you linked, that ElKevbo was not engaging in CoI editing but was, in fact, editing a completely separate article. There does not appear to be any dispute currently relating to the lede of the University of Delaware article, although it has been brought up as WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS in a dispute regarding another article, where ElKevbo stated, quite correctly, that he couldn't edit the University of Delaware page because of CoI. This has all the hallmarks of an ad hominem attack and does not appear to be on topic here. Robminchin (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Here, we should be concentrating on the general guidelines for inclusion, which follow standard Wikipedia policy. We should be clear, for instance, that we don't use words like prestigious to describe institutions unless that description is backed up by multiple high quality sources. Similarly, we don't try to imply prestige by association, such as describing in the lead of an institution's article that a group that an institution is a member of is "prestigious". With rankings, any mention in the lead must give due weight and broad coverage. If included at all, it should be low down in the lead and should include major national and international rankings – not just rankings that make an institution look good.

In the case you mention, and without looking into it in great depth, one issue is likely to be the use of a primary source – government statistics – to try to form an impression of the institution in the lead. Use of primary source is always tricky, which is why we don't tend to rely on them. While the actual expenditure is likely to be fine in the lead, as it's simple statistics about the institution, the inclusion of the ranking is more dubious. Robminchin (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

By all means, use prestigious on the article on the AAU itself if there are sufficient high quality sources to justify it, but using it to imply prestige by association on articles about members is not acceptable. If anyone is interested, they can click through and read the article on the AAU, but there is no need or reason to mention it everywhere it is being linked.

The raw data on expenditure, as I said before, would probably be fine, and could certainly be argued as important information, but the ranking is not important information. Besides the concerns about misuse of primary sources, it would also seem to be giving undue weight to a ranking based on one very particular measure. To stick to general principles: rankings on a particular objective measure, with the most common examples probably being size or age, should only be given if the institution's ranking on that measure is particularly notable. Third oldest is notable and worth stating; 25th oldest is not worth mentioning. Largest is notable; 52nd largest is not. Robminchin (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

To add, the reason we can tell that a ranking on a particular measure is notable, if this is debated, is, of course, that reliable independent sources mention it in the context of the institution. This is one reason we can't just pluck the ranking out of the primary source. Robminchin (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Further, please do not edit your earlier responses that have already been replied to, particularly not to add more names ad hominem attacks. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Per WP:RPA, I have removed the personal attacks from this discussion and left a warning on your talk page. Robminchin (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about "areas of competence", it's about the basic Wikipedia policy of NPOV – that we don't insert our own opinions. In many cases, it's not necessary to demonstrate that something being the oldest or largest is notable enough to go in the lead, because everyone agrees on this, but if you want to argue that an institution being ranked 36th or whatever on research expenditure is important enough to go in the lead, you should at the very least be able to point to secondary sources that discuss that as an important feature of the institution. If you can't, then its inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Robminchin (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not discussing individual articles here, just the general principles. But to use Arizona as an example of how those principles would be applied in this case:

The only mention of Arizona is a university press release. This does not establish that this is important. The Forbes listicle, which is dubiously significant coverage, doesn't mention Arizona. Thus it would appear that Arizona's position in this ranking is a significant feature of the university such that it would merit mention in the lead.

Note this is an example of how to apply it. Discussion should be held on the University of Arizona talk page. Remember, also, that the WP:ONUS is in the person proposing inclusion to demonstrate that it is not WP:UNDUE. Robminchin (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @ElKevbo for starting this thread.

A few notes here:

1) I'm not convinced that prestige is something that can ever be ranked. I'm also not convinced there are any rankings that claim to measure prestige. I feel that it's one of those things that if you boast you have it, you don't. As such, I have concerns with that specific word appearing in articles.

2) I think it's nearly impossible to talk about prestige without the "ivy league" being brought up. The ivy league is a sports conference. I'm aware that others use it outside of that context, but that are its origins. There are no other articles which I'm aware of which mention sports conferences within the first line.

3)Likewise, there are articles that mention they are "Public Ivys", "Hidden Ivys", or "New Ivys" which are usually followed up with something about providing a similar education to the Ivy League. If USNews has issues with its rankings (with some data), I find it odd that we're entertaining the notion of some categorization devised by an author or a few authors without understanding their methodology for doing so.

4)I think Rankings by total R&D expenditures is a good starting point to "gauge STEM research activities in academia" but is there more we should consider? Does spending per faculty/student matterDoes it matter that some schools are declining while others are improving?

5) Does it matter how much NIH funding certain schools receive? Is there a way to rank funding provided by other sources?

6) Do acceptances rate matter and does that impact how well a school is regarded? Do the number of applicants matter? (Juliard comes to mind here on not having as many applicants and is unranked by USNews and other major ranking systems.)

7) Should something measurable like the freshmen-retention and graduation rate be included when considering rankings?

8) ETA: Also, should employer rankings be included in the lede? I've seen this on at least one wikipedia article and it seems like some sort of ranking system within their city or state mostly? It just seems odd to me

9) Are there other rankings by USNews or elsewhere that would be more helpful with additional context? Social Mobility? Least/Most Debt? Average amount of financial aid package covering tuition? International student population?

Wozal (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the large texts of thoughts below:

Just to clarify: I never stated that we should continue to use "ivy league" in the lead. If the opening paragraph were to remain factual, I'm not sure it does anything. The Ivy League does not describe whether a school is public nor private nor does it describe whether it is research university or a liberal arts college. Its also implies that education around its members are equal which might be hard to prove since its original intention is that of a sports conference and there are many schools which are thought of as equally rigorous or highly regarded despite not being a member of the ivy league.

