Knowledge talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 1

3330:

formal final award (two common anecdotal cases involve research students not actually writing up the thesis but instead going into employment with their sponsor and students with debts to the university not repaying them and so not getting the degree), taken a course that doesn't end with graduation (this happens a lot with short and technical courses), been to university in an earlier era when graduation didn't mean much and so forth. I'm not sure where this "working somewhere" stuff comes through for staff - from what I can see the only cases where staff are being listed as alumni are where they were also students (a number who haven't yet got their PhDs do take them internally) or the handful of universities that confer honourary degrees upon staff who aren't alumni. Using "former students" is the only workable definition. Also adding in staff and others with university connections would massively increase many categories to the point that they'd need to be sub-divided again.

2968:

Newseek 'Top 100' or that world rankings list by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Added information such as being ranked by big businesses or research organisations could be added sometimes but would have to be evaluated on a case to case basis. I think some leeway should be given as to which year's league tables are used. One University might be ranked say 20th in 2005 and then 40th in 2006. Since league tables should only be a rough indication, I'd say that league tables referenced in the last 5 years is acceptable. I do think that less importance should be played on league tables as opposed to things like international recognition of specific departments, which would be more suited for sections on those departments in articles. Some Universities do not do so well in league tables, however, they sometimes have one area of research in which they are world reknown.

1346:

university for a single year). It would be acceptable to list that person on the list version, because it would not disrupt the biography article of that person. But if we had a category, then we would have to add the category to the biography article. Now what if this person had lectured at or been a visiting professor at many universities, as indeed many distinguished academic scholars have? We could end up with something like eight or more university-related categories on a single biography page (one university-related category for the person's undergraduate study, one for the person's graduate study, two for the person's past teaching appointments, one for the person's current teaching appointment, one for where the person received an honorary degree, one for where the person made a significant donation, etc.).

3310:

poeple working somewhere being an alumnus. There is where the problem lies. According to this expanded definition any faculty would also qualify as alumni and go into the alumni list/category as well. The second issue then comes with categorization, where there are often categories for both ABC U alumni and ABC U people/faculty. I think either we need to define alumni as graduates only, or simply remove the distinction and have lists/categories of ABC U people as there would likely be few if any people that fit people but not alumni. Basically, there is no difference between alumni and people if we use the newer definition of alumni.

3825:}}. Not to be difficult or argumentative, but I don't think it's a matter of "needing to visualise" the colors, but it's a matter of making as user-friendly an encyclopedia as we can, providing the kind of attention to detail that users might expect. I'm certainly not saying that this needs to become a requirement or make it a part of the infobox, just that since these aren't the only two articles I've seen use such a template (I've seen similar uses of boxed color swatches as part of legends, keys, or other descriptors elsewhere), it might be worth thinking about making it easier to provide this functionality. -- 214:

don't think these facts are all that surprising given the nature of Knowledge, people right about what they know, and here in the English addition, many people writing University articles are American, and many are writing about an institution with which they are connected. Helping to reduce this bias should also be a goal of this project. Part of this project's response to these issues should be to develop a single standard for all university articles on Knowledge (English anyway), but this standard needs to be flexible enough to work for any institution, regardless of location.

2562:, and, from experience, the ones the universities pay most attention to. I suppose the question is whether to include the whole variety of other ones too, and the "regional" (Scotland, England, etc) ones. Is it also worth including RAE/QAA specifications? Then there's the issue of the various rankings for the specific departments within the University - I think this might be going to far, unless the department has its own specific wikipedia article, but within a university which comes fairly low in many rankings, it can still have world-class departments. 1714:'s men's basketball team) seem to be more important than many minor league baseball teams that have their own articles (minor league baseball, for instance, is never shown on TV, while mid-major or minor conference college basketball can be found fairly frequently). Discussing these teams in the context of a small athletics section in the article about the school is bound to seriously limit the amount of quality contributions we will get on the subject. Some schools have separate articles on their athletics program, generally ( 1722:, and so forth). But even these are going to give short shrift to the basketball and football teams, which ought to have articles at least as extensive as the articles on NBA and NFL teams, imo. I'd like to suggest a) that articles on University athletics programs be made a general policy for Division I schools; and b) that the most notable programs, especially men's basketball and football, ought to have their own articles, so that we can go into full detail about these notable subjects. Note that, say, the 1679:. Here I am not going to offer opinions on whether these types of articles should be merged, except to say that if these articles were as good as those on Oxbridge Colleges, they would not have been merged. In fact they were bad. The main point is that I think this project should try to formulate some guidelines about articles on residencial halls and colleges and also on how to keep them NPOV and stop nonsense being added. As an example of such nonsense see the call for deletion on a "part" of a College at 4477:. These are fairly big schools, and most of the buildings listed are notable, but they shouldn't think they need an article on every building. I think a good thing to do when non-notable buildings are found is merge them into a article on the campus or a "Buildings at _____" article or something related. An example of this was Aquinas College (actually a secondary school, in western Australia (!?!) ). Editors found a huge collection of misc. articles (at least 15-20 I'd say). A few were listed here : 961:, but this category is very much a terrible idea. It will grow to be huge, and clutter up the category bar on everyone it affects. This category would set an unfortunate precedent for categories, because it can be extended to every other school. List articles are okay because they don't disrupt other articles, but categories like this are not because they will touch upon and affect so many biographies. And if you want to see what a monster this kind of category could become, just take a look at 5727: 31: 1104:

list as a separate page (I thought that a better solution than not mentioning anybody and just referring to the list, as the Harvard page does). I am at a loss, however, at how to organize the list (which I haven't posted yet). The Harvard list with its table looks the best, but I am not sure I like the alphabetic organization. It would be nice with a common standard for how to organize these lists, if one could be agreed upon. Perhaps a common naming standard, as well?

3161:

have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at

2472: 4857: 2361:- I think you will find that many people don't like infoboxes. Maybe not as many as like them, but a significant number most certainly do not like them. I personally think they should only present information from the lead section, and only in tabular form, and only obvious, relevant, important points. They should not be constrained into a straitjacket to be the same across thousands of articles, they 1780:. Endowment is not a universal concept. Also campus does not have to relate to groups of universities. I don't know whether there is a specific structure mandated for this type of article. Conforming to the highest standards of wikipedia may seem to be a virtuous act but in reality things are always being formed and reformed. Leave feedback about what works and people will be able to critique it. 721:, because this is how the institution refers to itself with respect to its system, except that "Purudue University systemwide" is the term used by the institution far more often than referring to a "System" as a proper noun. I do not think that Knowledge should dictate a single solution on system versus main campus, but instead should strictly defer to the institution's established conventions. 169:

meaningful work on these articles, and I think the best way to do that is to get this project on track. It seems to me that we need to establish a clear set of goals, finalize the standard template, get organized, and start bringing existing articles into compliance, etc. Anyone have any thoughts? ALSO: I think a good place to start would be to organize and condense this talk page (its 45 KB).

3463:(and its talk page archive) for a nightmare example. This one flipped between Prishtina (Albanian) and Priština (Serbian) frequently for a while, and like the rest of the Kosova-related articles, it's likely to flare up again from time to time. It's debatable whether they were the same institution, but two separate articles is as unpopular with some people as is one article with both names. – 2148:

consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

2568:

most likely the best policy. In the cases like Birkbeck, the explanation on the page why it doesn't often appear I think is perfectly sufficient. But if we do that for some universities, the thought then arises that perhaps we should "explain" the rankings of other universities - why they're 2nd in this one, but only 27th in that one, etc, which begins to sound like a fairly major task.

1333:, because an additional problem with a category in this case is that when we have list of alumni/faculty, we are also looking for additional information: what that person is known for, and that person's relationship to the institution (was the person an alumni, a faculty member, a donor, and so forth; what year did that person graduate; etc.). That is why, for example, 907:, applied after serious controversy over what should or should not be in the main article. The original page was blocked for a while, but it was unblocked after I reworked the piece in my own Sandbox and then applied for unblocking and substituted my work for what was there before. Unfortunately, the controversy may continue, but now at least all the editors working on 4435:

interest groups, but mostly on campus it's thought poorly of for being filled with wannabe hippies and homosexuals (which the article, glaringly, does not mention). It is the only article about a dormitory or individual building at Rutgers. I wisely think any discussion about buildlings should be limited, individually, to those that are historically significant....

1248:

abpve are cogent in terms of the concept of Cats, but only in terms of the clunky, nearly useless current implementation of that concept. Trying to make decisions based on the current limitations is the best way to ensure that we never see what Cats can do if enough effort is put into tagging, and that the project gets eventually loses steam and gets abandoned.

1838:, which an anonymous someone removed while claiming the article was fine. Since my concerns weren't addressed, I put the tag back. Only a handful of people edit the article, and I suspect many/most of them are connected to Eckerd in some way (including myself). Some external feedback would be nice. Anyone feel like reading it over? I indicated my concerns on its 965:(which is, I think, currently the longest such list) and think about how bad it would be after being turned into a category. Just think about what will happen once every university gets a category like this: every biography article for someone who's been through college and grad school will probably have multiple such university categories. 147:. This project at least lives on vibrantly through Template:Infobox_University and its ever-more-frequent successful usage in college and university articles. Specifically in regard to national infobox templates, recent evolution of Template:Infobox_University has eliminated any need for the 42+ variants of Template:Infobox_*University* 2786:

spent years if not decades training people to pass tests to erm pass a test...) but it seems virtually impossible to keep them off the articles (especially as they are the nearest to a formal source for many places' reputation) and a structured format would make it much easier for people reading different articles to be able to compare.

