Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Academic Colleges articles

What is the "real" stance on academic colleges having their own articles? The WP:UNI/AG says only if they are notable in its own right but I see many university articles with templates that then list all the universities school/colleges without much notable content other than "it's part of university X". Personally I would like to include them all but I have had articles deleted in the past for not being notable... but once a college of a "famous" university is nominated people freak. Should universities have "List of schools and colleges" articles covering all? Sorry if this has been covered before. 16x9 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that most major research institutions in America could easily justify a "Academics at the University of XYZ" in which a review of each constituent college/school/faculty could be elaborated. I'd say that any accredited medical, business, or law school is worthy of its own stand-alone article. When it comes to schools or arts & sciences, engineering, communications, education, etc. I think it would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis and there is no single rule or heuristic rule. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what happens when I come along "University X college of Y"? Send them to afd or look and find all the other colleges and merge them into one? 16x9 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule of notability. South Dakota State University probably shouldn't have stand-alone articles for each of its constituent schools, but the University of Southern California School of Cinema certainly warrants a stand alone article. There's a sea of grey in between. A reasonable first step is to merge stubby and/or questionable standalone articles into an "Academics of University X" and once the content there has expanded substantially, it can be spun out and summarized on the academics article. However, this is not necessarily consensus or standard practice, just a thought. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Coeducation in first sentence

Should an institution's "co-educational" status be included in the first sentence of the lead? I don't think it is by and large the norm and so its an unnecessary distinction to draw so early in the article. I mean, the vast majority of universities are racially integrated and admit international students, etc. but these don't warrant mention either. I'm of the mind that if a college or university does not fit the norm (e.g., Wellesley College, Mount Holyoke College, Morehouse College, etc.) this certainly merits mention in the lead, but otherwise the most important information to convey in the first sentence is: name, related names, location, private/public status, and general classification as liberal arts/research university/etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've included it in leads before, but you make a good point. My question is, can one really assume that colleges are coeducational unless it says otherwise, or is it good to specify? That is, does a lack of specification necessarily signify coeducation, or simply a lack of specification? I don't know if I'd remove it from leads, if that's what you're suggesting, but I don't know if I'd require a lead to have that information unless, as you said, it's fairly noteworthy. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Today, to be co-educational is the norm. In the history of the institition, it warrants a mention. Otherwise, there might be more useful information in adding "air-conditioned". Where would it end? COYW (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of air conditioning... especially when you're from a cold climate area moving to Florida...where it's 94 degrees and for the first time... you're like... ZOMFG what have I gotten myself into?!?!?!? THEN... air conditioning is your friend... but too bad... that fact is neither notable nor verifiable by a respectable third party... unless someone from Carrier wants to release their client data... :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential RfC questions

This is distinct from the on-going RfC below WP articles should neutral and verifiable, but not give undue weight to minority views nor rely upon dubious sources. Many organizations publish college and university rankings.

• Are some college/university rankings more notable than others?
  • How is notability established?
  • What are reliable sources for rankings?
  • Should notability be a criteria for including/excluding rankings in a university article?
  • Should rankings that do not pertain to directly to academic, research, or teaching activities (fittest, web presence, name recognition, party school, etc.) be excluded?
• How should rankings be presented in a college/university article?
  • Should rankings for school/college/faculty-level divisions (e.g., medicine, law, business, education, etc.) be included in a college/university article?
  • Should rankings for departments and sub-disciplines (e.g., molecular biology, artificial intelligence, etc.) be included in a college/university article?
  • Is the omission of programs that are not highly-ranked POV?
  • At what point is recontextualization ("23rd internationally, but 2nd among public universities in the nation") non-neutral, unverifiable, or original research?
• Where should rankings be presented in a college/university article?
  • Should rankings appear in the lead of an article? If so, which rankings? If not, is this an insufficient summary?
  • Should there be a stand-alone "Ranking" subsection within the "Academics" section?
  • Is an Infobox template sufficient to convey rankings information?
• What information needs to be present in an Infobox rankings template?

Feel free to add your own, address bias in my wording, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this just about covers it... Nice job, Madcoverboy. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 22:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC for WP:BOOSTER

This is distinct from the proposed RfC above There is a request for comment about whether or not WP:BOOSTER documents a standard consensus and good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow as an official policy or guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating ranking sections?

I know this is everyone's favorite subject to deal with, but User:Pentawing made an excellent observation regarding ranking sections during an informal FA review at University of Michigan. Why have a paragraph on rankings at all when the information is or should already be summarized and cited in the Template: Infobox US university rankings? The prose version too often gives editors the opportunity to peacockify, spin, and weasel-word rankings rather than concisely and neutrally stating what they are. While I believe the template is far from perfect and will need improvement to fully integrate ranking content, once the template is improved, I would recommend stripping out the rankings sections in their entirety from article as far as they duplicate information that is or can be found and contained in the infobox located under the "Academics" section. Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I look at MBA rankings all the time. The rankings themselves are worthy of ranking! In the ranking world, it is about image as well as substance. Stocks are valued based on image and substance. Universities are rank-ordered based on image and substance. Same thing! Wikipedia is not about advertising, but many editors seem determined to add this data to pages despite the promotional nature of rankings. Wikipedia should be about having substantive articles so that readers can "rank" the institutions themselves. Having some numbers in the template is unmanageable because of the large number of rankings (at least for MBA programmes). Rankings data by itself cannot be encyclopedic information without some context-- like methodology or criteria. One BIG rankings page with all the rankings and somecontextual info would be best. Pages could then link to it. That is my opinion. If we are bound to have rankings section on individual pages, then let us standardise the sections using the paradigm that is tried-and-true for stocks. This means current rank, change from last year & 3-year moving average.COYW (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the evil bogeyman of USN&WR rankings is in the crosshairs once again. Look, I don't disagree for the need for an article discussing U.S. university rankings and their attendant controversies, strengths, weaknesses, shortcomings, etc.; indeed, I think it'd be a fascinating read (with proper sourcing). But I think that rankings still very much have a place in individual university articles, and I think a one-size-fits-all solution probably doesn't work. If some universities want to choose to use the template, let them. Others should feel free to incorporate those numbers into prose. I think the last thing some articles need is yet another template running down the side throwing off the display of pictures and other information. Esrever ^(klaT) 19:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the more pressing problem is the selective inclusion of rankings that only cast the institution in a favorable light or meet with the approval of the editor(s) watching and editing the article. A consistently-used template or agreed-upon standard would help alleviate that problem. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the absence of any strict or explicit standards for rankings sections makes the prose problematic from several standpoints:

* Neutrality: I'd echo ElKevbo's concern that experience shows that editors preferentially include rankings that portray the school in a positive light while conveniently omitting rankings that don't fit in the Top X. Of course, this hinges on the notability of the rankings themselves and not every ranking ever made should merit inclusion. There is likewise always the ever-present problem of trying to balance university-level and school or department-level rankings to ensure neutrality - I just had a lengthy discussion regarding this at Johns Hopkins with a very verbose IP editor.

