Knowledge talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 4

1233:

stand alone article on a university without the need to enumerate all other rankings for the sake of context. Since the lead is supposed to be able to stand alone as a short article, the inclusion of a well-known ranking can impart a lot of information about the quality and reputation of the university -- both pieces of information that are important. Your argument that some FAs don't have rankings in the lead does not carry weight as other FAs do have rankings in the lead. This shows that there is no ad hoc consensus for omitting rankings from the lead. Your argument against privileging one magazine's POV over others misses the mark. Most instances of rankings do not use an obscure source, like the Daily News, but rather reference a well-known and often used ranking such as USNWR. The fact that you don't think USNWR should have its rankings given privileged status ignores the fact that the USNWR rankings are the most often used and most influential rankings. Indeed, the fact that USNWR is considered authoritative by the general public would argue for its use in place of a more obscure ranking, not its omission. Finally, I do not think rankings in the lead necessarily indicate biased nor boosterism. It may be the case that a school's booster might add "State University was ranked #2 regional university by USNWR" in the lead as a point of pride, but that doesn't mean the fact isn't an important one that readers will find valuable information as a quick indication of the quality of the university.

1528:, we put the important scientific discoveries in the lead's first paragraph, followed by institutional history, followed by rankings, followed by sports. While I agree that rankings are not as important as the first two categories, they are at least as relevant to most WP readers as sports, if not moreso, and for legitimate informational reasons that don't necessarily have to do with boosterism. In some cases, these rankings may be the only third-party publication on some topics of student life at some institutions. While I only trust them to the extent their information can be collated, in cases where there is no university-published information on, for instance, the percentage of students in the Greek system, US News may be the only available source for this info. I'm not saying any rankings necesarily belong in the lead, but in Riverside's case apart from a couple news articles there were no third-party sources or publications that cover the development of the whole institution. Places with a lot of history (and a lot of legitimate scholastic resources that can be brought to bear) probably don't need to rely on rankings, or can legitimately do so to a lesser extent, but for institutions that don't have that, these rankings may provide the only information avaliable on some aspects. I entirely agree that the information is superficial, but it's all some places have got, so I'm not opposed to using rankings as a source for some statistics when there are no other sources available. 1547:

This corruption of a core principle of Knowledge deserves our attention. I edit one M.B.A. page and these issues are amplified by conflict-of-interest. Given that rankings data influence starting salaries, the editors themselves seem motivated by self-interest; after all, conflict of interest is not as much about facts as appearances. I believe that this ranking information should be standardised to include the current rank, three-year moving average and a few sentences to describe any special purpose or parameters of the study. I believe in showing all rankings in order to circumvent any potential for cherry picking favourable numbers. Frankly, university pages would be better served with links to this proposed WP "University Rankings" page. Controversies and encyclopaedic information about the rankings could be appropriately added there. Every chart and table would have its place and university WPs could then link to them. This saves space and is an elegant solution. Isn't this is a step in the right direction?

4870:

mentioned above, are comprised of two distinct values: the earmarked portion of the general UC-wide fund and the campus-specific foundation. Ignoring the former value, will only result in an inaccurate figure. It doesn't matter if other state schools don't consider their aggrigate endowment funds as part of their individual ones. What does matter, is the fact that the UC campuses do. The "consistency argument" doesn't apply here because there is an inheritent inconsistency among Universities, in terms of whether or not they conisder/include there larger, aggrigate endowment funds as part of their individual endowment values. We should look at public schools, on a case-to-case basis, starting at the NACUBO report to see if seperate figures are listed for a school, and then go to the individual system's own report to see how these aggrigate funds are allocted for the individual campuses. Yeah, this is much more work, but it reflects a much more accurate figure. —

1096:, is that quality/prestige/reputation rankings have no place being mentioned in the lead of a university article: "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article...the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." Rankings have little if any importance to the rest of the topic at hand, namely describing a university. It seems then that rankings are being used as a crutch in place of summarizing the variety of attributes that contribute to that university's "measured" quality/prestige. Likewise, if you want to mention the metrics that were used in calculating a ranking, by all means, do that or put it in an infobox. Mentioning an average SAT score or admissions rate for a given year in the lead would be summarizing the information already present in the article but it also would and should appear silly and tacky. 1562:

people... but Knowledge is for everybody and not those chuffed with themselves for having added that their school is numero uno in some way. I never notice people writing 'we are #82'. Editors prefer to write we are #1, #2 or #3 in some narrow ranking if the big-pond rankings do not look so favourable. Magazine companies may also be self-interested and, naturally, want to sell their magazines. They may have pressure to appease schools in order to gain access to the needed data. The fact is any school can look like a big fish in a sufficiently small pond. Rankings have devolved into a kind of dirty game. What's more, disruptive revert wars start up when someone from *another* school visits and makes changes. Yet, assuming good faith means we must concentrate on these edits on their on merits. It would be foolish to overlook ulterior motives, though. Let's put consensus aside for a moment, and consider this question:

2472:

with regards the logos it would feel very strange to have a rule of one coat of arms or logo only and to have an exception for something like sports which in so many universities is of very little importance (and messy for places like my current institution where the sports teams are making more use of the coat of arms than the institution itself!). The coats of arms are part of the long term legal and chartered identity of the institutions and often are used for the most prestigious stuff, including on the actual degree certificates, so have a clear identity in themselves whereas the corporate logo is very often just something cobbled together by the marketing department and altered or replaced on a very regular basis. Again the standing of coats of arms may be different in other countries - do US universities have them formally granted or are they just commissioned and approved internally?

1661:

selectivity" in the lead as an indication of boosterism, I would say it depends on whether a reference (such as the Carnegie ranking) is given. I realize that rankings and selectivity statements sound like peacock-ery and boosterism to many people, but I do think they have value. I have had many conversations over the past few years about university quality with people. From my experience, there is vast ignorance about the differences in quality between different schools. Rankings may be imperfect and may be imperfectly applied by some, but they have great value just in raising questions of what differences in quality along diverse measures (e.g. class size, faculty ratios, publication rates, research emphasis, awards, etc.) might mean to the prospective student. They raise the discourse from a level of raw boosterism to one based on relevant comparable characteristics.

1100:

not summarized or included in the history section as well? Why only the US News rankings - certainly ARWU and Times and CMUP all merit inclusion as well under NPOV? The answers to these questions highlight the idiocy of rankings which most people agree on. Why then privilege an idiotic measure in a lead where the limited space could be devoted to more important matters? I have rarely seen the an annual ranking made by a magazine or other organization included in the leads of articles on companies, politicians, countries, biographies, etc. except to assert notability. All accredited universities are notable, so I see no reason why their articles should have to rely upon rankings as a crutch to describe the university. Keep the rankings out of the lead and confined to a single section in the article.

1181:

article for the reasons I've outlined above - read any of the leads for the FAs and GAs I mentioned above to see examples in which a substantial amount of information that can and should be conveyed in the lead to the point that stating "State University was ranked 19th by The Daily News in 2008" is overly specific, recentist, biased, and a waste of space. Moreover, one magazine's POV ranking should not be privileged over all other POV rankings no matter how pervasive or popular it is -- thus any mention of a university's rankings should be placed in an NPOV context (namely, a single section) in which all possible rankings are contextualized rather than being selectively cited or framed to cast the school in a good light.

4944:. ""Consistency" would mean using the universal metrics the universities themselves use to report their endowments to NACUBO" I'm not suggesting anything different. However, individual UC campuses don't report their individual portion of the UC endowment to NACUBO because it is already accounted for in the combined figure. It wouldn't make sense for the UC system to report it's aggrigate endowment amount, and then for the individual campuses to report there values with their individual portion of this aggrigate value included. If they did, they would be reporting the same money twice, in the same report. We could maintain "consistency" by adhering to these metrics such that combined values of the 969:(Edit conflict) UNC was widely reviewed, so I would see that as consensus in that case, though of course that may not hold for other articles. I think all the existing guidelines cover what should be in a lead, and don't think all these articles can be grouped together and say that university articles shouldn't (or even should) have rankings in lead. It will be appropriate for some and not for others, but we definitely want variety in the leads and not a formulaic set of guidelines. If an article has gone through FA, GA, or PR and a ranking was there and passed through, then it was appropriate, and if it wasn't there, then it's omission was also appropriate, etc. etc. 1259:" and if we accept that we should, how should we generally assert this in an NPOV and verifiable manner? I don't know why people are so wedded to invoking rankings in the lead when the only useful and appropriate context to understand these rankings is in a list of other universities' outcomes or other publications rankings, so they really do not impart any generalizable or summarizable information about the quality and reputation of the university by itself. The top 10 USNews schools have "scores" between 90-100. Compare this with the rankings for schools with the same variance in "scores" lower in the rankings: Is 1570:. However few they are, the answer is yes. Can their boosterism be contained by the usual ways? Hmmm? The thing that has struck me this past year, editing the Schulich School of Business page, is how easily a small group of motvated people can set up camp and assume they are "custodians". Consensus is over-rated in hostile take-overs of WPs. Realistically, people usually edit info on their alma mater's WP. You all can assume good faith. I'll continue to assume good faith like a hawk!! Rankings are advertising to many and it is naive not to see how that manifests itself on our pages. 6123:

not because of its immense size) is absolutely huge, IMHO. It occurred to me that, if navboxes are made to ease navigation, something this large wouldn't do that job at all. As for breaking it up, it seemed a bit odd and contrived for the CCCU, which doesn't tend to do that, but I can try. The only issues I see pertaining to the suggestions: 1) As a guy who went to a small liberal arts college, I've never been keen on breaking it down by enrollment, which doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose unless you're a "bigger is better" type; 2) Places like New England, which fall under the

4833:. In reviewing the UC report, it states that donors can either give directly to the university foundation or to the regents on behalf of the university. However, the UC report also includes life-income funds and gift annuities that are not generally included in endowments until they mature. The NACUBO Endowment Study has usually been the best source for the endowment figure, but I wanted to get feedback from other editors about the best source for University of California schools given their approach to accounting for gifts. Thanks, 1505:". You admit the lead should characterize what is of "general interest". Well, rankings attempt to summarize the reputation and quality of universities, both of which are of general interest and of especial interest to those seeking to compare universities (e.g. potential students). It may be an interesting historical note that streptomycin was discovered at Rutgers in 1943 by an exceptional grad student. But what is more interesting to a potential student is where Rutgers stands relative to other universities in biochemistry today. 31: 718:

know where he's going with this. He even admits that I cited everything, but that he just wanted other people to know that I'm affiliated with IWU. I'm sorry, but you don't place a massive warning tag on the top of an article just because you feel like it. I've never had any problems with this page and do everything by Wiki guidelines. This guy is clearly overstepping his authority - I think he's a wanabee Knowledge administrator. Please remove his tag and tell him not to put it back.

3158:. But, I only saw one Community College and it is a good article. The problem with good articles is that they range greatly in quality. My suggestion would be to find a featured article that is like your community college. If your college has multiple campuses or is part of a system, is really old, or newer, etc., scan through the featured articles and find one or even a few that fit, and then you can model your article after those. This will ensure you have a good reference. 1275:(35, #124)? Clearly the answer is no but you imply that a problematic metric based upon a single-year of data point conveys information about a university's quality or reputation, thus the analogy to a stock price. Similarly, because rankings rely upon similar data (SAT scores, retention, admissions rate, etc.) there is some correlation between different publications' rankings -- again then, why privilege one over another in the lead to assert quality/importance/prestige? 1151:... I disagree with this analogy and the asserted violations. First, stock quotes differ in kind from rankings. Stock quotes by themselves are temporal measures that are valid at a single point in time and meaningless unless context is provided. University rankings are temporal measures also, but they have validity for a length of time usually beyond a year. The ranking itself also provides context since 1st is a measure relative to the field of all universities. Second, 932:

describe the university rather than just describing the university and placing these rankings in their appropriate and limited context later in the article. I don't imagine the leads for articles on companies describe their stock prices, performance or other rankings and statistics; a politician's article the number of votes in the last election or rankings by various institutions; a country's article its statistical rankings; and so on. Doing any of this would reek of

2436:

athletics department/section is no notable for their own article, hence merged into the main article of the university. I understand there are other universities that have several logos depending on the occasion, I believe we need to draw the line to a maximum of one official seal/logo, and one athletics logo if and only if there is no subarticle on athletics. This should be a quite clear and definitive answer that we may refer to in the future. Does this work?

1622:, determined on a case-by-case basis. While that may be unsatisfactory to you, I think it's indicative of the fact that there are many right ways to write a Knowledge article. If there are specific instances of "peacockery" or rankings overkill that are unpalatable to you, perhaps you could bring that up on those individual articles' talk pages. As it is, though, I don't think you're going to find WikiProject-wide consensus for your proposed changes. Cheers! 940:. The same applies here. An obvious implication would from this argument is that if we are to include rankings at all in any article, should we not include historical rankings as well? Likewise a strawman argument, but it should frame the essential problem of having one publication's (admittedly widely-cited) yearly ranking in the lead of a university article. This is an encyclopedia, not an admissions brochure, or a syndicate for US News. 5100:

has a universal metric for consistently keeping such records on a national scale. if we allow the uc to define it's own endowment terms, the value in the endowment parameter in a UC infobox would mean a different thing than it would for a CSU campus, for instance, not to mention Harvard or some such. So, i am for using NACUBO figures as they seem to be used for making arguments to Congress and are respected by professionals in this area.

3689:

than sufficient to explain the topic in detail (it's not at all complicated). For the second point, why is that kind of language even necessary? If Moll or his co-authors decide an institution is a "Public Ivy" then the institution is de jure a Public Ivy. They made up the silly term and they get to decide how it's used. So any extraneous language is just that - extraneous. Eschew obfuscation, my friends. --

4906:

themselves use to report their endowments to NACUBO. I would be ok with listing the earmarked Regents funds for individual campuses on the UC systemwide page or on the individual campus article pages, but leaving the NACUBO figure in the infoboxes, as it seems to represent what people who work with these things in the real world mean when they say "endowment," without "life income funds" or anything else.

2876:- where is the justifications from the administration, reactions from the student newspaper, coverage by local newspapers, comments by church leaders, etc.? If it was really a historic controversy worth mentioning in the Knowledge article, then its coverage would be legion from these sources. If this coverage did exist, it should be merged into the history section, not stand as a standalone section. My 4201: 2562:

represent the organisation's recognised presence in the world or the formal and often historical recognition of its standing as a university? I'm not sure what my view is. Given, in the UK particularly, there is inconsistency from universities on how they use their corporate and formal logos, then I think the community here can be bold in defining what should be the agreed standard. Thanks

5894: 5618: 4008:

institutions are ranked "__ best in the country" when USN&WR doesn't compare all institutions against one another. Keep an eye out for these things. Of course, this would also be a prime opportunity for vandals and others to insert incorrect or misleading information so it may be worth looking out for that, too (which is one reason why it's good to have updated source info). --

228:

US flagship state university, I would expect that most of these are notable. I would expect that almost any separate medical or law school/faculty/college would be notable. the question comes at a/smaller units--business schools often, but what about a small school of say Podiatric Medicine? and b/smaller and less notable universities. I think for those judgment is needed.

5005:. On WP, we just report what the (hopefully) reliable sources say, and if they are in conflict, we go with whatever one seems most likely to be accurate, we don't try to collate discrepancies. However, as i've said before, finance isn't my field, so if i'm wrong or if anyone else wants to take a shot at explaining this in better terms than i can please step in. 776:: (1) citing one source's rankings, usually ignoring less favorable rankings in others, (2) citing all rankings, everywhere, (3) citing out-of-date rankings since their stock has since decreased, (4) parsing the rankings to improve standing (eg, "top 10 university starting with the letter Q"), (5) and any number of other games. I have gone through and stripped 6053:, for which I've updated the lists someone began). IMHO this is rather large and makes navigation more cumbersome than a simple category. If so, would this make it a candidate for deletion? Am I simply wrong about the unwieldiness and shall I contribute to its completion myself? Looking for general consensus, as well as input from more experienced editors. -- 1387:. I defy anyone to find any other encyclopedia that does this. The only reason it happens in Knowledge is that most of the work on university articles tends to be done by students and alumni of that university, who, while understandably non-neutral, should try to avoid letting their loyalty to their alma mater color their encyclopedia contributions. 3278:(Hard) Create a bot (similar to the geography bots) to scrape the Carnegie database and either create new articles or populate new sections within existing articles. I have no experience here and I don't know that the development, testing, and approval time would ultimately be any more efficient than just strapping down and doing it by hand. 792:

organization, enrollment, research, athletics, and so on first. Indeed, I concede that it will be impossible to completely excise rankings from university articles, so a reasonable compromise is just to confine them to a single exhaustive section where they're all laid out rather than selectively included. To that end, I had created

3765:, are continuing to remove this information from articles making vague reference to a non-existent consensus (hint: because information is not in some articles does not mean there is a consensus to exclude that information). The continued antagonism displayed by these editors ("book spam," "spamming," etc.) is quite annoying and 5358:... to help find articles which come onto wikipedia as is commented upon in the deletion section above and get deleted before it is discovered they are part of a class project, so that the teacher/students can be contacted about templates etc. This message also posted at the other wikiprojects as well. Kind Regards 3965:. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Knowledge 1.0 Editorial team, 232:& I intend to try them. It's a question of putting in the necessary work. I'll list them here when I do them so people can attack them at pleasure if they disagree. (but again its the essence, not the nomenclature--something can be called a department and really be a college in the sense I use above) 6467:

section. Not only is there nothing wrong with having the link in both locations I assert that it's the courteous and smart thing to do pending actual usability testing to see if readers do look for this link in the infobox. And once again, anyone who disagrees with me is a doo-doo head with cooties.