Which brings me to the next point: I'm not sure "public ivies", "little ivies" or "hidden ivies" bring anything to the table and just reinforce the notion that the ivy league are considered the top academic institutions and anything else can't be. The criteria for some of these are often so narrow that it nearly seems like a selected presorted picklist.

"According to its page, "Public Ivy" is an informal term to refer to public colleges and universities in the United States that are perceived to provide a collegiate experience on the level of Ivy League universities. There is no trademark for the term, and the list of schools associated with the classification have changed over time."

But what does it mean to provide a collegiate experience on the level of Ivy League universities? And why are we using an informal term and who is determining that?

The article goes on to clarify:

"He traveled the nation examining higher education institutions, and selected eight that were comparable to the Ivy League."

According to this (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-many-universities-are-in-the-us-and-why-that-number-is-changing), there are 1,625 public colleges in the US. I find it unlikely he examined all of them. This also suggests that other models like MIT or Stanford or Chicago while ranked highly aren't considered in this model despite being closed to HYP than Brown (open curriculum) or Dartmouth (undergraduate-focused) I just fail to see what that term means when the categorization is so broad.

In the Hidden Ivies wiki: "According to Union College, "the authors contend that students who attend one of the 'Hidden Ivies' are likely to acquire critical skills or instincts, including cooperation, leadership, collaboration, mentoring, appreciating personal, religious and cultural differences, and 'learning the truth that intelligence without character, personal integrity and a working set of values can be a dangerous thing.'"

Isn't that the point of most colleges though? Is a school not allowed to be considered a highly ranked school without some sort of Ivy attached to it? With all the issues that are often thrown at USNews, why don't we have the same concerns with ivy-like titles that seem to have less clarity and transparency than other major ranking institutions?

Sidenote: I think part of the reason "ivy league" and "flagship" in the lead give me pause in is because they are often placed in infoboxes under type despite the boxes for it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_university) not having a spot for it specifically. "General type of the institution. Include public vs. private, single-gender, for-profit status (assumed non-profit if omitted), undergraduate vs. graduate, vocational focus (e.g. business school), etc." The term "landmark" is also vague because it can be referring to the state or the school system but it's more commonly seen in public universities. Some states also don't have them. Some states have multiple. It gives an impression that these flagship colleges may have more resources or opportunities than private universities who don't use the term or other colleges which don't have that resource. It also gives an impression that flagships are easily compared. There's also at least one college that claims to be the flagship college of engineering in their state.

I think part of the reason that ivies are given so much power is because we constantly give them that power by so often comparing everyone else to them, which then others start believing the same thing. However, I think it's important to remember that colleges outside of the ivy league can be considered a top school. There are no rankings that measure prestige though which is again where my issue with that specific word come. I have no issue with the word "top" or whatever specific terms other ranking systems use.

If we are to keep rankings in the lead, I think it's important to clarify whether we're talking about top 10, top 14 (used often for law school I think) top 20, or top 50. It might also be worthwhile to consider whether we're considering only "National" and top-ranked "Liberal Arts Colleges" or whether that conversation also includes regionally ranked colleges/universities.

Wozal (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the basic principle is that the content of the lead should follow standard Wikipedia guidelines: we should only be mentioning reputation if it's particularly notable and backed by solid sources. Wikipedia policy (WP:SUBJECTIVE) is that "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers". The onus is on the editor seeking to put in a comment on subjective reputation to provide sources that demonstrate that opinion about the subject is widespread, useful to readers, and not disputed. At that point, we can, per the policy linked above, say that the institution is widely considered prestigious (or similar wording). Robminchin (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Very strong sources are needed for this kind of claim, and a very small number of universities actually have the sources needed to support claims along these lines, but sources supporting such a claim do exist in that limited number of cases. I think this is a pretty straightforward consequence of WP:ASF (and thus WP:NPOV). Drevolt (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m with you on a lot of this, and I think it’s good to minimize the use of squishy terms like “prestige” in all but the most extreme cases (and even then, better to avoid if possible).

However, I think it’s also important to recognize that a word like “top” is similarly vague and squishy on its own. Do we mean the top 5? The top 50? The top 500? Or does even being included in rankings at all make a university “one of the top” (since many aren’t even ranked)? Establishing an arbitrary cutoff is always going to create problems, especially since ordinary language doesn’t involve arbitrary cutoffs for such terms.

I think it’s always ideal to just avoid such wording entirely and simply report the objective facts (which is primarily the job of the rankings section). I guess I might not be opposed to a very narrow carveout for something like the consensus top 5 universities in the world (or maybe even 10), since those are the least ambiguous cases of being ranked “among the top”, but anything beyond that is way too vague to pass muster with WP:ASF. Drevolt (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be opposed to Wikipedia editors deciding to create that kind of carveout using our own opinion and judgment. There are likely some instances where such cutoffs already exist and are frequently used in the literature (e.g., the "Top 14" seems to be a big deal for U.S. law schools) and it may be appropriate to mention that in the lede of the appropriate articles. But in those cases we would also need to ensure that (a) the information in the lede is supported by good, independent sources and (b) the body of the article also discusses it and does so in more detail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid phrases like "along the top", "elite", "among the highest ranked" and all other WP:WEASEL words and phrases, unless (as with prestigious) they reflect what is actually said in high quality sources. Robminchin (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the top 20 is often referred at the undergraduate level. I've seen T20 be used much more than other terms that seem to be aimed at language aiming to impress. The issue there is that it almost exclusively refers to USNews rankings.

