Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities

	WikiProject Universities
	This box: view • talk • edit
	Main pages
Main project	talk
Participants	talk
Participants category	talk
Project category	talk
Portal	talk
Infobox	talk
	Manual of style
Article guidelines	talk
Templates	talk
University stubs	talk
	Departments
Assessment	talk
Collaboration of the Month	talk
Outreach	talk
	Articles
List of articles	talk
Accomplishments	talk
Articles for Deletion	talk
Archive	talk
Clean-up List	talk
	Task Forces
Student Affairs	talk
	Things To Do
	Continue upkeep of University Portal; Work on articles that need cleanup. A randomized short list is here; Create a page for each and every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles.; Place {{WikiProject Universities}} on every related talk page.; Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.;

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Universities page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Shortcut: WT:UNI

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

WikiProject Universities

(Rated Project-Class)

University portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 45 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). All archived sections are listed here, by size. When an archive reaches 200 kB, a new one is created. The current archive is Archive 6. A list of all archives is here.

Archives
List of all archived sections

[edit] Naming conventions

I just added Senate of Serampore College (University) to the Project. I'd like to see if we can/need to find a better name for this article. The parentheses make it look as if its disambiguated, but that's apparently part of the name. As you can see, the website also omits any university reference, so I'm tempted to just make it Senate of Serampore College, but wanted to get some other input first. King of the Arverni (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Back in 2007 User talk:DGG proposed that Senate of Serampore College (University) be merged into the Serampore College article. DGG is still an active editor and it might be worth checking with him/her why the merge never happened (DGG is a very approachable, level-headed type). You might also take a look at Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College#Legal_Status where it says Serampore College is not a university. Good luck.... Pointillist (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it never happened is that I couldn't figure out how to make it consistent from the existing articles, and I didn't want to do the necessary research in the actual documents. Let me give a simpler analog: the official name of Harvard University is "The President and Fellows of Harvard College" and that is what will appear on the degrees they issue. Nonetheless, it is not in any real sense the name of that University, and anyone who uses it out of a ceremonial or legal context is using the wrong name.

As I understand it, there are two interlocking institutions, neither with a physical basis: The Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College" is a legal umbrella for coordination of Protestant theological education in a number of Asian countries. The "Senate of Serampore College " is an administrative body acting as the combined theological faculties of these colleges. It may possibly be called now "Senate of Serampore College(University)" to indicate that it is recognized as a university, but I see no documentation in the articles that this is the actual legal or practical name of anything, though it might have been officially renamed when the College was recognized by the Government of India as a University. (In India as in many other countries, "college" is an ambiguous title, referring usually to a secondary school in the British sense, but sometimes a degree granting tertiary institution of higher education, such as a typical American college.) The articles do make clear at least that this "Senate of Serampore College" has actually the legal status of a university under Indian law; University being now the usual name in India and elsewhere for an institution of higher education. Another term frequently used in articles here on Indian higher education institution, is "deemed University", which I understand to mean the same thing, that an institution such as a medical school whose name does not happen to include the word "university" is treated legally by India as a University. "Serampore College" seems to be used to mean two different things: the theological part of the original Serampore college, after the arts parts became part of the University of Calcutta; or the combination of the arts and the theological parts. The articles seem to demonstrate a certain dispute about who if anyone has the actual internationally recognized accreditation to give degrees, as they seem to be operating under a charter of the Danish King from several centuries ago which bears no clear relationship to the present state of affairs. Such ambiguity is not unknown elsewhere--in my home territory, the University of the State of New York, usually operating as The Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York is not actually a university in the usual meaning, but the overall regulating body for all public and private education in New York State: primary , secondary, and higher. The actual pubic university in New York State is the State University of New York, overlapping to a changing extent in New York City with the City University of New York. The various parts do not always move in the same direction, and the ways they are funded is probably as complicated as in India, and a continual political issue. I defy anyone not both educated and employed by the NY system to actually understand it, and I think the same is likely true of Serampore. I know 4 other US state systems also, and all 5 of them are radically different. And don't get me started on London or Paris. There is no human institution where the accidents of history are preserved in more peculiar ways than higher education. DGG (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed for this analysis. I will add a note on the article talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. In that light, what do we do about an article title that uses a parenthetical reference in its name but is not involved in disambiguation? I still think it'd make a good candidate for renaming, and it might be easy enough now to just make anything saying "Serampore College (University)" say "Serampore College" or "Serampore College University". Does anyone else think that the parenthetical reference might cause confusion with disambiguation cases as I suspect it does? King of the Arverni (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want my tentative advice, its to remove the (University) from Senate of Serampore College (University) as there is no real authority for it, and to merge this article andthe one for the Board of Theological Education. But, as I said, the reason I haven't done it is the work it would take verifying the history from the sources--I wouldn't want to do it based only on my interpretation, which may or may not be correct, and amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. DGG (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Colgate University