6301:

I'm not sure what the official stance is on this but "it's used in the references" seems a very silly reason to remove useful, informative, and appropriate links from the External links section. I have, however, removed a few links from that article as they don't seem to meet those criteria; I'm not

6122:

Ah, perhaps I should clarify on the redlinks, which don't exist in the template last I checked (and won't, since every member school has an article): I wasn't worried so much about redlinked articles, but was simply commenting on the fact that this template (which I once contemplated creating but did

6068:

Well, there are always methods to further classify a long list into shorter lists. For example, you could technically split the list into regions of the US before alphabetizing them; or perhaps maybe you could classify them by history, enrollment, or any other method. But I see what you're saying.

5530:

I agree and understand what you're saying. What needs to happen is essentially what happened to some of the editors who gathered the full history "family tree" of DeVry University. They did a great job digging through their history. Other ones very prominent include UTI and ITT Tech. If you would

3734:

I'm going to agree with Cite needed as well, just because some author published a book inventing a new catchy new category shouldn't be cause for these universities' articles to relabel themselves as such. The same goes for the "Colleges that change lives" and so forth. It often seems these laudatory

3394:

to explicitly mention this information. I would fall on the side of putting it in the body text under "Academic profile" and making sure to pay attention to providing enough context to the meaning of the classification without having to elaborate unnecessarily on all of the classifications generally.

2620:

A quick way to clean up that article is to first have all of the PDFs and ELs deleted. See what meaningful text remains (clean up the blobs of text that has no encyclopedic value), and then add the correct relevant ELs for ref tags. I know I may be removing some good EL refs, but at this point, I'm

2407:

Well, I think it's fair to ignore the sports branding part, then, for UK universities at least. But what would you say are the two distinct purposes vis-à-vis a Knowledge article that would justify including both a seal and a corporate logo? I'm not saying that the two don't serve distinct purposes

2358:

I think the problem is that some universities still use the coat of arms for day to day purposes, some incorporate it into the current logo and some only use it on the degree certificates, merchandise and the like but not on day to day stuff and so the importance varies. But certainly the two usually

2313:

has "Cal") that one goes on bottom. I guess this depends on the size of the university and its athletic programs. If your university has a separate athletics article, then the athletics logo should go to that article instead, if not, then technically, since they represent the university in uniquely

1738:

I normally try to go through and clean those out on a semi-regular basis, but I hesitate to futz around with the GA-to-A-Class assessment. I find the distinction between GA and A to be fairly meaningless; both represent a standard of excellence that falls short of FA (not that there's anything wrong

1635:

It depends not only on the university, but one how it's said--yes, I agree the UNC statement is perfect--there's not really the need to say any more. Those who advertise them more prominently give the implication that without the emphasis, people won;'t realise how good they are. Perhaps the guidline

1561:

There is no overwhelming consensus across all university WPs even though each individual WP-- even featured ones-- may have evolved to have one. There are reasons for changing the status quo and --como se dice-- risking an improvement! Let's be bold! It is easy to have consensus amongst like-minded

1546:

Hello. University rankings can be both encyclopaedic information and, by their very nature, promotional information. The top paragraph of this section shows several real, current issues associated with rankings on university WPs. Tackiness aside, the worst of these is turning WPs into advertising.

1390:

The lead paragraph of a university should do its best to characterize what is unique, individual, and of general interest. What is historical about the university? What unusual courses of study are available? Its unique facilities? Whether it is placed #15 or #33 on some list tells you very little of

1278:

I referenced GAs/FAs only because other editors had been invoking cases of FAs in which rankings were in the lead as examples of consensus when there is clearly a large degree of variance in the practices among these articles and no explicit consensus. You ignore my argument that we are privileging a

1232:

Actually, I did address your substantive concerns. Let's see if I can say it better this time. Rankings, in and of themselves, are information that many readers find significant and important. There are a handful of rankings that carry weight, any one of which would be appropriate to cite in a short

1087:

Some people are misconstruing that I am advocating for wholesale blanking of every mention of rankings ever on every page which is idealistic at best: the prevalence and subsequent fetishization of rankings among universities and students means that we would do our readers a disservice to not include

177:

departments or faculties are notable. I certainly agree that many of them are notable but I do not accept a blanket assertion that they are all notable. If I recall the last time we had this conversation, the general consensus was that each case should be judged on its own merits so if a particular

6447:

point number 2 (its important which is why it is in that section) where by the official website should not be in the EL section since it already is in the infobox (a more prominent placement). The second EL is not the official website of the school (only the one just mention is the main official one

5141:

saying that we should use documents like the UC AER to determine how aggregate endowment funds that are listed in the NACUBO (e.g. the UC endowment) are split up among individual campuses (if they are split up at all). The two aforementioned documents don't seem to have any egregious conflicts. In

5099:

I would just list the, separate and combined, campus foundation and regents totals on the uc page and the campus article pages, but leave the nacubo totals for the endowment of the campus foundation in the infobox. nacubo is a lobbying organization, but as such seems to be the only organization that

4669:

The above article, about a university in Egypt, needs masses of attention and probably a name change. It is listed in the Articles in Need of Translation, where I have suggested that there is an English-language prospectus on the website that could be used for a complete rewrite. Thanks all for your

3983:

has gone under some drastic changes over the years including the more recent decision to change the name to Loyola University Maryland. It is a competitive Jesuit institution with a very big influence on the city of Baltimore but its wikipedia article is like its reputation-awkward and comprehensive

3719:

As I have written elsewhere, I am okay if we decide that this label shouldn't be used in the lead or anywhere in college and university articles. But that decision should be reached through consensus and based on sound judgment, not merely because one editor thinks the category is silly and useless

3703:

I wouldn't suggest getting into an edit war about it, but I do see your point. I saw the borderline NPA violation on your talk page. It seems clear to me that we should determine a standard for this. I believe if we can determine some kind of consensus we can perhaps have him refer to the results

2471:

Well sports federations fall into the same area as students' unions and often whether the two entities are separate or not is just a matter of internal arrangements, finances and history rather than any measure of significance, so it would wind up in the perennial AFD debates on inclusion there. But

1440:

No other encyclopedia is going to do it because other encyclopedias can't update themselves as fast as we can. It has nothing to do with usefulness. There is absolutely no reason to make a rule about this. It can be decided on a case by case basis by each individual article. The article I work on in

1358:

and I think taking the initiative by making everything completely NPOV and PC is a nice goal, but in reality, university rankings the the very indication of a university's level of competence, whether it directly indicates prestiege should be up to the reader to decide. I think it is important that

1327:

s methods are perfect; rather, we're arguing that the rankings matter when talking about U.S. institutions and should therefore be included in the lead of articles about those schools. So long as one notes the year and cites the source for the rankings, I see no problem with their inclusion. Cheers!

1322:

Well, I think it's pretty clear that there's no consensus for the removal of rankings from the lead of all the universities articles. Moreover, I think it's also pretty clear that more editors find their inclusion in the lead useful than don't. While Knowledge isn't a democracy, the weight of this

1295:

the United States, but any consensus we reach here becomes problematic when deciding how apply it to universities in other countries -- do we use different rankings for universities in different countries? But that would undermine the comparative argument Vantelimus advances. Should we use a general

1155:

does not necessarily apply. Just because a ranking is recent, does not mean that it does not necessarily have value. The fact that so many university rankings exist and that they are updated on regular bases pretty much indicates this is information that people find important -- note I don't care if

1099:

Indeed, wouldn't it then make more sense that if one wanted to make a claim as to the quality or prestige of a four-year university, the rankings from the past four years should also be included or averaged? Is the freshman class really better or worse than the senior class? Why are all the rankings

931:

I completely understand where you are coming from, but I find this to be a revealing strawman argument because it demonstrates the extent to which editors and readers rely upon rankings to legitimize or calibrate how they are going to read about the university. Employing rankings becomes a crutch to

286:

with departments of chem, chem engineering, and chemical biology -- in contrast to everything else at that university and I think to any other also. The reason is the historic development, as you'll see from the extraordinary people listed there--they had enough prestige to insist on running things

4951:

When we have access to the total endowment figures of individual campus', we shouldn't ignore this information. They are the values that the campuses use themselves and report to the media (e.g. Berkeley reported that their endowment was approximately $ 2.9 billion earlier this year in a bloomberg

4225:

So, 51 threads, 28 went to archive, 23 remain. 28 threads are in Archive 7, apparently matching the removed threads. Last-mod date selection looks OK. Of course, we can still suspect the bot until it fills and turns over a 100K archive - but it looks like that Misza13 knows what they're doing! Well

3479:

Well, my biggest problem with the SNU template is that it's just terrible to try to read. I mean no offense to its creator, but it's poorly designed color-wise. But I see your point here: clearly, some of those redlinked articles will never reach Knowledge's notability standards. I don't have a

3386:

I understand that the ratings are limited to US institutions and are thus imperfect, but I would still like to see this far more valuable information more comprehensively included in articles than the typical USNWR, SHJT, THES rankings trash. I certainly didn't know about them until recently and my

3297:

It's important to note that Carnegie only classifies US institutions. That is why in the past I have advocated for a separate infobox for US institutions so we could include this info. I would be amenable to inserting the information using a template in the body of the articles, too, although I'd

2834:

page. A sourced 'criticisms' section was recently added to the article, but there have been several attempts by people associated with IWU attempting to delete this section using unregistered accounts. This seems contrary to Knowledge standards - simply deleting something because you don't like it,

2523:

because the seal and the logo serve the exact same purpose. There's no distinction between them in my mind; both serve only to represent the university's brand identity. Frankly, I don't think it's any different for a UK university either. If both images are copyrighted, then for the purposes of

2001:

Okay, I stumbled onto this article when it was created and I've tried to assist those involved with the article ... but the simple fact is that I'm not active with WikiProject Universities, so can't provide those writing the article with the amount of assistance that they need to fix this article.

1589:

Is there any? The only consensus I read out of the the previous debate was that it depends on the university. I frankly find this to be a failure of will and a continued lack of consensus. I admit that it appears that many editors feel that rankings can or should remain in the lead, but by no means

227:

There is an immense difference between a department and a faculty. By "faculty" we mean the first order academic divisions, often called "Colleges" in the US and sometimes "Schools"--the terms are usually interchangeably, but some places use them idiosyncratically. At a major university, such as a

6484:

If you have a problem with the guideline, then you need to discuss it on the talk page of that guideline and try to work towards consensus towards getting it changed there. Until then, the EL guideline evolved through consensus, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees, but the community does need to

6107:

I'd concur with the above: this sort of template really ought to be comprehensive, even if that means redlinked articles. Geography does seem like a useful way of separating some of them out, though. Perhaps you could put expandable regional sections inside the larger template, or divide them into

5740:

This template is being changed and I would like to have someone take a look and make sure it's ok (the infobox affects multiple articles). I tried to revert the changes until one of us double checks the code, but I don't think the editor read the edit summary on the edit and got... well... ticked

5077:

We've established that the NACUBO and UC AER figures are not mutually consistent. You are not suggesting we should compare the NACUBO report with the UC AER when you say, "We should look at public schools, on a case-to-case basis, starting at the NACUBO report to see if seperate figures are listed

4468:

Thank you very much for the information. We are in the SEO business and know there is no way to SEO a Wiki article. Some of our clients see Wiki articles that appear in the SERPs that possibly contain inaccurate information. These clients want our firm to update the information as they do not have

3688:

I'm sorry but I don't understand either concerns about readers not knowing what the term means nor why we should use the needlessly long language of "is considered by" or "is included in the list of." Relative to the first point, we have an entire article on this topic and that article seems more

3673:

Please don't let yourself get wound up by this discussion. I find that Cite needed's point is useful. Articles should say "this university was included in .... list of 'public ivies' ", not "this university is a public ivy". Categories of institution are hardly every very hard-and-fast. And people

2989:

1 Ancient universities 1.1 Medieval universities 1.2 Universities founded during the Victorian period 2 Red brick universities 2.1 The civic universities 2.2 Intermediate period 2.3 Second wave of red-brick universities 3 Plate glass universities 4 Intermediate era 5 New universities 5.1

2256:

I see this has been discussed to some extent previously, but could a consensus be reached on the inclusion and placing of corporate logos and traditional crests & coat of arms in the infobox. I've noticed (particularly for UK universities) that there is an inconsistency around what appears at

1123:

as long as they are appropriately used. If there is a ranking section it should be summarized, but nothing more (or less). If rankings are being used as a "crutch" in a lead, you should fix the problem there instead of a proposing to remove all rankings. Can you list some articles that you feel

717:

An editor named "Me" has placed a tag on the IWU page, of which I am the primary editor. His reason for doing so is simply because I am affiliated with the school - not that I made any biased POV comments. The vast majority of Knowledge contributors edit a page they are affiliated with, so I don't

231:

As for Departments, I think the rule goes as "undeniably world-class" and that actual sources have to be demonstrated saying something of the sort. It's one of my medium priorities--I have about a dozen such departments in mind which I know about where i know there are good sources to that effect,

6466:

With respect to "if it's in the infobox then it shouldn't be in the External links section": I think it's terribly silly for anyone to assume that readers would only look for the link to an institution's official website in the infobox and not in the (apparently-misleadingly-named) External links

6187:

The result is "Location: Chiyoda, Koganei, Hachiōji, Tokyo, Japan" (multiply linked, of course). I know that the first three are in the fourth, but I don't suppose that this is obvious. So what's the best way of getting this to say "Location: Chiyoda, Koganei, Hachiōji (all of which are in Tokyo,

6000:

And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's

5511:

Hi, I'm not a member of this project and do intend to become one, but I work in the world of colleges and universities and have noticed something that you might not be aware of. In recent years there have been a number of schools aquired by Corinthian Colleges. And all of their names have been

4509:

As long as your employees (a) are upfront about their employment and motives (I suggest writing something on each User's page with this info) and (b) respectful of and compliant with our standard practices and culture then you should be okay. When in doubt, post suggestions to the article's Talk

2561:

I think this discussion has been worth having. If the issue, based on Wikipeida guidelines, is that only one copyrighted image can be used if both convey the same equivalent significant information, then the question is what is the purpose of providing a visual identity in the infobox? Is it to

1196:

Despite the fact that WalMart and ExxonMobil are generally atop the popular Fortune 500 list in recent years doesn't mean this fact is mentioned outright in the lead, it too is mentioned in the appropriate and limited context later in the article. Rankings for universities should be no different.