1073:(which I created, but more on that below). I completely agree with Lowellian that using categories for people associated with universities is problematic. A lot of people would fit into three or four categories, and with guest professorships and suchlike, it would be easy to reach anything up to a dozen university categories or more. 4552:, which adopts the US definition of 'school', including tertiary/higher education institutions. That proposed guideline is the third major redraft of the proposal, and there's a big talk archive full of not much consensus. One of the current proposals is that private, for-profit Universities should be assessed for notability under 193:, which served as models for other universities throughout the middle ages, hardly have more than stubs (and this appears to be true on the French and Italian Wikipedias as well, so there is nothing to be fetched from there), and there are a number of German universities which are certainly among the most important in the world (the 3592:. One particular problem here is that whilst within the country names like "Open University" and "Distance University" are unambiguous, internationally they are more of a problem and the institutions might either stick to the native language form, use an acronym or even add the country name for international purposes. We have: 3044:

therapy, mechanical engineering) -- while allowing School/College level entities (Law, Medicine, Business, Engineering, etc) -- as these inevitably attract booster-cruft as editors add programs that are ranked highly but omit including other programs that are ranked less highly. The counterargument, of course, is that schools

2131:. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at 3073:)? The idea would not to be to limit articles to only using particular rankings but to more easily allow for a standardized presentation of the most commonly cited rankings. It would also allow us to have consistent links to the source material and relevant Knowledge links (including criticism and limitations of rankings). 5057:, and you should probably be able to either find what you need or retrofit the "Free Label" to suit your purposes. If not, leave a message for the template-coding gurus on the template's talk page so they can add a line. A lot of what you say is needed for JC's might be useful for some four-year schools as well. 2539:

with many seemingly only citing the highest place in a particular listing in the last few years, making comparisons harder. (Also some of the information about ratings is appearing not in a dedicated section but elsewhere, sometimes even in the introduction to the article, as though making a pre-emptive defence.)

3575:

I'd agree about covering all institutions of note — there are plenty of reasons why somebody who is primarily comfortable with English (and therefore using the English Knowledge) might want to read about a foreign-language institution. Also, incidentally, well done Tim for speedily adding the project

3286:

There seems to be a feeling around WIkipedia that the verifiability policy goes out the window for lists, or that a lists of names need not have citations "because the information found in the linked article." Experience has shown that it is quite often the case that linked articles for an alumnus/a

3097:

which I thought were both appropriate and well-implemented precursors. One noticeable change is that a citation will automatically accompany any filled in field, which should prevent much hand-wringing as it is implemented across articles. Please go vet it and give it a test spin. Issues that need to

3065:

1. Limit this conversation to American colleges and universities for now. Adding in the various complexities and differences between different countries will make this conversation much more unwieldy than desirable at this time. Additionally, many (most?) rankings focus on only one country so that

3058:

I've cleaned up several articles and had similar thoughts. On the one hand, as a higher ed researcher I hate to give these stupid rankings the weight of authority and objectivity since we know there are so many problems with them. On the other hand, I recognize that it's a futile struggle and these

2890:

We, as academics, have a habit of regarding league tables generally as bollocks unless it happens to look upon our own department/university favourably, at which point the result gets posted on the front page of our website and in our articles here at wikipedia, which is really stretching NPOV beyond

2714:

is all fine and well and is definitely worth doing, but I suspect people are still going to try and add snippets of such information to pages about specific universities. When people want to do this, an infobox would seem to be the best approach, linked suitably to the central league table page - can

2408:

It makes it easy to excerpt and avoid an article's prose. However, supposing that there are persons whose readings are enhanced by a box jutting into the screen, how many persons like that are there? How many persons find the boxes tedious, repetitive, and insultingly reductive? How many find them

2400:

Secondly, the very premise is slippery. To suggest "Professor" is a useful distinction is to mistake the world. "Professor" was the vocation of W. H. Auden and C. S. Lewis, most of the successful fine artists of the 20th century, most of the physicists who have made breakthroughs, etc. So, can the

1907:

I am alumnus of Austin College, which has a Wiki page. I have noticed that other college and university pages list "Notable Faculty" members. It would be my intention to start such a listing on the Austin College page since, in my opinion, there are faculty members there whose records of publication,

1793:

Initially I planned it on lines of Ivy League, but some people objected to the format so I had to reformat it. Furthermore, they both are very short and wouldn't help in the long run. A lot of changes have been made over the past few days. Please comment on how the article appears now. In my personal

1693:

A question I would ask is whether the residence halls have specific significance on their own or not. If they are not significant on their own then they will most likely not be written to a high standard anyway and will be subject to deletion more often than not. I dont know what guidelines to follow

1103:

article, among other things adding names to the people list, but in the end (realizing there were still hundreds of names which could conceivably be added), I decided it was better to erase the whole list and just write a few narrative paragraphs mentioning a few key figures, then reposting the whole

666:

I think the template should apply for both, in adapted form. Subjects such as enrollment in the UC article would list total enrollment of all campuses. Campus size/mascot would be left out. The individual campus articles would list campus founding date (e.g. 1919 for UCLA) and chancellors (as opposed

523:

It's common practice to put graduating years for alumni, differentiating it by degree if necessary (i.e., next year in an Indiana U. context I'll be Paul Musgrave '04; if I get my law degree there, I'll be Paul Musgrave '04, J.D. '07). For famous faculty, it's probably a better idea to simply have a

4784:

I regret if this has been covered previously, I did not find a specific answer in my brief review to this point. I am writing to inquire on whether this group has developed, at a very general level, a baseline on what defines a "notable alumnus" of an institution. I am beginning to see, and I sure

4537:

I remember reading somewhere (probably from the schools notability debate) that tertiary education institutions, no matter their nature (private/public, non-profit/for-profit, liberal arts/engineering/community college/technical) are automatically notable and not subject to CSD 7. Am I just dreaming

4154:

two weeks ago, and got a disappointingly minimal response. The only people who reviewed were users I asked to chime in with their examination and scrutiny. Peer Review right now is badly inactive. If anyone from this wikiproject has a few minutes to read through the article and give a few pointers

3902:

Every school has (or had) a yearbook in it's history. The yearbooks represent the institutional memory of the university and are an important resource that should be added to the template. For example, did you know that the University of Mississippi got it's nickname "Ole Miss" from the yearbook?

2985:

I may have come to this discussion late, but my immediate reaction would be to include the Times and Guardian listings, and only the most recent of each. These are the tables almost exclusively referenced in the media, and generally the ones used by universities themselves (except for RAE etc, which

2621:

or whatever. If you can find a consensus for which league tables are 'good'/'recognised', then articles with information from 'bad' league tables can be edited and the bad information replaced with good. Adding an infobox to every single article seems like an awful lot more work than just creating

2608:

with a section discussing each of the major league tables, creating a central place where the merits of and problems with each are dealt with. Then articles which make a claim based on whatever league table makes them look best can be linked to the relevent section on that page, which discusses the

2586:

I'm almost wondering if a specific infobox for UK university ratings would be useful. It could include fields for THES, Sunday Times, Guardian, Shanghai Jia Tong, RAE and so forth. The main advantage would be to focus the statistics to make for clear comparisons between institutions. (For those that

2538:

Looking through a good number of UK university articles it sometimes seems as though the ratings cited are far more those that show the institution at its best rather than a common standard for comparison with similar universities locally and nationally. Plus the ratings aren't even year consistent,

1314:

Listing faculty and alumni separate or together? I think the former practice is based on modern America, with its enormous number of institutions, but for many older universities and universities in smaller countries these groups overlap to a very large degree and its seems pointless to list so many

693:

The UC system is not the "University System of California" or "University of California system". Most of the time, "University of California" is used to refer to the entire system, there a good number of links refer to the Berkeley campus, which was the sole/main campus when the subject was there. I

249:

will serve as a sort of sand box for the development of the standard. Instead of wasting a bunch of words, time, and effort on this talk page deciding every little detail, we would all make our changes to the sand box (the universities/example talk page) until we get to a point where we're all happy

5610:

The Organisation section, a list of faculties, is presented in list form, which makes it long. How would it be if we created a separate list that is not located in the main article and summarise the list in the main article? Or keep it in the main article and present the lists in TWO columns (sorry

4806:

That is an interesting approach. I don't know if I would venture to that extreme, I just don't think that notable alumni lists should become near advertisements for individuals who show a bit of initiative by adding their information. I suppose it becomes difficult to distinguish, a scientist who

4795:

In the past I have seen a number of lists of alumni which are essentially limited to those who have a wikipedia article. I don't know if this is necessarily an official policy, but it acts as a reasonable guide. Obviously some exceptions will occur - not everyone notable necessarily has a wikipedia

4089:

Ostensibly, it's a scholarly work, published reputably - although I agree it's a COI if the editor is also the author, and I note that the citation is just dumped in the refs, and no information in the articles actually comes from the book. I'd suggest that the user is just an enterprising newbie,

3180:

Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to Knowledge. Some of my friends have been working on the entry for College of the Holy Cross and would like to find out to request feedback/peer review on the entry so far. It's definitely needs to major work on photos, history, and campus but we just needed feedback on

2967:

I agree with you that there need to be limitations in regards to 'best' statistics, I didn't take that into account in my message above. League tables that could be chosen from are, in my opinion, the league tables of leading newspapers, Times, Guardian, Telegraph etc and reputable rankings such as

2915:

Should there really be a common list used? Different lists favour different Universities. Speak to staff at Universities and ask them about league tables and they'll say they're a joke. The league tables are there for a general impression but nothing more. Each page should list the best position it

2567:

From the point of view of what these rankings actually say, they do notoriously add weight to particular features of a university, which may or may not be relevant in each case. However, in terms of NPOV, it would seem best to present the information as is and let the reader decide. Completeness is

2542:

Is there any way that a standard set can be worked out as to which listings should and shouldn't be included? Obviously most of this would need to be country specific (although are there many international ratings?) and even then there are always going to be institutions that don't appear or aren't

2515:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other

2396:

Additionally, the emergence of WikiProject X has encouraged fragmentation and allowed the participants of such projects to think that they have some validity above the individual editor's. That, too, is erroneous. If there is a Project for humans, that project would not get precedence on the look

2260:

why I asked for input before putting them on the articles. Personally, I find infoboxes and other boxtypes very useful, I'm sure others do as well, otherwise we wouldn't have so many around. I would very much like to get more feedback, so its not just me in favour, and you opposed. And I'm not sure

1709:

In the United States, the men's basketball and football programs at Division I schools have an importance and significant approximately equivalent to that of professional sports teams - the University of Miami's football program, or Duke's basketball program, is at least as significant as any given

1616:

Hi. I'm not sure if I'm asking this in the wrong place. I was looking for a list of all the computer science departments, in the UK. Is there scope for, for example, having a xml database of all the universites, all their departments, and the webpages relating? Is this out of scope for wikipedia?