* Notability: Some rankings are indisputably notable (USNews, ARWU, THES) while others' notability is far more borderline (Princeton Review, Newsweek, Forbes, CMUP, Washington Monthly). Other times, completely tangential rankings find their way in (e.g., fittest schools, party schools, etc.). Restricting it to a template/infobox that includes major/notable rankings might help negotiate this issue.

* Style: To Esrever's concern about "yet another template" crowding out other content, I think that taking out a picture or two is a relatively easy way to address this in general and not a substantial enough argument against attempting some sort of standardization. I'm not advocating for a one-size-fits-all formulaic solution, but hope that other editors recognize that we're part of a Wikiproject that attempts to standardize coverage of articles, in an encyclopedia that priveleges common styles, and this is an area where we should attempt to limit problematic practices by emphasizing standardization. I believe an infobox provides the means to concisely summarize otherwise verbose information.

* Verifiability: Rankings should all be cited to the same original publication source, rather than press releases from the university or other aggregation sites. Likewise, citation templates should be used and the content kept up to date. I believe this is best accomplished and standardized via an infobox.

I believe the university ranking article is more than adequate at explaining the various methodologies and each article need not attempt to replicate the discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_rankings It seems properly sourced as far as I can tell. I think that I will work on it. The nature of these rankings, especially for MBA schools, translates into big money for both the schools and most of the ranking bodies. Since they are usually commercial institutions, it behooves them to put self interest first. Schools want to be shown in a positive light. Magazines, for example, need access to these schools and have to play ball. It is too easy to tweak appearances when the substance is not really there. If it is not a dirty business, friends, then it certainly has the potential to be. This is what conflict of interest is all about-- appearances. Wikipedia has a show-don't-tell idea that encourages objectivity so we should not be so quick to add rankings "prose" that seems tweaked to tell-and-not-show.COYW (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking the unwritten rule is that infoboxes should not contain information not contained in the prose, so trading prose for an infobox is not ideal. As to selective inclusion, that is not a rankings only problem, that is a general problem across all articles on Wikipedia and is dealt with through NPOV and UNDUE. It really is not related to infoboxes/prose. If editors that are taking ownership of their school's article refuse to allow bad press/rankings, take it to an article RFC. Moving the info to an infobox will not solve the problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there really should not be a "rankings" section, the info should be spread out into say an "academics" section or the like. Putting rankings into its own area seems to place too much emphasis on rankings (UNDUE issue) and comes across too much like a trivia section. Much like criticism sections are discouraged, so should rankings sections. Especially since some rankings simply list the top 10 or 20 programs and that's it. So if you have law school X that simply says it was ranked #58 in US News and that's it, and that's all the rankings there are, then the reader is left knowing only that, and not that law school X did not rank high enough to qualify for say best enrivonmental law school or best for IP and the like or undergrad specific ranking categories. Which means somewhat negative info is excluded not by Wikipedia editorial control but by the ranker's editorial control, thus rankings are too pro-school if set off by themselves. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See, if you really ask me for an opinion on university rankings, I think the entire concept is crap. The quality of education changes from department to department, from discipline to discipline within one university. A great example - a top technical university will probably (subjectively and objectively speaking) not have the best liberal arts department, or, to be fair, most likely not receive as much funding and attention compared to its technical (science and engineering counterparts). To me, removing the notion of rankings is not only a great idea, but finally put the emphasis on the description of the types of education being taught at the institution, instead of "X university is better because USN&WR says it's now #n (where n=some random number... but I digress) Look, as misleadingly informative rankings are, I agree that evaluating the institution's individual degree program or discipline is a much more effective, fair, and well rounded to evaluate a university as a whole. Until such types of rankings exist, I think it may be best to even out the playing field and remove these rankings until new consensus is reached. I welcome discussion on this issue - just FYI: I'm currently on vacation, so if it seems like I'm ignoring you after you post on my talk page - it might just because I haven't gotten access to a computer. Hope everyone's having a good holiday season. Those of us in college, hope you all are having a good break. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the readers who only care about rankings do not look at wikipedia for further information about universities. The ones who are interested in finding out everything about a university should be intelligent enough to determine the value of rankings for themselves. Are you going to protect them from information (rankings) that they want to see because you don't find the information valuable? I don't think it is the job of a wikipedian to elide information to which they object. The standards here are verifiability and notability. Rankings are both notable and verifiable. Even if there are some editors here who have arguments against rankings, there are many people who find value in them -- an argument that should trump individual editorial preferences towards censorship of rankings.Vantelimus (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship, but trying to enforce some modicum of stylistic consistency across university pages as you have articles like University of Michigan that make only passing reference and then [University of Washington] that had no less than a dozen paragraphs and 5 sections dedicated to the matter. I argue that stand-alone ranking sections are unnecessary insofar as the information they convey can more succinctly summarized in an already existing infobox. I don't see why we can't come up with some standards as to what rankings are or are not notable as many are just various computations and reweighting of the same data on admissions information, faculty productivity, etc. while others are just rankings of tangential information such as web presence, student fitness, etc. while still others devolve into listing all of the individual departments or sub-department programs that are ranked 1, 2, or top 10, while conveniently (and I believe non-neutrally) ommitting those programs that aren't ranked in the Top X. I believe we should decide what rankings and what level of detail warrant mention at the university-level, implement these notability rankings into an infobox, and then editors of individual articles can contextualize as necessary. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's as good of a compromise as any. The discussion on the validity and notability (in the matter of ranking details) should be redirected into a more productive what can we do to standardize our articles to display this variety of data. I think instead of debating every single area of this discussion together, I think we should break down the various points so we can work on building consensus bit by bit instead of the standard few responses of "I don't like this." While my personal stance on these rankings remain the same, I think it is unfair for some of the larger institutions to not have these rankings reflected in some sort of manner. An infobox is probably the best compromise and standardization method without needing to repeat the description and methods used in the rankings on every single university article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent sources of all possible university rankings: UIUC, IHEP. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What forum