1067:

Well WP already has a lot of Do Nots since we're trying to make a coherent encyclopedia rather than a hodgepodge of webpages, so asking that there be stylistic consistency across articles is not a sea change. I merely dredge up these facts to point out the clear lack of consensus on something for

6353:

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external

5246:

to provide relevant and accessible statistics on their institutions as well. Obviously this is only pertinent to US institutions. On a related note, I notice that most articles do not include information on freshman retention or 4 or 6-year graduation rates, even though this information is often

4482:

Let's assume for a moment our firm follows all TOC's (guidelines, talk pages, citations, references, etc.) and individuals that work at our firm register individually. All postings from these usernames would most likely come from the same IP as well as most conversations on talk pages as well as

4434:

is probably a good place for you to start. The FAQ answers a lot of common questions about how businesses should use Knowledge. What type of business are you in? How many clients/colleges/businesses on Knowledge do you represent? In what way is the information biased? Can you provide examples? I

4151:

I'm not a project member. I find it useful though, when I'm thinking of asking questions on a WikiProject talk page, to look at the recent activity to gauge whether there is any point in asking my question. A surprising number of WPP's are moribund. It's also always interesting to read up on the

3548:

for quite some time now. It hasn't been assesed by any of the Wikiprojects it is part of. I have reached the point where I realy need some more help or at least a peer edit so that I know what needs to be fixed or what can be added to make it better. I know that this school is not a world famous

2376:

Sport is not a big part of a UK university's external identity (only the Oxford-Cambridge boat race has much of a public profile) and certainly isn't subject to corporate branding. Complicating things further is that sports teams are not organised by the university themselves but by the separate

1602:

It lacks the tackiness and recentism but introduces peacock-ery since "highly ranked" is completely unsubstantiated - top 10? top 100? when? etc. Indeed, that many leads still claim the school has "high selectivity" in the very first breath reveals the extent to which boosterism must be actively

1508:

The fact is that the general public, private educational foundations, and public policy makers find rankings very interesting and useful. Much time and money is spent by public and private institutions (worldwide) to develop rankings that capture different notions of quality specifically to help

1180:

None of this speaks to whether or not rankings should appear in the lead. You are hammering away on the obvious point I don't like rankings at all, but as I've repeatedly stated, I'm not advocating their wholesale removal from every article. Rather, rankings have no place being in the lead of an

341:

I would reiterate Jameson's argument above that almost any (accredited or otherwise legitimate) university would be entitled to have a "Academics at X University" in which all schools/colleges would be included and expanded beyond the information on the mother page. If it becomes clear that this

309:

Granted that the organizations of universities varies but tends toward a structure involving a specific knowledge domain (department of chemistry, pediatrics, etc.), an agglomeration of domains into a unit (college of science, school of medicine, etc.), and that these units are constitutive of a

6462:

I continue to disagree with both your reading of the guideline and your rationale. If I'm incorrect in my understanding of the guideline (and I don't think I am, otherwise I would have a different understanding of it!) then it's wrong and it needs to be changed. To put it more precisely: it's

6370:

I completely disagree with your interpretation of that sentence. The way I read it, if the only reason a link is in an article is to function as a reference then it's a reference and not an external link; that's reasonable. That, however, does not preclude the link from being useful in and of

6084:

I'm going to have to agree with Aepoutre that I think that any category named as such should include all 110 schools even if they're red linked. However, this in onerous to use so I would recommend just splitting it into regional groups and making templates for each region and then exhaustively

5474:

page between several users about the content and structure of the article. The argument is basically over what defines "controversy". Some argue that some of the items placed in the controversy section not only carry misinformation but also should not be considered controversial. The other side

4345:

In my experience, as long as the content is neutral, unbiased, and verifiable, a user (not a company) may post on Knowledge as a contribution to an existing article. However, it may be wise to propose exactly what you wish to change on the articles you want to edit. If you are unfamiliar with

2650:, but since I know nothing on this subject I thought it would be good to try to find someone with specialist knowledge of university libraries to decide what would be the notable elements that should be included on in the article. I've put a very brief sentence, with this ref, at the end of the 2435:

Well then, if they have individual sports federations, then if the federation is notable enough, then that logo goes to a separate article. I think it just simplifies it for UK universities. And regarding your question, Esrever, I think the case would be focused on US universities where their

1195:

The fact that TIME ranked Einstein, FDR, and Ghandi as the "Top 3" people of the century does not appear in the leads of their article because their substantial accomplishments and reputation preclude the need for such ornamentation -- it appears in the appropriate context later in the article.

875:

Consensus is being invoked as a counter-argument when I see no pre-existing or explicit consensus on the issue. UC-Davis and Duke have been invoked as examples, but the majority of FAs have no mention of rankings in the lead (Cornell, Dartmouth, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown, Michigan

158:

I am fine with this. To have a decent university article you need to split off the colleges, especially if there are a lot with encyclopedic information. Notability could be established on their own, or as part of a larger university. They are at a minimum as notable as a high school, which are

6276:

has an external links section in which all of its entries occur elsewhere as references. I have removed one particular one before I noticed all the others were or could be made into references, but the editor who edits the article a lot has re-included them, despite them having been removed by

4957:

Simply put, I haven't seen the Berkeley or UCLA endowment funds reported as less than $ 1 billion in a very long time, but that is exactly what you are suggesting if we are to use your criteria. Are you sure this is what you want? For all the readers of the UC articles, it would seem to be a

3521:

just has to say for example "the basketball teams play in the "Sawyer Center" and instead of having all the Sawyer Center info in the main SNU page. (Make sense?). As far as Knowledge's notability standards are concerned, some articles could be grouped, like all the housing linked to one main

3241:

may be partly a correction, but it is clearly a mess: no summary, no new source, different numbers, and (unless things have changed greatly since I was college age and they've added a third SAT) combined SAT scores of 2100 are impossible. Could someone on this WikiProject possibly sort it out?

2510:

I'd say ignore the sports stuff on this one. My point isn't whether sports logos need to be included; I'm certainly okay with them being included in universities articles. I think the original poster's question was over which image (seal/coat of arms or logo) should be placed at the top of an

2294:

In other words, I think logos and crests serve exactly the same purpose: to visually identify a university's "brand" using some university-approved image. Since they are, in that case, redundant, I feel only one should be in place in an article. If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with the

791:

Moreover, the leads I edited were often devoid of any other information about the school besides what its name was and where it was located. If editors want cause to put rankings in the lead, at the very VERY least, the lead should summarize the rest of the article's topics on history, campus,

6521:

to be a way of saying that the references don't need to be treated strictly in the same way an external link would be; it seems to be poor wording (not uncommon in the consensus-built manual of style!) that has led to that perhaps being readable as saying "don't (also) use these references as

4905:

I would guess that the individual campuses don't have control over the Regents funds. The earmarked Regents funds can be considered in assessing the total value of the UC endowment, as provided in the systemwide UC article. "Consistency" would mean using the universal metrics the universities

4869:

I disagree. Well, kind of. I think we should use the NACUBO figures where appropriate (for schools like Harvard, that have one, combined endowment fund). But in the case of the UC schools, I don't think the NACUBO figures are, by themselves, helpful. The UC endowment funds, as Alanraywiki

2997:

to me. The list also seems to be ordered mostly by date of Charter or grant of university status, and not establishment. The two are rarely the same, and for some institutions, identifying a date which is both neutral and objectively 'correct' is very difficult. Would it be more prudent to

1660:

It appears the consensus is case by case. On the example sentence from UNC, I'm inclined to lean towards Madcoverboy's opinion that it is neither tacky nor too recent. but lacks precision and hence leans toward peacock-ery. It is the imprecision that bothers me most. As for inclusion of "high

1353:

Hm... sorry I haven't been watching this particular discussion, but I think Esrever's last comment pretty much sums up the majority of what my thoughts are at the moment. Although Knowledge is not a democracy, right now the general gist of things suggest the current lead format with rankings

6281:

is being invoked for this, but I wonder if there are some particular reasons why including them in university articles is more acceptable than elsewhere (e.g., if references are mainly to department pages, whereas the EL is to the main university page, though this could be easily made into a

5247:

included into the rankings (which are so dear to many editors' hearts). I would encourage editors to include information on retention, graduation rates, as well as some financial aid information such students receiving need-based support, percentage of students who receive Pell Grants, etc.

4007:

IF anyone hasn't noticed, US News & World Report has released the 2009 version of their rankings. Right now, I'm seeing lots of editors updating articles without changing the source information. It's also pretty common to misstate the methodology employed by USN&WR by stating that

3395:

Secondly, having reached consensus, this information should be seeded into the appropriate FAs, GAs, and other prominent institutions/articles to both vet the local consensus here against the native editors as well as to serve as an example for the hundreds and thousands of other articles.

251:

See, the problem here is that many US universities have departments AND colleges, such as having Civil Engineering Department, Chemical Engineering Department, Computer and Electrical Engineering, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department grouped together as part of the "College of

2044:

Thanks for your help - I'm glad I posted here, I had spotted many of the issues you mentioned and had left notes on one of the contributor's talk page; but had also missed a few. Familiarity with the guidelines goes a long ways towards simplifying the copy-editing of such articles! ---

5714:

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Knowledge a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of

2805: 3484:, as I think it can be a nice map for an editor or team of editors to follow as they expand on the various topics associated with a university. But I don't know how to go about telling the people who are working on the SNU articles, for example, that student housing (which I assume 4104: 2276:

a distinct purpose to having both a corporate logo and a traditional coat of arms, especially if both are copyrighted. Many American universities' articles on Knowledge have their seal at the top and the logo at the bottom, and I'm of the mind that that is a violation of the

5767:

Maybe I just did a COTM on my own, but Rice University's article was atrocious - a "reputation" section at the top, absolutely no description of research activities, and huge sections on traditions. Somehow it was classified as B-class as well. I bumped it down to C and was

5142:

fact, I think they should both be referenced in every UC article. And I, too, think that both values should be listed in the article, but I think the total endowment value should be listed in the infobox. This is the number that the individual campuses use themselves. —

377:. Although I am interested in hearing your thoughts on these particular article, I am more interested to see if this establishes a general consensus regarding the notability of individual residence halls which do not appear to have extraordinary histories of any sort. -- 5413:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are 5078:

for a school, and then go to the individual system's own report to see how these aggrigate funds are allocted for the individual campuses. Yeah, this is much more work, but it reflects a much more accurate figure"? How is the more accurate figure to be derived otherwise?

2027:

I have given it a preliminary article review and have made recommended article revisions. Any attempt at reintroducing non-notable information or any promotional/advertising sections/sentences/phrases should be promptly removed and have those editors properly addressed.

796:

a while back where US News, SJU ARWU, Times Higher Ed Supplement, Measuring University Performance, Newsweek, Washington Monthly, can all be included. If you want rankings in your article, include all the sources -- even ones where you're not ranked favorably, or at all.

457:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1279:

single publication's (a hypothetical Daily News) problematic ranking for one year because they are (Vantelimus alleges) authoritative, common, and influential even when the methodology for rendering these scores is a secret and varies every year which raises issues with

1964:

with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Knowledge 1.0 scheme! For the

2377:

Sports Federation/Athletic Union or Students' Union, and some will use the university coat of arms, some the Sport Fed, AU or SU logo and virtually none a university corporate logo, but these decisions often take place on a sport by sport basis not a unified branding.

4411:. I would once again suggest that you post what you want to change on the individual talk pages of the articles you wish to change first. This way other peer editors may verify the information. If you need further help, please continue to discuss the issue here. 342:

school, college, department, faculty, etc. information would overload this academics daughter article (as I imagine would be the case for law, medical, business school) then editors would be justified in further forking the content into daughter/granddaughter pages.

3353:

is probably the best way forward; simply use this resource as a third party source to support any assertions on classification etc. If people dispute the use of this particular source then they might cite another to show contrast (i.e. everyone can 'win' here).

5512:

changed (usually to Everest, sometimes to WyoTech) and, as far as I can tell, their histories are nowhere to be found on the new websites. Which makes the work done by this WikiProject that much more important because without it, these histories will be lost.

1033:

More fuel for the fire: Among GAs on US universities and colleges (not daughter pages like history of, campus of, school of X, etc.) and excluding the service academies: 13 have no explicit mention of rankings in the lead and 8 do mention rankings in the lead.

1739:

with that) but that is still well above B-Class. I think those articles are typically better served by peer review or the FAC process than they are by me taking a look at them. If others feel like taking a crack at them, though, by all means do so. Cheers!

4309:

Our firm has a client that has many colleges/universities. Some of the articles about their company and colleges contain inaccurate information or biased content. We respect the Wiki community and do not want to do anything that undermines this environment.

5273:...there has been a reply to whit that the student in order to meet his teacher's pre-requisite had to use user space rather than article space. Why invite teachers and students to learn and write articles on wikipedia if they are deleted? It seems moot. 3027:

because #3A calls for "minimal usage". Since seals and logos serve the same point (displaying a university-approved visual identity), I don't think it's acceptable to include both. However, I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that consensus may hold that

5560:

O...k... If you don't want to update this article, that's fine, and you don't have to be a member of this WikiProject to edit articles. If you simply want to leave the information to update the article, you may leave a message on the article's talk page.

1879:

Currently, 1272 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See

954:

FAU, Michigan State, and Texas A&M are all FAs without rankings in the lead that would likely fall into the same boat at UC-Davis regarding positive POV/lack of popular prestige. I'll have to go back and look at their FACs to see if this was mentioned.

3739:

sees these included in the university's articles. Besides, all these "public ivies" or what-have-you are already well-recognized as excellent universities through a myriad of far more NPOV and reliable sources, so keep this book spam out of the articles.

4642:

for some time, but a few editors seem to rather just hit deletions. Thanks to all who pitched in, future comments are always welcome (and remember, you don't have to agree with me... I'm more interested in your take on it than if your take on it matches

3516:

I have taken these suggestions and cleaned up the template. More articles have been created. The intent was to create a template that would grow with the as the main article grows. So in the future, there won't be any redlinks. Where as the main article

3138:

Long story short, I'm looking to improve an article on my own community college. It's in fairly decent shape but I did want to expand it a bit. I was wondering if anyone knew of a community college article that I might be able to use as a reference?

281:

but to the extent there is any pattern, the departments of X-engineering would not normally have articles, the College of Engineering would. An interesting example of the sort of problem that arises is University of California Berkeley, where there is a

6485:

follow the guideline (except in rare circumstances otherwise they would be suggestions and not guidelines). If you choose to try and change the consensus, then I wish you luck as I doubt you will find much support for multiple listings of the same EL.

5202: 5186: 6438:

Then wouldn't that be back to your in isolation bit? Going to the last version you edited, there are two ELs. The first is the official link, and as you point out, it should be included as an external link that can be separate from the refs section.

1156:

a given individual thinks they are not valid, the fact is the public views this as important. While historical ranking information can be of interest, in general, the more recent the ranking information, the more relevant people will find it. Third,

902:: "The nature of Knowledge means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Is it consensus or just an unchecked practice? 310:

university. With this definition, departments should almost never have their wikipedia article barring a few overwhelmingly notable exceptions, but a university's colleges and schools almost certainly have enough notability for a separate article.

6020:

I just went through the Berkeley article and did a bunch of work to start standardizing citations, stripping out the recentist bias, and introducing standard descriptive information and statistics on governance, student body, and classification.

5289:

Here is another school project where the teacher has asked the kids to write about local Edmonton bands which got speedy deleted, and the kids are giving up and asking why bother with the teacher's assignment if they won't stay on wikipedia.

4377:

1 - Client creates username/account similar to company name and makes all postings directly from their network & IP. 2 - Client creates username/account similar to company name and we (their 3rd party firm) post from our network & IP.

1053:? I see no reason to remove rankings from some articles, nor add them to those in which they are absent. Evaluate each article on it's merits, because a Knowledge with a rigid list of "do's" and "do not's" would be a very poor place to be. 4540:

regarding whether or not terms like "highly selective" or "elite" (1) should be mentioned in the lead and (2) if they are examples of boosterism at all. Other editor's comments are welcome to develop a more thorough consensus on this issue.

4556:

After extensive discussion and blood-letting, we are seeking to establish consensus on a variety of issues relating to selectivity, classifications, and style in university articles. Please review the proposals and join the discussion at

1509:

students and policy makers make decisions. College rankings are different in kind from someone's subjective ranking of great composers. Thus, I don't find the argument about rankings of composers at all relevant to the current discussion.

4585:. Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review 2138:

and have taken care of most of the pre-WWII history and a smattering of topics since then. I would welcome other editors' assistance in expanding the article, getting it assessed, and nominating it for GA and FA in the coming months.

1677:

assuming the material is supported in the article, I continue to think it appropriate for the lede paragraph. You are giving arguemnts why the ddetailed material on ranking should be included at all, not why it belongs in the lede.

6517:(Resetting indent) Hi guys. I don't want to fan any flames here, but I thought a comment from another editor passing by might be of some value, in case it casts light on how these things can be interpreted. On reading this, I took 6423:

where it specifically lists some links that should be included. Specifically, note the statement "Knowledge articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any."