168:

for the past couple of weeks. Today, I discovered this WikiProject and began reading through the material that has come together so far. I seems like some good groundwork has been done, but the project seems very disorganized and hasn't really accomplished its goals. I would really like to do some

3309:

This brings up two issues. Not the citation part, the alumnus defintion. First, the defintion you are using is not the only defintion, someplaces list it as only graduates. On wikipedia it uses the definition you are using, but you need to include the entire definition that includes the part about

2872:

about the wider debate. I don't think we are seriously going to list every ranking for every university and update them every year. Indeed that would be pointless as one could look up the league tables. So at present the articles tend to mention them if they are interesting, like they rose or fell

2645:

My immediate thought on the matter was also an infobox. That would allow the reader to be presented with the facts and allow them to draw their own conclusions, rather than any attempt to interpret them which might be original research. Would there be a copyvio risk in effectively republishing the

2317:

And a further point - the box looks a bit US centric. "Professor" in other countries means only the senior ranking lecturers in a university - "academic" would be a better term for the box rather than one that will just encourage loads of edit summaries like "Remove Infobox Professor - he/she is a

1538:

AFAIK, breakout articles usually wait until the size of the main article makes the breakout necessary. However, a bunch of alumni/faculty/etc. lists have been broken out of the parent article even when the parent is nowhere near 30k, and the list is short enuf to not be unwieldy yet. Has this been

1497:

Since this proposed poll could potentially have wide ranging impact, I am posting this notice here to get additional feedback on the proposed language. Also, feedback would be appreciated on whether or not the broader issue of naming conventions should or should not be addressed concurrently with

5694:

article should redirect or be about the Madison campus or the University of Wisconsin system. It's not too different from discussions some of us have held about other universities and university articles so maybe we could offer these editors some assistance and sage advice (or at least some more

5638:

The infobox and crest look fine to me. If you're experiencing a lot of white space, it may be because your screen is high-resolution. It may also be because of the long table of contents. The primary problem though, I think, is that the article is composed almost entirely of lists. It's those

5032:

shows 7000 or 8000 students (take your pick), while the most reliable looking page at the school's website shows that only 1400 of the 6700 enrolled students are full-time; junior colleges tend to run high on part-time students, so the raw number makes them look bigger than they actually are; the

3882:

Hi. I'm starting a WikiProject that is somewhat of a spinoff of this one, WikiProject Big Ten. Anyone in this project who is especially familiar with the Big Ten would be an asset, and we could certainly combine on the main college articles. If there's no interest here my apologies, but hopefully

3329:

It's very difficult to use "graduate" as a definition without full access to records of graduation - most of the information available is about whether someone attended an institution and there are many reasons they may not have graduated - not finished their course, declined to actually take the

3160:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who

1302:

has a point in that it may be difficult making complete lists and thus it may fit better into the kind of things that are usually categorized. However, I still think, at the moment at least, that lists are the way to go, as they have the advantage in sorting and commenting the items. In addition,

3541:

1. Coverage should be every bit as extensive as that of Anglophone institutions. I realise, though, that the bottleneck in achieving that sort of coverage is probably the language barrier and not notability criteria. If a University's website is exclusively in a foreign tongue, then extracting

3295:

Given that most notable people associated with universities have bios quickly available online... if not through standard reference sources... I'd really like to ask people to spend the five minutes up front to source these as they go in, rather than leaving them as a blob of unsourced material.

2785:

that might be a starting model. For the UK I think it may useful to include the National Student Survey as an alternative take on how universities are measured. I agree that all league tables should be treated with some scepticism (you're asking some of the cleverist people in the country who've

2147:

are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please

1247:

with too many Cat tags for users to find at a glance the one that they're interested in. But they can be prioritized, with the lesser ones represented by an asterisk and linked to in a section on the same page, or on a special page associated with the Cat-tagged page. None of the arguments made

213:

I totally agree with you, there are too many University stubs (worldwide), and I believe that expanding all of these articles in a uniform way should be a goal of this project. I also agree that there is probably a good deal of bias toward the US perspective, at least in the English edition. I

4559:

While it seems to me that most universities are clearly notable, you only have to go through the yellow pages to find some (usually foreign) unaccredited doctorate-farms whose 'campus' is an office above a kebab shop in London or Berlin. These obviously aren't inherently notable, and while the

3404:

how aggressive should we be about names being in English? I rather believe that everything should be titled in English... however, some institutions are insisting that their "English" names are the same as their native names, and others without English websites are hard to determine, and Google

3291:

mention the school he or she attended, and even when it does it is much more frequently the case that the linked article cites no source. But in any case a Knowledge article is not considered a reliable source for another Knowledge article. If the linked article does cite a source, it should be

1310:

How to sort people? Alphabetic sorting allows one to list a person only once, even if he or she has contributed to different fields, but generally, when looking at a particular university, I would be more interested in seeing people in particular fields listed together. That says more about the

589:

I actually disagree with the convention that history comes first (but I could hardly change that since it's so entrenched). Usually, you look for current information about topics, not the history. Encarta places the history at the end. World Book Encyclopedia places it at the end. Encyclopaedia

4928:

This issue may have already been raised in the "Rankings" discussions, but I've noticed university articles making claims such as "The largest school in the state,county,etc." While these statements may have been true at the time they were written, student enrollment continues to fluctuate and

4434:

article as when i wrote it I didn't find it relevant, likewise, I didn't include it on the {{Rutgers}} template. It's only accessible through the Rutgers University category (that's how I found it). Some Demarest resident thought it notable beacuse that's where Rutgers threw a couple special

3951:- I can't see how yearbook name can be useful. In fact, I would guess most colleges yearbooks don't have special names, and some colleges/universities don't have yearbooks at all. I think there is already a section for "nickname". Also, any more suggestions should go on the template talk page. 433:

Exactly my thought. Not all universities have famous alumni or faculty either :) (or campuses, come to think of it). But it would look very, very strange not to have a section for athletics for an American university, especially the large ones, because it's such a part of the U.S. collegiate

5602:

the size of the university crest a little? Furthermore, the other graphic in the bottom part of the same infobox needs to be resized. I am not sure how to do this and so I would ask someone to consider doing this. The infobox is really long and is in part the cause of a large empty space that

5523:

page. Someone had hard-coded a chart listing their presidents' tenures, with a bar showing length of tenure. I ripped it off and reverse-engineered it (not being by any means proficient in Wiki- or any other kind of coding, it took me quite a bit of experimentation before the sucker finally

4198:

Coincidentally, I just started reading the Oklahoma article a few moments ago, right after I initially posted this request. (I intend to read it twice...first for style and technical issues, second for content) I should be able to provide my input at OU's peer review shortly after dinner this

3043:

These sources are commonly cited and are ostensibly objective and neutral and I imagine this section could be easily replicated for other articles. I have also been debating whether or not to include rankings department-, major-, or program-level entities/specialties (ie art history, physical

2246:

To be blunt, I find it completely useless. Nothing personal; I think most biographical infoboxes are useless, and we have far too much of this kind of garbage in articles already (not just infoboxes, but navigation boxes, succession boxes etc. etc.). You should not be surprised if you will be

1539:

proposed/discussed/decided somewhere other than here? Anyone else agree it's unnecessary, probably a waste of time/effort, and actually more cumbersome than leaving it all in one article so readers don't have to use a second click to see the list, when there are only a couple dozen names (EG

1345:

creating such categories, but right now, the net effect of these university categories on Knowledge would be huge and disruptive to Knowledge's biography articles. Consider, for example, someone who has only the slightest association with a university (for example, the person lectured at the

3691:

And that's just a handful of institutions in Europe! There are more complicated cases where it's very hard to determine whether the native language form or an English translation is commonly used in English. The best example I can think of is actually the student representative bodies - see

811:

I agree, even if this sounds a bit strange to me (as a former active Student Union member). Re the implementing question: good question, maybe we should give some people some tasks to do (e.g. all some hundred German universities) as soon as the layout questions (see above) are settled. --

119:). If no-one complains on this talk page, I will add these items to the template in a week or two. I also noted that the heading "Campus" is very specific (many Universities do not have campus) and something more general like "layout" or "location" might be better for a universal template. 5100:

Wesleyan was in the news a lot for its ban on chalking. This seems worth mentioning since it is probably one of only a handful (the only one I'm aware of) that has banned chalking. This relates both to student activism and to university policy that would be of interest to many students.

2891:

its limits. I don't see a problem with putting the information in every year - there are many wikipedians giving many hours' work to wikipedia, and this, by comparison, is a fairly straightforward task. Either that or we ban all league table quotes on uni web pages as contravening NPOV.

4447:

at Oxford, or the Great Tower of Magdalen College, Oxford. But generally, absent that significance historically, I don't think articles about individual buildings should be made. If the building is not notable in itself, but might be part of a historically notable quad or area, like

658:

I'd say: One entry for each university, i.e. one for UCLA and one for UCB, if they are known as such. If there is something like a university system, mention it in the table (type of school?), make it a list of it's affiliated universities. Re highschools -- how important are they? --

581:

Let's keep it up there until it gets too long. If it's so long it becomes obstructive, then surely a new article is needed. Many times, the history reveals what the university is famous for. It's always been the format with countries, states, and provinces to list the history first.

5379:. I don't expect it would receive much opposition, but I would oppose making any particular way of filling in the colors/colours field mandatory: the infobox is crafted for maximum flexibility, and it's very beneficial that way. This seems like a good idea, though. Good work! — 2322:

confusing trying to use that term in countries that don't have federal structures (for instance in the UK does it mean the county, which is sometimes the same as the city, the region, which isn't terribly meaningful for many and/or an anachronism, or the constituent nation?).