If anything is done, this needs to be made into a formal guideline passed by the entire Wikipedia community. UNI does not WP:OWN these articles, and most schools fall under multiple WikiProjects. Not to mention telling people they cannot use rankings that pass as RS would come into conflict with WP:NPOV and the requirement of that policy to include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Aboutmovies (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It's absolutely within the purview of UNI to develop guidelines and consensus on this issue because on any other venue, either (a) no one else will or (b) no one else cares. Just because there have been some high-profile project-wide RFCs in the past few weeks doesn't mean that everything needs to be reviewed by the entire Wikipedia community. Any consensus reached here would be to establish exactly what the rankings sections should contain or convey if anything at all - precisely attempting to establish the significance and reliability of the rankings to be used in articles. I can think of a litany of questions related to rankings and designations that need to be answered or some sort of explicit consensus reached more than the typical "every article is different" or "featured article X doesn't do that" cop outs. As with all RFCs, I forsee this initial discussion as being as useful gauge of potential support as well as a sounding board for potential alternatives. Once we crystallize the issues and possibilities more clearly here, we can make a formal RFC and then canvass other university articles for their editors inpute (for editors who do not keep WT:UNI on their watchlist). Madcoverboy (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

UNI is free (as is any project) to develop the guideline, but unless the entire community !votes to accept it via a formal process, it is nothing more than an essay. That is to say, people are free to ignore it. WikiProject rules carry little weight, unless they have been accepted by the entire community. Otherwise, you would have greater chaos with conflicting rules between projects. As to the below, why is notability even being mentioned? Notability only controls whether or not an article exists, not content within an article. As to much of this discussion, don't forget that via WP:RS, many of the dubious rankings could be removed as failing that, so no real need to re-invent the wheel for everything. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In the scheme of things, you're right in the sense that anything short of a project-wide policy has no real binding power to compel editors/articles to do anything. However, any guidelines promulgated by this project should represent the wide and explicit consensus of editors - a standing which I believe carries significantly more weight than a simple essay any editor can publish. Editors can be free to ignore it in practice as there is no roving band of enforcers. However, guidelines like this become of immense importance when there are disputes, reviews, and candidacies for GA, FA, AfD, RfC, etc. WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:BOOSTER are university-specific guidelines and records of consensus on contentious issues such as this that other editors look to for guidance. These guidelines and policies should always reflect the state of the art consensus - especially in light of fairly divergent practices among university GAs and FAs. Madcoverboy (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I also mean notability in the sense of notability of content. Given the limited space in an article to devote to many important topics, the existence of dozens of potential rankings from reliable sources, you can't include every ranking ever. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of rankings, some content simply won't make the cut even if it is from a reliable source. The question I am posing is how much weight should be assigned to include one source, style, or specificity of a ranking over another? The elephant in the room is that conflict of interest is so naked and widespread among all university article editors, myself included, there is no desire to attempt consensus on this issue because editors don't like to have to exclude rankings that portray their institution in a positive light nor include ones that portray it in a less positive light. This isn't a tenable excuse for neglecting to our responsibility as editors and the interests of Wikipedia to develop reliable and explicit consensus or guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to make my point clearer. UNIGUIDE went through the formal process, thus it is respected at GA/FA etc. So what I am saying is, this too will need to go through that process because essays and anything below the level of Wikipedia-wide officially accepted guideline means crap (or, as I first wrote "If anything is done, this needs to be made into a formal guideline passed by the entire Wikipedia community."). So, it cannot just be a discussion on this talk page and then carry any weight. (As to to BOOSTER, going by this edit I am failing to see how the formal process was followed as there was not {{Proposed}} there before it was promoted, thus the "style guideline" template really should be removed.) Aboutmovies (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I had long assumed it to be official policy based upon comments made on the talk page, the manner in which it was linked in other discussions, etc. and simply updated the format to standardize it with other guidelines. I demoted it to proposed guideline and will initiate the formal process at once so we can get this formality out of the way and move on to other matters. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BOOSTER is a separate matter, so really no need to get it out of the way before proceeding with this. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no deadline, so we'll just take it one issue at a time. I think the mention of two distinct RfCs broadly regarding university metrics and quality is already confusing enough without actually soliciting feedback on overlapping issues. Madcoverboy (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues with University of Maryland, College Park branched articles

I am checking the notability of split articles and at UM I have come across some oddities. I am still a little new so I don't know if any are major problems. I noticed for most of the articles (see there template) for a list, the article create is a single purpose account. Most of the articles are full of WP:BOOSTER and weasel words. Additionally, some claim notability by listing their ranking/'prestige' for the past years. Does a School/College rank equal notability are single purpose accounts for booster appropriate? I guess some of my question goes with the discussion above. 16x9 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what question you are posing. However, I would give flagship state universities, especially AAU members, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to questions of notability of constituent schools/colleges/divisions. Boosterism, peacockism, and other instances of non-neutrality or unverifiability have no place within Wikipedia, but the presence of these issues within individual articles shouldn't be indictments of their notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is more that the articles, in my opinion, were created for the purpose of Boosterism. For example Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center created by CSPAC (talk · contribs) or University of Maryland School of Music created by UMSOM-WIKI (talk · contribs)... make the connection?

I also disagree with your statement that just because it is a "flagship" school or a member of AAU makes it more notable or important than any other subdivision of a large university. If the school/college/division/building/etc is notable it should be included in wikipedia but just because it is connected to a "flagship" university does not make it notable. 16x9 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There's likely a conflict of interest with regards to the editors who created the articles motivated by self-promotion, but the entities themselves are notable. Reading through the articles there is definitely inappropriate tone, but I've also seen far more egregious violations and as I said, the existence of COI or presence of non-neutral language shouldn't necessarily be an indictment of the notability or importance of the topic. I don't believe either article should be deleted since the CSPAC appears to be a major performing arts building/complex in Maryland and the School of Music appears to be a well-established and accredited school of music at a major research university. I would note that stubbiness of the School of Music article as well as the red-links to the rest of the constituent divisions/schools of UM-CP leads me to think that UM-CP would be better served by having a University of Maryland, College Park academics where stubby information on each school is combined and contextualized until the content grows enough to warrant a separate article.

I certainly don't mean to imply that flagship or AAU schools should be given a free pass from having to establish notability or conform to NPOV. While I recognize that notability isn't inherited, for what it's worth, topics and articles associated with large, prestigious, and high-activity universities especially merit a more nuanced examination or second look before rushing to delete. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I guess I framed my motives (and my contribution history) wrong when discussing the notability. I wasn't planning on deleting anything but merging into an University of Maryland, College Park academics style article as you suggest. 16x9 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, the major academic divisions of a major university have sufficient sourced material to justify individual article. This certainly applies to major distinct professional schools, such as a school of college of medicine or architecture. The situation here, where what would normally be a College of Arts and Sciences (or the like) is instead organized as several units like those here, Colleges of Life Sciences, of Arts and Humanities, or Social Sciences, etc., is a little more difficult, and I do not think we really have much precedent. Certainly we don;t normally include individual departments unless they are truly famous by themselves. I'd be reluctant to construct an artificial level of hierarchy for them, but it may be necessary.