3735:

passages take the place of the requisite rankings-cruft that would normally occupy the lead when the rankings aren't quite high enough. Similarly, the Princeton Review publishes all kinds of unflattering "rankings" and one almost

3564:

Sure, I'll take a stab at trying to see if there's anything I can do. First a format check, then typo check, then if I have more time today, content/reference checks. I'll post on the article's talk page regarding my comments.

2308:

What I've seen some of the universities do, and actually my university's article does this as well, is that the seal or coat of arms goes on top, and if and only if they have another logo they go by for athletic purposes (like

1296:

international rankings for all universities? But this wouldn't be authoritative or influential enough. How about we just leave rankings out of the lead so we can avoid importing all the analytic baggage that accompanies them?

3267:

in WP:UNI articles because they are comprehensive, NPOV, and well thought-out. Obviously, I agree with him and I am trying to think of the best way to incorporate them and here are the unwieldy solutions I have come up with:

6215:. I see this likewise becoming a problem with universities opening campuses worldwide (e.g., Texas A&M, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern opening campuses in Qatar) and something on which we should develop a consensus. 5418: 2877: 2600: 2645:

As far as I can tell, this is the best place to ask for the help I'm needing: I've been doing a lot of work on the Larkin page, and am aware that we're missing an evaluation of his work as a librarian. Someone gave me a

2089:

So... I've kinda stopped doing them from the lack of interest and lack of real progress. I kind of want to start it back up again, but I want to see if there will be enough support for me to attempt it. Any followers?

1291:. Likewise, because access to the full USNWR rankings requires a paid registration, how can we as a project ensure that all universities' ranking information is up-to-date? USNWR rankings may be common and authoritative 3814:

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. You've been doing some great work improving the article and it really should stay GA. MIT's been on my watchlist for quite a while now and I hope it does not lose its article class.

6397:(emphasis added) Thus the above quoted sentence fits in exactly with the guideline and is not in isolation. If the information has been added, then the EL is no longer useful in an EL section. The EL section is not a 5180: 4790:

There are at least two other editors (plus myself) who are willing to restart the Collaboration of the Fortnight for this project. If you are interested, please express your interest here on this thread. Thanks.

3316:

Easier, just do what we do know and include it in the text where it can be fully and properly explained. That seems to work fine now, why change it? Also, I don't like the idea of some kind of structured paragraph.

3272:(Easy) Expand the University infobox to include these classifiers and create either a main-space page or documentation page to describle the acronyms. Native editors or a task force populate the fields on their own. 3602:

I saw your comments. I'm not going to proceed with content improvement until those refs are fixed. The lists needs to be converted into one big gigantic academics section as mentioned on my review on that page.

1160:

does not apply unless one can demonstrate the cited rankings mislead or give a false picture of the university ranking. Likewise, personal distaste for rankings or for a particular ranking system does not indicate

4147:

These look like very aggressive archiving parameters. old(21d) would leave 14 threads here, which doesn't seem unreasonable. The default values for minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive would likely be better

1694:

I suppose that's one way to look at what I wrote. Another is to infer importance of including rank information in the lead since it is important information to a great number of those likely to be reading the

4435:

agree that it is probably best you post your suggested changes on the article talk pages and then let other editors implement the suggested changes. Returning to the username question, please see Knowledge's

3950:, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with 3522:

article "Student housing at Southern Nazarene University", or just unlinked the links. Please let know on my user talk page if there is anything else that could be done, or other thought ya'll have. Thanks!

6371:

itself as an external link and qualifying for inclusion in the "External links" section on those grounds. To view that sentence in isolation from the rest of the EL guideline is mistaken and misleading. --

5232: 6302:

inclined to edit war over them, particularly if there is a genuine consensus that they should remain. But I can't imagine ever using the rationale you've presented as a reason to remove external links. --

2957:

on the topic, not necessarily to promote broad-reaching notability guidelines. Our project welcomes further comments from your project members and looks to work together with WP:Universities as much as we

1482:

says "remember that a university article's lead paragraph should be a quick summary of the most important facts about that institution. Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article."

1048:

I don't think the absence of something proves consensus either way. It just shows that articles can be good or featured with or without rankings. Since that is the case, is there any reason to change the

4483:

edits will be done on behalf of our clients. Is there any potential backlash or downside that can harm our reputation or the reputation of any clients that we may have or will work on their Wiki articles?

4045:

Anyone who would like access to the "gotta pay for it" info should check with their local library, particularly if you're affiliated with a college or university, as they will likely have a subscription.

5531:

like to start with one set of colleges for one university chain and move on to another one, that's fine too. Let us know what you would like to do and what you see that you'll need assistance with. :)

5475:

wishes to maintain all of them (and implement others that were deleted). Can some of you who are more experienced with University articles help in the dispute? I don't wish for another edit war to start.

823:. Moreover, that article went through peer review, GA review, and GA reassessment with the lead exactly as is, which would suggest consensus over your unilateral (though, of course, good faith) action. 5448: 3674:

outside the US are unlikely to be familiar with the term "public ivy" since it is quite new and doesn't apply in the countries where there is no clear distinction between public and private university.

4060:

Though I loathe rankings and US News in particular, I have subscriptions to the 2009 undergraduate and graduate rankings, so drop me a note at your talk if you need something verified, updated, cited.

3847: 3796: 2201: 424: 5693: 5295: 3935:. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at 2115:

The above article is currently being considered for GA nomination. Any comments regarding how ready the article might or might not be for such consideration would be more than welcome. Thank you.

5581: 4938:. These funds are earmarked and, as such, are more tightly regulated than the individual foundation funds, but the individual campus ultimately decides where the accrued dividends are allocated. 6014: 3969: 6127:, will have a total of 2 colleges in the CCCU. Even if I were to break it down by region, would I be creating separate templates for the regions, or have I completely misunderstood that one? -- 5291: 3453: 1720: 3421:

article reach GA-status. I have been working on it lately but I've found it hard to improve without compromising NPOV or using peacock terms since I'm a student at Cal Poly Pomona. We have a

2266: 983:

One other note, I think "highly selective" is actually a technical definition of the Carnegie Foundation (or something similarly), so it may not WP:AWW if in context and appropriately cited.

206:

University colleges/faculties that are independently notable may have their own article, otherwise, it may be wise to just fork the colleges into a "X University Academics" article instead.

6295: 3365:

I would view anyone who seriously "dispute the use of this particular source" with grave suspicion. It's certainly not perfect or above criticism but it's definitely the gold standard. --

2257:

the top and at the bottom and editors often swap them around. They both have a distinct purpose and presence so I feel they both should be there but some consistency would help all round.

784:

from the leads of several dozen US colleges and universities as well as modified the Article Guidelines. Similarly, I removed instances of "highly selective" since this is the epitome of a

4374:

It is our goal and commitment to only have content posted that meets the editorial guidelines listed above. In your professional opinion what would be the best option for posting content:

5866: 5852:

I haven't run the statistics, but it doesn't look like the rankings for any one university have shifted more than 5 positions for any one university in 20 years (except UPenn and WashU).

3186: 2835:

even if it's true and sourced. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could put a partial lock on the page for awhile to divert attempts at deleting the section by unregistered users. Thanks.

2038: 4358:

and near the top right corner you'll find a list of key Knowledge guidelines and policies. Of course, if you require further assistance you may reply here as needed. Hope this helps.

4152:

recent talk threads, as it tells an interesting story on what the particular project is currently trying to achieve (in practice, as opposed to the stated goals on the WPP page itself).

2817: 1445:

doesn't have such information in the lead. It used to, but we decided it just wasn't notable enough. The biggest problem I've seen with University article expansion is that people spend

6004:

Let's start off the new COTM program the right way. I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals.

4842: 2939:. The vast majority of college players don't warrant articles besides those who win major awards or are drafted to professional teams (clearly, the second often presupposes the first). 2909: 1953:. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. 5524: 5484: 5460: 386: 5378: 3912: 3640: 3275:(Medium) Include the classification in the body of the article to structure a paragraph elaborating upon it with specific data. Native editors or a new task force populate the fields. 2251: 5465: 2022: 6267: 3957:

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at

129: 6069:

I don't necessarily believe this should be deleted, as it does look like a useful navibox. Perhaps more people may discuss what ways we can try to ease navigating the long list.

5267: 4400: 4338: 2614: 436: 3387:

pet articles would certainly stand to benefit by them. The question I posed, is how to incorporate this information equitably and efficiently using either templates or body text.

1942: 1935: 1014: 5728: 4586: 5506: 5368: 3009: 1961: 6405:

research. That is, stash it there until you use it as a source, but if you integrate it as a source, then remove it, leaving only those whose information cannot be integrated.

745:

An edit war is threatening to brew over this issue at the BYU article once again. Those who participated earlier are welcome to do it again, as well as anyone else, of course.

351: 2481: 2446: 1133: 1077: 1062: 992: 978: 853: 832: 152: 2739: 2725: 2688: 1993: 356: 119: 5755: 2967: 2948: 2528: 2412: 2386: 2103: 6582: 5838: 5655: 5164: 5108: 5056: 5013: 4980: 4914: 4892: 4652: 4614: 4570: 4492: 4421: 4368: 3906: 3575: 2921: 2893: 2796: 1743: 1219: 1205: 1043: 964: 333: 6094: 6030: 4776: 4709: 4695: 3882: 3859: 3825: 3714: 3613: 3589: 3360: 3198: 3097: 2243: 2186: 1988: 1305: 1242: 1190: 319: 4633: 4623:. I believe our efforts will be better spent on working on this policy to find a consensus rather than to create debates (on repeated issues) on individual AfD pages. 4598: 4452: 4142: 4119: 3531: 3299: 3116: 2706: 2591: 2148: 1919:, we at the Knowledge 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at 998: 216: 168: 6259: 6224: 4860: 4519: 3167: 2610:

My gut feeling is that this is such a shambles that even if an article is worthwhile it should be started afresh. Should it be started afresh? Should it be deleted? --

2002:

I've simply started ignoring some issues as they get reverted back whenever I try to clean it up. Can someone with more experience with WP:UNIVERSITIES take a look at

1782: 949: 926: 6559: 6494: 6479: 6457: 6433: 6414: 6380: 6365: 6112: 6079: 4820: 4282: 4235: 4220: 4194: 4176: 4161: 4069: 3749: 3698: 3683: 3374: 3311: 2791: 2674:

Just as a clarification, this is a WikiProject on the universities themselves. You might get better help if you asked the guys at WP:Biographies, where they focus on

2668: 2229: 1626: 1536: 1332: 911: 894: 885: 870: 4826: 4055: 4033: 3729: 3340: 3326: 2341: 2324: 1369: 276: 201: 187: 6532: 6347: 6333: 6311: 6197: 6155: 5438: 4760: 4679: 4439:. Generally, accounts should be unique and personal to each individual editor. They should not be shared. Also, a basic introduction to editing Knowledge is located 4084:

Can I get consensus to get autoarchiving started for this talk page? I have the code on the page commented out. When we get consensus I'll decomment to activate.

3623: 3438: 2571: 2299: 1905: 545:. The article they are being merged into seems to lack notability too, as I have indicated with the template, and might itself be merged into the apparently notable 5571: 5555: 5541: 5500: 3507: 3250: 2846: 2631: 2076: 2061: 1472: 644: 5935: 5814: 5391: 5308: 4488: 4392: 4330: 1848: 1826: 596: 470: 6136: 6062: 4407:

Actually, your username should not be similar to a company at all. Please review our username policy. Many times usernames that violate such policies end up in

2755: 1704: 1670: 732: 262: 246: 5861: 3580:

I left some comments on talk regarding sources that should definitely be included before moving ahead as well as stripping out or converting the bulleted lists.

3128: 2408:

at a university, but the university owns the copyright and can use the images however it chooses. Knowledge has to justify the inclusion of copyrighted images.

1458: 5589:

Yup! We're starting the collaboration project again, but instead of every 14 days, it'll be every month. Please vote for the topic you would like to improve!

5314: 5283: 4815: 3558: 2124: 1862: 1689: 1647: 704: 298: 94: 3997: 3225: 5256: 3951: 3762: 2975: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 5993:. Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better. Feel free to utilize 4272:

Good to see. I've been using MiszaBot(x) for a while with several other WikiProject Talks, article Talks, and User Talks already. It works wonders... :D

4017: 3216:. There is a dispute involving a textbook used for a required course and criticism related to that text and course. We welcome others' views and input. -- 2864:

atrocity that should be stripped out of the article in its entirety. The single source is a blog post by a coach, the rest of it are textbook violations of

4304: 3485: 3473: 2213: 558: 474: 428: 409: 370: 362: 252:

Engineering". We really need to straighten things out with the naming, which I thought was settle already last year, but I guess it's resurfacing again?

6211:

with campuses spread within a large metropolitan area simply link to either the metro article or the city in which the headquarters reside. In this case:

4042:

work for me. There are many other links a few levels deep that require a subscription but we seem to be able to get to the basic listings without paying.

3041:

what license do i use when i upload the logo of my university. the logo is from our university's identity standards group. the logo is for the info box.

2337:

I agree with the above, actually. I think an athletics logo serves, in some small way, a visually distinct purpose from a "corporate" logo and/or crest.

2170: 1115:

None of these questions are unique to Knowledge, though. Subjective rankings seem to be a fact of life in many things. Averaging rankings would violate

4849: 4801: 4484: 4388: 4326: 1805: 414: 3331:

I disagree that things "work fine now." Further, why the opposition to some structure and consistency? Isn't that what we use other templates for? --

5698: 3984:

only to those who are affiliated with the university. If anyone can give me some help with this article that would great-im pretty new to this. Thanks.

3390:

I think a reasonable first step is to develop a consensus on how and where to incorporate this information into the existing structure and then update

3056: 1916: 1492: 1109: 890:

Well, I'd argue that the fact that you found "several dozen articles" with rankings in the lead seems pretty clearly to be pre-existing consensus, no?

809: 5785: 4558: 3148: 1732: 1518: 1174: 5965: 5672: 5651: 1754:

Hello. I was disambiguating links and after a series of pages while looking in-depth, ended up on Högskolan pages, one which needs to be histmerged (

800:

Just looking for consensus on this one when editors start crying that they want to make their university's WP page back into an admissions pamphlet.

754: 462: 136: 102: 5805:. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes (which has an impact on University athletic programs). You may well wish to participate.-- 4537: 4094: 1434: 580: 235:

for the traditional european university, its harder, because the organization is usually flatter, and there is often no separation between the two.

6085:

including all colleges and universities. Universities and colleges are accredited by regional associations, so this might be a useful distinction.

5433: 3020: 6272:

Can I ask for some input on whether adding external links to sites that have already been used in references is advisable in university articles?

4948:

endowment figures of all of the UC campuses is the same as the sum of the UC foundation value and the indivual foundation values listed in NACUBO.

3074: 3036: 634: 6147: 6128: 6124: 6054: 4550: 3465: 3418: 3411: 1920: 1910: 586:

I think the article looks much better. Any more slimming and it would start taking away crucial parts of a proper article. Great job again! :D

5298:

for the most part survived AFD, and they received help from various wikipedians about manual of style to help them through the AFD nominations.

1612: 1579: 1556: 5733: 3808: 3778: 3667: 3404: 3291: 2604: 2084: 6526:

to be taken into consideration, so I shall now pass on by and leave you to the discussion! But I'm interested to know where it ends up. :-) –

6391:

Knowledge articles may include links to web pages outside Knowledge. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic;

4848:

I'm for using the NACUBO figures for individual campuses as the en. wiki standard for US universities. it would seem to be a good way to keep

5931: 5320: 2982: 2797: 1931:

represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.

1427:

On a list of things that are important about colleges, ranked in order of importance, rankings rank about #65, and don't belong in the lead.

840:

has gone and reverted all the changes I made. I'm not going to get in a revert war, but it's apparent that these reversions were not made in

523: 6547:. I don't know how reputable or stable these are and I haven't had a chance to go through their methodology, but keep an eye out for them: 5374: 5331: 3079: 1793: 571:

We're trying to get this article down to a more manageable size and suggestions would be appreciated. We're getting close to what we want.

397: 6142:

Screw it, I added all the articles and made the text of the navbox smaller so as to be less overwhelming. I examined the template for the

4576: 2880:

for Indiana Wesleyan and Shane Claiborne returns nothing of import besides blog posts, so I don't see how this condition being met. Since

1424:

The rankings are crap to begin with. In a lead paragraph they serve no function other than a pseudo-objective substitute for bragadocio.