201:

and several others) which are just stubs at the moment, and also lack illustrations (here some stuff can be taken from the German versions). Actually, some of the older American universities are also underdeveloped in their history section. That is certainly the case with the

3518:

I certainly agree with your assertion that non-English contributions to history, knowledge, human development, etc. have and continue to take place (and given the rise of China and India, among others, I expect this trend to increase). I think there are two questions hidden

3545:

2. I think, as editors, we have to prioritise articles that we can best contribute. Perhaps the best way of getting good coverage of Foreign University X is for us to request an article/expansion of an article from the WikiProject covering the country where University X is

2974:

In a nutshell, 'best' should be the highest rating a University has had in the past 5 years out of the most reknown league tables published. This should always be followed by more specific ratings and details on reputation in notables areas of study and research. Thoughts?

129:

A true universal template is impossible, as so many things are different in different systems. The original (American) template had stuff like "teams" and "mascot". In my view, it is better to accept that national, and sometimes even more specialized, templates are needed.

3505:, you'd be just as stumped. I don't believe that notable information should be excluded from Knowledge just because it was discovered in another language — it would be arrogant of me to assume that all worthwhile research is done in, or even translated into , English. — 4929:

articles should be contiually updated accordingly. Comparisons should use the most currently available data. I suggest that sections with these statements be should contain some sort or temporal tag. Perhaps a new type of tag needs to be created for this very purpose.

2089:

Thanks, I've already used a bit of that history (take a look at the references). I could maybe get another paragraph out of that by adding more of the details of the early beginnings, but where do I go from there? What else should be addressed aside from history?

5033:

infobox or article template should ask for FT and PT enrollment; OTOH, many community colleges have large numbers of classes which are open to residents who have not been "admitted" and don't get included in the student count--they should be quantified separately;

181:, but also occasionally on other Swedish or Nordic universities (and occasionally even on others). I haven't signed in to the project as it seemed to be going nowhere. In my opinion, many of the general articles are now very U.S.- or anglocentric. An article like 980:

I have an idea, lets make it a de facto rule, and promote this rule, only specific groups can be considered for such categories, it will keep the information relevant, but I thought categories like this already existed. list of such categories already existing:

3445:

The trouble is that if a University does not itself provide an English translation of its name, it's likely to be because it doesn't teach any courses or publish any research in English — so it's less likely to pop up on our radar, however notable it may be. —

1726:, article, gives details of the team's performance in every year since its foundation. Why shouldn't there be an article on Florida Gators football which does the same thing? Is anyone interested in working on improving this area of wikipedia's coverage? 2344:

actually was constructive. Thanks Tim, though I'm Canadian, not American, I totally get what you're saying, and I'll certainly change that. And contrary to Uppland's negative attitude towards infoboxes, I find them very useful summaries of information. --

1415: 4997:

Just passing through, I was editing a Community College page today and was looking for an infobox. University infobox doesn't seem appropriate. Any thoughts on creating an infobox for 2 year US junior colleges? There are hundreds of them already

3514:

I think you may have misunderstood my question and my intent in asking it. Specifically, I was asking you to clarify the indefinite nouns used in your statement as I was honestly confused by the jump from singular to plural and subsequent lack of

3274: 5292:

templates in use. It's simple to restore, though. The line doesn't have a straight input for hex, but it might be good to keep it that way for schools with non-standard color schemes (one or three or four colors and other assorted formatting

3605:

UK - Easy. (Although as an aside the OU does do some stuff in the Welsh language, run out of the regional centre for Wales. I've no idea about what, if any, language provisions there are for Scots, Scots Gallic, Orkadian and Shetlandic, though

3405:

searches often find a variety of English translations without a dominating version. I think that the style guidelines suggest that if an official English translation isn't available, a reasonable one should be given. How do we feel about it?

3378:

the single biggest thing this project is missing is an internal review process to assess articles, nominate individual ones for improvements, hold up good practice and so forth. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to implement this?

836:

How about the title is made appropriate for the university? Not all universities consider their sports imporant. For some clubs is not as important as traditions. Others might like to emphasize student unions/media groups/activism etc.

1881:

article and check it out. I suggested some much-needed merges, and as I'm unfamiliar with any conventions with separate articles, especially ones that have been established by this wikiproject, I'd appreciate the help. Many thanks!

2261:

if that last part of your comment was a threat or simply a guess, but I must say, if people were to start blanking the infobox after not taking the opportunity to give feedback during its creation, I would be a little taken aback. --

872:

Here's a list of articles where the standard is applied so that we can see what needs to be done. When you apply the standard, please add your article to this list. Also you may briefly state a problem that the template helped solve.

2904:

How about simply mentioning the most recent UK rankings? So obviously all university articles will carry their ranking for 2007. Next year the articles are updated with the relevant 2008 ranking and so on. this prevents selectivity.

3522:

1. How extensive should coverage of explicitly non-English institutions should be present in the English version of Knowledge? Although this question touches issues of bias I ask in the spirit of Knowledge's current policies and

1987:

I really believe that a university's history should be the first complete section after the introduction. This has taken a standard among university articles I have seen. I think we should move history as such in the main article.

5528:-specific version hard-coded onto UCSC's page. I am wondering if anyone here knows how to make things like this into workable templates that everyone can use. Here is the finished product; you can see the code from edit mode. 3165:

where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.

3589: 4020:

I was also out on vandal patrol and spotted a university that needed adding. I've added it but I think someone from your project should have a look at it because to me it reads like an advert from their prospectus. Thanks. -

2832: 1236: 4243:

I'm a bit far from the action, but I gather there's been a lot of debate about this outside of Knowledge, including a referendum last year that failed to rename the Milwaukee campus. Currently the position seems to be that

1860:

with a lot of information, and removing it's stub status. I notice there are several sections this project would like. Should I go back and fill in the missing desired information, or is the article good the way it is? -

1442:

concerning what we should call the parent categories that contain universities, colleges, and other similar institutions. (It looks like there's a trend toward looking at alternatives that do not explicitly mention either

1228: 1185: 1135: 1063: 951: 3098:

be resolved include: appropriate scope or exclusion of other rankings, size, usability, policies/rules governing where to put such an infobox and how much of the info to include, aesthetics on articles once implemented.

2295:

Another point: People are not giving feedback because they have not noticed. Not everybody who will eventually find this box added to an article on their watchlist are also watching this particular low-traffic talkpage.

1189: 1131: 1079: 1070: 989: 590:

Britannica places it at the end. Encyclopedia.com places it at the end. Columbia Encyclopedia places it at the end. So why, oh why do we place it at the start?! (That's how I reacted when I saw the country template.) --

3303: 2934:

produce different rankings, but no ranking that is calculated to favour a particular institution should be in use on Knowledge. Such rankings do exist, and are usually limited to prospectuses (next to claims such as

5606:

I agree that the Organisation section, a list of faculties, is critical. However, does the section itself need to be so high up in the article? How would it be if we placed the History section above the Organisation

3395: 3123:) or whether it should be listed according to the institution's placing in a couple of newspaper league tables. Since this could lead to other lists of universities being rearranged wider input is highly desirable. 2877:. Taking arbitrary weighted sums of including things like TQA and A level scores is pretty much irrelevant. It may be notable if it has some effect, such as student applications going up or departments being closed. 2370:. Is that really useful? I spend ages trying to find the data I want, and usually end up looking it up somewhere where it is presented in a more accessible format. Also, please don't use flags on this infobox. See 4817:

AS I say, just a guideline really. Certainly with academics it is harder to quantify their "notability". If, however, there are people adding themselves as advertisement, then I'd have though this contradicts the

4785:

it has always been prevelant, the inclusion of individuals, perhaps by their own addition, whose achievements or other determining qualitative factors do not merit inclusion. How have others handled this issue?

524:

link to their individual bio pages--if they're famous enough to list, they're famous enough to write up--which will have basic bio data. There's no convenient date to use for faculty as there is for students. --

5124:

for the paragraph you added. You might also get a better response if you try the article's talk page: this page is a general forum for issues relevant to Knowledge's coverage of all universities. Thank you. —

1251:

Also, the point was made that that not all universities are alike in their needs in this regard, without drawing the proper conclusion that not all deserve the same solution. There is no problem with including

2397:

and content of all articles on all humans. To actually gain something like consensus for a box that is going to be applied, there would need to be an RFC or a long, long running discussion at the Village Pump.

5024:

Districts: in California and many other states, community colleges are governed more like K-12 public schools, with a locally-elected board of education; in other places they might be part of a city or county

3526:

2. Ignoring the massive decentralization inherent in Knowledge, how should we prioritize creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles describing explicitly non-English articles in the English Knowledge?

5195:

official colors written out using initial capitals on significant words, followed by this new template without spacing between the individual template instances (to avoid colors ending up on different lines).

3279:

Under "structure," I'd like to see a specific note an "alumnus" means anyone who has attended a school, whether or not they completed a degree. (It is a frequent misconception that alumnus means "graduate").

3195:. This WikiProject is comparatively small, and does not operate an article assessment table. You may find that, having posted here, a few active members will make some adjustments to your article anyway. 950: 2557:

That is a good point. My experience is UK-only, but it would seem sensible to include the Times GUG and Guardian listings for these where they exist, and they are currently the principal ones mentioned at

3723:, use markup to show samples of the school colors within the infobox for that article. I'm relatively new to this project - has there been any talk about creating a template to standardize this usage? -- 3070: 2671: 2365:

to be flexible to work on 1000s of articles. Different countries, different subject areas, and so on. Of course, biographical infoboxes are different from science ones, but have a look at the infobox on

4939:

Can you give any examples? Claims of that sort should cite a good source, or be deleted as puff - if there's no current statistic quoted, you'd be right just to delete the claim. Have you encountered

3005:

Rankings inevitably crop up in these pages, I was wondering if anyone had previously made an effort to standardize these between pages. For example, I just cleaned out a bunch of booster-cruft from the

2916:

is at in guides and maybe any other pertinent information such as rating in the research world by industries. A standardised method of ranking Universities here on Knowledge would add fuel to the fire.