But the question of the articles being spammy is separate--that problem can apply to articles at any level, and needs to be dealt with. since it seems here that they are being written by an office of public relations or the like, it is necessary to explain to them carefully before they do further damage. i'll give it a try--sometimes, a good professional can be gotten to understand how to write for Wikipedia , but sometimes, all efforts fail & the articles need to be rewritten or deleted. In particular, if they copy their web site, even if they are willing to license it, the tone and manner of writing is almost always wholly unsuitable. I usually refer them to Durova's clear Business FAQ (& tell them it also applies to non-profit organisations)DGG (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposed change on WP:UNIGUIDE from Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism

There is a compromise being reached regarding WP:BOOSTER to set it to an essay, and have a selected summary be added onto WP:UNIGUIDE. Please go to the Wiki talk page on the section title to comment. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA

User:Ahodges7 has requested a peer review of USMA, hoping to push the article to FA class at Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Military Academy/archive1. Please support the article by providing your thoughts. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M for Featured Topic

Those crazy Aggies are goin' for WP:FT. Please review the featured topic criteria and comment on their nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Texas A&M University. Best 'o luck! Madcoverboy (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC: Syracuse University

Syracuse University is up for WP:FAC. Please review the WP:WIAFA and WP:UNIGUIDE and comment on the nomination. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing Sources for Universities

I read the lengthy discussion above about external links- this question differs slightly. What is the policy for articles about colleges and universities with *no sources*. I read the article guidelines about colleges serving up their own information. How does all of this jive with Wikipedia's goal of verifiable information? Thanks! Skydive23 (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue or article in mind? There are a variety of independent sources that can be used for any university (I know American universities in particular). Universities are often the most authoritative source for information about themselves (e.g., enrollment, curriculum, history, etc.) but this is not to say that other organizations do not collect and publishing authoritative and reliable information either - the NSF, Carnegie Foundation, National Center for Educational Statistics, and Chronicle of Higher Education come to mind for American colleges and universities. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rivier College for example, has plenty of information and no sources cited. Do we assume its from the college itself without any source. Do college/university not need attributed reference. Skydive23 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

my first thought on seeing an article like this one. is that it was probably copied from the college web site, which on checking, appears to be exactly the case here. The simplest thing to do is to stubbify the article to the essentials, source it specifically from the site, which will do for obvious facts about location, date of founding etc. All colleges are notable, so that part isn't a problem. (And then leave a note for whoever was working on it to expand it properly. ) DGG (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Largest Public University Systems in the United States

I'm working on an article, namely List of Largest Public University Systems in the United States. It can be found here as a user subpage of mine (I'm not done updating numbers and references). I originally found the list on User:Tcatts/List of Largest Public University Systems in the United States, but that user stopped contributing the Wikipedia and never moved the article to the mainspace. I am now completing their work.
I want to get outside input on something though. The article is only listing numbers for student enrollment in undergraduate and graduate work. My question is this. Should community college systems be included? I'm neutral on the issue, but leaning towards adding that. I don't know if the user who originated this work had wanted to include that information, because California's Community College System would probably be at the top of the list then. But I just wanted to get others' opinions.
Also, does anybody know how to format this table so that you can sort the table depending on which column header you click? I'm not good with Wiki tables. Killiondude (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I made your table sortable. (It's easier to do than explain.) The enrollment sort isn't working correctly, though. --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, I'm not done at all. The updated enrollments now make the list of out order in some spots. So forgive me if the page doesn't look its best right now. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would do the community colleges in a separate list of their own, if at all. The problem is that, when you compare a university system to a community college system, you're comparing apples to oranges, particularly in the realm of what enrollment figures mean. At a university, you can be reasonably sure that the vast majority of students are working on a degree program, and most of them will be full-time. The mission of a community college, however, makes it so that you have students engaged in a wide variety of programs (associates degree, transfer curriculum, certificate, apprenticeship, academies, etc.) and with schedules ranging from professionals who have to come in for a seminar or inservice once or twice a year to get recertified, life-long learners who make a habit of taking one class every semester, part-time working students, full-time students looking to graduate or transfer, etc. Maybe there's a statistic to measure "full-time-student-equivalent" enrollment, but really, universities are different enough, qualitatively, from community colleges that joining them in this kind of list would probably be counterproductive. I do like the idea of putting together a size ranking of the systems, though. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I agree. Esrever ^(klaT) 12:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that community college systems ought not to be included. However, excluding them is going to be more difficult than it first appears, because some of these university systems include community colleges. Two examples of this are the Tennessee Board of Regents system, which includes all of the state's community colleges, and the University of Wisconsin System, which includes 13 "freshman-sophomore" schools (but not the entire state community college system; many Wisconsin community colleges are in the Wisconsin Technical College System). --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I initially brought this discussion up once I came across the Tennessee Board of Regents, and I realized they deal with community colleges as well. I didn't realize that Wisconsin did too. I should have mentioned Tennessee when I brought this discussion up. It does indeed complicate things. Perhaps a third party source will enrollment figures that list specifically where the numbers are coming from (community college vs. 4-year university) for those systems. Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, this source (which I added to your page to replace a dead link for University of Tennessee) has Tennessee Board of Regents enrollments separated by 4-year and 2-year institutions. I haven't looked for something similar for UWisconsin, but I bet it exists. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Added: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System also includes 2-year schools. I bet there are others like these three. --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the title be List of Largest Public University Systems in the United States by enrollment if it is only focused on enrollment? Can I add a few systems to the list? To me the documentation is more confusing but Help:Sorting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree. MoS and WP:TITLE nit picks: List of largest public university systems in the United States by enrollment Madcoverboy (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Moved to correctly titled subpage. Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to clarify how you're quantifying "largest" since it has multiple potential meanings. I would also strongly advise finding some reliable, third-party definition of "university system" that you can rely on so the entire article isn't based on original research and your own judgments. For example, the question above about community colleges is more nuanced than it may appear as there are many community colleges that award 4-year degree and classifying those institutions is not quite straight-forward. I don't think you've got much of an uphill battle here if you're truly limiting this to university systems and sticking to the (historically inaccurate and watered down) definition that classifies universities as institutions that offer graduate degrees. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NCES seems about as reliable as they come. There doesn't appear to be any info on systems however. Perhaps someone published statistics incorporating Carnegie classifications (which explicitly differential between community and baccalaureate institutions) would be ideal. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice source. I briefly checked it out, but I start spring semester today so I won't have time (today) to further investigate. Nice job on finding that. Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For sanity's sake (and to make sure everybody knows who I'm responding to), I'm going to respond directly under some posts on here. So it'll be out of chronological order, but there are already so many comments that its difficult to do otherwise. Like I said above, today begins my spring semester at school, so I may not be able to watch (or take further part in) this discussion today. Just letting you know where I've gone to. Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit of a purist, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a List of public university systems in the United States by enrollment? The superlative makes it sound a bit odd to me. I'd find a list from the largest to the smallest more useful information than just the "largest". Even if we kept "largest", where would it end? If it was just the top ten, then wouldn't it be called the top ten? And if it ended with the smallest, then why the superlative in the title and not just a list from largest to smallest?--Aepoutre (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Aepoutre is correct that the superlative shouldn't migrate into the title. Another question, how would intra-state systems be differentiated or agglomorated (UT vs. TAMU, CSU vs. UC, etc.)? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I moved it (again). I don't know if I understand your question Madcoverboy. The CSU system and UC system are completely separate. From what I understand, the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M University System are both separate as well. I guess I didn't know what I was getting into when I first started to improve the list I found... I'm not sure what to do now. Killiondude (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was trying to think of an instance in which a state might have more than one university system but they might also be inadvertently combined owing to geography/politics. I haven't been able to pin-point an example, so maybe it's just a moot thought experiment. Perhaps so we're on the same page, the Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina university systems (for example) would include the enrollment of each listed institutions in the total because they're all headed by the same board of regents/trustees, correct? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The boards of regents should have the enrollment data for the entire system. That's what I've been updating: the entire system's enrollment. Arizona does here, for example (on page 4 in the book). Killiondude (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) So I've been thinking about the list. I hadn't worked on it since this discussion because I was unsure what the consensus (feeling) was about it. But somebody (somewhere above) mentioned that an exhaustive list might be better. After I thought on it, I agree. I think that a list of all university systems in the US by enrollment would probably be more useful than just the top 20 (or whatever). Would anyone care to comment? Killiondude (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Public domain image question