5981:

Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits

5708: 5643: 5597: 5351: 4825:

There appears to be quite a difference between what the universities in the University of California system report as their endowment to

3173: 2899: 2516: 1885: 816: 420: 47: 17: 5200:; since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It needs more comments, so if you've got time, 2647: 764:

I think that more than being extremely tacky, putting any ranking in the lead generally violates a number of WP policies as relating to

6570: 5609: 3230: 3155: 2999: 2129: 2006:, and see if you can help the contributors over there get it cleaned up to at least follow basic style guides? Thanks in advance. --- 1954: 5802: 5137:

suggesting that we compare the two values and then determine which is the "best." Once again, please read what I wrote carefully. I

1618:

Well, based on the above comments, it seems like the weight of the discussion leans pretty heavily toward leaving things as they are,

6161: 5444: 5335: 3624: 3503:

I'd love to see other people's input on these topics, and I'll leave a note on the talk pages of those particular templates. Cheers!

3238: 918:

Had I tried to get UCR through FA without rankings in the lead I'd have been accused of trying to "cover-up" the school's reputation.

6538: 5323: 2603:(an article on part of a university) is a gruesome mess. The gruesomeness is quite distinctive, too: it immediately reminded me of 6233:" is not a bad solution for this university, except that it sounds curiously evasive: rather as if Columbia were described as in " 5242:

I recommend editors, in addition to using standardized data from the Common Data Set (if available), use the Dept. of Education's

5923: 5877: 5546:

I repeat...I'm not a member of this project and I don't intend to become one. But I will be happy to help provide information.--

4639: 3426: 2197: 1598:

In both teaching and research, UNC has been highly ranked by publications such as BusinessWeek and U.S. News & World Report.

6444: 178:

department or faculty is notable enough and sufficient sources exist to create a separate article then that's the way to do. --

6566: 6395:; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. 6036: 5734: 5647: 5471: 5410: 4717: 4662: 4582: 3920:

is a collection of English Knowledge articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The

2905: 2003: 1995: 1814: 1770: 793: 608: 454: 3067:{{logo fur |Article = Article_name |Source = THE URL YOU DOWNLOADED THE IMAGE FROM |Use = Infobox }} {{Non=free logo}} ] 2204:

and your help is needed—it didn't pass its first time through because not enough editors commented. Please assist...thanks! --

3940: 3788: 3422: 2822: 1762:). Should they stay (and the latter also histmerged) or should they be at University College (with the latter redirected)? -- 3154:

In the accomplishments section on the main WikiProject Universities page there is a list of good and featured articles. See

3023:

over the inclusion of both seals and logos in university articles. My argument is that it's not a valid fair use under the

6352: 5261: 3921: 3658:. I'm rapidly losing patience with him or her and would appreciate more level-headed advice and intervention. Thanks! -- 2637: 1966: 1874: 1749: 650: 5916: 5790: 5636: 5355: 3203: 1881: 1525: 1502: 1479: 1384: 709: 4727: 5927: 5884: 5844: 5347: 5339: 4396: 4334: 3974: 3492: 3449: 3102: 3048: 2135: 1395:

Who cares whether Harvard outranks Cornell if you want to go to hotel school and Cornell has one and Harvard doesn't?

876:

State, University of Michigan, Texas A&M) if we are to accept that FAs are sacrosanct and indicative of consensus.

538: 506: 466: 6208: 5414: 5406: 4002: 3872:

I'll take another look. We really need to get the old gang back together. This project is getting quite...quiet...

3409: 458: 450: 2774: 5515:

Other expanionalist institutions are The Art Institute, Kaiser College, and (I think) Kaplan College/University. --

5270: 3209: 2694: 2108: 510: 391: 283: 5409:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to 5327: 5193: 5182: 4700:

Me neither, but I found the English stuff on the website and it was fine, like a standard university prospectus.

3539: 3443: 3085: 2192: 1787: 1268: 549:. Nobody seems to be watching them, and they were all created by one-edit wonders, so I need some more feedback. 453:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to 4023:

Could you provide us a link to the latest rankings? When I try to access it I get a notice to subscribe... :D

1143:

that putting rankings in the lead is like putting stock quotes in the lead for a company and therefore violates

400:

regarding the listing of alumni in articles. Your thoughts and opinions would be welcome in the discussion! --

5237: 4663: 3761:

I am amused and saddened that despite the lack of consensus and discussion a handful of editors, including one

3488:, for example, is) isn't worth including in their template. I have a slightly bigger problem with things like 3464:? I'm tempted to point out the ridiculous number of redlinks and dubious associations with extant articles.... 3178: 4510:

page rather than editing the article immediately unless it's a clear-cut case with substantial references. --

4354:

for the general guidelines. If you require more help regarding looking for policies and guidelines, click on

3932: 107:

I've noticed time and time again that university articles are being split off into separate articles for each

5343: 737: 690: 670: 666: 662: 528: 192:

I think they need to be colleges, not simply a small department. I am fine with the previous consensus also.

4319:

Does anyone have any guidelines or advice as to whom and how the content should be posted to the articles?

4166:

Sorry, it's been 10 days and I didn't catch the typo.... -_- My fault. It was suppoed to be 45d, not 48h.

1406:'s work. It's bizarre to think that it's more important to mention that Rutgers is #59 than to mention that 5776:. Swing on by and check it out and give some recommendations on what they can do to get it back up to par. 3518: 3461: 563: 2770: 2287:

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

4782: 4226:

possibly Misza has since gone crazy, but he left a good bot behind :) Archiving (first pass) looks good.

3213: 2831: 2524:

Knowledge the seal and the logo have the same function and thus shouldn't both be included. Make sense?

2153: 2055: 2016: 619: 612: 441: 5849:

For all those boosters out there, a table of US News & World Report rankings going back to the 80s:

819:

article that was merely a summary of the small, well-sourced rankings subsection as should be there per

6401:

that exists to drive traffic to other websites, it is a place for (as the first sentence says) contain

6282:

reference if required, and in the case I mention here, it occurs already in the Infobox.) Many thanks.

6181:, all of which are in Tokyo. So here's what I wrote in the infobox that somebody stuck in the article: 4811: 4350:. WikiProject Universities does have several guidelines regarding university articles. Please review 3980: 3936: 3434: 2477: 2382: 1776: 1449:

of their time arguing about the lead and zero time actually improving and referencing article content.

124: 38: 6448:

for the school), thus since it is already used as a ref, it should not be repeated in the EL section.

5742: 3264: 1723:

if anyone who contributes here can help. I'm probably not impartial enough to look at them myself...

1584: 3958: 3917: 3457: 3298:

like to think about that more or see how it might look. We might be able to take some text from our

3133: 2786: 2720: 2663: 1950: 1728: 1129: 1058: 1010: 988: 974: 828: 546: 6393:

information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail

5850: 6544: 6204: 5159: 5051: 4975: 4887: 2651: 2109: 1272: 759: 534: 5997:

if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.

5760: 3545: 3527: 3014: 1901: 1891: 1323:

discussion seems to be tilting away from your argument. I don't think anyone here believes that

432: 6519:"... Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline..." 4726:

were autoassessed based on already done assessments by other projects on the same talk page per

1759: 6338:

I'm afraid that I'm not following you. Can you please be more specific with your examples? --

5810: 5724: 5429: 4648: 4604:

I'll give it a shot. But you guys are probably looking for more participation than that...:D

4594: 4469:

the time, resources, or knowledge. We want to make sure that we are following all of the TOC's.

4440: 4431: 4079: 3834:

Just finished up with another round of edits and reorganization. I'd appreciate it if we could

3654:

edits? He or she has been making many edits to university articles related to their status as

3554: 3052: 2963: 2917: 602: 542: 502: 6548: 5985:. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the 4183:

Among the editors commenting in the thread, an overwhelming consensus supported auto-archiving

2511:

article about a university, assuming both are included. My point was that I don't think both

2158:

The 2008 NRC assessment of US research doctorate programs will be released in September 2008:

6578: 6555: 6490: 6453: 6410: 6361: 6273: 6220: 6090: 6026: 5857: 5781: 5603: 5456: 5252: 4838: 4807: 4752: 4705: 4675: 4566: 4546: 4065: 3962: 3902: 3855: 3804: 3745: 3679: 3585: 3430: 3400: 3287: 3194: 3124: 3108: 2944: 2889: 2842: 2473: 2378: 2239: 2166: 2144: 2120: 2066:

No problem! I'll start putting some standard headers in so that others can improve upon it.

1764: 1719:

I'm not sure if anyone watches the page, but there are few requests for (re-) assessments at

1608: 1488: 1393:

It doesn't even tell you much if you happen to be a high school senior contemplating college.

1301: 1215: 1201: 1186: 1105: 1073: 1039: 960: 945: 907: 881: 849: 805: 728: 496:

are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--

374: 347: 329: 324:

A list of the teaching departments is necessary, either in this article or as a sub-article.

315: 6320:, and also taken from comments I have seen made about articles trying for GA and FA status. 1721:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Universities/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment

5716: 4448: 4384: 4322: 4181:

That's even more reasonable. Change minthreadsleft to 5 or so and you've got my agreement.

3645: 3322: 3163: 3093: 3044: 2813: 2778: 2744:

I'll get some references. There's a great deal--he would have been notable for that alone.

2735: 2712: 2702: 2655: 1755: 1724: 1700: 1666: 1514: 1418: 1383:

Rankings have no place in the lead of an article about a university. This is just creeping

1260: 1238: 1170: 1125: 1054: 1006: 984: 970: 824: 685: 554: 366: 197: 164: 146: 108: 4830: 3925: 2927:

I don't think the vast majority of those criteria can displace overarching WP policies on

8: 6328: 6290: 5397: 5225: 5143: 5035: 4959: 4934:"I would guess that the individual campuses don't have control over the Regents funds." 4871: 4741: 4039: 3232: 3144: 2567: 2262: 1714: 1152: 1144: 863: 680: 6398: 6255: 6230: 6212: 6193: 6151: 6132: 6058: 5990: 5982: 5942: 5773: 5583: 5402: 5105: 5010: 4911: 4857: 4783: 4531: 4351: 4231: 4190: 4157: 3993: 3523: 3469: 3063:

This is what I'd type if I were putting together the information for a university logo:

3006: 2865: 2209: 1897: 1822: 1533: 1431: 1119:, I think. I don't see why rankings should be treated differently to other content in 1005:

selective probably should changed to one of those and cited in the main text, I guess.

923: 781: 630: 267:

You'll never get the language "straightened out." This is not a Knowledge issue. :) --

6178: 3345:

Without distinct US/other national infoboxes at our disposal then yes, I'd agree with

2159: 6475: 6429: 6376: 6343: 6307: 5806: 5798: 5720: 5422: 5386: 5363: 5303: 5278: 4644: 4620: 4590: 4515: 4347: 4316:

Should the content be posted directly by the client from their IP address and login?

4051: 4013: 3966: 3774: 3725: 3694: 3663: 3550: 3370: 3336: 3307: 3221: 2959: 2913: 1980: 1938:, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects. 1468: 1068:

which there should be a clear consensus. It's clear on what side of the coin I fall.

777: 514: 497: 493: 405: 382: 272: 183: 5210:

it; otherwise, if you find issues with the article that are actionable, then please

3939:. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at 2711:

Thank you very much. I tried to find a project like that! Wonder why I failed. Bye!

1354:

properly cited is not really that big of an issue. I recognize Madcoverboy for his

6574: 6551: 6486: 6449: 6406: 6357: 6216: 6166: 6086: 6022: 5907: 5853: 5777: 5627: 5452: 5248: 4834: 4745: 4701: 4671: 4562: 4542: 4061: 3898: 3894: 3851: 3800: 3783: 3741: 3675: 3651: 3581: 3396: 3391: 3355: 3283: 3255: 3247: 3190: 3120: 2940: 2885: 2869: 2838: 2235: 2162: 2140: 2116: 1844: 1801: 1604: 1484: 1297: 1211: 1197: 1182: 1140: 1101: 1093: 1069: 1035: 956: 941: 933: 903: 877: 845: 801: 724: 343: 325: 311: 6245:

country =

6244:

state =

6243:

city =

5034:

Please reread what I wrote. I'm not asking us to reconcile any discrepancies. —

4581:

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the

3947: 3417:

Hello I would like to know if you could use your editing expertise to help us get

3088:(in the Name Change section at the very bottom) and offer their opinions. Thanks! 607:

We've got some questions about use of the infobox template, asked at the template

6420: 6143: 6070: 6005: 5829: 5761: 5746: 5684: 5562: 5551: 5532: 5520: 5491: 5480: 4792: 4767: 4731: 4686: 4624: 4605: 4444: 4412: 4359: 4355: 4273: 4211: 4167: 4133: 4110: 4085: 4024: 3873: 3816: 3705: 3631: 3604: 3566: 3346: 3318: 3159: 3089: 2809: 2731: 2698: 2679: 2622: 2437: 2315: 2220: 2177: 2161:

All you boosters and rankings-lovers out there, get ready to start your engines!

2094: 2067: 2051: 2029: 2012: 1696: 1662: 1510: 1417:

does not mention his numerical ranking among the great composers. Our article on

1360: 1255:

The lack of consensus is the very issue I am raising - I am asking the question "

1234: 1166: 587: 550: 446: 253: 207: 193: 160: 141: 2607:, who perhaps not coincidentally is prominent within the article on the Center. 1603:

combated. What consensus, if any, do we have on including rankings in the lead?

1359:

Knowledge does not place specific and direct thoughts into our readers' minds.

46:

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

6321: 6283: 6174: 6170: 5769: 5216: 5206:. If you do not believe that the article can be improved further, feel free to 3839: 3792: 3140: 3024: 2881: 2861: 2563: 2520: 2278: 2258: 1858: 1591: 1575: 1552: 1501:... I disagree that a brief mention of rankings in the lead is "just creeping 1454: 1414: 1403: 1355: 1288: 1162: 1157: 1148: 1120: 1089: 1088:

some of this information in the article. Rather, what I am arguing based upon

937: 820: 773: 769: 750: 576: 518: 111:

or academic college. What do we think about this? Do they each need to satisfy

997:

Almost right, it's more selective (and there's selective and inclusive). See

6278: 6251: 6189: 5986: 5978:

Yes, it's that time! A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.

5197: 5101: 5006: 4907: 4853: 4723: 4408: 4381:

We would like the content postings to have as much credibility as possible.

4227: 4186: 4153: 3989: 3766: 3182: 3112: 3003: 2936: 2928: 2857: 2751: 2675: 2638: 2234:

Looks good, just take out the booster-cruft (acclaimed, best-selling, etc.).

2205: 1818: 1685: 1643: 1529: 1498: 1428: 919: 899: 841: 785: 626: 489: 479: 294: 242: 6001:

been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.

5707:

is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at

4313:

Is it OK to have a 3rd party firm post information on behalf of the client?

6527: 6523: 6471: 6425: 6386: 6372: 6339: 6317: 6303: 6109: 5382: 5359: 5299: 5274: 5002: 4511: 4047: 4009: 3835: 3770: 3721: 3690: 3659: 3504: 3366: 3332: 3303: 3260: 3217: 3071: 3033: 2994: 2932: 2853: 2525: 2409: 2338: 2314:

different ways, they they should not blatantly violate the NFCC criteria.

2296: 1970: 1740: 1623: 1464: 1407: 1329: 1280: 1264: 1116: 891: 867: 694: 641: 485: 401: 378: 268: 179: 6522:

external links". However, I appreciate that there are also other parts of

3425:

to have things more neatly organized and already requested the aid of the

2176:

Who was that who was talking about using bots to do this kind of stuff??

6184:

city = ], ], ] | state = ] | country = ] |

5704: 5001:

What you are talking about in terms of "consistency" would seem to imply

4436: 3954:, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 3549:

institution, but I would appriciate any help that anyone wants to give.--

3243: 2873: 2769:

Thank you! There are "Larkin's work as a librarian" sections in both the

2310: 1840: 1797: 1284: 765: 112: 6316:

It is a direct and straightforward interpretation of what is written in

1257:

Should a university's importance or prestige be established in the lead?

6356:

Thus, if it is used as a source, it does not belong in the EL section.

5547: 5516: 5476: 5243: 3655: 2908:

project would like to invite all interested parties to a discussion on

2611: 2272:

Well, as I've argued here and other places, I don't think there really

2046: 2007: 859: 837: 6470:

Now pardon me while I take my leave and administer a cooties shot. --

3630:

Discussion of a merger. Please provide opinions if possible. Thanks.