Similar to T14 programs for law school, I've also heard of Philosophical Gourmet Reports being of note for philosophy programs That might be better suited for the appropriate grad schools though. Wozal (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I have concerns with universities needing 4 of the top rankings systems. (Besides the what makes it one of the "top ranking systems), those systems are often set out to favor research institutions.

According to ARWU's website, it states: ARWU uses six objective indicators to rank world universities, including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Clarivate, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded™ and Social Sciences Citation Index™ in the Web of Science™, and per capita performance of a university. More than 2500 universities are actually ranked by ARWU every year and the best 1000 are published.(Methodology)

"

There is a lot of criteria here that a number of liberal arts colleges and universities would not care about which because the focus isn't on research. By nature, most LCs tend to be smaller and not have graduate programs which places them at a huge disadvantage for appearing on a list like this and those with similar criteria.

Wozal (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The global rankings are very research focused, which is why they shouldn't be given alone when there are national rankings (which are generally more holistic, as measures of teaching are much more specific to national systems) available – the global rankings alone do not give a broad (and thus neutral) overview of an institution. The US national rankings either have separate tables for research institutions and liberal arts colleges (US News) or combine the two into a single table by using measures that work (in as much as rankings can be said to work) for both (WSJ/THE), but in either case they are using measures other than just research.

Robminchin (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, we don't need to answer most of those questions as they constitute original research. Instead, editors who believe that kind of information needs to be included in an article, especially the lede of an article, need to provide good, independent, and reliable sources that explicitly support the claim. That's the core of the 2020 RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Drevolt (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that a few of the editors here are trying to rehash the WP:HIGHEREDREP discussion. That's not going to be productive — per WP:CONLEVEL, that RfC is going to override anything we might happen to decide here, and it certainly overrides discussion at individual articles.

Given that, the question we should be asking is, how do we proceed in light of the current consensus? In many of the cases above, we're talking about highly prestigious institutions, so the high-quality sources presumably exist — I would be shocked if there's nothing about e.g. Brown's reputation out there, given that I was able to find sources for much smaller institutions.

But these sources aren't particularly easy to find. When editors are coming into conflict over "do we provide the U.S. News ranking, cited to U.S. News, or do we provide nothing?" the best way to diffuse the situation is to find actually good sources and write a statement reflecting them. It's more work than a revert but probably less work than a protracted argument and will leave the article in better shape. I think we should prioritize this work for the Ivies+, since as much as I wish editors would look to our listed model articles/UNIGUIDE, in reality they just look to the Ivies, presuming (incorrectly) that they're our highest-quality articles.

Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this raises the question of "do we want to". Yes, statements of prestige are allowed under the RFC, if backed by appropriate references, but that's a long way from saying we should spend our time digging up references and adding statements of prestige to articles. I don't think this will stop people adding statements of prestige based on poor references to other article; indeed it seems likely that seeing statements of prestige on other university articles is likely to encourage them to add such statements. This doesn't remove the problem, it just moves it.

I would also note that on most of the articles where I have removed statements of prestige from the lead due to not actually having sources that backed the claim, there has been little or no argument. Robminchin (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, writing an encyclopedia is hard, but if the information is due, and I'd say it very much is, then it should be added. That's what we've signed up for. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that putting reputation in the lead is necessary to give it due weight – that certainly wasn't what the RfC said. And the reality of writing an encyclopedia is that for most articles we're working to get to GA 'broad coverage' rather than FA 'comprehensive coverage'. Robminchin (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

When sources (including neutral ones) talk about a college, its level of prestige is almost always one of the first things mentioned. If you asked someone, "start telling me about X University," they would mention the level of prestige almost always before or along with many of the other elements we routinely include in the lead. I recognize that reputations are a hard element to include, but that's not an excuse to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they're unimportant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet the RfC closing said: 'maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view)'. The current consensus is that reputational statements only rise to the level of importance where they should be included in the lead in exceptional cases. As you said earlier, rehashing the RfC here is not going to be productive. Robminchin (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Robminchin, fair point. I hadn't checked the RfC result in a while and see that you are right.

Many of the institutions above do have a pretty distinct reputation, so to choose a practical example with a more middling ranking, I'm curious what you'd like to see at Brandeis University. That article currently has no direct statement on reputation in its lead (although the R1 designation and a prominent alumni list, both of which are proxies in a sense), and a crufty bulleted ranking section. There's a high-quality (albeit dated) source on its reputation in the NYT article "Brandeis at 50 Is Still Searching, Still Jewish and Still Not Harvard".

My suggestion, given what you've said above, is to leave the lead alone as good enough, remove the cruft from the rankings section, retitle that section "Reputation and rankings," and add a paragraph cited to the NYT that goes something like, Brandeis' founders aspired for it to become the "Harvard of the Jews", but that vision was stymied as discrimination against Jews in higher education waned, which led many of the smartest Jewish students to attend non-Jewish elite institutions. The university's admissions today are considered selective, but it has been frustrated by its failure to rank alongside the most prestigious non-Jewish institutions. Does that sort of approach seem reasonable to you? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this, but apparently I only thought it. That approach sounds very reasonable to me – including this sort of things in the reputation and rankings section is a very good idea, and might well help move it away from being just a rankings section. Robminchin (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Vkhutemas

I have nominated Vkhutemas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

College of Remote and Offshore Medicine

This page is in draft form, it is a degree awarding institution on Malta. The draft has been rejected once but it looks like modifications have been made since. Would benefit from the input of people used to writing/editing higher education ages. Draft:College of Remote and Offshore Medicine 2A00:23EE:11A8:2B68:BC82:C8EE:101F:51C0 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Preferred college ranking

What is the best source we can use for rankings for the University of Minnesota in the Minneapolis article?