I've been working on History of San Diego State University which is currently a GAN. I've been wanting to add two images from 1904 & 1905. According to the public domain acts, all published works before 1923 are in the public domain. However, on the university website hosting the images, the images are listed under copyright for 2007. Is it possible for the university (which has now been around for over 100 years) to still own the rights to the images or should it be in the public domain? I'm assuming some other universities have similar images, so I want to see if anyone else has experienced a similar issue. Let me know if you need further clarification to determine the status of the images. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I can think of is if the images were published or if they unpublished works. If I understand it correctly, if the images were not published until 2007 you has a long time until the are public domain... but I am likely incorrect. 16x9 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nehrams - could you provide the link to the page that contains the copyright statement/images? Thanks in advance. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be something worth shooting an email to the university archivist. They could almost certainly help you establish the source and publication date of the image which would override whatever copyright claims the webpage makes. You are correct in your reaching that if it was published or disseminated in any way before 1923, it has entered the public domain. Most recent images taken by government employees are likewise in the public domain. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The link for the image search engine is here. You have to allow pop-ups if using Firefox or IE, the two browsers I tried it on. Then click search on the left, by date, and then 1904 (or 1905). I'm looking to use two images in this range. I believe these images have been published before, not just in 2007. I guess I would have to ask the university archivist to be sure if it was published or not. I need to determine if the images were published before or were just some person's personal family photograph. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA up for FAC

United States Military Academy is up for WP:FAC. Please go comment on the the nomination. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fight songs

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs It would have been nice to have a heads up about this so more editors from here could have participated, but it appears that some consensus was reached which I largely agree with. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List of university rankings

List of Duke University rankings has been nominated for deletion. Given the existence of similar articles, the outcome may set a precedent for other articles/lists with substantially the same topic. I encourage other editors to go and comment on the nomination. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

NACUBO Endowment Study

For those interested in updating the endowments of universities, the 2008 NACUBO Endowment Study was issued today. The link to the public document is here. I have started on some. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute about how up-to-date these numbers are at University of Chicago. I'm inclined to believe that NACUBO's numbers are the most comparable and reliable even if they're not the most up-to-date because they use the same methodology and criteria to compute and tabulate. Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the NACUBO numbers may be way off due to the recent changes in the economy. This article dealing with FAU's endowment really illustrates the point. The endowment went from 182.3 million in June (the NACUBO number) to 142.7 million today. KnightLago (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I share KnightLago's concerns about the timeliness of the NACUBO data. I know we've used that data as the source of choice in the past and we've done for so for several good reasons. But nearly all endowments have taken major hits since the data were collected. If the difference between the most current non-NACUBO data and the NACUBO data were minor then I'd be happy to continue advocating for the NACUBO data but the differences are not minor. I think we need to show considerable flexibility with financial figures right now as they're in flux and in this instance I think we need to use the most current and reliable information we have to ensure the article's are correct. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the NACUBO number in the infobox for consistency and comparability, but add any updates to the figure in the body of the article because the updates will vary in timing and availability. This is sometimes done in articles involving the census. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I support Alanraywiki's compromise to leave NACUBO in the infobox for the sake of comparability but to provide the most up-to-date numbers in the body. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose such an idea. If we have reliable, up-to-date information then it needs to be used in the Infobox. I might agree to the opposite of what has been proposed (NACUBO numbers kept in the body with updated info in the infobox) if there were an adequate explanation given for having conflicting and out-of-date information in the article (a standardized footnote might suffice). --ElKevbo (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More about Fight Songs

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern editors involved in the University WikiProject. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to total enrollment

I have made a few contributions to the article List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment . I was wondering if a user seems to own an article and change it so that it specifically fits his/her critrea (sp). Meaning the article title says one thing, but the actual conditions imply another thing. User Schwnj changed the critrea (sp) [1] so that it fits something else. I put in 3 different types of schools which followed the original conditions only to be told that they don't fit the conditions (which I wrote were not written anywhere). One was an online school Excelsior College, another had multiple campus' across the nation (Devry University, Touro University, and the third had multiple campus' across the state (Baker College). These schools are fully accredited and receive federal financial aid. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:UNI/COTM

It has become apparent that I do not have enough time to run the COTM program, so I would like a dedicated member of this WikiProject to step up to the place and head the collaboration effort. Please send me a message on my talk page if you're interested along with your ideas of how you would like to revitalize the program. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: what is it that you no longer have time to do? I guess I'm wondering about the selection process and how long it takes every month. If it's just picking a university based on nominations then I think anyone could step up. Let me know your thoughts.—Noetic Sage 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is picking university articles and overseeing the improvements - if an article is improved enough, the person in charge of the COTM would see to it that the article's rating is upgraded or nominated for review (GA/A/FA/FL...etc) I'm just less involved with Wikipedia in general since my academics in trying to finish my major and minor's coursework is really starting to get to me, I wanted someone else to take over before the program goes completely dead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles on individual programs at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore

There appears to be an article on each of the main postgrad study programmes at the above institution. I don't think it's appropriate and will see if I can AfD them all collectively. Does anyone else have a view? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If they're not notable then merge the (worthwhile and cited) content into the main article and redirect them. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance at St. John's University article

Earlier I had a question about rankings (as seen above) b/c an anon user kept bringing the historical rankings for only one category from Princeton Review (which of course was a negative one). I took the position that they were redundant and only the most update position was needed and thus asked the question here and recieved a similar response. I relayed it to the anon user who didn't care and simply reverted it back. Eventually he then deleted the Washington Monthly ranking saying that was outdated. However, I noted that was the most recent up-to-date info from that publication and if he was going to delete that one then the 2007 Princeton Review one should be deleted (which was a negative category). Long story short he then deleted the Forbes ranking (2008) and an award the student newspaper received and the intro to the notable alumni. I came here in November for help because of this user's issue with trying to make the school look bad and you guys helped out alot in restructuring the article. I'd really appreciate it if some of you could do so again. Thanks. NyRoc (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A few things were listed twice in the article so i deleted repeats. The forbes link was (1) lists/2008/94/opinions_college08 opinion based and in conjunction CCAP which seems to have no type of standing. In the list st john's ranking in the bottom 20% of the best colleges. Newspaper award was 2 years old. I also linked the page to the Italy campus while moving the famous Alumni named to the alumni page on wiki. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anymore contributors are willing to offer their assistance that would be greatly appreciated as the dispute is still ongoing now that the page is unlocked. NyRoc (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the Forbes ranking because I deleted the "least happy student ranking" from 2007 and the edit history of the article shows that. And so what if St. John's is at the bottom of the list. It is still a list of best colleges and a ranking. And if you want to talk about having standing why do you insist on have that anonymous quotation from Time magazine there? Furthermore, the Forbes ranking and CCAP are both listed in college and university rankings[2] NyRoc (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Universities articles going crazy

We've seen it all before: certain contributors get bold and create tons of new pages. The University of Dayton recently created a bunch of articles related to things around campus, many of which probably aren't notable. I also just ran across this article, which almost made me fall out of my chair: Buildings at the University of Florida. Why on earth would a university need an article for 50 buildings on its campus? I'm wondering what everyone thinks about these and if there's a way we can better involve ourselves in the prevention of needless articles.—Noetic Sage 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar issue: I'm still waiting on someone (anyone?) to comment on Template:Southern Nazarene University. I tried making it a useful template by just linking the existing articles (all athletics) but the creator was none too happy about that. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Several of the UF articles are about buildings which are designated national landmarks. I believe that these can justifiably have standalone articles given their inherent and obvious notability. I doubt that anything else is of substantial notability to warrant its own article. While I'm hardly an inclusionist, I'm lazy: the best option is to keep the content and merge it all into a List of buildings at the University of Dayton or Campus of the University of Dayton and just redirect the rest. Probably gads of WP:TITLE/WP:UNIGUIDE issues as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Campus of the University of Dayton or University of Dayton campus. (IMO, very few individual buildings on campuses are of sufficient interest to warrant coverage in separate articles, but articles about an entire campus could be worthwhile.) Are there any guidelines on naming that would help in choosing between those two names? --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How strange. I just ran across an attempt the other day to "improve" the article on my alma mater's engineering school in a manner that was (A'ing GF) unintentionally tantamount to astroturfing. The odd thing was, I immediately recognized exactly who the individual making the changes was — one of our university's more senior marketing people (full disclosure: I am closely affiliated with, but not employed by, the university in question).
In light of the Dayton "expansion" and a few other things I've seen recently but not connected until now, I'm beginning to wonder if one of the higher-education-marketing trade publications has recently published an article on "How to improve your branding with Wikipedia" or something like that. I sent our marketing person a couple of messages through Wikipedia about editing standards, spam- and promotional-content policies, the manual of style, etc., and the intervention seems to have been successful. However, I'm considering breaking anonymity and walking over to her office on Tuesday, when she's next in, to ask her if there was anything in particular that inspired her to focus on Wikipedia just now. What are your thoughts? --Dynaflow babble 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. Marketing is so trumped-up. I know that I've fought with the com/pub people at my alma mater over this before. It doesn't look like they've tried anything, but I know that's just because there's only two of them and they have enough to worry about as it is. If some editors are adding information I wouldn't otherwise know, and it's just a question of removing non-NPOV material, maybe it's not all bad, even if it makes more work for us. Still, I'd rather they understand the guidelines. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is anything new. For a long time, it has been frustrating to edit articles about certain universities and certain other similar organizations, as their marketing people show up on a regular to reclaim ownership of the articles, substituting marketing blather for some of the other content -- and deleting historical information because their focus is on selling the "here and now". --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new as I mentioned something similar two months ago. Almost every branched article for umd was written by a SPA to market the university. It does seem though consensus has changed here when it was delete first ask questions later. Maybe this part of the guide needs to be revised. 16x9 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that article on buildings at Florida, such articles at other universities are used appropriately: they are used as combination articles for information about the less notable buildings, rather than just as a guide to unnecessary and uninformative separate articles. The thing to do with that page is to use it as a merge target for such articles as Tolbert Hall (Gainesville, Florida). I have had success with some universities (notably Columbia) in reducing this sort of clutter, but not with all. I'm a little busy in RL now, but if someone were to propose & then carry out a merge for a group of these, let me know & I'll support.DGG (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning names of countries in the lead sentence

Should each university's lead sentence mention the country where it is located? For one university there is a discussion at Talk:Texas_A&M_University#United_States_needs_to_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_sentence - I have argued that for Texas A&M University the nationality of the university (United States, or American) needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence. I argued that this should be done for every institution regardless of national origin to be fair and to avoid systemic bias. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the statement, "I am fine with it not being linked," if you were referring to a US mention. I'll say here what I said there: I've seen a few editors make a good point that Texas is not only known to be in the US but is (or should be) linked. To list neighborhood/village, city, county, state, country, &c. just seems silly IMHO. Go for city (if applicable) and state/province, depending on how widely the country in question uses state names. The United States are the United States and state names are widely used and familiar with non-estadounidenses. I've lived outside the US, and state names are fairly well known from what I've seen and heard. If perchance someone doesn't realise that Texas or Ohio is in the US, they can easily click and find out. That's my dos centavos. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aepotre, couldn't agree more. A few more points I brought up on the aforementioned page:

Mentioning the country is bringing up a wider region that isn't necessary. The cast majority of the people in the world know where Texas is located. For the small percentage that don't, clicking the link would solve the mystery. For similar places (this goes for international concerns as well) which are in well-known locales, mentioning the country is simply unnecessary.