3448:

What do my fellow university article editors think of templates like

1934:

The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of

1854: 1571: 1548: 1450: 746: 572: 3187:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team

6234: 5490:

I'll take a look, but it would be nice to have more eyes on this.

4685:

I don't know a thing about Arabic... except for the numbers... eek

2746: 2295:

corporate logo, but that's more just personal preference. Cheers!

1680: 1638: 289: 237: 2621:

almost to the point of nominating it for CSD as a list of links.

1839:

Well, crap. I would have asked there if I had found it. Thanks. --

2654:

section in the hope that someone else will expand it. Thank you!

1421:

does not try to give her a numerical rank among great teachers.

1399: 4132:

OK... no discussion? May I proceed then? It's been 10 days...

1792:

I can't find anywhere else to ask this. Is there an infobox for

5989:. Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on 5953: 5946: 1949:

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at

1941:

A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as

1890:

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at

120:

Kennesaw State University College of Science & Mathematics

115:

or are they notable at major universities? Some examples are:

5903: 4430:

Setting aside the username issue for the moment. Knowledge's

2998:

reformat this list into a single table, or to redirect it to

130:

College of Arts and Sciences (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

5893: 5867:

A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin!

5617: 6050: 5956: 5949: 4559:

Knowledge talk:Avoid academic boosterism#Proposed consensus

3117:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University

999:

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education

3913:

Knowledge 0.7 articles have been selected for Universities

2252:

Consensus on corporate logos/traditional crests in infobox

1594:. UNC's lead, for example, would appear to be palatable: 6268:

Adding external links to sites already used in references

6049:

110 separate articles (110 members, 70 affiliates in the

4638:

Yes, I agree. I've been attempting to gain attention to

4538:

Knowledge talk:Avoid academic boosterism#Highly selective

3843: 1636:

should be: as ingle sentence, without specific numbers.

1442: 739: 564: 3480:

problem with redlinked articles in navigation templates

3019:

Hi all! There's currently a discussion brewing over at

6042: 5507:

Corinthian Schools and other expasionalist institutions

5466:

Requesting comment for St. John's University (New York)

5447:

has been listed at CfD for those parties interested in

5321:

Knowledge talk:School and university projects talk page

3032:

kosher. Any thoughts from anyone on this end? Cheers!

2990:

1992 universities 5.2 Second wave of new universities

4346:

wikicode, I suggest you test your material coding via

3893:

Could someone swing by MIT sometime and re-assess for

427:. Any feedback would be very much welcomed. Thanks. 6445:

Knowledge:External links#Important points to remember

6419:

Read the rest of the guideline, please, particularly

5801:

is being re-written. There is a very big discussion

862:

would agree with me that you first need to establish

357:

Three Canadian residence halls nominated for deletion

6443:, remember not to look at this in isolation and see 3498:, actually. You don't need a navbox for two people. 3107:

Just in case you missed it on the Project homepage,

5584:

WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month

4850:

List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment

2601:

K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies

2592:

K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies

4821:Endowments and the University of California system 4587:Articles & Pages being considered for deletion 3263:has raised the issue of making greater use of the 2884:for this kind of ax grinding, it should come out. 1957:is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 1271:(50, #62) or are A&M and WPI twice as good as 5439:CfD for Category:College radio stations in Oregon 3625:Talk:Southern_Nazarene_University#Merger_proposal 3208:I invite others to contribute to a discussion at 2804:Just stumbled upon the above article at FAC. See 858:I don't think that's "apparent" at all. I think 5673:Pick the next WikiProject Higher Education COTM! 3021:Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1796:? If not, what might be the best alternative? -- 1398:Every college has some ranking number. But only 693:}} for instructions on how to use it. — Cheers, 6385:Sorry, but no. Read the very first sentence to 6125:New England Association of Schools and Colleges 5375:Found it ....Wikiproject Classroom coordination 3926:automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 3189:. Please review and comment on the nomination. 1813:I'm not aware of one. You could try asking at 365:three articles about Canadian residence halls: 5315:Wikiproject membership - Admins - coordinators 3799:so that further consensus can be established. 5772:and made a bunch of changes to align it with 5326:have membership and admins -perhaps through 5266:I see I posted this at the wrong wikiproject 2983:List of UK universities by date of foundation 2976:List of UK universities by date of foundation 2798:Princeton University Department of Psychology 640:Thanks for letting this WikiProject know. :) 5891: 5332:Knowledge:WikiProject Education in Australia 4305:Best Practices - Posting Information/Content 3429:but they haven't responded yet. Thank you.-- 3119:. I invite you all to go and comment on it. 2953:Thanks for participating! The intent is to 1794:collegiate secret societies in North America 679:For anyone who's interested, I've created a 398:Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons 5709:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn 5352:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative education 3948:list of selected articles with cleanup tags 2517:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2515:be included. For instance, take a look at 1884:for details. Subsribing is easy - just add 1210:Correction: It is mentioned in Einstein's. 817:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 421:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 415:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Higher education 6463:stupid and you're stupid. Nah nah nah! :) 5699:Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion 5610:Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University 3000:List of universities in the United Kingdom 1124:have problems, and your reasons for each? 6277:someone else for the same reason before. 5445:Category:College radio stations in Oregon 5336:Knowledge:WikiProject Education in Canada 173:I disagree as you seem to be saying that 103:Notability of faculties/academic colleges 5900: 4100:The following is the code I have placed. 6045:. It isn't complete, as it should link 5966:WikiProject Universities COTM Candidate 5379:instructions for students with contacts 3931:We would like to ask you to review the 2198:List of Brigham Young University alumni 1911:Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 866:on a broad, sweeping change like this. 683:for the long-running British quiz show 625:is welcome to shed some light. Thanks! 14: 6567:Template:Infobox US university ranking 5878:University Collaborations of the Month 5735:Template:Infobox University Chancellor 5626:Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class 5598:University Collaborations of the Month 2906:Knowledge:WikiProject College football 2085:Collaboration of the Fortnight........ 2004:Kalyani Government Engineering College 1996:Kalyani Government Engineering College 1815:Knowledge:WikiProject Secret Societies 794:Template:Infobox US university ranking 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 6146:in order to do so. Gracias a todo. -- 6108:groups and lists based on geography. 5719:please let the posting editor know.-- 5472:Talk:St. John's University (New York) 5268:Deletion of teacher assigned projects 4619:This seems to be a policy issue with 3941:Knowledge:Release Version Nominations 3789:Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3454:Template:Southern Nazarene University 2605:the deleted article on Prem C. Pandey 2519:. I think that's a violation of the 1544:For a Separate University Rankings WP 6237:". How about the following instead? 4210:Time interval = 45d; min set to 5. 3988:P.S. Please be as harsh as possible. 3922:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 3720:(a judgment with which I agree). -- 3300:article on the classification scheme 3080:School name change - opinions needed 615:. Anyone familiar with the usage of 25: 5741:off perhaps? I don't know (see my 5470:There is an ongoing dispute at the 5356:Knowledge:WikiProject Homeschooling 3933:articles selected from this project 3174:FAC: 2007 USC Trojans football team 2986:as unsourced: the classification - 2900:Invitation to notability discussion 2652:Philip Larkin#Posthumous reputation 1882:User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings 669:|University of Birmingham|2007}} {{ 23: 5928:Knowledge:WikiProject Universities 5885:University of California, Berkeley 5348:Knowledge:WikiProject School Years 5340:Knowledge:WikiProject Universities 3797:go and comment on the reassessment 3650:Can someone please take a look at 3450:Template:University of North Texas 2910:College Football player notability 2136:History of Northwestern University 2130:History of Northwestern University 1758:) and another I'm not sure about ( 539:Student Life (university ministry) 24: 6594: 6169:has three campuses. These are in 6162:Infobox: location, state, country 5660:This collaboration is effective: 5630:-related articles are chosen for 4722:10 of 110 unassessed articles of 4577:Large number of AfD's in progress 3084:Will a few people take a look at 2730:No problem, always here to help. 6539:New Rankings: Academic Analytics 6209:St. John's University (New York) 5892: 5616: 4199: 3544:I have been working on the page 2777:eagerly awaiting contributions. 1817:or modify the fraternities one. 1391:interest about that university. 815:You removed a sentence from the 284:UC Berkeley College of Chemistry 29: 5203:please post comments on the FLC 5194:List of universities in Ontario 5183:List of universities in Ontario 4536:There is currently a debate at 3086:Talk:Loyola College in Maryland 2830:I am the primary editor of the 1478:Just in case people missed it: 1269:Worcester Polytechnic Institute 541:, and plan to do the same with 6041:I'm looking for some input on 6037:Large template input - delete? 5932:Nominate future collaborations 5745:for the discussion. Thanks. 5652:vote for future collaborations 4802:23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 4777:13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4761:09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4718:Autoassessment for the Project 4710:16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4696:16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4680:10:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4664:Higher Technological Institute 4653:20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 4634:21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 4615:20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 4599:20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 4571:15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 4520:11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 4493:06:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 4453:03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4422:00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4401:23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4369:19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4339:18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4283:12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4236:11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4221:06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4195:04:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4177:02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4162:01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4143:00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4070:18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 3998:23:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 3970:23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 3907:20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 3779:22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 3427:Collaboration of the Fortnight 3179:2007 USC Trojans football team 2852:The section you mention is an 1564:Are rankings promotional info? 135:etc, etc. Take a look at this 13: 1: 6583:05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 6560:05:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 6137:01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 6113:16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 6095:08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 6080:05:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 6063:04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 6031:23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 6015:21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 5910:-related topic is chosen for 5862:22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 5839:18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 5815:16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 5786:23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 5756:22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 5729:19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 5694:22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5572:21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5556:21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5501:07:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5485:00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 5344:Knowledge:WikiProject Schools 5294:The articles created at this 4120:17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 4095:17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 3750:15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3730:15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3715:14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3699:15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3684:14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3668:12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3641:18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 3614:15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3590:15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3576:15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3559:14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3532:21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 3439:06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 3405:05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 2937:biographies of living persons 691:User:UBX/University Challenge 671:User:UBX/University Challenge 667:User:UBX/University Challenge 663:User:UBX/University Challenge 113:general notability guidelines 6533:02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 6495:08:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 6480:01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 6458:20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6434:19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6415:15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6381:14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6366:09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6348:02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6334:00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6312:00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6296:00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6260:09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6225:09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6198:09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 6156:06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 5874: 5648:WikiProject Higher Education 5542:07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 5525:00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 5461:10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC) 5434:22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 5392:23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 5369:23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 5309:23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 5284:16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 5262:Deletion and school projects 5257:17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 5233:04:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 5181:Requesting comments for the 3519:Southern Nazarene University 3462:Southern Nazarene University 1875:Articles flagged for cleanup 1750:Högskolan/University College 1139:A point on the assertion by 7: 5791:Major Notability Discussion 5165:07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 5109:01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 5057:00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 5014:00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 4981:23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 4915:23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 4893:21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 4861:16:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 4843:15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 4816:04:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 4551:22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4056:19:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 4034:18:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 4018:15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 3375:23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3361:20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3341:23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3327:19:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3312:16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3292:04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3282:Let me know your thoughts. 3251:02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 3226:16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3214:Indiana Wesleyan University 3204:Dispute at Indiana Wesleyan 3199:05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3168:14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3149:11:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3129:04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 3098:16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 3075:20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 3057:09:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 3010:11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC) 2968:19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 2949:14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 2922:01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 2894:13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 2847:23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 2832:Indiana Wesleyan University 2823:Indiana Wesleyan University 1463:I agree wholeheartedly. -- 1263:(100, #1) twice as good as 710:Indiana Wesleyan University 10: 6599: 5845:USNews historical rankings 5417:. Reviewers' concerns are 4831:UC Annual Endowment Report 4829:and what is posted on the 4640:College Footbal Notability 3981:Loyola College in Maryland 3975:Loyola College in Maryland 3937:Knowledge talk:Version 0.7 3183:featured article candidate 3113:featured article candidate 3103:FAC: Texas Tech University 2882:Knowledge is not a soapbox 1590:should this discussion be 461:. Reviewers' concerns are 396:A discussion has begun at 125:Camberwell College of Arts 6203:I know that schools like 5624: 5405:has been nominated for a 5296:Unannounced class project 4003:2009 US News Rankings Out 3883:05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 3860:04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 3840:good article reassessment 3838:and wrap up a 6-week old 3826:23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 3809:22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 3793:good article reassessment 3493:NorthTexasBasketballCoach 3458:University of North Texas 3456:used in articles such as 3025:non-free content criteria 2818:21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 2792:08:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC) 2756:23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2740:14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2726:11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2707:11:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2689:10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2669:10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 2632:21:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 2615:01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 2572:11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 2529:21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2521:non-free content criteria 2482:21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2447:21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2413:20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2387:19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2342:19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2325:18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2300:12:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2279:non-free content criteria 2267:08:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2244:01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 2230:23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 2214:20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 2187:18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 2171:18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 2149:17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2134:I've been working on the 2125:14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2104:04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2077:16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 2062:14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 2039:07:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 1951:Category:C-Class_articles 1863:17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1849:16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1827:16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1806:13:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1783:22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1744:04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 1733:04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1705:20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1690:00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1671:23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1648:18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1627:04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 1613:04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 1580:20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 1557:19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 1537:13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1519:12:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1493:06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1473:03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1459:01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1435:23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1370:19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1333:16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1306:16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1243:09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1220:06:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1206:06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1191:06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1175:05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1134:20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1110:20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1078:20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1063:18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1044:18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1015:17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 993:17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 979:17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 965:17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 950:17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 927:17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 912:17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 895:17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 886:17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 871:16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 854:16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 833:16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 810:15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 755:01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 547:Campus Crusade for Christ 449:has been nominated for a 352:20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 334:13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 6545:Johns Hopkins University 6205:Arizona State University 5666:until someone updates it 4583:College Football Project 3836:get some more eyes on it 3508:19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3474:17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3265:Carnegie Classifications 3037:16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 2993:and the text looks like 2359:serve distinct purposes. 2110:Eastern Nazarene College 2023:21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 1989:21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1906:17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1853:Well, it is a secret. - 1566:The only answer is yes, 1273:Arizona State University 733:19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 705:15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 645:21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 635:21:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 611:and discussed initially 597:23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 581:00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 559:03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 535:Student Life New Zealand 524:18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 475:01:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 437:03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 410:15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 392:BLP discussion of alumni 387:18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 320:19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 6543:Just saw this added to 5936:see past collaborations 5820:I've mentioned this on 5656:see past collaborations 5407:featured article review 5377:with coordinators, and 5330:or its child projects, 5214:it. Thanks in advance! 3546:Fitchburg State College 3540:Fitchburg State College 3444:Templates for deletion? 2648:link to a useful source 2193:Please vote/participate 1788:Secret society infobox? 1410:was discovered there. 451:featured article review 299:22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 277:21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 263:20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 247:19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 217:02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 202:15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 188:05:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 169:04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 159:assumed to be notable. 153:03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 5995:#wikipedia-en-robotics 5983:our article guidelines 5381:. Tis already made. 5271:Kopachuk Middle School 5238:DoEd College Navigator 3959:this project's subpage 2695:WikiProject Librarians 2289: 1888:to your project page. 1600: 543:Student Life Australia 363:nominated for deletion 6573:and this new source? 6565:Could someone update 6274:University of Chester 6188:Japan)", or similar? 5604:Ohio State University 5328:wikiproject Education 5292:band article deletion 3963:User:SelectionBot/0.7 3795:since June 7. Please 3109:Texas Tech University 2282: 2200:is undergoing an FLC 1596: 529:Student Life articles 375:Saugeen-Maitland Hall 42:of past discussions. 5717:Knowledge:Canvassing 4931:A couple of points: 3952:copyediting requests 3704:of the discussion. 1760:University of Skövde 1756:University of Kalmar 1419:Alice Freeman Palmer 1261:Princeton University 686:University Challenge 652:University Challenge 367:Medway-Sydenham Hall 4670:continued efforts. 3846:and comment on the 3233:Wesleyan University 2808:to leave comments. 