What we have now: College rankings for 2023 place the school in a range of 44th to 185th (2021) for academics worldwide. QS found a decline over a decade. Shanghai finds excellence in ecology, business management, library & information science, and biotechnology.

I used what Wikipedia calls the three "most influential and widely observed university rankings" college ranking orgs, but got a question on them. Now I'm wondering if somebody puffed up those three articles? I have looked through the RSN archives, this WikiProject, Wikipedia:College and university article advice, a B-class article according to the WikiProject: College and university rankings. Also looked at two FAs, Boston, Cleveland, and (former FA) San Francisco, none of which seems to follow a standard. Boston cites the Carnegie Classification and membership in the Association of American Universities. Cleveland and San Francisco cite US News & World Report. WP:RSP says US News & World Report is generally considered reliable. So I am tempted to go back to it despite the new WP:USCITIES guideline.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@SusanLesch, good question! Our advice page talks about rankings here and here. I think what you really ideally want, more than rankings, is high-quality sources discussing the reputation of the university. I would search the site of Minnesota's main newspaper(s) to see if there are articles that discuss the university's prestige. If the college has a book on its history, the reviews of that (on JSTOR) can be another good place to find something. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, User:Sdkb. So you are saying I won't get an answer on this talk page? Are the sources I have used reliable and acceptable to this WikiProject? If so, we are done. If they aren't, is US News & World Report acceptable? That's an easy fix. If none of the above are acceptable, then are the Carnegie Classification and the Association of American Universities? If the answer is that none of these are acceptable, that would be the time to start digging as you suggest. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources used are fine, and are identified in multiple sources as being the three major international rankings. The US News rankings of American colleges and universities are the main national rankings in the US, but their (separate) global ranking is comparatively recent and hasn't achieved the same level of recognition (not that it's unreliable, except to the extent that all rankings are subjective analyses with their own biases, just that it's less prominent). But it's best to include more than just rankings in the "reputation and rankings" section, if possible, so it would be worth searching for information on the reputation of the university. If there are certain subjects that the university is particularly known, it might be worth mentioning these as well (assuming this can be independently verified, of course). Watch out for media coverage that is not truly independent but is repeating (or paraphrasing) what the university has told them in press releases, and for claims (like something being "world famous") that require more than local coverage. When talking about rankings or reputations, make sure to follow WP:VOICE and WP:SUBJECTIVE and be clear that these are opinions of certain people or organisations (preferably named), e.g. "Is ranked in the top 200" should be accompanied by "by Times Higher Education" (or whoever), or "Is considered Minnesota's top university for wood carving by Wood Carving Today", etc. Robminchin (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Much relieved! Thank you, User:Robminchin. You both seem interested in reputation. We have one paragraph in a city article so might not include more. For the archive in case somebody's looking later, "Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE) and Shanghai Ranking (the Academic Ranking of World Universities; ARWU) are considered among the most established and prominent global ranking bodies." Elsevier (a partner with QS) lists seven, and among them is US News & World Report. Hope this helps.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Armorial of Australian universities

Draft:Armorial of Australian universities needs some help. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Robin S. Taylor, heraldry is a fairly specialist field. I see you created Armorial of British universities, perhaps some editors there would be interested. Also you could look at Australian university articles to see who created the images for their coats of arms on Commons. TSventon (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join discussion at Harvard University

You are invited to join a discussion at Talk:Harvard University#Non-NPOV material in the lead about whether, with reference to WP:HIGHERED REP, a statement about prestige is a fact that can be given in WP:WIKIVOICE or an opinion/reputational statement that should follow the policy on Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations. Robminchin (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that "...or an opinion/reputational statement that should follow the policy on Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" is an attempt to slant the discussion in favor of Robinmichin's own opinion; many other editors disagree with that viewpoint. ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was attempting to describe the discussion by briefly presenting what appear to be the positions. I thought it was obvious that there was disagreement with that viewpoint, but I could be mistaken. Would you like to suggest better wording (and, as the other participant in this thread, would you object to the thread being deleted and replaced with improved wording)? Robminchin (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's done; let's just let it go. ElKevbo (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Transfer Admission Guarantee

Transfer Admission Guarantee suggests that it refers to a general concept, but the article and all the search results I've found refer specifically to an agreement between University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges. Am I wrong? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like a specific instance of an articulation agreement (the caps in the title also imply a proper name, but sometimes things end up in title case even though they're not supposed to). Although it seems we don't have an article on articulation agreements, just on the general process of articulation. Robminchin (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Need-blind institutions

I recently created a category for need-blind institutions and added the ones listed at need-blind admission. An editor complained on my talk that not all such institutions have cited mentions of their status in the article body, so I've begun going through the category to add those where needed (currently alphabetically at "Ch"). If anyone wants to join in, feel free. There are citations for most at the need-blind admission article, so all that's needed is to write a sentence and copy that over. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional editors requested at Talk:University of Chicago

Can some editors please drop by Talk:University of Chicago and participate in the ongoing discussion about material in the lede of the article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

NACUBO Endowment data is now available on wikidata

Hi all, Two years ago, I decided that I was going to update all the infoboxes with endowment data from the then recently released NACUBO Public NTSE tables. I spent two days doing it manually, but then I had this discussion with Sdkb about how there could be a better way – invoking wikidata. He expressed interest in adding this info to wikidata; I thought it would be a nice challenge, but I did nothing about it for next two years.