This is not promoting a systemic bias, it is accomplishing what is stated in WP:MOS, a guideline and a requirement for Featured Article status. Contrary to what you state, Wikipedians, as a whole, are not "trying to stamp this out." This is a group of Wikipedians who do not enjoy consensus to do as you are stating. We do not "have to be country-neutral in this way." We do not "have to provide country-specific context for the United States and Burkina Faso alike." These are, apparently, the goals of a WikiProject, not a guideline or policy.

As an example, of all the FA-class University articles:

1. Dartmouth College: "...located in Hanover, New Hampshire."
2. Georgetown University: "...located in Georgetown, Washington, D.C."
3. University of Michigan: "The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor...is a public research university[3] located in the state of Michigan."
4. Texas A&M University: "...located in College Station, Texas."
5. Texas Tech University: "...located in Lubbock, Texas."
6. United States Military Academy: "...located at West Point, New York. "
   
7. Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur: States it was established by India and, by its title, it is clear that it is in India. Most English speakers would not know exactly where Kharagpur or West Bengal were located.

The remaining FA-class universities in the US (Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, and University of California, Riverside) do mention the U.S. That said, they are in the minority and consensus on those pages seems to favor inclusion. I see no reason to violate that consensus. If we want to use the same format throughout, then my !vote is with using the common name with the country, as is necessary for more obscure locales. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Aeroputre's point about "To list neighborhood/village, city, county, state, country, &c. just seems silly IMHO. Go for city (if applicable) and state/province, depending on how widely the country in question uses state names."

1. Listing neighborhood/village is 100% justifiable for large cities, while this is not so much for small towns. It's common sense.

2. For the United States, County only if the county is important (i.e. unincorporated areas, where there is no city government) - Typically the incorporated place is more important than the county, so list the incorporated place instead of the county.

3. Now, what do you define as an "important" country? About how well-known it is? By whom? BQZ: You earlier used an Indian place as an example? If we do that, then remove India from that and assume everybody knows where that place is. Why? India has one of the largest English-speaking populations on Earth, so they know where West Bengal is, right? - And if you say that's unfair to Americans, Canadians, British, etc, then turn the situation around and see it from that point.

4. Please show me a discussion where it has been established that there is no consensus for combating systemic bias and that these people are in a minority. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1. In the sample I used, it would be perfectly acceptable to use West Bengal (wikilinked of course) and not include "India", but the city name and "India" would also work for me. The point is that we don't need region after region after region to describe the location of the institution in question.
2. As I showed earlier, there is no place where "it has established that there is no consensus for combating systemic bias and that these people are in a minority." That said, the converse is also true...I think. What I also stated was that the format of the article you changed that got my attention was agreed upon by approximately 30-40 people with no problem with the phrasing.
3. Wikipedia is not a place for "combating systemic bias". We have NPOV, but that's the closest we come to it. This isn't a war zone, a place to air personal grievances, or conduct personal agendas. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of hypertext is that you can nest references like that within links. You can type out something like "Sasovo, Ryazan Oblast," and if your readers happen to say to themselves, "Ryazan Oblast?! Where the fuck is that?!" they have but to click the blue text to find their answer. I would format the locations in a way that the "locals" in whatever country hosts the institution can know just from the surface text where the thing is (equivalent to the CITY, STATE format for the United States). If people from farther afield want to know precisely where these places are, they can click through to the places' articles and learn something. --Dynaflow babble 07:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What if we use an adjective to describe the nationality of the university? I.E. X is a Russian university in Sasovo, Ryazan Oblast? Now, BQZ felt that this could possibly make people mistakenly believe that the national government of that country actually operates the university if we describe a university as an "American university" or an "Indian university" in the lead. What do you think about that. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just imagining opening sentences like, "American University is an American university in Washington, D.C." and "Temple University Japan Campus is an American university campus in Tokyo." Maybe we can just banish the country names to the infoboxes (except in cases where the countries are so small, the CITY, COUNTRY formulation is commonly internationally accepted), but make sure all relevant levels show up in the infobox in all cases. Looking in the other direction, universities in world cities (e.g., New York City, London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc.) should probably only be using the city name in the intro to avoid clutter (see how New York University's article does it). Intros should make an effort to be as concise as possible, so the question for a writer will always be, How do you get the most meaning least amount of text? --Dynaflow babble 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is approach has potential and problems as universities go global. My main concern is that we are confounding geographic location with ownership. This would be problematic with institutions like those at Education City which are American-owned and operated universities despite being located in Qatar. Thus it would be an "American university/campus located in Education City, Qatar". Although I understand the concerns about systematic bias, I'm of the mind that we should omit countries from the lead sentence as this information is of diminished relative importance. Country information should always in the infobox, however. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Help at University of Tennessee‎

Can a few editors please help keep an eye on University of Tennessee‎? An editor was recently blocked for his or her disruptive edits and a group of "new" editors has suddenly shown up there that are continuing to edit in the same vain as the blocked editor. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

University of the Sunshine Coast

The University of the Sunshine Coast page has been tagged with a COI, with relation to another editor. I am affiliated with the university and have been adding content which I believe to be clean, neutral and appropriate. Can someone have a look over the page and suggest what can be improved to remove the flag. 1Audit1 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Math 55

AfD for an allegedly difficult class at Harvard: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math 55. Your comment is welcome as this is a potential precedent or boundary condition for other articles about individual university courses. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Added to project main page. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Higher education timeline

I have just found this entry, created in July 2008. I guess that deletion is in order, but I leave the issue in your capable hands. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher education timeline Madcoverboy (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How should we deal with articles of the type Degree programs at (name of University)?

