Talk:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Main library "houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries"

Nearly 10? How many are nearly 10? 9? Just state the accurate number. 68.98.110.11 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Engineering rankings and opinions in lede

An editor is insisting that the following text be included in the lede:

The university is famous for the strength of its engineering programs, which consistently top the ranking charts in the country and in the world.. Engineering at Illinois is the most cited institution in engineering worldwide with the highest total citations to research papers. The department has historically spearheaded worldwide innovation in technology. Inventions such as the transistor, the Integrated Circuit and the LED, ubiquitous in virtually all modern electronic systems, stemmed from professors or alumni of the College of Engineering. Illinois engineers have largely contributed to the proliferation and usability of the Internet. Most notably, engineering alumni produced the internet broadband (DSL), the first web browsers (Mosaic and Netscape) and the "programming language of the web" (JavaScript).. The engineering school has produced founders of countless modern tech giants such as Oracle, Tesla, Youtube, Mozilla, AMD, Paypal, Yelp, Malwarebytes and Optimizely.

First, the paragraph is laden with POV terms such as "famous," "spearheaded," and "proliferation." Second, the sources are really bad. Some of them don't support the assertions (e.g., "consistently top the ranking charts" needs a source that actually says that, not a few Wikipedia editor-selected examples) and many are Wikipedia articles which aren't reliable sources. Finally, it's just way too much to include in the lede of this article that is about the entire history, organization, funding, and resources of this university.

I strongly encourage our colleague to discuss his or her thoughts here instead of using multiple accounts to edit war over this material. ElKevbo (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow editor,

First of all, you assumed wrongly that I used multiple accounts to avoid this edit war, but I have a VPN on all the time (related to my work). In fact, I never encountered an edit war before, as no one ever deleted a block of text that I wrote. Every single reference is accurate, referencing other Wikipedia articles is overwhelmingly done on Wikipedia, as you probably already know considering the amount of edits that you did yourself. But since you insist here are some references:

Inventor of Integrated Circuit/nobel prize in physics: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2000/index.html

Creation of JavaSCript: http://speakingjs.com/es5/ch04.html

Father of DSL: https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/john-cioffi

Mosaic, netscape browsers: https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TimBook-old/History.html

Inventor of transistor: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1956/

Inventor of the LED: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1562141.html

Eng rankings:

US:

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate

https://engineering.illinois.edu/academics/rankings.html

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate-computer

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate-civil

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/search?ranking=electrical-electronic-communications&school-type=engineering-doctorate

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate-mechanical

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate-chemical

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/search?ranking=aerospace-aeronautical-astronautical&school-type=engineering-doctorate

http://www.shanghairanking.com/FieldENG2016.html

World:

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings/electrical-electronic-engineering.html

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings/civil-engineering.html

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings/electrical-electronic-engineering.html

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings/materials-science-engineering.html

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/engineering-civil-structural

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/engineering-mechanical

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/engineering-mechanical

This shall do hopefully.

I appreciate your concern for the word choice, and am happing to take your input, how about we replace "famous" with "known for" or "has a strong"; "spearheaded" with "contributed to" or synonyms. In terms of the "proliferation" of the Internet, please, sir read the above sources on JavaScript and the Mosaic browser and feel free to frame this differently, but there are solid grounds to that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.164.217 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not use other articles as references; please see WP:CIRCULAR for an explanation why.

The ranking information is still quite weak; it's original research for a Wikipedia editor to synthesize sources and draw a conclusion. If you want to write that this university's engineering programs are consistently highly ranked, you'll need to find some good (reliable, independent, etc.) sources that explicitly state that. (Incidentally, this is also a really good way to address WP:DUE; if you can't find other sources that have already published something, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article!)

Please propose one or two brief sentences that you think fairly represent these accomplishments; it's inappropriate to have an entire (long!) paragraph in the lede of this article that only discusses one small part of the entire subject. ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo is correct. WP is not an appropriate reference. And the addition of the such rankings in the lede smacks of WP:BOOSTERISM. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Number of subject-oriented libraries needs cleanup

Somebody archived this, which was on this talk page:

Main library "houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries"

Nearly 10? How many are nearly 10? 9? Just state the accurate number. 68.98.110.11 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hidden away archived until the text is repaired. 68.98.110.11 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Technology Entrepreneur Center

Subject not independently notable. No independent sources. MB 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Xtension Chords" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xtension Chords. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Honors Biology Program (UIUC)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Honors Biology Program (UIUC). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What does "main library building [...] houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries" mean?