Last week I decided to learn about it, and I'm happy to announce that I successfully used OpenRefine to add enire excel-sheet worth of 2022 & 2021 NACUBO endowment data to wikidata (& Fall 2021 enrollment numbers as well). Here's an exmple edit to Georgia Southwestern State University qid.

I'm posting here in case there are people interested in making automated edits to {{infobox university}} invoking endowment values from wikidata. Thanks. Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 03:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kiran891, this is fantastic news! I edited the infobox sandbox so that it will fetch the Wikidata endowment value if one is present there and not provided here. I previewed it in a few articles (just change the infobox to "/sandbox" and remove the endowment field), and it seems to be mostly working, with a few quirks. They are:

• Sometimes it doesn't fetch the most recent year. To resolve this, we could set the most recent data to preferred priority on Wikidata (with "reason for preferred rank = most recent value").
• The autogenerated Wikidata reference has a CS1 error for a generic value in the author field. To resolve this, I'd suggest changing "author=NACUBO" to "publisher=NACUBO". (While we're at it, adding "language of work=English" and an archive link/date wouldn't hurt.)

Somewhat related to the first point, I noticed that there were a few Wikidata entries that already had endowment info, where adding the NACUBO data created a duplicate. We should try to avoid that if possible just to keep everything clean.

Once those things are resolved, and assuming others here are okay with it, we can make the change go live. At that point, any U.S. institution that doesn't have endowment info in the infobox will gain it. For the institutions that do already have the endowment field filled out, they wouldn't change, which might become an issue over time assuming that the Wikidata info is kept more up to date; how to deal with that is a bridge to cross down the road.

Courtesy pinging @Mike Peel, with whom I've previously discussed making the university infobox use Wikidata before, as this may be of interest to you.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

When the infobox in an article is set to use this, does it also display/include the year? ElKevbo (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Land acknowledgements

Infoalien (talk · contribs) recently added level-2 sections on land acknowledgements to the articles on various North American universities. I reverted these additions, and they restored them in two cases.

Infoalien, when there are editorial disagreements on Wikipedia, we follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Your addition of the sections was a bold edit, my undoing them was a revert, and we're now at the discussion stage, where we try to find consensus on what to do (and the articles should be left in the status quo state until then).

My view is that these sections are largely not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are bound by due weight considerations to follow how secondary sources discuss university histories, and currently, such sources tend to begin those histories at the inception of the institution, with only brief mention of the broader cultural conditions at the time of their founding (which would include oppression of Native Americans). Including information about the Native American history of the university's region, while leaving out other information on the history of the region not directly relevant to the university, solely as a way to highlight or redress the injustice would be an attempt to right great wrongs, which is not allowed.

The exception to this would be where Native American history is directly relevant to the university itself, not just to the region. I could see this being the case for some very old U.S. institutions, e.g. Dartmouth College (originally founded to train Native Americans as Christian missionaries), or for many institutions in countries like Australia. Even so, in those cases, the information should be presented in the history section. It also must be presented neutrally — Wikipedia itself cannot make a land acknowledgement, since that is a political act intended to redress a historical wrong. Our role is only to present the history and (where due) to discuss the actions an institution has taken to grapple with its history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Munger Hall, proposed dormitory at University of California, Santa Barbara

I recently created an article for the proposed Munger Hall. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley, interesting article! A fair-use image of a rendering would be a good addition. I think it would also definitely benefit from having a defined lead that captures in more general terms the controversy over it. Some of the current phrasing, e.g. "the dorm will x" goes against WP:CRYSTAL; I'd prefer to see that changed to "is planned to". Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be fixing it up and adding more over the next few days. I am debating over the best way to section it out. Feel free to trim or add if you like. It will make quite a fun DYK! Best, Thriley (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, for a dorm, I'd go with "History," "Design," and "Reception" sections. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Forward College draft page

Hello everyone, Forward College is a new university established in September 2021 with campuses in Lisbon, Paris and Berlin. I would like to request help to review the draft page of Forward College and ask for any advice you have. It's been a while that we are waiting for approval. Thank you in advance. Juliafariasf (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Seton Hall University

Seton Hall University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Tech Tower

I have nominated Tech Tower for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

THE(S) university blurbs

Wibool Piyawattanametha#Awards and honors tells us "2016 - Recognized on Times Higher Education Ranking Website as a notable KMITL Alumni." Putting aside the singular singularity of "Alumni", I was surprised to see THES recognizing notable alumni, so I clicked on the cited reference. Fair enough, this does say "Notable alumni include Wibool Piyawattanametha who was selected as being among the Top 40-Under-40 Young Scientists in the world by the World Economic Forum." It's a long time since I last read a copy of what I learn is now THE (it was THES in my day); but various aspects of the prose surprise me. WP:RSN has over the years had a fair amount of discussion of these and other university rankings, but I'm not here concerned about the meaningfulness of these indices; rather, I'm interested in the accompanying text. Does it look "editorial" to youse? (It looks advertorial, or "user-generated", to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find Times Higher Education#Ownership peculiarly somniferous. Something wrong with it, or with me? -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to pass WP:DUE so I don't think that we need to even address reliability. In this specific example, this brief mention is nothing like an "award or honor." ElKevbo (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

True, ElKevbo. But aside from the case of this particular claimed "award or honor", the flavor of the text -- combined with the impression I got from Times Higher Education#Ownership (before dozing off) that THE has over the last few years been passed from one obscure syndicate eager to make money off it to another -- made me wonder if the texts accompanying its "rankings" were mere advertorials. Well, it seems that they are. This is clearer from another example, the entry for University of Macau, from which I quote:

• UM has become a leading and the only public comprehensive university in Macao
• Some of our programmes are internationally recognized: [...]
• UM strives to deliver research excellence with support from the central government, Macao community and our faculty: [...]
• Looking ahead, UM will constantly improve and innovate, to become an outstanding university rooted in Macao, integrated into the Greater Bay Area, geared towards the whole country and the world; an outstanding university that makes a contribution to Macao, China, and humanity.

-- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Free University of Berlin#Requested move 30 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Free University of Berlin#Requested move 30 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Input request at Talk:University of Arkansas about the addition of tables listing student government leaders

There is a discussion at Talk:University of Arkansas about the addition of tables listing student government leaders; additional input and opinions are requested. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nigerian Turkish International Colleges#Requested move 29 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nigerian Turkish International Colleges#Requested move 29 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Alumni listing dispute at Swarthmore College

There's a dispute over which criteria (if any) should be used to list notable alumni at the main Swarthmore College article. For the last few years as a major article maintainer I've been using number of interlanguage links as a proxy for relative importance but not everyone is happy with that. see the relevant history and the discussion on its talk page. Any comments should go to the latter location. Graham87 07:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Just took a look at the dispute @Graham87. You're right in trimming down bloat and an oversized alumni section, but I don't think using interlanguage links is a good marker for importance. In the case of a school like Swarthmore, it might be worth looking into something like an h-index to measure the importance of including an alumnus. GuardianH (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it ... even though that would obviously disadvantage people who didn't make their name in academia. But it could be used in conjunction with other measures, at least. Graham87 16:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The h-index only really has meaning within specific fields, comparing academics in different fields (or even sub-fields) is very dubious, and by the time you're looking at who goes onto a listing in an article like this it's probably completely useless. Robminchin (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah I agree h-index wouldn't be super useful. Honestly what you have here seems totally fine to me. It reads like a good list and the list of Swarthmore College people page captures everyone anyway. Personally my measure should at least be "oh interesting that X went to Y College" not "who the heck is X" unless the college/school is really really struggling to come up with half a dozen famous people. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:WMTV (College of William & Mary)#Requested move 15 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WMTV (College of William & Mary)#Requested move 15 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 05:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability about notability and embedded lists

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability asking if relevant notability guidelines should be modified to clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists. If it is passed, it may result in changes to Wikipedia:College and university article advice. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant recently closed discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Discussion to change consensus #18 (alma mater in infobox). It'd be nice if they'd let us know, but then again, they had plenty of participants (as well as the trademark level-headedness characteristic of the topic area), so perhaps we did better to miss it. But it might have some precedent-setting value. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Query about alumni categories

Should alumni who are members of sub-categories be removed from the main alumni category?

E.g. if an individual is listed under Category:Truman Bulldogs men's basketball players, would that mean they should not be listed under Category:Truman State University alumni?

I would have assumed they should be listed under both and that the "alumni" category should be non-diffusing (WP:DUPCAT). If nothing else, someone could have played for the team without graduating. Also, diffusing the alumni category means that anyone wishing to browse alumni for a particular institution has to search every subcategory.

Any inputs appreciated. McPhail (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but not necessarily for the reason you state :)

"Category: Truman Bulldogs men's basketball players" is a category "for men's varsity basketball players at Truman State University". Thir includes (at least potentially) both current and former students. As the alumni categori is for former students and graduates, the two categories are overlapping rather than the Truman Bulldogs category being fully contained within alumni. It is, therefore, not actually a subcategory of alumni, just a linked category, so WP:DIFFUSE does not come into play.

On the other hand, an "alumni who are professional sportspeople" category (or "alumni in politics", etc.) would be a subcategory of alumni, and arguably should be diffused, so I don't think we want to say generally that alumni categories should be non-diffusing. Robminchin (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable (although I'd still expect the basketball players category to be a subcategory of the alumni one). I'd also just quickly note that I interpret "alumni" to include anyone who formerly attended an institution as a matriculated student, so that would include people who dropped out (but not those who just spent a semester there on an exchange program, which would not be WP:DEFINING). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I recommend diffusing and removing the upper level cat, even if an alumni who also played on a sports team covered in a subcat. Many of the college categories are getting overpopulated, especially the large universities. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with alumni category diffusing

There are several alumni categories in the United States that are overpopulated and would greatly benefit from some work in diffusing. I would greatly appreciate any help with this effort. Two of the big ones are Category:Indiana University alumni and Category:University of Illinois alumni. These upper level cats represent the university "system", and the articles in these cats require diffusing into the specific locations or college. Same goes for the faculty categories. Thanks!

The ones that are largely done so far are:

• Category:City University of New York alumni
• Category:State University of New York alumni
• Category:University of Hawaiʻi alumni
• Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

FieldMarine (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Are board members faculty members?

I'm wondering what the consensus is (or whether there's a consensus) on whether it's appropriate to add the category "X University faculty" to the article of a person who is a member of the board of directors (or governors or whatever other equivalent) of X University. Faculty#Academia describes faculty as "the lecturers of a given university." Obviously this would exclude board members but I'm not convinced that that one definition is necessarily decisive. What are your thoughts? Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally have left those in the upper level “people” category, but perhaps if there are numerous in the people cat, there could be an administration cat or something like that. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In the U.S., most board members - typically "trustees" but some institutions have different terminology - are definitely not faculty members. They're not administrators or staff, either - they inhabit their own, unique category and have a special relationship with their institution.