Recently there's been a spate of AfDs of articles like Degree programs at Duke University, which list degree programs at their respective universities and may have additional related academic information. We've seen a variety of results such as merge (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree programs at Boston College), redirect (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree programs at NUST (2nd nomination)), no consensus resulting in keep (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University) with a lot of delete votes thrown in. It's been suggested that these types of articles should be dealt with in a uniform way, and that a discussion here would be a good way to start developing a standard response, so I thought I'd bring the matter to your attention. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree programs at Duke University which is an open AfD as I write. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating here my view expressed at the Duke AfD, which is the first of these I have seen: I think that per WP:IINFO this level of detail is more than an encyclopedia article requires, particularly when it is (presumably) easily available at the University's own website, only a click away from the WP article; moreover the information on the University's site will be up to date, but while it is easy to put a one-off dump of information into Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that it will be updated regularly or at all. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

This is likewise the first time I've seen any mention of inconsistencies in outcomes on these articles. While an Academics of University X may be justifiable spinout to summarize the academic organization of a university, a list of degrees is an obvious violation of multiple aspects of WP:NOT: this is an encyclopedia, not a high-PageRank webhost. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity: do you agree with what I understand to be JohnCD's position that we should delete these articles when we find them rather than trying to merge them back into their parent articles? Baileypalblue (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of majors and baccalaureate and graduate degree programs should absolutely be deleted per WP:NOT. Information about the academic suborganizations that comprise the university (e.g. the school of law, college of medicine, school of business, school of engineering, etc.) should not be deleted because they do not fall under WP:NOT and many are notable. Departments, like degrees and classes, are almost always not notable except for a handful of departments and programs (University of Chicago economics, MIT EECS, Oxford PPE, and the like). Madcoverboy (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not the least bit sure about special graduate programs. These can be distinctive.DGG (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are, distinctive isn't always notable, and neither is "specialised". I agree with Madcoverboy that, while the programmes he mentioned might be notable, the fact that a graduate programme is a specialised programme does not necessarily make it notable per se. I'm curious to know just what you mean, though. Could you clarify further? --Aepoutre (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC

A request for comment has been filed regarding the Phi Beta Kappa Society. Please make your opinions known at Talk:Phi Beta Kappa Society#Claim of "considered most prestigious". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This project's jurisdiction

I have noticed lately that there have been a lot of articles with our project template on it that are not university articles. Some of these have been academics (people), organizations that serve or are related to universities, institutes that serve higher education but are not tied to a specific university, non-degree-granting institutions, etc. As far as I'm concerned none of these articles are under the purview of our project. This project (in my mind) exists to standardize coverage of university articles. Including all related articles would increase our scope tenfold. I don't mean that we should not include university athletics programs, university libraries, etc, I mean to say that we should not include articles that wouldn't normally be part of a university article. Athletics programs and those are merely extensions of the main university article. What is everyone's thoughts?—Noetic Sage 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Accredited and degree-granting colleges and universities and their immediate daughter/spun-out articles (History of X, Campus of X, Alumni of X, X's School of Law, etc.). I agree that academics absolutely should not be included. It's unclear what you mean by institutes not tied with a specific university or organizations that serve/related to universities. In my view, something like US News & World Report college rankings should be included, the United States Department of Education should not. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think that, based on WP:UNIGUIDE, some non-university articles fall under this projects purview, although I also agree that individuals likely do not. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do the remarks above indicate that the article on Ralph Cooper Hutchison should not include the University Project template, and editors would be justified in removing that template from the article?DThomsen8 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Not having any response to my comment above, I am removing the University Project template from the Ralph Cooper Hutchison article as being about an academic rather than an institution. DThomsen8 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Hellenic College

There's a discussion going on here at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Holy Cross?. So far, none of us know: 1) the independent or otherwise status of the college from theological school or 2) what to name the article if they are indeed the same organization. If they're truly separate, of course, then that will require separate articles and separate entries in relevant lists and templates. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll go ahead with the merger, then. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, BTW. --Aepoutre (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Rankings

Since rankings from places like the Princeton Review change yearly, do articles on universities only place the most recent rank they obtained? Or should past positions be noted as well? So for example, if a university places 15th in a category one year, 10th the next, and then 13th in the most recent year, should all three be placed there or just the most recent? NyRoc (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As with other annual data, you should include the most recent verifiable information. It's a slippery slope to venture down once you start including historical rankings. While there may be a motivation to show that the institution was ranked more highly just over a year ago, I can assure you that with all rankings, any shift in position between years is not statistically significant and almost certainly can be attributed to noise in the data. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to see some standardisation or guidelines regarding the use of ranking entries. It seems that University Staff, Students, and Alumni use statistics to highlight conclusions. However, sometimes statistics are used in a rather disingenous way. For example, UEA presenting the Times "overall" score to represent an academic rating - when in fact there is a more accurate rating which they could have used.

I would like to see some agreement about how long a rating or award can be used for in the introduction - I would suggest a limit of 3 or 5 years. I would also like to see a standardised rating section which would be adopted by each University. It would then be possible for people to make whatever claim they want afterwards, so long as the standardised section is displayed first. Kbdguy (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Has there been consensus on whether or not to use rankings heavily? While I wouldn't expect a "ban on rankings", I'm not a big fan of them. Many seem rather subjective (a rather typical argument, I know), and profit-driven (the combination of which seems to go against the philosophy of WP:RS), rather than truly informational. Would we say that there's an intrinsic benefit to listing these, or that it improves Wikipedia in any way? I'm inclined to think it's more for certain colleges' prestige to have such rankings featured on Wikipedia, since the hype of rankings really doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. Imagine reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica with rankings.... hah! --Aepoutre (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue that I doubt will ever be resolved: Proposed RfC,December 08 discussion, Rankings in lead discussion, Public Ivies, as well as extensive discussions on WT:BOOSTER about the same. I'm of the view that rankings make all their assessments on similar underlying statistics (endowment, faculty awards, admission scores, etc.) so we can just neutrally report these facts and allow readers to make up their own mind. To the extent that there are some notable rankings (and certainly non-notable rankings as well), these can likewise be neutrally reported in Template:Infobox US university ranking without the need for a whole section of the article (that inevitably is the longest and most cited section in some articles). However, my brushups over the past several years on these and related issues of "prestige" and "selective" demonstrate that there is a huge body of precedent (in the form of FAs engaging in "bad" behavior, at least in my eyes) as well as very, very entrenched constituencies on the articles that don't take lightly to their alma mater being taken down a notch. The consensus on "enforcing" WP:UNIGUIDE is basically to grant local article editors complete autonomy to determine the style, content, structure, and tone of their articles as they see fit rather than ensuring consistency within our (relatively) narrowly proscribed domain. But if there are other people as upset as I am with the situation(s), I'd be happy to have your input on future discussions. After all, there is no deadline and I'm in it for the long-haul! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is going to be a pricky issue to deal with. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) many wiki-volunteers have a vested interest. This is understandable given that we can't pay anybody. I believe a solution lies in allowing three references to rankings withing the introduction, and then a complete ban on them elsewhere.

I agree with Aepoutre - an Encyclopedia is not really a place for rankings - I always ask myself - how would this page read in twenty years time. Can anyone direct me in terms of procedure to carry this out ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)