Hi all. We've got a conversation going on at Talk:Colgate University on whether or not the school's rankings should be mentioned with a comparison to other schools. I contacted Wordbuilder (talk · contribs) to get some help, but if anyone else could chime in, we could certainly use the help. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I really should check my watchlist during times other than right before I go to bed. I'll see if I can chime in tomorrow... - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UVa - Oldest engineering school in the US?

There is currently a discussion at Talk:University of Virginia#Oldest engineering school associated with a university? on whether UVa can assert that "The School of Engineering and Applied Science opened in 1836, making it the oldest engineering school in the United States associated with a university." Other editors' input and feedback is welcomed. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Byrn Mawr selectivity in the lead

There is a dispute at Talk:Bryn Mawr College#Article sprucing up about whether or not "highly selective" should be used in the lead sentence. Other editors' input and feedback would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UNIGUIDE on tuition

I just came across something in WP:UNIGUIDE itself that I was stupid not to have noticed. Via conversation at Talk:New England School of Law#Inappropriate editing, I was reminded that WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure encourages editors to include tuition figures. I've always removed those figures because I considered them to violate WP:NOT, that is, WP:NOPRICES. Are universities exempt from this? Have I missed something? Should we discuss altering UNIGUIDE? My last comment was an attempt to feature UNIGUIDE more prominently, but we may need to tweak it a bit first. Thoughts? King of the Arverni (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I fall on the other side of the debate since I think that all university articles should include this basic information. I would even suggest including this into the UNI infobox. From WP:NOPRICES: "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." Given their variance and standardization, reliable sourcing (as opposed to street pricing), as well as importance to framing any discussion of admissions and financial aid, I think their inclusion is justified. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Tuitions are notoriously inaccurate given the very high discount rates and practices used by most institutions. At most institutions, virtually no one pays "sticker price," excepting foreign nationals. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. gov't figures [1] suggest that 35% of students receive no aid whatsoever (Table 1) and the average aid was $9100 (Table 2) which is only a fraction of the total "sticker price". I think ElKevbo's assertions that universities' tuitions have "very high discount rates" and "no one pays 'sticker price'" are not accurate or defensible grounds for excluding basic information such as this. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This information is about about as neutral and objective as any we can verifiably report and completely devoid of any of the "notoriously inaccurate" conclusions implied by university rankings already so pervasive in the articles. If "notoriously inaccurate" is suddenly a precedent for removing neutral and verifiable information from articles, I can't wait to employ it to strip out rankings sections from articles! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I "side" with ElKevbo on the matter of not including tuition, I'm not sure the discount rate is relevant, either. Not that it isn't, I suppose, just that I'd need a better explanation as to why it's not. As for the rest.... After finally reading WP:NOPRICES, I'm fairly sure that tuition should not be included. I had no basis before, just that "I'd understood" that it shouldn't, which is why I wanted to discuss it. My rationale now lies in what Madcoverboy did not quote from WP:NOT:

-- After "justified reason for their mention," it says "Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation." These examples seem far more notable and far-reaching to me than each and every school's tuition. I'd go so far as to argue that there is no "justified reason for their mention" in terms of these clarifying examples, though I'm obviously open to discussion.

-- "In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products..." I'd argue that, if we were to include tuition figures, even with sources, Wikipedia would become a source to compare prices, as foolish as that sounds.