3250:

Is there a template to go on relevant article talk pages? At the moment it seems a lot of editors don't know about the existance of this project and this often leads to changes on individual articles.

1523: 1478: 1368:. Perhaps there should be some attempt to find a consensus on whether such categories should exist and, if that would be agreed upon, on what they should encompass. Personally, I still prefer lists. / 1273: 597:

The difference is that the other encyclopedias have lengthy intros, and pursuant to the wishes of our dictators, we don't. Maybe we should not make it a standard and leave it to personal discretion. --

185:

shouldn't mention the USA on the second line, but should begin with medieval Europe. There are other examples. Most European universities are underdeveloped. The oldest universities in Europe, that in

5407:

I'll copy-and-paste this thread there. I also dislike the thought of making things mandatory, but I'd like there to be a common standard to use as a starting point for new infoboxes and revampings.--

4469:

Merging into lists is sometimes good. These have short paragraphs of buildings and/or discussion of the campus and links to major buildings with their own pages. For another approach, take a look at

1647:

Articles for Deletion seems to have a few people who want to delete articles about residential Halls or to merge tham into the main University article. For example there was recently a call to delete

1559:

I agree on both points, and there is no general agreement on this as far as I know, but I don't think there is any point in having a discussion about the issue, as people will do as they like anyway.

3748:

My personal opinion is that that's a template (or parameter) too far. I think that if users need a little square of maroon and another little square of white in order to visualise the colors of the

5593:

Do the order of sections as they stand serve the article well? I suggest that the order of main sections be reviewed and possibly changed in order to present basic information about this university.

3351:, I feel that more could be made of this project with a clearer structure, more detailed guidelines on issues (ranging from "what is an alumnus" above to naming conventions) and targetted articles. 444:

I can already see some things that aren't necessarily applicable to UWO in particular, and probably a lot of Canadian universities in general (e.g. such a huge focus on sports, racial composition).

1494:

stating a preference for using either short or long names for colleges & universities that can be idenitified in multiple ways (i.e. "University of Texas" vs. "University of Texas at Austin").

2946:

stat. I don't particularly object to this, but others might, on the basis that there's no good reason to pluck a favourable statistic with no objective reason. Indeed, why not let's include the

5539: 4354: 2873:

dramatically, or very good in one and bad in another, or was somebody's "university of the year" and why that year. I must also add that like most academics I regard league tables as generally

1026: 426:, e.g. sports or team nicknames isn't a great issue with German universities. But it's okay to include them in the example, so that they can be deleted if existing universities don't fit in. -- 5475: 1938: 1892:

Looks like the main contributor over at that page has gone ahead and taken my suggestion on the merges. The page could use some help, though, if a few of you want to help out! Thanks, all. -

2573:

On the international scale, I think there are fewer of these: in the UK, the THES listing is the one I know most about, but then there's the Shanghai Jia Tong listing too. Lies, damn lies...

1966: 1602:, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable University articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!-- 694:

think in those cases "University of California" should just be changed to "university of california, berkeley". After all, Berkeley is the only campus claiming these people as its alumni. --

2516:

images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

5709:

I'm looking for people that are interested in working on Student Affairs related articles on Knowledge. There is a very low amount of information on Knowledge about this topic I started a

3127: 2276:

box of some sort that other people are going around adding to articles, it will completely overwhelm the actual text of the article. We are already seeing this happen all over Knowledge.

5614:

The history section remains underdeveloped. As per the previous message I left on the talk page I urge editors who are more knowledgeable than I in this matter to add sourced text ^^. --

3119:

over whether or not the information should be a straightforward list of universities in London (give or take sections to distinguish foreign universities and the colleges of the federal

2066:

up to what it currently stands at. However, being a relatively small school, I'm not too sure what to include in here. DOes anyone have some suggestions on what I should write about?

3756: 2950:

statistic – that would be just as fair. What I do think, though, is that we would still need a consensus on which league tables have sufficient integrity to be included. I could find

5618: 3434:

be translated. If an institution is known more by its native name than by its English name, then that should be the article title. There's always the infobox, where the English name

2528: 1946: 4538:

or can someone point me to the policy, guideline, or consensus about this? Twice this month I've had to defend college articles I created from deletion on notability grounds. Thanks.

4391: 4003: 1749:. The problem I am facing is that since it is about a group of universities under a common title, I can't really concentrate on any single one when discussing the usual sections like 1269: 2587:

don't appear we can include explanations like "not included", "not placed", "declined to participate" as appropriate with a note in the article as to why - e.g. Birkbeck.) Thoughts?

3383: 3268: 1913: 451:

How about one standard, but a disclaimer on the example page that parts can be of different necessity for different countries, and should be deleted when necessary. BTW: Is there a

316:

renamings/recharterings, especially if a modern university evolved from some former non-university kind of institution (e.g., normal school, secondary education, religious seminary)

4406: 4053:

FYI: I've started a WikiProject, hopefully to be under the auspices of the New Jersey and Universities WikiProjects to direct efforts to articles related to Rutgers University, at

4402:

What is you opinion of the proliferation of articles on buildings at universities? I am of the opinion that many of them are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Knowledge.

2937:

Did you know that Poppleton University is ranked number one for a low drop-out rate among institutions with a department of Classics and an olympic-sized swinning pool on campus?

2272:

There is nothing to be constructive about. The box is redundant. Everything in the box will be in the first couple of paragraphs of any good biographical article. And along with

1824: 1617:

I'm not sure how this would work, but it seems like an interesting idea? If this is just cluttering up the discussion, I don't want it to, please feel free to remove it! Richard

516:. In the muster example, I put born/death as years, but Jiang seems to put graduating years behind the alumnis, aren't you? That's a good idea, but what about famous faculty? -- 4974:, a featured article belonging to WikiProject Universities, lacks any mention of academics. There are many other problems with the article as well, and I have noted them on the 4334:

I'm trying to be impartial, but I do have an agenda... that of the non-US readers of Knowledge! What seems very obvious to Wisconsin residents (one of whom gave an edit summary

4079:. I just wanted a few more eyeballs on this to ensure (a) I've acted appropriately and (b) there are others aware of this editor and other editors who may behave similarly. -- 4075:

to a book presumably written by that same editor or someone associated with him (the Knowledge username matches the author's name). I've posted a brief message on the editor's

3368: 2909: 1970: 535:, it's usual to refer to the matriculation year (ie when they started university), rather than the graduation year. Personally, I would recommend going for birth-death years... 4464: 3334: 1243:, with the full title (or the full titles of all the article's Cat tags that share those two words) being displayed when the user "hovers" the mouse over them. Yes, there are 1082:, as there were several of these lists which had been separated from their respective university pages, and which should also be categorized somewhere in a hierarchy under the 5006: 2994: 1795: 245:. I think this should be a center of activity for the project at this point. My idea is for the /example page to be home to an example article based on our template, and its 4933: 4807:

might be strong in his/her profession does not get the same level of "notability" as any level of a major league sports athlete. It is of course subjective. Thanks though.

4116:

article. One other editor gave me some great feedback and I've made most of the changes he recommended but I'm still working on others. I'd like to nominate this article for

2650: 1915: 1196:

These stand on its head exactly what i thought was uncontested (even tho i've not tried to keep thoroughly up to date with discussion of the theory of our Cats). Namely that

4485: 3450: 2881: 2847: 2790: 2630: 915: 4796:

article (though most do), and some people with articles in wikipedia are not particularly notable (though in this case the page about the person probably shouldn't exist).

4420: 3704: 3143: 2401:

ProfessorBox replace the ScienceBox? Can it replace the Authorbox? They both have "Projects" with small participation talk pages (and silence as consent for their boxes).

2327: 3983: 3420: 1865: 1680: 5358: 5275: 4884: 4624: 4262:

As part of this discussion, there's been mention of the need for a standard for all US State University systems, so some wider input would be timely for this reason too.

2958: 2018: 1583: 1292:

wrote above: "College pages get clogged with the allumni lists, but the allumni lists are disorganized hulks. Knowledge really needs bulk cleanup on this. Anyone agree?"

5581: 5132: 2591: 2577: 2112: 2094: 2084: 5242: 4644: 3865: 3844: 3814: 3801: 3792: 3314: 1977: 1606: 819:

Fine, but in that case can we have a slightly different title for the section? :::::Maybe "Student Union, Sports and Traditions" (the union presumably covering clubs)

5676: 5090: 4826: 4800: 4203: 4193: 3102: 3080: 2715:

we resurrect the aborted project? I am slightly concerned about copyright - would need to check this, as some information is only available by subscription (eg THES).

1807: 1784: 1766: 5661: 4771: 3501:

I'll be honest and say I've no clue, because I don't speak any non-European languages. But if I were to ask you to prove that nothing notable ever happened in, say,

3222: 2689: 2213: 2031: 1992: 310:

prior institutions, if institution was "established" upon the remnants of previously-established institution(s), where these two "establishments" differ in definition

5573: 5556: 5415: 5386: 4959: 4948: 4917: 4478: 4163: 4015: 3977: 2417: 2044: 686:(which is the official name of the system). I'm not sure there's sufficient commonality between such systems and actual universities to support a common format. -- 372:

Section describing faculty, student composition (racial etc.), especially if notable (e.g., previously/historically all-black or all-white or all-male or all-female)

123: 5016: 4542: 4515: 4361: 4342: 4291: 4097: 3553: 3533: 3509: 3496: 3487: 3478: 3469: 932: 111:

One of the problems may be that the suggested table template does not include many of the items included on various "national" templates for universities (see e.g.

4907: 4369: 3631:

Germany. (From what I can see this is the preferred name to use in English rather than "Distance University Hagen" which appears to be just a literal translation.)

3409: 2504: 2479: 1212: 151: 4568: 4025: 3582: 2300: 2280: 2267: 2135:, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding 1311:

history and characteristics of a university. (Which philosophers have been studying or teaching in Heidelberg? Which American politicians graduated from Harvard?)