How many are "nearly 10"? Eight? Nine? If so, the text should say so. If not, what does "nearly 10" mean? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"main library building [...] houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries" needs edit

"main library building [...] houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries" is puzzling at best. How many are "nearly 10"? Nine? If so, just report that. - If the statement is meant to mean something other than 'less than ten', it needs explanation. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to the nom's suggestion, per the balance of convincing argumentation. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 04:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

---

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign → University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, without the "at" and featuring a hyphen instead of an en dash, is the university's preferred branding. The university's social media accounts (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook) reflect the change, as do website redesigns across campus (for example, the Center for Global Studies and the Department of Psychology). The top-level site switches between the two names, but the page titles ("tab names") all say "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign." Changing the article name would not impact recognizability ("University," "Illinois," and "Urbana"/"Champaign" are the important parts), and it would be more concise. Chevsapher (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the en dash: The university's preferred branding doesn't matter, and this refers to the Champaign–Urbana metropolitan area, like Minneapolis–Saint Paul and Dallas–Fort Worth. Outside of Wikipedia, hyphens are often used for typographical convenience and because many people aren't familiar with proper dashes. Our guidelines (MOS:DASH) say not to use hyphens where dashes are appropriate. As for the "at", we should look for the common name in independent reliable sources, not focus on a self-published official name. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: "Urbana-Champaign" does indeed refer to the two cities that the university straddles, but I'm not convinced that's a reason to use an en dash instead of a hyphen. From what I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), the MOS does not cover situations where two place names are part of a proper noun, as they are in this case. The university has never used an en dash in all the decades since it appended "Urbana-Champaign" to its name; in fact, I have never seen the en dash substituted for the hyphen anywhere except Wikipedia. I don't think it's our call to bend over backwards to prescribe "correct" typography when both common usage and official branding guidelines advocate for the hyphen. Chevsapher (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• What the university uses is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a promotional site for advertising the topics it discusses. The MOS does cover situations where a merged place name is part of a proper name. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, and New York Times all prefer "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign", with "at" and hyphen. The hyphen is well established in primary and secondary sources. Further dropping the at would match the official style of the university, what they call themselves, and shorten the article title. It's asinine to say this encyclopedia should not match the official name of an institution due to style inconsistencies. JustinMal1 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move per nom: Matching the university's style allows better coherence with the article topic and the references, Wikipedia's manual of style should not affect the approved and common name of an institution, a hyphen is used in all University documentation, even on transcripts and degrees. Also, the lede of the article lacks an "at." Further, University of Illinois at Springfield and University of Illinois at Chicago should have their prepositions dropped as well. JustinMal1 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move per nom A simple hyphen makes everything easier, and is the most commonly used name of the university. Lingnanhua (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The styling of a name should not be confused with the name itself. Styling matters, such as the distinction between a hyphen and a dash or which letters are capitalized, are a matter of house style rather than just popularity in sources. WP:CONSISTENT usage is Wikipedia article title policy. The term in this title refers to the Champaign–Urbana metropolitan area, and the proper punctuation of "Champaign–Urbana" or "Urbana–Champaign" shouldn't depend on where the term appears. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The notion that "Urbana-Champaign" in the university name references the Champaign–Urbana metropolitan area is incorrect. The name was adopted long before the two cities grew to the point of merger. Had it been because of this statistical area it would have been called "Champaign–Urbana" in the name, as people refer to the area now, without Urbana first. The typical explanation for the name is that the university sought a marriage between the cities for ease of postage, as the campus straddles the two cities. See this document from the University's archives: [1]. In many ways, the campus is much like a marital union, and marital unions are hyphenated, not en dashed. JustinMal1 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Whatever the reason for the region merger that is expressed in the name, it is a merging of geographical places, which is ordinarily expressed on Wikipedia with an en dash. It is not a marriage of people, whatever the convention for that might be. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move per nom Hyphen is standard usage as exemplified by the university. Styling of the name by the named establishes the form of the name itself. Re presence or absence of 'at', the university uses both versions. A phone call to the press/PR office -- Office for University Relations -- should settle the question of which is preferred. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The preference of an institution that is the subject of an article is not a concern for Wikipedia, which prefers independent sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Preference for 'at' or not could be established independently by studying the results of an extensive survey of relevant excerpts of text and speech. No such survey is available. If it were, it would reveal the further complication that in normal speech and in mid- and casual-register writing, the expansion of UIUC with or without 'at' is infrequent, while Illinois state universities are often referred to by abbreviated name (Western, Eastern, U of I) or by location ("Our son starts at Macomb this fall", "The Smith twins? Bill went to Carbondale, Bob went to Champaign" [though he may live in Urbana or Fithian]. Wikipedia guidelines are just that: guidelines to be followed judiciously, not blindly, with the goal of presenting information as accurately as possible. In this specific case, the most accurate name can be determined by asking the institution. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry I missed it. This is obviously messed up now, at odds with our own MOS. Should have noticed Barrel Proof and opposed this regression. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And this one poorly attended discussion has now been used to move a bunch of other articles. We need to start over. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is such a sticky issue, the university's name should not be affected by the preferred style of this encyclopedia. The MOS states a preference for an en dash when two place names are used jointly, which should not override the name of an institution where the MOS is clear about matching the accepted name. Using the MOS as a license to insert otherwise unused typography into the accepted name of an institution is pointless and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I defer to WP:COMMONNAME here, why insert an en dash when a hyphen is more accessible and commonly used? JustinMal1 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'll try to explain. First, yes, nothing we do here will affect the university's name, even if we render it with our preferred style. The linked page about their name mentions "(notice there is no “at” before the campus name)", but is silent on how the grammatical dash should be rendered; it is common, especially on the web, to render these dashes with the hyphen-minus glyph. That page also links their Writing style guide, which is equally silent on en dash versus hyphen. But WP's style is to use the en dash, making the grammatical role a bit more clear. WP:COMMONNAME is a red herring, as this is a styling issued, not a naming issue. Styling such things consistently is neither pointless nor contrary to the spirit and guidelines of WP. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I appreciate the explanation and clarity. I don't believe this is a typical case of the merging of geographical places, however. "Urbana-Champaign" in the title is used much like Wilkes-Barre, as listed in MOS:ENBETWEEN. This isn't a reference to the Champaign–Urbana metropolitan area (note the backwardness there), or a merger of the University of Illinois Urbana and University of Illinois Champaign, rather it is a university named after two cities and should be treated more like a marital union than a statistical area. JustinMal1 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree. Wilkes-Barre is a single city's name. Champaign–Urbana or Urbana–Champaign is a description of a location of a campus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's also a single university's name. This is not some sort of combination or merger of the University of Illinois at Urbana with the University of Illinois at Champaign. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  While I understand the case for the en dash, this article is a case that does not conform to the spirit of MOS:ENBETWEEN. First, the MOS states, "Often, if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning." In this case, reversing the order of the components would completely change the name of the university. Second, in the context of the university, Urbana and Champaign are not "parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional". Urbana is primary, and Champaign is secondary. Roughly two-thirds of the campus are located in Urbana, including the historic core along Green Street (Harker, Natural History, Altgeld, Engineering) and all four of the quads. If Champaign and Urbana were equivalent in the campus name, then it would have made far more sense for the administration to pick "Champaign-Urbana," which is how the two cities have referred to their collective whole for decades. Ultimately, I think claiming the MOS mandates an en dash in this situation is a weak argument, and I do not think it is enough to overrule the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources, including the university's wordmark, use the hyphen. Chevsapher (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Y'all could just move this to University of Illinois to avoid the damn "at" and "hypen—dash" controversies. Everyone in the B1G knows that "Illinois" is in Champaign and Urbana. This is almost as silly as ("The") Ohio State University Columbus... bu, but, but how can it be "the" Ohio State when there's an Ohio State University at Newark too? (I have no idea where the other "Illinois" are "at"). – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• 22:44, 30 October 2007 Keeper76 moved page University of Illinois to University of Illinois (disambiguation) (University of Illinois primarily refers to the flagship campus Urbana-Champaign in context. I will next be redirecting University of Illinois to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
• I see, University of Illinois system. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  The university's brand guidelines state, "On first written reference, to clearly establish our identity in the minds of our audience, we refer to ourselves by our full name: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign". Most news articles explicitly refer to it by its full name. Furthermore, although "everyone in the B1G" probably does equate the University of Illinois branding with Urbana-Champaign, I think it's safe to assume that most of Wikipedia's readership lives outside the Midwest. Because Chicago is a bigger city, one could easily assume that the flagship campus is the University of Illinois at Chicago. For all these reasons, I think Wikipedia should continue to refer to the Urbana-Champaign campus by its full name. Chevsapher (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  You mean the Urbana–Champaign campus? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, of course that's what I mean. Let's stick to the main issue at hand, please. Chevsapher (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The University of Houston tried to brand itself as University of Houston–University Park. This name never really stuck. There is no "University Park" in Houston, this was an invented name. The Southeast Houston neighborhood where Texas Southern University and U of H are located is called the Third Ward. There's another neighborhood called West University Place but that's west of Rice University. There actually is a University Park, Texas but that's a suburb of Dallas which is home to Southern Methodist University. There was never any need for this "University Park" moniker to disambiguate the main campus because all the locals know that if you mean University of Houston System, or University of Houston–Downtown, or University of Houston–Clear Lake, you say so. Nobody will think you mean "Downtown" because Downtown Houston is bigger than the Third Ward. And people who only know the school from watching its sports teams play on national TV mostly don't even know the other campuses exist. I don't think the Illinois situation is as extreme a case as Houston, but a reasonable argument can be made. Do you follow the distinction between WP:Official names and WP:Common names? Generally, we would use the common name, University of Illinois as the article title, and boldface the official name University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to begin the lead sentence. I don't think the official name should ever be a matter for debate. If the official name uses a hyphen rather than a dash, it should use a hyphen rather than a dash. That's not a matter for editorial judgement. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you imagine this call: "They won it! On the dunk! NC State upset the mighty Houston–University Park Phi Slama Jama team!" LOL wbm1058 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Champaign City Building.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit war to add two URLs to the infobox