So, I can't see any encyclopedic reason to include tuition, which changes every year, and is directly connected to the purchase of a product, not a notable price war, historical economic inflation, or a rare collector's item, the three of which are far more notable and broadly relevant than the price of attending a school from one year to the next. The only exception I can see might be the historical changes in cost (which seems to mean higher prices each year outpacing inflation), but even that's cutting it close for me. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, so simply because it changes every year isn't sufficient grounds for excluding information. Rankings, size of the student body and faculty, number of degrees granted, etc. all change every year. I think that WP:NOPRICES should be read through the lens that Wikipedia shouldn't be a sales catalog with prices and MSRPs or day-to-day changes in stock prices, etc.I don't read WP:NOPRICES as an exclusive enumeration of all permissible uses of prices, but only examples of appropriate price use. I can see some merit in Arverni's comparison argument, but we can't control how readers use Wikipedia. If the tuition is not given undue weight and neutrally reported like any other basic university statistic, I'm having a hard time understanding why it should be deliberately excluded. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I originally thought that it should be excluded because I rarely see it included except in articles that read like advertisements, and probably because I've seen editors remove it before (reminds me of the time that I saw someone remove an academic title "per MOS" and just followed suit without even reading WP:CREDENTIAL). Now, though, I honestly think that including tuition serves the same advert function as listing all the majors and minors at a university. UNIGUIDE specifies the number of degrees and the academic divisions, but to list majors and tuition feels like the articles resemble Peterson's, USNews, and other college guides, which we're trying to avoid per NOT, right? History, rarity, and similar notability as described in the examples at NOPRICES are justified reasons, but tuition doesn't seem to fit any of those. We can ignore the fact that tuition changes (I agree, that wasn't terribly relevant) but I still can't think of a good reason to include tuition unless I'm looking to 1) compare or 2) buy. If you're not buying then what do you care about the price, right? Why else would you want to know? Tuition doesn't seem to have a specifically "justified reasons" in this discussion so far except for its very existence and verifiability. Sure, the information is verifiable, but just because there are sources doesn't mean it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. That is to say, just because schools' (promotional) websites offer their tuition figures, along with various other college guides aimed at promoting them, doesn't mean they merit inclusion. I just don't feel as though you'd ever find an encyclopedia that gives tuition figures. King of the Arverni (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to use examples because I hate to base everything on precedent, but it looks like, of all the featured articles that actually cover institutions (there are 14-15 of them out of 21 or so) listed as UNIGUIDES' example articles, not a single one lists tuition figures. There are a couple that cite news sources as being the top 10 most expensive, or that the U.S. military covers the tuition costs for those attending the academy, but that's about it. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I would like to think that these were (from my perspective) errors of omission rather than commission. After all, a number of these FAs don't include any information on their accreditation status or Carnegie classifications, even though they almost certainly should. Other editors' feedback on whether or not tuition should be mentioned in the articles as basic descriptive information or excluded as unencyclopedic is welcome so that consensus is not based on a 2 v 1 decision. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I hope no one minds that I renamed the discussion and moved the other concern below. Madcoverboy, do you have any response to my earlier comment, or are we just beating our heads against a wall? I was hoping to better explain my rationale that time, before I checked on the example articles for a related but different reason. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disagreement over whether it's important descriptive information or simply unencyclopedic information. We can let the discussion sit here and ruminate/stagnate for a few more days, maybe canvass some other editors for their opinion, or start an RfC. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tuition is basic information. I have none the less usually removed detailed presentations of it, because it is better and more accurately found on the actual college websites. It really isn't a simple number: There is a basic tuition rate, there is a system of special course fees that is increasing used as a way of bypassing the basic rate, there are a variable amount of discounts. At many colleges, a small minority of people actually pay the full amount. Some extremely promotional articles try to give all the fees down to the last detail, and this is surely not encyclopedic, but I am not sure what level of simplification is useful. I am not sure how we can present it properly and accurately and in an up to date manner. But we need to do something to indicate the approximate data. I consider this similar to other cost data. the price for an automobile can vary two-fold depending on the details of accessories purchased, but a general range discriminating a Civic from a BMW is none the less essential for anyone who might not know. And we cannot assume people will know: I was startled to see the extremely high tuition fees at some British public schools--I knew they were expensive, but I did not realize how much-- and it made a difference to the basic view of the subject. DGG (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Northwestern is my "pet" article, so I would welcome others' feedback on whether my description of the tuition and financial aid runs afoul of the concerns other editors raised about unencyclopedic information: Northwestern University#Student body. Would the article be better if this was removed? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I support DGG's opinion that tuition is notable in the sense that it provides perspective on the value placed on higher education, among other things. It is true that it is incredibly difficult to establish a uniform metric by which to describe tuition prices; in the interest of competition, universities will list a very low figure as their "cost of attendance" to draw applicants, which will then be hit with room and board and other fees which bring it in line with the prices of their competing institutions. It is also true that only a fraction of students pay the list price for their educations, so in that respect, tuition prices are irrelevant, since each applicant receives a different price based on their particular scholarship, wealth, and provenance. I am interested in the inclusion of tuition prices in university articles, but admit that I am at a loss to describe an effective means by which to determine exactly what to put in and under what justification. AniRaptor2001 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem quite complex, with discount rates and all (if I'm not mistaken, "cost of attendance" is actually more than published amounts because it's not only tuition, fees, room & board, but also travel costs, books, &c. -- but that's not the subject of this conversation). The NAICU has tried publishing historical tuition figures through the U-CAN network, but I'm still worried that WP:NOPRICES makes the best points here in terms of what not to include and why. Is tuition is worth talking about? Yes! Should we find sources that discuss the fact that British private schools cost a lot, or that community colleges cost less than four-year schools, that Harvard is very expensive but can offer a lot in scholarships, or that some schools have very high discount rates? Yes, yes! Should figures be included in each school article? I don't think so. These are two different conversations, one of which will lead to price comparisons and the other of which really deals with meaningful issues of how tuition works at different types of institutions (and sounds a lot more like the examples listed as exceptions to WP:NOT). These matters of discount rates, scholarships, endowments, cost outpacing inflation are also better discussed in an article about college tuition, and I'm sure the sources are out there to provide the necessary information. There is objective, verifiable information that we specifically don't include in articles: we don't list addresses because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, and WP:NOPRICES is just another part of that. We can't control how users read Wikipedia, but we can take into account how users will and still act as a community in everyone's best interest. I think it's a good idea to leave some bits out, and I'm not sure we're doing Wikipedia anything but a disservice to list these prices. I'm certainly concerned that, as many editors have pointed out, the nuances of college prices are rarely accounted for in reliable sources, and publishing flat rates won't give the proper perspective anyway. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UNIGUIDE feature placement