206:, which doesn't even mention the earlier name of the university (the College of Philadelphia; I haven't added it as I didn't have years for the change of name). / 5717: 5687: 5105: 5068: 5040: 4524: 3240: 3110: 2895: 2752: 2719: 2050: 1896: 134: 4083: 3797:

I would agree. It used to be that school colors were just stated as a wikilink to the color itself. That, IMHO, is wholly sufficient. The boxes—way too much. —

3254: 1698: 5501: 3821:

Understandable. After I made the suggestion, I did a little research of my own and found out that a template similar to the one I described already exists - {{

2466: 1962: 1687: 1540: 5699: 3185: 2551: 5775: 5767: 5762: 5710: 4178: 4121: 4038: 3941: 3170: 2149: 1974: 1580: 1239:

with names too long to display on a line together with other Cats. But in a future WikiMedia release, they can be displayed as a couple of words followed by

106: 79: 71: 66: 4217: 3673:

rather than "Open Universiteit Nederland", despite "Open Universiteit" being used throughout the article text (and is used in the memberlist for the EADTU).

3052: 1483:

The proposed survey consists of two parts. The first aims to resolve the specific name for this campus and the usage of the term "University of Maryland".

4955:

Yeah, if the authors had just stated "as of xxxx" then this would clarify matters alot. Thanks for the advice. I should be able to remedy the articles now.

3966: 2979: 2920: 2152: 1099:, for instance). They ought to be moved to pages of their own, except perhaps for small or young schools with only a few names. I have been working on the 250:

with the sandbox template. Of course, some discussion should still take place here. I think this method would be more in keeping with the wiki philosophy.

4266: 4061: 2076:

Hi, Metros. Thanks for stepping up to the WikiPlate to expand the entry on Hood College. I would suggest starting with the history, which you can find at

1757:, etc. as it would appear odd. Can you suggest me in what way should I structure this article so that it conforms to the highest standards of Knowledge. - 1048:

Anyone agree? --] 16:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) ps: Anyone have any experience making a project like this, I am not a newbie, but I would like guidance from a

5185:

a pain in the ass, putting together all that code every time one wanted to do a color box. This is much more elegant. I just tested the template on my

5102: 4992: 3116: 1815: 1668: 570:

article is okay, then it doesn't matter where the section is placed. However, I prefer that it be placed near the bottom so that we could avoid too many

5205:

should note that what their schools usually say are their "official colors" are often no more than approximations ("Yale Blue" and "California Gold" at

4811: 4789: 3955: 3889: 2499:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 2239: 2186: 1958: 5450: 4923: 4280:". Of course there must be one article each about every notable institution in the UW System, and of course there must be a dab page to sort them out. 2386: 2132: 1886: 1627: 4136: 1945:

and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the

101: 5470: 4987: 4500: 4397: 4093:

Given the articles on which they appear, I'd recommend leaving them, but changing to a neutral citation (i.e. not SUP with its 'BUY IT NOW' link). —

2836: 1846: 1235:

In fact, there are all sorts of arguments being made here as if the current capabilities of the Cat system were laws of the universe. Yes, there are

725: 4595:

What infobox templates, if any, should be used to adequately describe presidents who have served at multiple universities? The one I've been using,

3742: 2251: 5143:

I've noticed a lot of pages use hardcoding to create small color boxes like so: .. or what have you. Anyway, I created a template for use here..

4585: 3643:

Spain, specifically Catalonia, using the Catalan name form. It means "Open University of Catalonia". The website uses Catalan, Spanish and English.

2455: 2351: 2228: 2175: 2091: 2067: 651:). The system is distinct from the individual campuses, and we don't want to privilege "main" campuses (UCLA/UC-B) over "other" campuses (UCSD).-- 5175: 2080:. Be sure to paraphrase and cite your sources. You certainly have a find school there, and I look forward to seeing your contribution. Sincerely, 4999: 4956: 4930: 4581:

Hi! Please take a look at this article especially the part where it says "Contributed by" (last lines). I don't know what to do with it. Thanks!

3033: 2435: 2070: 1950: 1851: 1599: 246: 242: 4841: 2646:

entire lists on Knowledge (albeit with only one record per article), given that some are published commercially, eg. the annual Times GUG book?

1730: 1589: 1499: 927: 867: 2517: 5435: 3342: 1893: 1883: 3622: 1794:

opinion, it is FA material barring the fact that the Table of Contents is a bit too long. Other suggestions are welcome, here as well as on

1046:

College pages get clogged with the allumni lists, but the allumni lists are disorganized hulks. Knowledge really needs bulk cleanup on this.

5438:. I elected NOT to add an importance section as I thought this would lead to a lot of trouble. I can just see trying to explain what the 3658:

Spain. "Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia". The info box gives as the first title "National University for Distance Education".

3324: 1820:

I was wondering if anyone had the time or inclination that they might do a peer review on the abovementioned article I've been working on?

1422:, among others), I have created a draft of a guideline similar to "avoid weasel terms" but specific to the academic articles. It's now at 4439:

at Princeton (which was the nation's capital in 1783), the tower where the sniper shot at a few peole from UTexas-Austin for example, the

3697: 3354:

I'm going to ask about for ideas. One early priority is to get this project more widely known - a starting point is getting this template

3059:

rankings will be inserted into university articles anyway so we might as well do what we can to keep them accurate, NPOV, well-cited, etc.

2409:

redundant? Who decides that one segment's improved reading is more important than another's visceral distaste? Since what's at stake is

390:

Each fully-functioning campus should have its own article unless that "campus" is merely an observatory or argicultural field or the like.

5743: 4590: 4532: 4380: 47: 17: 5049:

I feel the University infobox is more than adequate for JCs. Its biggest strength is its flexibility, and, indeed, you can use as many

2544: 1433: 1405: 2623: 1676: 5306:

One more thing about the school colors: Almost all long-established schools, and even most newer ones, will be following the heraldic

4548:

Hi there. There's no inherent notability for universities or colleges that I'm aware of. There is, however, a proposed guideline at

3364:

onto all university articles which is not the easiest of tasks but one that will in turn make it easy to reach the relevant articles.

1598:, which is looking to identify quality articles in Knowledge for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using 3162: 2359:"Personally, I find infoboxes and other boxtypes very useful, I'm sure others do as well, otherwise we wouldn't have so many around." 2171:. Please let me know what you think, what improvements can be made, if there are any fields that I've left out, etc, etc. Thanks! -- 1506: 3236:

has recently been adjusted. Would anyone like comment on the discussion over on its talk page about the use of images in the box? -

2547:

is often left out) but something firm would make the information far more balanced and easier to compare within countries at least.

1517: 1164:. Discussion as WikiProject is a good idea, but only when the fundamental, and much more general issue is clear: It was argued that 4384: 1982: 1777: 1567: 1380: 4456:(Rutgers oldest historical building, and the surrounding "campus" with 5 (formerly 6) other buildings that takes its name) or the 3474:

If an institution teaches no classes in English and does not even translate its name then does it even belong in en.wikipedia? --

2224:

Since no one elseseems to have any comments, I'll assume we're okay with it and I'll add it to the main project page tomorrow. --

5466:

receive both a peer review and be considered as a good article. Any assistance in either of these matters would be appreciated.

5078: 4890: 4470: 3929: 3910:

Photos from all the sporting activies (trips to the Rose Bowl, basketball national championships as well as all the sports teams)

3389: 2496: 2404:

Finally (here, anyway), the premise that a box makes an article "easier to read" simply doesn't bear up. A box makes an article

2128: 1857: 1735: 1660: 1622: 1544: 1121: 1110: 3139:, obviously the difference between say, Oxford and Bolton are clear but why 'rank' Wolverhampton over Bolton? (or vice versa?)-- 3135:

problematic, due to the proliferation of widely different ranking scales, besides basic problems how much the rankings actually

3028:, 42nd among national universities by Washington Monthly, 35th among world universities and 23rd among American universities by 3000: 2667:

There is already a defunct infobox available (seems to be part of an aborted project to standardise this sort of information).

1533: 615: 5497: 4864: 4599: 4141: 3348: 3086: 3048:

excel in certain areas and to omit these in the rankings does do a disservice to the readers. I look forward to your comments.

2512: 2508: 2488: 1920: 1642: 1423: 2685:

which, if applied, would weed out the weasel words in articles which do not include ranking stats in a transparent fashion. —

4743: 4724: 4714: 4695: 4066: 3228: 3181:

the structure and what to do to get to GA status. If you could let me know or send me a message that would be great. Thanks!

3025: 2711: 2605: 2559: 1908:

leadership in professional associations, public service, and other accomplishments make them notable under the guidelines of

301:"established" date: Because the definition of "established" varies widely, use the one that the institution officially uses. 5340:

will help you figure out which "colour" to link the colors to. Here is an example of the color line I put together for the

3076:

Thoughts? Given some initial support, I'd be happy to dive in and do some preliminary work on creating such a template. --

2392:

I have written quite a bit on boxes and their addition to articles, and a classic mistake of logic is demonstrated, above:

1276:

listing the higher-ed institutions whose articles serve the same purpose. But for the examples listed, a Cat is called for.