However, some institutions do explicitly have one or more seats on their governing board reserved for a faculty member who will represent the faculty and of course those specific people are, during their term on the board, both faculty members and trustees (or whatever specific term is used there). It's also possible in some cases for a faculty member to be elected or appointed to their institution's board without occupying a seat specifically for a faculty member or being asked to represent the faculty; I think this is pretty rare but it can happen if the board's governing documents allow it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The faculty could certainly be taken to include the senior academic management of the university (so the president, provost, deans, etc.) and would obviously include any faculty who had been elected as representatives on the board, but certainly not external board members, and probably not senior non-academics (CFO, CIO, COO, etc.) who might be on the board unless they also hold an academic appointment (e.g., a chief marketing officer who is also a professor in marketing at the business school). Robminchin (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But, in essence, the board members are only faculty members if they are also in a position that would be considered faculty – there's nothing about being on the board that makes someone faculty. Robminchin (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally think board as a subcat is too narrow, but a structure for it already exists at Category:Trustees by university or college in the United States. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Standardizing names

At WikiProject:Fraternities and Sororites we have gradually been updating article names that are outliers with other similar articles. Our most recent project potentially crosses over with WP:UNI, so I thought I would consult before making any changes. The issue is best seen by looking at the range of article titles under Category:Lists_of_chapters_of_United_States_student_societies_by_college. Any objections to moving articles to the format: List of XYZ College fraternities and sororities or XYZ College student organizations? Although some members of our WP prefer List of fraternties and sororities at XYZ College), the shorter version better fits Wikipedia guidelines. Also, a given university might have any number of lists--making the format List of XYZ College... the most helpful for users. Rublamb (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking advice regarding separate pages for Mills College after Northeastern acquisition

Hi everyone, I'm brand new to Wikipedia so please bear with me. On Mills College at Northeastern University someone began to discuss making separate pages for the entities pre and post merger/acquisition. I am currently a student here and recently decided to look into the issue further. I took the issue to the Wikipedia Discord to get further guidance, and was advised to bring the discussion here to get more eyes on the discussion. I am making this post here because the discussion in the WikiProject California is relevant to this WikiProject. Please take a look at it! Straight.Up.Sean (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that general pattern has been that where an institution continues but is taken over, the article covers both pre- and post-acquisition, but that where there is a loss of institutional identity into a merged institution a new article has been created. For example, there are separate articles for St Thomas's Hospital Medical School, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals and GKT School of Medical Education, and similarly for University of Wales, Lampeter and University of Wales Trinity Saint David but the earlier name of St David's College, Lampeter is just a re-direct to University of Wales, Lampeter. In the same manner, Manchester New College is a redirect to Harris Manchester College, Oxford, the name it took when it became a college of the University of Oxford. The Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama article covers the college through being an independent institution, a college of the University of Wales (a federal university where the colleges were independent corporations), a college of the University of Glamorgan and (following a merger of that parent university) a college of the University of South Wales. If a new institution takes over the campus but there is a loss of institutional continuity, then the pattern is for a new article to be created, e.g. Richmond Theological College and Richmond American University London or Durham College, Oxford and Trinity College, Oxford.

So there are three possible patterns:

1) Merger/acquisition resulting in a loss of institutional identity and a new identity for the merged institution -> new article

2) Marger/acquisition with a continuity of institutional identity -> single article

3) Closure and re-use of campus by a new institution -> new article

Looking at how this is described on the Mills College at Northeastern University article, I would say this is pattern 2 – the institution that was Mills College is still clearly identifiable as Mills College at Northeastern University, so there is no need for a new article.

Looking at the talk page there, I see that alumnae have also been discussed. My take on this is that the status of Mill College at Northeastern University as the continuation of Mills College means that alumnae of Mills College are correctly listed as alumnae on the Mills College at Northeastern University page, just as alumnae of the Young Ladies Seminary would have been correctly listed on the Mills College page.: it's the same institution under a new name. However, the alumnae do not become alumnae of Northeastern University so shouldn't be included in the main Northeastern University article. Robminchin (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify the difference between pattern 1 and pattern 2? Based on recent rebranding on social media, my peers and I believe Northeastern will end up branding Mills College at Northeastern University similarly to Northeastern University – London. As such, if Mills College at Northeastern University is renamed to "Northeastern University in Oakland" or "Northeastern University – Oakland" to fall in line with the London campus branding, would both entities fall under pattern 1, both under pattern 2, or would they differ? Straight.Up.Sean (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference is (to my mind) whether there's direct institutional continuity – you can point at Northeastern University – London and see that it was New College of the Humanities, before it was taken over (and, in fact, you can look it up at Companies House and see that it is legally the same corporation).

The difference between what I called pattern 1 and pattern 2 is that in pattern 1 there isn't that direct continuity (even if there is sometimes a legal continuity) – normally because two (or more) similar institutions have merged, such as the mergers between medical schools in my earlier example, two form a single entity that you can't say is simply a continuation of a single pre-merger institution.

If, for example, Northeastern were to acquire a second Oakland college and merge that with Mills to form a single institution called Northeastern University – Oakland, you would not be able to point at that institution and say it was once Mills College, because it would have been formed by a merger between Mills College and another college, so a new article would be called for separate from either of the two existing articles. But if NEU just renames Mills College as Northeastern University – Oakland, there's still that clear continuity. Robminchin (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The American College of Greece Wikipedia Page

Good day to all,

I am a member of the marketing team of the American College of Greece. Our page has been "reduced" to a stub. The content editor (Gnkgr) who made the change noted in the talk page that "Due to the fact that the article looked like a corporate brochure and was almost exclusively based on self-authored promotional sources and press releases, contents were cut to what can be supported by the sources that were impartial and reliable."

It is true that some of the text has been overworked and we have rectified this.

Our wiki page was based as content and layout to a number of pages of US based institutions - I indicatively mention the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babson_College, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_College, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PennWest_Clarion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Florida, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Utah

All the above do have as sources pages from their own websites. I would like to ask why in the above cases this acceptable and in our case is not.

Also, we are reworking the article and adding as many external sources (mainly coming from media). The article is currently in sandbox mode.

As I am new to editing Wikipedia articles, any input as what to do next will be highly appreciated.

Thank you. Marinosk (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Demographics visuals

I've seen a lot of visual charts of student demographics in U.S. university articles, which appear to have been added by @Sqldf03 in a run last year. These are nice, but one change I'd suggest is using pie charts rather than bar charts, since pie charts are better suited to breaking down proportions of a whole. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): Arkansas State University Paragould

FYI, the article Arkansas State University Paragould has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

• "Arkansas State University Paragould was an instructional site of the Arkansas State University System's flagship Jonesboro campus. The campus was located in Paragould, Arkansas."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

• "No indication of notability (proposed by Jacona)"

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): Black River Technical College

FYI, the article Black River Technical College has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

• "Black River Technical College (BRTC) is a public community college in Pocahontas, Arkansas. It is named for the Black River which runs through the city. BRTC serves approximately 3,000 students annually through its degree programs, technical courses, and community educational offerings."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

• "18 years old and not a single reference. Doesn't appear to be notable. significant coverage in reliable sources is needed. (proposed by Jacona)"

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Universal Ai University

Could folks here take a look at Universal Ai University? Recently moved from Universal Business School: apparently they've recently expanded to a full university, and have chosen a name according to the zeitgeist (reminds me a little of Long Blockchain Corp). The article has been a hotbed of COI and promotional editing, but the school was probably notable, and I guess the university might also be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Southern Adventist University

Southern Adventist University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

National University of San Marcos

Hi everyone, I work mainly at this page. Just to draw your attention to the above article, which appears to be about a pretty important university (genuinely, not just according to its Wiki article) but is in a truly terrible state. I figured members of this Wikiproject might have some idea where to start fixing it! Jdcooper (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. Notifying you all because this will affect basically every university page that has a noted people section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move subcategories of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom. Ham II (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southern University and A&M College#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Southern University and A&M College#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ohio State University#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ohio State University#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming articles

I am working on articles for defunct institutions that are redlinked in a related WP project. Some of these institutions went through several name changes. Do I go with the name that was in use the longest, the name that is redlinked, the founding name, the last name in use, or the name most commonly listed in the sources that I find? I know the last name in use seems to be in keeping with our practice for active institutions, but that is often not a commonly used name. I do create redirects for the various names. Rublamb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd look to Wikipedia:Article titles for guidance as a start. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There is also some guidance at Wikipedia:College and university article advice#Naming conventions. Choose a name following WP:CRITERIA and create redirects for other names, then the article can be moved if a consensus for a different name emerges. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox university rankings § Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox university rankings § Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024. This discussion needs more input as the template editnotice requires affirmative consensus for changes. Liu1126 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:California Baptist University about new "Controversy" section in article

Two editors disagree about the inclusion of a new "Controversy" section of California Baptist University. A discussion is already underway in the Talk page; additional opinions and input would be appreciated. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RMIT University#Requested move 27 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RMIT University#Requested move 27 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability Colleges/University

What are the rules on Notability on Public Colleges and Univerities? (specifically Kenai Peninsula College (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenai_Peninsula_College&oldid=1160357705&redirect=no) before redirect) Naraht (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Naraht, see WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kenai Peninsula College seems to be part of the University of Alaska Anchorage, so I think it would need to meet GNG to justify an article. TSventon (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for University of Central Florida

University of Central Florida has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:EUCLID (university)#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EUCLID (university)#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15 § Category:Universities and colleges by type

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15 § Category:Universities and colleges by type. Sdkb ^talk 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Showcase articles

Some of our showcase articles are no longer good or featured, and so should probably be removed from this list:

• All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur (nominated GA in March 2022, but not listed)
• University of Oxford (former GA, delisted January 2023)
• The Green (Dartmouth College) (former FA, delisted February 2022)

There is a shortage of GA/FA institutional articles outside of the US and the UK. I found two, but both have been GAs for over a decade without review so probably need looking at:

• University of the Philippines Los Baños (GA 2011)
• University of Valle (Columbia; GA 2009)

For buildings and features (replacing The Green (Dartmouth College)). I suggest including Aula Magna (Central University of Venezuela), which was listed as a GA in June 2019 and would increase the geographic diversity of the showcase articles, the other buildings and features I could see as GA or FA were in the US or UK. Robminchin (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pruning the articles is certainly in order. I defer to your judgement on which swaps to make. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've pruned the articles and put in Aula Magna. I'll try to find time to look at the two institutions I mentioned before and see if they look like 'showcase' articles. Robminchin (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)