2693:You could also try 2219:I'll take a look. 2154:2008 NRC assessment 1503:academic boosterism 1480:academic boosterism 1385:academic boosterism 442:Duke University FAR 6549:Academic Analytics 6231:Greater Tokyo Area 6213:Greater Tokyo Area 6043:this CCCU template 5976: 5403:Cornell University 4958:contradiction. — 3486:Chapman Apartments 2281:, especially #3A: 1967:1.0 Editorial Team 1413:Our article about 738:Flagship issue at 620:Infobox_University 484:Have you replaced 371:Ernescliff College 5975: 5974: 5870: 5681: 5680: 5389: 5366: 5306: 5281: 5244:College Navigator 5107: 5012: 5003:Original Research 4913: 4859: 4387:comment added by 4325:comment added by 4038:All the links on 3767:has no place here 3419:Cal Poly Pomona's 3134:Community College 3059: 3047:comment added by 2955:foster discussion 2858:original research 2059: 2020: 1986: 1895: 1892:my user talk page 1535: 925: 677: 676: 522: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6590: 6530: 6331: 6326: 6325: 6293: 6288: 6287: 6167:Hosei University 6075: 6074:- Jameson L. Tai 6010: 6009:- Jameson L. Tai 5996: 5926:is organized by 5908:higher education 5896: 5888: 5872: 5871: 5834: 5833:- Jameson L. Tai 5827: 5823: 5751: 5750:- Jameson L. Tai 5689: 5688:- Jameson L. Tai 5646:is organized by 5628:higher education 5620: 5592: 5591: 5567: 5566:- Jameson L. Tai 5537: 5536:- Jameson L. Tai 5496: 5495:- Jameson L. Tai 5426: 5411:featured quality 5387: 5364: 5304: 5279: 5231: 5228: 5219: 5196:is currently at 5154: 5148: 5104: 5046: 5040: 5009: 4970: 4964: 4910: 4882: 4876: 4856: 4808:Dabackgammonator 4797: 4796:- Jameson L. Tai 4772: 4771:- Jameson L. Tai 4736: 4735:- Jameson L. Tai 4691: 4690:- Jameson L. Tai 4629: 4628:- Jameson L. Tai 4610: 4609:- Jameson L. Tai 4417: 4416:- Jameson L. Tai 4403: 4364: 4363:- Jameson L. Tai 4341: 4278: 4277:- Jameson L. Tai 4216: 4215:- Jameson L. Tai 4206: 4203: 4202: 4172: 4171:- Jameson L. Tai 4138: 4137:- Jameson L. Tai 4115: 4114:- Jameson L. Tai 4090: 4089:- Jameson L. Tai 4029: 4028:- Jameson L. Tai 3878: 3877:- Jameson L. Tai 3821: 3820:- Jameson L. Tai 3791:has been up for 3710: 3709:- Jameson L. Tai 3636: 3635:- Jameson L. Tai 3609: 3608:- Jameson L. Tai 3571: 3570:- Jameson L. Tai 3497: 3491: 3431:Dabackgammonator 3358: 3042: 2933:reliable sources 2789: 2782: 2723: 2716: 2684: 2683:- Jameson L. Tai 2666: 2659: 2627: 2626:- Jameson L. Tai 2474:Timrollpickering 2442: 2441:- Jameson L. Tai 2379:Timrollpickering 2320: 2319:- Jameson L. Tai 2225: 2224:- Jameson L. Tai 2182: 2181:- Jameson L. Tai 2099: 2098:- Jameson L. Tai 2072: 2071:- Jameson L. Tai 2049: 2034: 2033:- Jameson L. Tai 2010: 1983: 1978: 1975: 1889: 1779: 1773: 1767: 1532: 1526:Riverside's case 1365: 1364:- Jameson L. Tai 922: 760:Rankings in lead 702: 697: 658: 657: 624: 618: 592: 591:- Jameson L. Tai 567:article slimming 500: 455:featured quality 419:I've listed the 258: 257:- Jameson L. Tai 212: 211:- Jameson L. Tai 149: 144: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6598: 6597: 6593: 6592: 6591: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6541: 6528: 6329: 6323: 6322: 6291: 6285: 6284: 6270: 6246: 6185: 6164: 6144:Annapolis Group 6073: 6039: 6008: 5994: 5987:Manual of Style 5963:Pick your next 5882: 5869: 5847: 5832: 5825: 5821: 5793: 5765: 5762:Rice University 5749: 5738: 5701: 5687: 5662:May 20, 2011 — 5587: 5565: 5535: 5509: 5494: 5468: 5441: 5424: 5400: 5317: 5264: 5240: 5226: 5217: 5215: 5190: 5162: 5150: 5144: 5054: 5042: 5036: 4978: 4966: 4960: 4890: 4878: 4872: 4823: 4795: 4788: 4770: 4734: 4720: 4689: 4667: 4627: 4608: 4579: 4534: 4437:username policy 4415: 4382: 4362: 4320: 4307: 4276: 4214: 4204: 4200: 4170: 4136: 4113: 4088: 4082: 4027: 4005: 3977: 3915: 3876: 3848:GA/R assessment 3819: 3786: 3708: 3648: 3634: 3628: 3607: 3569: 3542: 3495: 3489: 3446: 3415: 3412:Cal Poly Pomona 3356: 3258: 3236: 3231:Help sought at 3206: 3176: 3136: 3105: 3082: 3068: 3017: 3015:seals and logos 2991: 2978: 2902: 2825: 2802: 2787: 2780: 2721: 2714: 2682: 2664: 2657: 2643: 2625: 2594: 2440: 2318: 2254: 2223: 2195: 2180: 2156: 2132: 2113: 2097: 2087: 2070: 2032: 1999: 1994:Need help with 1981: 1971: 1962:leave a message 1913: 1877: 1790: 1777: 1771: 1765: 1752: 1725:LostOldPassword 1717: 1587: 1568:for some people 1497:In response to 1402:can brag about 1363: 1126:LostOldPassword 1055:LostOldPassword 1007:LostOldPassword 985:LostOldPassword 971:LostOldPassword 825:LostOldPassword 762: 743: 712: 698: 695: 656: 622: 616: 605: 590: 569: 531: 482: 447:Duke University 444: 417: 394: 359: 287:their own way. 256: 210: 147: 142: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6596: 6586: 6585: 6540: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6504: 6503: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6468: 6464: 6354:links section. 6269: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6235:New York State 6183: 6163: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6038: 6035: 6034: 6033: 5973: 5972: 5961: 5945:is effective: 5939: 5921: 5898: 5897: 5890: 5881: 5868: 5865: 5846: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5792: 5789: 5764: 5759: 5737: 5732: 5700: 5697: 5679: 5678: 5669: 5659: 5641: 5622: 5621: 5614: 5608: 5606: 5601: 5586: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5508: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5467: 5464: 5449:the discussion 5440: 5437: 5399: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5316: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5263: 5260: 5239: 5236: 5189: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5158: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5050: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5016: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4974: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4949: 4939: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4886: 4864: 4863: 4822: 4819: 4787: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4756: 4749: 4742:TinucherianBot 4719: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4666: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4589:immediately.-- 4578: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4533: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4460: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4425: 4424: 4372: 4371: 4306: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4149: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4102: 4101: 4081: 4080:Auto-archiving 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4043: 4004: 4001: 3986: 3985: 3976: 3973: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3842:. Please read 3829: 3828: 3785: 3782: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3701: 3647: 3644: 3627: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3541: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3511: 3510: 3500: 3499: 3445: 3442: 3414: 3408: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3343: 3280: 3279: 3276: 3273: 3257: 3254: 3235: 3229: 3205: 3202: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3135: 3132: 3104: 3101: 3081: 3078: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3016: 3013: 2988: 2980:I have tagged 2977: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2824: 2821: 2801: 2795: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2642: 2641:as a librarian 2636: 2635: 2634: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2303: 2302: 2291: 2290: 2285:Minimal usage. 2253: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2155: 2152: 2131: 2128: 2112: 2107: 2086: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 1998: 1992: 1947: 1946: 1943:described here 1939: 1932: 1917:may have heard 1912: 1909: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1789: 1786: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1630: 1629: 1586: 1583: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1476: 1475: 1461: 1441:this project, 1415:Antonin Dvorak 1404:Selman Waksman 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1276: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1137: 1136: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 981: 967: 916: 915: 914: 761: 758: 742: 736: 711: 708: 675: 674: 655: 649: 648: 647: 604: 603:Template usage 601: 600: 599: 568: 562: 533:I have merged 530: 527: 481: 478: 443: 440: 416: 413: 393: 390: 358: 355: 339: 338: 337: 336: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 233: 229: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 133: 132: 127: 122: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6595: 6584: 6580: 6576: 6572: 6568: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6561: 6557: 6553: 6550: 6546: 6534: 6531: 6525: 6520: 6516: 6496: 6492: 6488: 6483: 6482: 6481: 6477: 6473: 6469: 6465: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6455: 6451: 6446: 6442: 6437: 6436: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6422: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6400: 6396: 6394: 6388: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6363: 6359: 6355: 6351: 6350: 6349: 6345: 6341: 6337: 6336: 6335: 6332: 6327: 6319: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6309: 6305: 6300: 6299: 6298: 6297: 6294: 6289: 6280: 6275: 6261: 6257: 6253: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6236: 6232: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6222: 6218: 6214: 6210: 6206: 6202: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6195: 6191: 6182: 6180: 6176: 6172: 6168: 6157: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6134: 6130: 6126: 6114: 6111: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6096: 6092: 6088: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6078: 6077: 6076: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6060: 6056: 6052: 6048: 6044: 6032: 6028: 6024: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6013: 6012: 6011: 6002: 5998: 5992: 5988: 5984: 5979: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5967: 5960: 5958: 5955: 5951: 5948: 5944: 5937: 5933: 5929: 5925: 5920: 5918: 5913: 5909: 5905: 5899: 5895: 5889: 5887: 5886: 5879: 5873: 5864: 5863: 5859: 5855: 5851: 5840: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5826:#wikipedia-en 5819: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5812: 5808: 5807:Paul McDonald 5804: 5800: 5797: 5788: 5787: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5771: 5763: 5758: 5757: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5744: 5736: 5731: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5721:Paul McDonald 5718: 5712: 5710: 5706: 5696: 5695: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5667: 5665: 5664:June 20, 2011 5657: 5653: 5649: 5645: 5640: 5638: 5633: 5629: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5605: 5599: 5594: 5593: 5590: 5585: 5582:Introducing: 5573: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5553: 5549: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5513: 5502: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5473: 5463: 5462: 5458: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5443:The category 5436: 5435: 5431: 5427: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5404: 5393: 5390: 5384: 5380: 5376: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5367: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5329: 5325: 5322: 5310: 5307: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5282: 5276: 5272: 5269: 5259: 5258: 5254: 5250: 5245: 5235: 5234: 5229: 5223: 5222: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5204: 5199: 5195: 5188: 5184: 5166: 5161: 5156: 5153: 5147: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5110: 5106: 5103: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5058: 5053: 5048: 5045: 5039: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5015: 5011: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4982: 4977: 4972: 4969: 4963: 4956: 4950: 4947: 4943: 4940: 4937: 4933: 4932: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4916: 4912: 4909: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4894: 4889: 4884: 4881: 4875: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4862: 4858: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4818: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4804: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4785: 4778: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4758: 4757: 4754: 4751: 4750: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4729: 4725: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4665: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4645:Paul McDonald 4641: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4622: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4591:Paul McDonald 4588: 4584: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4539: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4379: 4375: 4370: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4317: 4314: 4311: 4284: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4209: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4044: 4041: 4040:their website 4037: 4036: 4035: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4000: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3982: 3979: 3978: 3972: 3971: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3955: 3953: 3949: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3929: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3918:Knowledge 0.7 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3884: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3781: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3763:anonymous SPA 3751: 3747: 3743: 3738: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3702: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3626: 3615: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3547: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524:Moonraker0022 3520: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3509: 3506: 3502: 3501: 3494: 3487: 3483: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3413: 3407: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3388: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3245: 3240: 3234: 3228: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3210:the Talk page 3201: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3131: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3077: 3076: 3073: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3039: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3026: 3022: 3012: 3011: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2996: 2987: 2985: 2984: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960:Paul McDonald 2956: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2914:Paul McDonald 2911: 2907: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878:google search 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2799: 2794: 2793: 2790: 2784: 2783: 2776: 2772: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2718: 2717: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2677: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2667: 2661: 2660: 2653: 2649: 2640: 2639:Philip Larkin 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2608: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2530: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2414: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2286: 2280: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2091: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2014: 2009: 2005: 1997: 1991: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1976: 1974: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898:B. Wolterding 1893: 1887: 1883: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1774: 1768: 1761: 1757: 1745: 1742: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1599: 1595: 1593: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1545: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1506: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1481: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1394: 1388: 1386: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265:Texas A&M 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 980: 976: 972: 968: 966: 962: 958: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 930: 929: 928: 924: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 898: 897: 896: 893: 889: 888: 887: 883: 879: 874: 873: 872: 869: 865: 861: 857: 856: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 836: 835: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 798: 795: 789: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 757: 756: 752: 748: 741: 735: 734: 730: 726: 722: 719: 715: 707: 706: 703: 701: 692: 688: 687: 682: 672: 668: 664: 660: 659: 653: 646: 643: 639: 638: 637: 636: 632: 628: 621: 614: 610: 598: 595: 594: 593: 585: 584: 583: 582: 578: 574: 566: 561: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 526: 525: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 499: 495: 491: 490:User:SatyrBot 487: 477: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 439: 438: 434: 430: 429:Artichoke2020 426: 422: 412: 411: 407: 403: 399: 389: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 354: 353: 349: 345: 335: 331: 327: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 308: 300: 296: 292: 291: 285: 280: 279: 278: 274: 270: 266: 265: 264: 261: 260: 259: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 239: 234: 230: 226: 218: 215: 214: 213: 205: 204: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 185: 181: 176: 172: 171: 170: 166: 162: 157: 156: 155: 154: 151: 150: 145: 138: 131: 128: 126: 123: 121: 118: 117: 116: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6542: 6518: 6440: 6402: 6392: 6390: 6271: 6186: 6165: 6121: 6072: 6071: 6046: 6040: 6007: 6006: 6003: 5999: 5980: 5977: 5964: 5962: 5940: 5915: 5914:to improve. 5911: 5901: 5883: 5876:The current 5875: 5848: 5831: 5830: 5795: 5794: 5766: 5748: 5747: 5739: 5713: 5703:The article 5702: 5686: 5685: 5682: 5671: 5670: 5663: 5661: 5635: 5634:to improve. 5631: 5625: 5602: 5596:The current 5595: 5588: 5564: 5563: 5534: 5533: 5514: 5510: 5493: 5492: 5469: 5442: 5401: 5324:project page 5318: 5265: 5241: 5220: 5211: 5207: 5201: 5192:The article 5191: 5151: 5145: 5138: 5134: 5043: 5037: 4967: 4961: 4945: 4941: 4935: 4879: 4873: 4824: 4805: 4794: 4793: 4789: 4769: 4768: 4766:Thanks! :D 4753: 4746: 4733: 4732: 4721: 4688: 4687: 4668: 4626: 4625: 4607: 4606: 4580: 4535: 4485:ryangambrill 4459: 4432:business FAQ 4414: 4413: 4389:Ryangambrill 4380: 4376: 4373: 4361: 4360: 4356:my user page 4327:Ryangambrill 4318: 4315: 4312: 4308: 4275: 4274: 4213: 4212: 4207: 4182: 4169: 4168: 4135: 4134: 4112: 4111: 4103: 4087: 4086: 4083: 4026: 4025: 4006: 3987: 3967:SelectionBot 3956: 3945: 3930: 3924:has made an 3916: 3875: 3874: 3818: 3817: 3787: 3760: 3736: 3707: 3706: 3656:Public Ivies 3649: 3646:Public Ivies 3633: 3632: 3629: 3606: 3605: 3568: 3567: 3551:Found5dollar 3543: 3481: 3447: 3416: 3389: 3385: 3350: 3281: 3259: 3237: 3207: 3177: 3137: 3106: 3083: 3069: 3049:86.96.226.88 3040: 3029: 3018: 2992: 2981: 2979: 2954: 2903: 2870:weasel-words 2837: 2829: 2826: 2803: 2779: 2768: 2745: 2713: 2681: 2680: 2656: 2644: 2624: 2623: 2609: 2599: 2596: 2595: 2512: 2439: 2438: 2317: 2316: 2284: 2283: 2273: 2255: 2222: 2221: 2196: 2179: 2178: 2157: 2133: 2114: 2096: 2095: 2092: 2088: 2069: 2068: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2000: 1977: 1972: 1959: 1948: 1928: 1914: 1878: 1791: 1763: 1753: 1718: 1679: 1637: 1619: 1601: 1597: 1588: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1543: 1542: 1507: 1496: 1477: 1446: 1426: 1423: 1412: 1408:streptomycin 1397: 1392: 1389: 1382: 1362: 1361: 1324: 1292: 1256: 1153:WP:recentism 1145:WP:recentism 1138: 1098: 1086: 1050: 1002: 799: 790: 786:weasel words 763: 744: 723: 720: 716: 713: 699: 684: 678: 651: 606: 589: 588: 570: 532: 498:TonyTheTiger 486:User:SatyrTN 483: 467:152.2.128.80 445: 418: 395: 360: 340: 288: 255: 254: 236: 209: 208: 174: 140: 134: 106: 75: 43: 37: 6575:Madcoverboy 6569:to include 6552:Madcoverboy 6487:Aboutmovies 6450:Aboutmovies 6407:Aboutmovies 6399:WP:LINKFARM 6358:Aboutmovies 6217:Madcoverboy 6087:Madcoverboy 6023:Madcoverboy 5991:WP:UNI/COTM 5943:WP:UNI/COTM 5854:Madcoverboy 5778:Madcoverboy 5774:WP:UNIGUIDE 5705:Paul LaVinn 5453:Aboutmovies 5398:Cornell FAR 5249:Madcoverboy 4852:consistent. 4835:Alanraywiki 4806:-I'm in. -- 4784:WP:UNI/COTF 4702:Itsmejudith 4672:Itsmejudith 4563:Madcoverboy 4543:Madcoverboy 4383:—Preceding 4352:WP:UNIGUIDE 4321:—Preceding 4062:Madcoverboy 3899:Madcoverboy 3852:Madcoverboy 3801:Madcoverboy 3742:Madcoverboy 3676:Itsmejudith 3652:this user's 3582:Madcoverboy 3423:WikiProject 3397:Madcoverboy 3357:Coldmachine 3284:Madcoverboy 3191:Madcoverboy 3121:Madcoverboy 3043:—Preceding 2941:Madcoverboy 2886:Madcoverboy 2866:WP:COATRACK 2839:Manutdglory 2827:Greetings, 2311:UC Berkeley 2236:Madcoverboy 2163:Madcoverboy 2141:Madcoverboy 2117:John Carter 1929:new C-Class 1715:Assessments 1605:Madcoverboy 1485:Madcoverboy 1325:USN&WR' 1298:Madcoverboy 1212:Madcoverboy 1198:Madcoverboy 1183:Madcoverboy 1141:Madcoverboy 1102:Madcoverboy 1070:Madcoverboy 1036:Madcoverboy 957:Madcoverboy 942:Madcoverboy 904:Madcoverboy 878:Madcoverboy 846:Madcoverboy 802:Madcoverboy 782:WP:PRESTIGE 725:Manutdglory 714:Greetings, 425:peer review 423:article at 344:Madcoverboy 326:Itsmejudith 312:Madcoverboy 36:This is an 6324:DDStretch 6286:DDStretch 5906:a B-Class 5822:#wikipedia 5799:WP:ATHLETE 5185:FLC found 4621:WP:ATHLETE 4532:WP:BOOSTER 4445:KnightLago 4348:WP:SANDBOX 3850:. Thanks! 3410:Help with 3351:status quo 3347:KnightLago 3319:KnightLago 3242:Thanks. - 3160:KnightLago 3090:KnightLago 2929:notability 2874:notability 2872:and event 2862:highly-POV 2810:KnightLago 2732:KnightLago 2699:KnightLago 1886:a template 1697:Vantelimus 1663:Vantelimus 1511:Vantelimus 1235:Vantelimus 1167:Vantelimus 1051:status quo 838:User:Bobak 778:WP:PEACOCK 689:– visit {{ 551:Richard001 515:WP:CHICAGO 494:WP:CHICAGO 194:KnightLago 161:KnightLago 95:Archive 10 5796:ATTENTION 5743:talk page 5683:Thanks. 5319:Can this 4744:. FYI -- 3392:WP:UNI/AG 3239:This edit 3141:Bvlax2005 2854:unsourced 2775:talk page 2771:main page 2564:Funkejazz 2259:Funkejazz 2093:Thanks. 1921:WP:ASSESS 1592:WP:SNOWed 1585:Consensus 1094:WP:UNI/AG 934:recentism 864:consensus 609:talk page 492:? We at 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 6529:Kieran T 6421:WP:ELYES 6252:Tama1988 6190:Tama1988 6179:Hachiōji 6148:Aepoutre 6129:Aepoutre 6055:Aepoutre 6047:at least 5102:Amerique 5007:Amerique 4952:report). 4936:Not true 4908:Amerique 4854:Amerique 4755:Cherian 4643:mine).-- 4397:contribs 4385:unsigned 4335:contribs 4323:unsigned 4228:Franamax 4187:Franamax 4154:Franamax 3990:Interzil 3784:MIT GA/R 3466:Aepoutre 3256:Carnegie 3070:Cheers! 3045:unsigned 3004:mholland 2788:instinct 2773:and the 2722:instinct 2665:instinct 2206:Eustress 2056:contribs 2017:contribs 1936:a rubric 1695:article. 1530:Amerique 1499:Dpbsmith 1429:Dpbsmith 1356:boldness 920:Amerique 721:Thanks, 627:Franamax 6472:ElKevbo 6426:ElKevbo 6403:further 6373:ElKevbo 6340:ElKevbo 6304:ElKevbo 6175:Koganei 6171:Chiyoda 6110:Esrever 5917:Be bold 5637:Be bold 5425:Georgia 5383:SriMesh 5360:SriMesh 5300:SriMesh 5275:SriMesh 5208:Support 5135:was not 5133:No --I 4786:Reunion 4728:request 4512:ElKevbo 4048:ElKevbo 4010:ElKevbo 3895:A-class 3771:ElKevbo 3722:ElKevbo 3691:ElKevbo 3660:ElKevbo 3505:Esrever 3367:ElKevbo 3333:ElKevbo 3304:ElKevbo 3261:ElKevbo 3218:ElKevbo 3072:Esrever 3034:Esrever 2676:WP:BLPs 2526:Esrever 2410:Esrever 2339:Esrever 2297:Esrever 1982:Disable 1973:§hepBot 1960:Please 1955:The bot 1915:As you 1741:Esrever 1624:Esrever 1465:ElKevbo 1400:Rutgers 1330:Esrever 1289:WP:NPOV 1165:exists. 1163:wp:bias 1158:WP:bias 1149:WP:bias 1121:WP:LEAD 1090:WP:LEAD 892:Esrever 868:Esrever 821:WP:LEAD 774:WP:LEAD 770:WP:NPOV 681:userbox 654:userbox 642:Esrever 519:WP:LOTM 402:ElKevbo 379:ElKevbo 361:I have 269:ElKevbo 180:ElKevbo 109:faculty 39:archive 6571:Forbes 6330:(talk) 6292:(talk) 6279:WP:IAR 5954:Dec 31 5947:Dec 01 5902:Every 5212:Oppose 5155:lien¹² 5047:lien¹² 4971:lien¹² 4883:lien¹² 4827:NACUBO 4724:WP:UNI 4409:WP:UAA 3482:per se 3244:Jmabel 3111:has a 3007:(talk) 2958:can!-- 2935:, and 2860:, and 2800:at FAC 2781:almost 2715:almost 2658:almost 1841:Geniac 1798:Geniac 1766:Squids 1432:(talk) 1293:within 1003:Highly 900:WP:WAX 842:WP:AGF 772:, and 373:, and 143:Noetic 137:search 6524:WP:EL 6387:WP:EL 6318:WP:EL 5941:This 5922:This 5904:month 5642:This 5607:& 5548:*Kat* 5517:*Kat* 5477:NyRoc 5423:Sandy 5149:ittle 5041:ittle 4965:ittle 4946:total 4877:ittle 4208:Done. 4148:also. 3769:. -- 3737:never 3349:that 3181:is a 2995:WP:OR 2612:Hoary 2047:Barek 2008:Barek 1819:Hippo 1778:Chips 1281:WP:RS 1117:WP:OR 860:Bobak 665:}} {{ 537:into 480:Satyr 16:< 6579:talk 6556:talk 6491:talk 6476:talk 6454:talk 6430:talk 6411:talk 6377:talk 6362:talk 6344:talk 6308:talk 6256:talk 6221:talk 6194:talk 6152:talk 6133:talk 6091:talk 6059:talk 6051:CCCU 6027:talk 5957:2008 5950:2008 5934:or 5924:COTM 5858:talk 5824:and 5811:talk 5803:here 5782:talk 5770:bold 5725:talk 5654:or 5644:COTM 5600:are 5552:talk 5521:talk 5481:talk 5457:talk 5430:Talk 5419:here 5415:here 5388:talk 5365:talk 5305:talk 5280:talk 5253:talk 5227:talk 5221:King 5218:Gary 5187:HERE 5160:talk 5052:talk 4976:talk 4942:True 4888:talk 4839:talk 4812:talk 4748:Tinu 4706:talk 4676:talk 4649:talk 4595:talk 4567:talk 4547:talk 4516:talk 4489:talk 4449:talk 4441:here 4393:talk 4331:talk 4232:talk 4191:talk 4158:talk 4066:talk 4052:talk 4014:talk 3994:talk 3903:talk 3856:talk 3805:talk 3775:talk 3746:talk 3726:talk 3695:talk 3680:talk 3664:talk 3586:talk 3555:talk 3528:talk 3470:talk 3460:and 3452:and 3435:talk 3401:talk 3371:talk 3337:talk 3323:talk 3308:talk 3302:. -- 3288:talk 3248:Talk 3222:talk 3212:for 3195:talk 3164:talk 3156:here 3145:talk 3125:talk 3094:talk 3053:talk 3002:? — 2964:talk 2945:talk 2918:talk 2904:The 2890:talk 2843:talk 2814:talk 2806:here 2752:talk 2736:talk 2703:talk 2568:talk 2478:talk 2383:talk 2263:talk 2240:talk 2210:talk 2202:here 2167:talk 2145:talk 2121:talk 2052:talk 2013:talk 1927:The 1902:talk 1859:talk 1855:X201 1845:talk 1823:talk 1802:talk 1729:talk 1701:talk 1686:talk 1667:talk 1644:talk 1620:i.e. 1609:talk 1576:talk 1572:COYW 1553:talk 1549:COYW 1515:talk 1489:talk 1469:talk 1455:talk 1451:Wrad 1302:talk 1285:WP:V 1267:and 1239:talk 1216:talk 1202:talk 1187:talk 1171:talk 1147:and 1130:talk 1106:talk 1092:and 1074:talk 1059:talk 1040:talk 1011:talk 989:talk 975:talk 961:talk 946:talk 938:bias 936:and 908:talk 882:talk 850:talk 829:talk 806:talk 780:and 766:WP:V 751:talk 747:Wrad 729:talk 696:Jack 631:talk 613:here 577:talk 573:Wrad 555:talk 471:talk 463:here 459:here 433:talk 406:talk 383:talk 348:talk 330:talk 316:talk 295:talk 273:talk 243:talk 198:talk 184:talk 165:talk 148:Sage 6441:But 6207:or 5930:. ( 5912:you 5880:is 5828:. 5650:. ( 5632:you 5198:FLC 5163:\) 5139:was 5055:\) 4979:\) 4891:\) 4740:by 4730:of 4185::) 3961:of 3943:. 3844:MIT 2912:.-- 2747:DGG 2678:. 2513:can 1681:DGG 1639:DGG 1524:In 1447:all 1443:BYU 1001:. 740:BYU 700:Lee 673:}} 565:BYU 511:bio 488:'s 290:DGG 238:DGG 175:all 6581:) 6558:) 6493:) 6478:) 6456:) 6432:) 6424:-- 6413:) 6389:: 6379:) 6364:) 6346:) 6310:) 6258:) 6223:) 6196:) 6177:, 6173:, 6154:) 6135:) 6093:) 6061:) 6029:) 5952:~ 5938:.) 5860:) 5813:) 5784:) 5727:) 5711:. 5554:) 5523:) 5483:) 5459:) 5451:. 5432:) 5421:. 5385:| 5362:| 5354:, 5350:, 5346:, 5342:, 5338:, 5334:, 5302:| 5277:| 5255:) 4841:) 4814:) 4759:- 4708:) 4678:) 4651:) 4597:) 4569:) 4561:. 4549:) 4518:) 4491:) 4451:) 4443:. 4399:) 4395:• 4337:) 4333:• 4234:) 4193:) 4160:) 4068:) 4054:) 4046:-- 4016:) 3996:) 3946:A 3928:. 3905:) 3897:? 3858:) 3807:) 3777:) 3748:) 3728:) 3697:) 3682:) 3666:) 3588:) 3557:) 3530:) 3496:}} 3490:{{ 3472:) 3437:) 3403:) 3373:) 3339:) 3325:) 3310:) 3290:) 3246:| 3224:) 3197:) 3166:) 3147:) 3127:) 3115:: 3096:) 3055:) 3030:is 2966:) 2947:) 2931:, 2920:) 2892:) 2868:, 2856:, 2845:) 2816:) 2754:) 2738:) 2705:) 2697:. 2570:) 2480:) 2385:) 2274:is 2265:) 2242:) 2212:) 2169:) 2147:) 2123:) 2060:- 2054:• 2021:- 2015:• 1969:, 1923:. 1904:) 1896:-- 1861:) 1847:) 1825:) 1804:) 1731:) 1703:) 1688:) 1669:) 1646:) 1611:) 1578:) 1555:) 1517:) 1491:) 1471:) 1457:) 1304:) 1287:, 1283:, 1241:) 1218:) 1204:) 1189:) 1173:) 1132:) 1108:) 1076:) 1061:) 1042:) 1013:) 991:) 977:) 963:) 948:) 910:) 884:) 852:) 844:. 831:) 808:) 788:. 768:, 753:) 731:) 661:{{ 633:) 623:}} 617:{{ 579:) 557:) 521:) 473:) 465:. 435:) 408:) 385:) 369:, 350:) 332:) 318:) 297:) 275:) 245:) 200:) 186:) 167:) 91:→ 6577:( 6554:( 6489:( 6474:( 6452:( 6428:( 6409:( 6375:( 6360:( 6342:( 6306:( 6254:( 6229:" 6219:( 6192:( 6150:( 6131:( 6089:( 6057:( 6025:( 5968:! 5959:. 5919:! 5856:( 5809:( 5780:( 5723:( 5668:. 5658:) 5639:! 5550:( 5519:( 5479:( 5455:( 5428:( 5251:( 5230:) 5224:( 5157:( 5152:Ä 5146:Ł 5049:( 5044:Ä 5038:Ł 4973:( 4968:Ä 4962:Ł 4885:( 4880:Ä 4874:Ł 4837:( 4810:( 4704:( 4674:( 4647:( 4593:( 4565:( 4545:( 4514:( 4487:( 4447:( 4391:( 4329:( 4230:( 4205:Y 4189:( 4156:( 4064:( 4050:( 4012:( 3992:( 3901:( 3854:( 3803:( 3773:( 3744:( 3724:( 3693:( 3678:( 3662:( 3584:( 3553:( 3526:( 3468:( 3433:( 3399:( 3369:( 3335:( 3321:( 3306:( 3286:( 3220:( 3193:( 3185:: 3162:( 3143:( 3123:( 3092:( 3051:( 2962:( 2943:( 2916:( 2888:( 2841:( 2812:( 2785:- 2750:( 2734:( 2719:- 2701:( 2662:- 2566:( 2476:( 2381:( 2261:( 2238:( 2208:( 2165:( 2143:( 2119:( 2058:) 2050:( 2019:) 2011:( 1985:) 1979:( 1945:. 1900:( 1894:. 1857:( 1843:( 1821:( 1800:( 1775:' 1772:n 1769:' 1727:( 1699:( 1684:( 1665:( 1642:( 1607:( 1574:( 1551:( 1513:( 1487:( 1467:( 1453:( 1300:( 1237:( 1214:( 1200:( 1185:( 1169:( 1128:( 1104:( 1072:( 1057:( 1038:( 1009:( 987:( 973:( 959:( 944:( 906:( 880:( 848:( 827:( 804:( 749:( 727:( 629:( 575:( 553:( 517:/ 513:/ 509:/ 507:c 505:/ 503:t 501:( 469:( 431:( 404:( 381:( 346:( 328:( 314:( 293:( 271:( 241:( 196:( 182:( 163:( 139:— 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index