765:

is more for "official" info (enrollment, maybe courses, maybe racial mixup), and the SaT (maybe we need another name, maybe

5565:

Wow, I'd hate to see DifficultTimeline. I guess I'll start wading through the documentation. Thanks for the heads-up. --

5545:

I'm not sure that there's much that templating could do to make the EasyTimeline extension simpler to use. Have a look at

5341: 5186: 5021:

I've only done a few edits on one Community College, so this is just a guess of what might make a separate infobox useful:

2014:. They all put history (or in the case of Humboldt, an equivalent) in the first section after the introduction. Sincerely, 1930: 1595: 1474: 1376: 1365: 679: 97:

Many universities hold annual conferences. I was wondering whether or not specific conferences would be a good addition. --

2748:) - the dead tree editions of university guides are only copyrighted and paid-for because of the accompanying analysis. — 2023:

I would also agree. Prior to coming across this WikiProject, I was cleaning up college and university articles related to

5704: 5682: 5086:

and it's branching articles need clean-up so they read less like adverts. I've done a bit but assistance would be nice --

4322: 3933: 3375: 2521: 1181: 1059: 984: 908: 904: 5189:, and I anticipate going on a binge through the rest of the UCs and CSUs later, using your template. I propose using a 3459:

Whatever guideline/policy we come up with, we'll have to allow for exceptions because some are heavily politicised. See

5261:

used on many College/University athletic articles already has the hex in the info box. Could those values be added to

5255: 5213:

colors can usually be found through schools' PR, press-relations, or marketing departments in what are usually called "

4496: 4412:

Could you provide some examples? A lot of buildings which aren't sufficiently notable get a few lines merged into the

3206: 2745: 2163:

I have created a preliminary infobox for professors. The bare template with usage instructions can be found for now at

1338: 1169: 1016: 958: 5225:(also called PMS for "Pantone Matching System"). There are a lot of sites online with PMS-to-hex charts (this is the 4520:

Most of those links in the list articles are redirects back to the list. There are only 10 entries in the Category. --

5165: 5095: 5053:

of the optional categories as you want. There are a lot of headngs in there (if you're looking at the full version:

4618: 3838: 3736: 3358: 3264:

which I'll add to articles as I come across them. Help in getting the template everywhere would be much appreciated.

3261: 3175: 2824: 2782: 2144: 2140: 1942: 1635: 1439: 1391: 1334: 1021: 962: 939: 648: 486: 159: 5791: 5498: 5376: 4492: 4474: 3962: 3588:

Cheers. Getting back to the naming, I'll start with some examples. Let's take an existing transnational list - the

2136: 1902: 1419: 1394:. It can, of course, be brought up again. (Perhaps it would be wise to start a listing that specifically addressed 412: 5499: 1341:. Perhaps—and this is a very conditional perhaps—in the future the category system is improved, we might consider 5589:

The long lists, large empty spaces, and underdeveloped sections detract from what should be a showcase article.

5443: 5288:

There is a colors line in the infobox already, if that's what you mean; it's just been removed from a lot of the

4284: 4211: 4155:

or suggestions, I'd be much obliged if you'd stop by and leave some comments at the Rutgers University article's

3810:

article. I learned something new, found something I like enough to recommend via e-mail that Rutgers adopt one. —

3640: 1912:

and as I have also seen on other university pages. Any suggestions or comments from the WikiProject Universities?

1746: 1736: 1663:

and also merged several other articles on other Halls into the same place. Then there was debate about a Hall at

1011: 788: 417: 5645:

I don't speak for everyone, but I'm not sure any of us have particular expertise in this field. Have you tried

4556:. Apart from that, the criteria seem a lot easier for a university or higher college to pass than for a school. 4255:

What I fear is that Knowledge may become involved in these political name games. Is there perhaps a push to see

5328:. I have been linking the names of official colors (except specific shades that have their own articles, like 5113: 4819: 4638: 2543:

really relevant to them (for instance a lot of UK newspapers rankings are based on full-time undergraduates so

1410:

After ongoing frustration with the boosterism that repeatedly crops up in Knowledge's university articles (see

706: 2831:

is weasel, and the tables chosen are selected to endorse that opinion. The Guardian currently ranks Imperial

1464: 4054: 3670: 3021: 2869: 2037: 1870: 1470: 886: 709:

is the main campus, as this is how the institution refers to itself with respect to its system. Conversely,

683: 376: 4978:. I would request experienced editors of this WikiProject to share their comments over the issues raised. — 3430:? Those are straightforward to translate, and I think general naming conventions cover whether or not they 877: 4896: 3894: 3752:, then they need to put the mouse down and step away from the keyboard. There's a standard on pages using 3245: 3151: 1491: 92: 5036:

Complexity: the template has many lines that are not applicable to any community college--perhaps some; --

2043:

Having discovered the broader naming conventions for categories pages, I've relocated this discussion to:

5646: 5265: 5054: 4460:(historical-academic core at Rutgers, it should be included on such an article, but not to stand alone. — 4103: 4048: 3992: 3984: 3875: 3778: 3233: 3094: 2209:

and so on... There are hundreds of these articles, and the infobox makes them a lot easier to read... --

1036: 796:

what about some space for student unions ... and also for student media - newspaper, radio station, etc.?

3788:). In general, though, I think that just mentioning the colours in words suffices for most colleges. — 5734: 4416:

section of the parent article, or deleted outright. Is that not happening efficiently at the moment? —

3502: 3090: 3017: 2533: 2379: 2198: 1829: 1031: 203: 38: 1551:, the entire lists are being removed, with no 'summary' of the most notable ones left in the section. 1426:. I'd be happy to see edits improving it and/or comments on its potential usefulness/uselessness. -- 5632: 5583: 5463: 3215: 3192: 2157: 2118: 2007: 1219:

or its descendants) can be viewed as an option available on that page, no matter whether they got in

997:¬My suggestion: Lets make a project to fix these lists, I am sorry I made the category, and I agree, 644: 543: 87: 5854: 5229:), so no one should have too much trouble finding the right hex codes to plug into the new template. 4491:

I haven't read this whole discussion yet but the topic made me think of something I saw awhile ago.

2483:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

1329:

This is mainly a response to User:Jerzy's comments above, to which in answer I must say an emphatic

236: 224: 5713:

related to this. Please visit the previous link and add your name if you are interested! Thanks --

4574: 4031: 3995:

seems like it should be part of your project. I noticed it did not have a tag on its talkpage like

2003: 1083: 710: 625: 3899:

I would like to propose an addition to the Infobox_University template: Yearbook / Yearbook name

3696:(postgraduates/doctoral researchers) where most organisations are in the native language form and 3628: 143:

Template:Infobox_University has benefited from the recent activities that have been marshalled by

5691: 5429: 5012:

Can you please specify what about the University infobox doesn't work for community colleges? --

4900: 4156: 3937: 3607: 3460: 3007: 2992: 2077: 1548: 718: 112: 5439: 4983: 4779: 4731: 4702: 4170: 4113: 4076: 3283:

I'd like to see a specific recommendation that sources be cited inline, directly in the list.

2447: 2413:

reading versus strong disaffection, I would argue that the calculus would be against the box.

1803: 1762: 1006: 743: 675: 375:

Physical description of the campus(es) and a list of campuses when there is more than one (see

4756: 1575:

Perhaps someone who participates in this WikiProject might care to lead an effort to clean up

5455: 5170: 4965: 4735: 4706: 4612: 3832: 3767: 3749: 3730: 3720: 3716: 3710: 3701: 3417: 3380: 3365: 3331: 3265: 3251: 3199: 3124: 2787: 2588: 2548: 2324: 2063:

I am trying to work to improve my own college's article (basically I've built it from a stub

2047: 1934: 1878: 1871: 1839: 1631: 1318:

Common naming standard? "People associated with..."? "...affiliated with..."? Something else?

194: 190: 3961:

Not of sufficiently general application for a field on the infobox, I think. Add a note to

5669: 5519:

I ran across a cool feature while I was helping rein in the orgy of vandalism today at the

4564:

shows no sign of consensus approval yet, I doubt 'inherent notability' will be in there. —

4403: 3120: 2744:

Most league tables are compiled from publicly available statistics (in the UK, mostly from

2168: 2056: 1656: 1652: 1295:

The question is: what to do with the lists? When to separate the lists from the main page?

532: 452: 116: 98: 4276:

war over whether one particular institution gets the 'prize' designation of the redirect "

3637:

Portugal. (No infobox yet, but the name is translated in the article as "Open University".

1477:), a survey has been proposed regarding naming conventions for colleges and universities: 462:

It'll have to be a "fluid" standard, just as the consensus seems to be. One wonders what

8: 5337: 5138: 5117: 4808: 4786: 4283:

The relevant policy in determining whether to use parenthetical disambiguation or not is

3996: 3634: 3198:

If you would like to have the article peer reviewed by a general group of editors, go to

3157: 2525: 2423: 2164: 2064: 2011: 1941:, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be 1723: 1711: 1664: 1527: 1511: 1354: 1303:

some groups of people may well be placed in chronological order according to succession.

1146: 973: 333:

Official athletics website (only if the institution engages in intercollegiate athletics)

198: 186: 5226: 4220:. The issue is that the disambiguation page has been moved from the unqualified name at 643:

My belief on this is that you should have a master page for the university system (i.e.

5875: 5658: 5628: 5553: 5383: 5272: 5129: 4975: 4838: 4635: 4561: 4431: 4376: 4181:. I'll try to review Rutgers tomorrow at the earliest or mid next week at the latest.-- 4147: 3693: 3300: 3167: 2987: 2976: 2917: 2678: 2484: 1954: 1715: 1522:

Having gone several days without significant additional comments. The above mentioned

1215:, for instance, becomes obsolete because the titles of bios (all articles that are in 1100: 702: 652: 554: 525: 502: 475: 275: 178: 5218: 4880:}}. You may want to go and adjust the colours: I've defaulted to very very boring. — 3020:(USNWR), 33rd among world universities and 26th among universities in the Americas by 553:; history will sometimes be quite long, so it makes sense to put it at the bottom. -- 5467: 5447: 5087: 4979: 4760: 4549: 4510: 4188: 4131: 3822: 3785: 3483:

Sure it does. They do notable things in non-English speaking places all the time. —

2906: 2439: 2124: 1799: 1772:

There are examples of groupings of universities that may be more appropriate such as

1758: 1704: 1552: 1244: 1224: 895: 714: 279: 5642:

I wouldn't fork the organisation list: it's too short to make an article on its own.