Cfls has recently begun an edit war to add two URLs to the "website" parameter of the infobox in this article. Their specific reasoning was "Include uiuc.edu as the university affiliates still receive @uiuc.edu emails And the uiuc.edu domain was widely used throughout the campus before the branding project took place. Also, retain the uiuc.edu per WP:COMMONNAME." I don't have any specific preference for which of the subject's official URLs we use but the infobox is not the place to try to list all of them. Nor is WP:COMMONNAME relevant to this discussion at all as that policy focuses on the titles of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I now formally respond to User:ElKevbo's statement. First, this editorial battle was all initiated by ElKevbo. Full responsibility rests with ElKevbo. I re-typesetted the name of the university in the infobox in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style to properly segment the university name that is long and does not fit the full university name on one line. To be specific, in this Wikipedia entry, the name of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign does not fit in the first line of the Infobox. I've tried almost all computer browser size formats, and all I get are "University of Illinois Urbana-" and "Champaign" in the form of a sentence. Such a format is unclear. According to the second paragraph of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, "Editors should ... structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting." According to this principle, I optimized the typesetting of the university name University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for this entry, namely "University of Illinois" on the first line and "Urbana-Champaign" on the second line. However, community member ElKevbo, in his own opinion, believes that edits that help the entry name to be more clearly displayed to readers and increase readability should instead "let the browser do its job." This is an extremely absurd view. Members of our Wikipedia community should work together to refine Wikipedia entries and make them more readable and convenient to readers. However, El Kevbo deliberately undermines constructive edits that help make the typography clearer from a personal point of view. Such reversion is improper and contrary to Wikipedia's mission of being "to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality." Such behavior and views are unacceptable. Cfls (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverting one boldly made edit is not "an editorial battle." I strongly recommend you review WP:BRD (and WP:EW) before making further accusations.

What exactly is so important about keeping "Urbana" and "Champaign" on the same line that you are edit warring instead of asking for help? I suspect there are ways to accomplish that without manually adding carriage returns to the article.

And why are you insisting that this article include multiple URLs for this subject in the infobox? It's long-standing policy that we include only one official website unless there are highly unusual circumstances.

I recommend that you reconsider your approach to collaboration in this project. Approaching every disagreement as a battle is not going to be a winning approach. More importantly, you are required to assume good faith of other editors; accusing other editors of "deliberately undermin[ing] constructive edits" is not only a poor way to collaborate but will likely lead to you being blocked if you continue that behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia community members,

I will now issue a specific fact sheet on ElKevbo's allegations.

The United States has one of the best higher education systems in the world. Many states have established their own institutions of higher education, using geographical names as the distinction between branch campuses. For example, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, with the world's top computer science school. The name of this university is very long.

Wikipedia has a very good screen size adjustment mechanism, which can adapt to various computer and mobile phone sizes for easy reading. Meanwhile, in the case of an entry such as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, no personal computer's browser in the world can display the name of the school in its entirety on one line at the top of the Wikipedia entry information box. The most common display currently is to display "University of Illinois Urbana-" on the first line and "Champaign" on the second line. Obviously, this is not the way people usually use sentence segmentation.

In daily life, the way people use sentence segmentation is "University of Illinois" and "Urbana-Champaign." This is people's language-using habit. In the second paragraph of the main text of the Wikipedia Manual of Style we can see, "Editors should ... structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting." Following this principle, I optimized the display of school names above the entry information box for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to match popular perception. Therefore, in this entry, "University of Illinois" is displayed on the first line, and "Urbana-Champaign" is displayed on the second line. This is in line with people's common perception.

The same applies to some of the University of California campuses with longer names, such as University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. Such typographic optimization is to allow our readers to read our articles better and get information more easily.

ElKevbo states his own personal opinion. This community member argues that the typesetting editing behavior that makes it easier for readers to read the Wikipedia entries for universities with unusually long names should give way to "let the browser do its job." We strongly affirm and acknowledge that Wikipedia's automatic typesetting system is excellent. At the same time, we need to pay attention to the fact that we should give correct line breaks to improve readability when faced with a university name that cannot be read in two words such as Cornell University. We know that in any case, the school names such as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign cannot be displayed in one line, so we should take the initiative to solve this situation. What I'm stating is by no means a distrust of Wikipedia's automatic typesetting. Instead, I'm trying to make Wikipedia entries better by editing them.

The views expressed by ElKevbo is not acceptable. We should take into account the specific circumstances of each entry, and appropriately present what is described in the circumstances. We respect the Wikipedia Manual of Style as a community guide for all editing.

Thank you. Cfls (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you also assume good faith with the rest of the community. What I felt from your initial revertion was the disrespectful tone of the other members of the community. Did you discuss it before revert? Have you considered my editing to make this entry more readable? Your words tell me that you don't think other people's edits are constructive, and you think other people's edits are sabotage on these entries. But, I'm curious to know, do you really see my efforts to make these entries clearer? Obviously, you don't. Also, you mentioned about the so-called account ban. I would love to know where I am not respecting you. I have always been adhering to the fact that we can build Wikipedia entries together. However, you start citing irrelevant content to defend your point. Let's get back to the question itself: Does adding appropriate and helpful line breaks help readers read the article better? If yes, then it is not necessary for us to raise more diverse discussions on this issue. If not, I would be more than happy to discuss this issue in depth with you on an ongoing continuous basis. Cfls (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's return to the issues at hand.

Our colleagues at WT:MOS have provided several suggestions on how to insert or prevent line breaks. It's clear that manually adding a line break in the middle of this title, here and in other articles that you've also edited, is not in line with our practices or policies. Please let us know what you are trying to do and which of the options provided may achieve that goal.

Please address the apparent violation of WP:ELMIN. Which of the two URLs should remain in this article? ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, uiuc.edu only remains as a redirect URL. The university's original internet hub was uiuc.edu, but the transition to illinois.edu started all the way back in 2008. For emails, the situation is a more complicated; every user has both a @uiuc.edu and a @illinois.edu address, but both addresses share the same inbox. Basically, "johnsmith@uiuc.edu" will send to the same inbox as "johnsmith@illinois.edu." However, the university does not actively promote the existence of @uiuc.edu email addresses; they are historical artifacts more than anything else. Note that the campus faculty listing only displays @illinois.edu addresses, and the email login portal suggests @illinois.edu in the address field. Overall, given that the university does not actively promote the existence of the uiuc.edu domain for either URLs or email address, I think the Wikipedia article should only include illinois.edu. Chevsapher (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been over a week, so I'm going to move forward with removing the uiuc.edu link from the infobox. Chevsapher (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Alumni should be alumni, not transfers out

Jesse Jackson and Larry Ellison are not UIUC alumni. Notes to that effect serve only to make it clear that they do not belong in the alumni list. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• By every definition and technical definition, Jesse Jackson and Larry Ellison are both alumnis because they were admitted to a degree program, matriculated into the university, physically attended classes and attempted/completed tests/exams/midterms/finals at the university for several courses for a semester or even longer.
• In the United States, if a student transferred out or in does not matter. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were admitted to Harvard College but did not complete their degree and were never awarded degrees by Harvard University. Honorary degrees doesn't count. Their names are prominently named and shown with pictures on Harvard University main wiki page. This goes same for Warren Buffett who did not complete his degree at University of Pennsylvania.
• The definition of "alumnus" is " a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university". (See- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alumnus) The word "attended or graduated"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainman1 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

drop-out, dropout: an alumnus or alumna of a school, college or university. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See also List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni: Bill Gates, Attended College (1973–1975); Mark Zuckerberg, Left College in his second year; Benjamin Franklin, Never attended College; awarded an honorary degree in 1753 as Class of 1724... Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)