Should we put {{selfref|See also: [[WP:UNIGUIDE|Article guidelines]]}} somewhere other than its currently obscure location under "Structure"? King of the Arverni (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would support putting this is a more prominent location given the frequency it is cited (by me? :) ) and amount of blood, sweat, and tears that went into getting it to guideline status. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, and I'd agree, of course. Any suggestions, oh wise one? --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What do we think of the placement and format now? I realise it's not exactly more prominent, but I feel as if it's more at home under articles than under structure, and I think the sentence is more clear than the see also. --King of the Arverni (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BUIC

This is a strange one; I added your project tag, and downgraded it from speedy deletion to proposed deletion. If this is a university with 20000 students, why am I getting no Google archive hits apart from a few that look like PR or advertising? Please have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another one ... we might be able to merge GBS-Department of management - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] College of the Holy Cross GA reassessment

College of the Holy Cross has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainability proliferation

I've noticed Special:Contributions/24.60.202.119 has been adding or expanding sections on sustainability across a wide swath of articles I keep on my watchlist. If this some sort of astroturfing campaign, they're doing a very good job with respect to formatting and general verifiability, so I've been inclined to let them run their course and go through and cleanup later. However, it is important to clean this content up as I am worried about these sustainability sections being given undue weight in many articles. I would suggest that much of this content could be summarized and merged with the Campus section on each article rather than being stand-alone multi-paragraph sections. Other editors' thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it too and was wondering if anyone else had noticed and had an opinion. It does seem like undue weight. Offhand, it seems that one good way to handle it would be to (a) remove much of the information recently added as giving the topic undue weight, (b) create an article about the phenomenon of campus sustainability, and (c) add a {{seealso}}, {{main}}, or some other pointer in the relevant college and university articles to the new article. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note that 96.237.125.178 is also engaged in this activity. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madcoverboy that this is neat information to have and might support moving it to the Campus section. I also like ElKevbo's proposal to start an article on the general topic. I am somewhat concerned that the editor seems to have one single purpose in mind and some of the edits sound so unencyclopedic to me [2]. A "bright spot" sounds pretty judgmental and SHU "earned" a grade of D. Let me know if this is uncool of me to point out, oh wise ones, but it's a Cambridge MA account and the Green Report Card place is also based in Cambridge MA. Maybe it's all nothing, but I guess I'm worried that it's just some business going around and posting their own research and sources. It definitely does need cleaning up to make sure it all meets WP:NPOV and WP:V in any case. --King of the Arverni (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would also be a good idea to get these users onboard, to see what their intentions really are. Perhaps they would be happy to do what has been discussed above; or, there's a good reason why they haven't signed up for an account. AniRaptor2001 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of universities in Canada

I have nominated List of universities in Canada for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New England School of Law

Hi, UNI community! I'd appreciate any input my fellow WikiProject members might have to offer over at New England School of Law and its respective talk page. I feel as though my contributions aren't being taken seriously based on some odd ad hominem assertions and it'd just be nice to have some other experienced editors have a look-see. Some highlights: an editor named Latenightpizza prefers to eschew WP:UNIGUIDE for a version geared more toward "prospective law students" and another named Neslgrad09, of course, likes to pretend that I've personally attacked him/her. Comments and criticisms of my own behavior here are welcome, since I feel as though I'm attracting a lot of this lately! --King of the Arverni (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Start Task Force?

I am editing articles related to Washington & Jefferson College I'd like to expand, standardize, and streamline these articles. I don't think there's enough support out there to sustain a full WikiProject:Washington & Jefferson College for it right now, so would a task force be the way to go? Does anyone with experience have any thoughts?--GrapedApe (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't create a bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If you want to expand, standardize, and streamline the articles, just do it! There's no need to invent an organization to justify or legitimize your work here. Ask yourself what purpose would a WikiProject or Taskforce serve if it's only really one to a few editors doing any actual work? As it is, this entire WikiProject has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles under its domain as well as its own official guideline, and a host of other topical essays and subpages. Despite all of that, we haven't even been able to get a Collaboration of the Month drive up off the ground! I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia would be better served if your time and expertise was spent improving the articles instead of boot-strapping up an unneeded bureaucracy. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] St. John's University (New York)

A content dispute at St. John's University (New York) between an IP editor and a registered editor with a potential conflict of interest has gotten a bit out of hand and devolved into personal attacks, outing, and general nastiness. A 24-hour page protection has been imposed, but I'm requesting that other editors intervene to develop a consensus on the dispute while the protection is in place. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reassessment of Tepper School of Business

I have done the GA Reassessment of Tepper School of Business as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. My review can be found here. I have put the article on hold for one week pending fixes. I am notifying all the interested projects of this. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The University of North Texas College of Music has produced a number of very shiny and very WP:MOS-violating articles that appear to be nothing more than an adjunct web presence for their organization. Perhaps some editors would like to stop by and give them a hand to get their multi-colored Wikitables and external links under control? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of the University of Florida

The History of the University of Florida article was just recently created, and could use a major expansion. NorwalkJames (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] University of Cambridge GAR notice

University of Cambridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seal of Tulane University

Hey, everyone! There's a discussion going on between a couple of us UNI people over at Talk:Tulane_University#Logo_vs._Seal and I thought I'd give a heads-up to anyone else with UNI here who might be interested in offering an opinion. There's a related discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines#Infobox_and_logos about some potential ambiguities and/or conflicting UNI information in WP:UNIGUIDE. Laters! --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Mason University

Can we get a few more eyeballs on George Mason University? A persistent anonymous editor is insisting, among other things, that (a) George Mason doesn't belong in the history section and (b) there are no notable alumni of this institution. It's a shame because many of his or her other edits are constructive. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] unaccredited colleges list

We have been using the Oregon list [3] for a while, but we now have a citable source that it is reliable: Chronicle of Higher Education, June 24, 2009. "Accreditation Group and Unesco Team Up to Take On Diploma Mills" by Thomas Bartlett [4]

"Perhaps the best list of unaccredited colleges is maintained by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorization. "

DGG (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need help expanding & detailing McCombs School of Business

Besides the WikiProject UT Austin where can I get outside help with idea for expanding and roughing out sections for this article? Thanks in advance! NThomas (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and educational institutions' articles

I've noticed that quite some articles blatantly ignore neutrality making them very identical to spamming. This includes both colleges and universies although lesser watched colleges are easily more prone. How can they be revamped? I'm posting here because this seems widespread - as an example I just encountered by chance. -- Menti fisto 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that every college and university article continually struggles with. The example you cite is perhaps the most egregious I've ever seen and is completely inexcusable. I would direct you to WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:BOOSTER that generally represent consensus perspectives on how to address the issue of neutrality specifically in the context of colleges and universities. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GAC noms

There are currently three articles awaiting GAC evaluation. Other university editors' input and feedback is requested. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Jesus College, Oxford

I have conducted a reassessment of this article. I have some concerns which are listed at Talk:Jesus College, Oxford/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions info in "Academics" sections

(Transfered from WP:UNIGUIDE)

I'm wondering if information about admissions statistics and practices belongs in the "Academics" section of the article, as is outlined by the article guidelines. Strictly speaking, aren't a school's academics the scholarly pursuits there (viz., teaching and research)? It seems illogical to combine the two, even slightly synthesized in its subtle implication that who gets in influences the academic activities at the institution. I suggest that notable admissions information be allocated to its own section. Any thoughts?– DroEsperanto^{(t | c)} 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bennington College

Can someone else please help keep an eye on Bennington College? A new editor has been inserting some unsourced POV material and I could use a hand in keeping the article NPOV. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just added it to my watchlist. – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)