5148: 4944:, which deals with quickly-dating statistics? It may be what you're looking for. — 4173:? I also tried the PR process and only got the response of one person who is on the 3275:

Noted alumni, faculty: Recommend that sources be cited; note definition of "alumnus"

2874: 295:

Top-tier organization: colleges, schools, divisions (not a multitude of departments)

5333: 5308: 5202: 5160: 5029: 4768: 4607: 4575: 4461: 4444: 4440: 4388: 4200: 4160: 4058: 3876: 3827: 3811: 3798: 3725: 3492:

Can you please clarify who "they" are and about what "things" you are speaking? --

3311: 3099: 3049: 2236: 2183: 2109: 2081: 2015: 1821: 1727: 1576: 1568: 1257: 1253: 1200:

When a class is well-defined and finite, and every member of it is notable, then a

912: 820: 799: 463: 445: 380: 5611:

but I'm not sure how to do this!). There could be other solutions as well. Anyone?

5546: 4259:

reinstated as the official name of the Madison campus? That would explain a lot.

3396:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities

5714: 5289: 4832: 4248:

is an unofficial and previous name of the Madison campus, and also of the larger

4169:

I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. But, would you mind doing the same for

3602: 2383: 2375: 2194: 1999: 1989: 1411: 1298:

I agreed above that these categories are bad and lists are better, but I suppose

1289: 1282: 1220: 1216: 1096: 5742:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5695:

input as the discussion seems to be occurring between a handful of editors). --

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5673: 5615: 5121: 4877: 4553: 4273: 4010: 3884: 3807: 3774:

of colours. Other UK universities which have adopted a scarf have put that in

3763: 3182: 2677:

is pretty much what's being suggested here. There's also a sort of guideline (

2647: 1937:" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their 1926: 1835: 1719: 1350: 1347: 1265: 1142: 1139: 1138:

or other such categories associated with individual schools should be deleted.

969: 966: 560:

I disagree, since the history section illustrates what the u. is famous for. --

144: 3700:

which is predominantly translated. And both lists contain a lot of red links.

5655: 5566: 5550: 5532: 5520: 5456: 5408: 5380: 5351: 5325: 5235: 5126: 5058: 5003: 4971: 4945: 4914: 4904: 4881: 4631: 4565: 4482: 4457: 4427: 4417: 4325:

of the disambig for what we ended up with after a lot of previous discussion.

4310: 4288: 4174: 4094: 3974: 3970: 3952: 3862: 3789: 3550: 3506: 3484: 3447: 3406: 3297: 3237: 3219: 2955: 2878: 2844: 2749: 2686: 2627: 1862: 284: 4072: 3973:

and add relevant, sourced information to the articles under this project. —

3438:

goes at the top, and the native name inside the box, so there's no case for

1505:

Those interested in the history leading up to this proposal should refer to

5696: 5321: 5013: 4941: 4630:

That's kind of an ugly template. Perhaps we need to create a replacement. —

4582: 4504: 4449: 4358: 4339: 4263: 4182: 4151: 4125: 4117: 4109: 4080: 4000: 3577: 3530: 3493: 3475: 3464: 3140: 3077: 2682: 2500: 2371: 2297: 2277: 2248: 2206: 2057: 2028: 1843: 1648: 1560: 1427: 1384: 1369: 1361: 1323: 1261: 1155:

That is the point I wished to make, thank you. --] 00:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1114: 1095:

The alumni lists take far too much space on many university pages (look at

1049: 828:

Not every school has a student union or calls it that. "Student groups"? --

722: 251: 230: 215: 207: 170: 148: 131: 4313:, the problem is that there are (at least) two competing views as to what 3965:

if you really want to push the case. But I wholeheartedly encourage you (

1451:, since those terms are so ambiguous and depend so strongly on context.) - 921: 5206: 5156: 5083: 4764: 4481:. The result was to downgrade them all and merge into the main article. 4436: 3156:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

2414: 2347: 2263: 2225: 2210: 2172: 1909: 1781: 1695: 1603: 1452: 1306:

Anyway, I would like to have opinions on on what to do with these lists:

813: 770: 750:

Should student groups be put under "Students" or "Sports and Traditions"?

687: 660: 633: 517: 456: 427: 4355:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

3991:

Hello, while on vandal patrol, I noticed this article taking some hits.

3069:

2. How about a US College and University Rankings template (similar to

2471: 1027:

List of people associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

647:) and separate pages for each major campus/division of the school (i.e. 5833: 4539: 4521: 4453: 1773: 1684: 1672: 1299: 1279: 1211:

is perfect, and a list for it is just a stop-gap against the time when

999:

delete the Stanford and Columbia people categories and fix these lists:

845: 829: 806: 777: 753: 695: 668: 598: 583: 561: 496: 229:

I'm going to start by cleaning up and organizing this discussion page.

182: 120: 5899: 5347:|colors =] & ] {{color box|#36789B}}{{color box|#FFDF82}} 3016:

Northwestern University is ranked 14th among national universities by

1611: 1498:

the issue of Maryland's identity crisis. Please post comments at the

361:

Title and name of head executive officer (e.g., President, Chancellor)

5690:

just popped up on my radar screen. It's a dispute about whether the

5324:" used in a lot of schools' official colors is actually the heraldic 5037: 4823: 4797: 4035: 4022: 2892: 2716: 2574: 838: 637: 591: 575: 471: 5815:. Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2006 5812: 3676:

Anadolu University. Turkey - the Turkish is "Anadolu Üniveristesi".

3610:

in Scotland has published materials in all four Scottish languages.)

2045:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (categories)#University categories

1694:

to determine significance though. It seems like a vague area to me.

5329: 5316:

used by schools are actually variations on a theme of the heraldic

3681: 3117:

Talk:List of universities in London#Why use Guardian rankings here?

3029: 2202: 2024: 1240: 313:

type-change date, such as converting from all-male to coeducational

3205:

If you would like to put the article forward for GA status, go to

1973:. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! 1667:

but these was kept after no consensus. It then was merged in. See

1416:

Talk:List of famous universities and colleges in the United States

5222: 4856: 4499:. About 25-30 dorm buildings each with its own article. See also 3677: 2954:

statistics from some pretty disreputable sources, if I wanted. —

946:

For comments and further discussion, please see below the frame.

881: 164:

I have been working on a few university articles in the category

5221:, but will almost always have precise, numerical definitions in 1113:. What about removing ourselves there for further discussion? / 5476:

Can someone better than me make this into a ready-use template?

5446:. Please update your articles with a rating at your pleasure. 3919:

A broad photo portfolio of student organizations and activities

3903:

These yearbooks contain relevant and original content such as:

3542:

information for the English Knowledge is going to be a problem.

1710:

NFL or NBA team, and even the programs of smaller places (say,

899: 890: 682:, but others were talking about the system. I ended up doing: 467: 442:

Are we going to have to have standards for different countries?

5496: 3922:

Original photography by students of important events on campus

3916:

Pictures of faculty, staff, Board of Regents, Deans of Schools

2078:

http://www.hood.edu/welcome/glance.cfm?pid=glance_history.html

1088:

category of lists, not as a category of (categories of) people

5317: 4287:. I can only suggest that it be impartially applied here. — 3024:, 42nd among world universities and 20th in North America by 2367: 1383:, which was created last 18 June and has no discussion page. 933:

Lists (and categories) of people associated with universities

622:

What about university systems versus individual universities?

514:

we should find a standard for years after alumnis and faculty

493:

What about cases where famous faculty are also famous alumni?

424:

Not all of the sections will be relevant for all universities

5900:"The Top American Research Universities: 2006 Annual Report" 4895:

The infobox puts a lot of extra spaces all of a sudden. See

4218:

Talk:University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)#Requested move

1681:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Oswald, Grey College, Durham

266:

Name and city, state/province/etc, country of the university

257: 5668:

Thank you for commenting -- I'll have to post something at

5596:

The university infobox is quite large. Is there any way to

5525: 5313: 4030:

Forgot to add the link. Sorry. The university is this one,

3655: 2495:

Knowledge article constitutes fair use. In addition to the

2462:

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

2318:

Reader". And "State" should not be a required value - it's

1268:, and a handful more) in a section of the article, so that 629: 5531:

Is there a Wikimagician out there who can help me out? --

1877:

I was wondering if a few of you could come on over to the

1272:

is obviated; maybe there should be a note associated with

805:

I think that goes under "Sports, Clubs, and Traditions" --

4479:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Old Aquinians Hockey Club

4385:

Talk:Rutgers_University#Straw_Poll:_Which_name_to_be_used

4375:

Started a straw poll to discuss/decide whether to rename

4272:

Hi there. From what I can see, the debate is a bit of a

3115:

There's currently a rather small participation debate on

1998:

I agree. I just did a quick search on four universities:

674:

I ran up against this distinction the other day with the

636:? What about high schools that are under universities? -- 4763:). You can add as many s-bef, s-ttl, s-aft as you need. 566:

Some histories could be very long. If having a separate

401:

Should the following be considered for standardization:

269:

When it was founded, and also by whom if a famous person

177:

I have been working on some university articles, mostly

4837:

Is anyone up for creating a userbox for this project?--

3325:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions#University categories

1120:

Agreed. Write on my talk page when the posts go up on

4009:

Then feel free to add the tag in. I'll go do it now.--

3590:

European Association of Distance Teaching Universities

3347:

Looking at some of the other WikiProjects, especially

2235:

Thanks for taking so much time to do this. Sincerely,

1541:

List of University of California, Santa Barbara people

769:) is more for recreative things/inofficial things. -- 4605:, doesn't allow for multiple tenures to be listed. — 4338:

at one stage) can be very confusing to others of us.

4122:

Knowledge:Peer review/University of Oklahoma/archive4

4090:

and he's already had policy brought to his attention.

3625:

France. (It doesn't actually have a translation yet.)

3032:, and in the 6th tier among national universities by 2436:

Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia

2256:

Well that was constructive. That being said, this is

1337:(go take a look at it right now) is more useful than 1109:

The best place to continue the discussion is perhaps

408:(central switchboard) telephone number of institution 324:

Miscellaneous stuff, e.g. important historical events

241:

I have moved the example of the standard template to

5217:" documents. They will not always be defined using 4120:

sometime soon. Please let me know of your opinions:

3913:

Photos of all the greek organizations and activities

3684:- the pennisula which most of Asian Turkey occupies. 5627:You might like to change the order of sections per 2520:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 1229: