Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Move logo above image

The logo is currently at the bottom of the infobox and looks really out of place. It should be moved above the image at the top of the infobox, after the the title. This would also make it the same as Template:Infobox school GeekInParadise (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For many universities, 'image' is used for the coat of arms or seal, which is pretty much permanent, and 'logo' for the logo, which changes at the whim of marketing consultants. Keeping the permanent image at the top and the changeable one at the bottom makes sense to me and gives a balance to the template that it would lose if both were at the top. Another consideration is that for many universities the design of the arms or seal are public domain, allowing them to be used across pages relating to that university, while the logo will almost always be copyright and thus limited to where a fair-use rational can be made (probably only on the main page). Robminchin (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robminchin: I'm not sure how the copyright status of an image impacts the location of the image. Copyright infringement would occur exist if it fails to meet open source or fair use standards. Also not sure how often the image changes has anything to do with location of the image. Infoboxes should be in an order that's readable and consistent. Spreading images out for the sake of spreading them out, doesn't really improve the legibility of an article. Inconstancies with templates make it harder for people to edit wikipedia. From what I can tell, images at the top of infoboxes is pretty much a standard at this point. See: Template:Infobox OS, Template:Infobox school, Template:Infobox attraction, Template:Infobox mobile phone. I find it hard to justify the bottom location when so many templates have their pictures only at the top, with the exception of Template:Infobox person having the bottom signature. GeekInParadise (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The main image is at the top of the box, as is standard, it is the logo that is at the bottom. This is, as you note, a parallel with the 'person' infobox, so is not unique. Even if it were, however, this would be justifiable: having two fairly similar images next to each other, such as a seal and a logo, is quite different from having a logo and a picture of an attraction or phone close together and would make for poor presentation. It would be necessary to clearly differentiate and separate the two to prevent them becoming confused, adding to the complexity of the template, while they are naturally separated in their current positions. I don't see how the placement affects the editing of the infobox – the template separates the code from the presentation – but it will affect the presentation of all the pages this infobox is used on in a major way that will surprise many editors who do not watch this page.

My point about the copyright is that the main image can be a recurring motif across associated pages in the way the logo cannot. This combined with its relative permanence makes it a more obvious choice as the leading image for the infobox to my mind.

Overall, I can see no advantages to moving the logo up and many disadvantages. A major change like this, which is much more than just switching a couple of parameters that seldom appear together, requires a far stronger argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Robminchin (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added a CC-licensed logo to the testcases page in case anyone wants to see how this might look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Robminchin. According to WP:UNIGUIDE, the prefered usage is a lead image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms and an image at the bottom of the institution's wordmark, and this seems more balanced if the wordmark is at the bottom. --Muhandes (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am always open to this recommendation being challenged and changed because I think that there are few, if any, U.S. institutions for which their seal or coat of arms is recognizable by nearly anyone. If our primary goal is to inform readers in a lay audience then it doesn't seem to be helpful to place an unrecognized image at the very top of the infobox. I recognize that wordmarks aren't always helpful and I hate that they seem to frequently change (for trivial and sometimes nonsensical reasons) but in nearly all cases they're much more helpful and informative for readers.

Is the case different for colleges and universities in other countries i.e., are seals or coats of arms widely recognizable by the general public? ElKevbo (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the change - or, even better, simply put the logo at the top and the arms at the bottom.

The logo is what the university chooses to use to identify itself, and I'd expect the most commonly-recognisable symbol of the university. To me it seems strange, and likely at odds with Wikipedia policy, for us to declare that something else is a better representation of the university. Some universities choose to use their arms in their logo - Oxford, Cambridge, Newcastle, Harvard - and in that case of course the arms will appear at the top as part of the logo; for those who don't, is it for us to say that we have a better idea of what the appropriate symbol to use to represent the university is?

I'm also not sure the current configuration shows a global perspective. Arms in the UK have legal significance; in other countries, they often don't, and will be seen as a very obscure thing to have at the top of an infobox, whereas the logo will be generally recognised.

(Referencing WP:UNIGUIDE seems circular - of course our manual of style describes our current practice. The suggestion is that we should change our current practice.)

Using the commonly-recognised logo seems in line with Wikipedia's approach in other spheres - many companies have arms too, but I don't think we'd dream of heading up our Halifax Building Society article with this rather than this? TSP (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly better then would be to change the guidance to allow the logo to replace the arms or seal in the lead image if editors thought that a better representation of the institute's identity (this would actually reflect current practice, e.g. University College London). I would say (based on experience in both the UK and US) that the arms or seal of a university are generally highly visible, even when they aren't the official logo they are often plastered around campus and are almost always used on degree certificates and other official documents – far more so than the arms of commercial entities like the Halifax. For government agencies, both seal and logo are given at the top (e.g. NASA), and the result is much uglier than the university infobox in its current configuration. Notably, we do lead up government agencies with the seal, not the logo. Robminchin (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd argue that usage is wrong too. This seems clearly the most recognisable symbol for NASA; the others should be relegated. I'd be surprised if there is any source that identifies NASA primarily by the seal we currently lead with.

Perhaps simply a change of guidance to say that the Image field should be used for the usual identifying mark of the university; and any alternative placed in the second field at the bottom. But that introduces a huge element of subjectivity, and I'd expect that in most cases the most recognisable mark will be the logo, not the arms (except in the cases where the former incorporates the latter). I'm struggling to think of a counter-example where the arms should lead. TSP (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to judge – universities don't tend to have particularly well-known logos. Coats of arms are more likely to have third-party sources – in Britain they will have been published by the College of Arms as Letters Patent – while logos will almost certainly be sourced to the university itself. This makes the arms more 'notable' in Wikipedia terms, which is what we actually need to be concerned with rather than subjective judgments as to which is better known. Robminchin (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that notability is a very useful guide for this discussion; it is explicitly not supposed to be used to determine article content and I don't think it's very useful to determine the content or order of information in an infobox, either. We should instead be focusing on what is most useful for readers and what information is essential. ElKevbo (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using it to determine article content, but to determine which is the more widely recognised visual identifier in a situation where the alternative is to make a highly subjective judgement.

Essentially, the challenge is that many (possibly most) universities have two visual identifiers – a formal one, normally a coat of arms or a seal, seen on degree certificates and the like, and a logo, used for marketing and in less formal situations. I don't think we can make a determination here which of these is most useful for readers to see first that will be valid across all pages. I think we can certainly say that if the university has only one visual identity that is used for everything (e.g. UCL) then that should be in the top image field and the bottom image should be blank. For others, we should just say that both the formal visual identity (coat of arms or seal) and the logo should be given, and leave it to editors on the individual pages to determine which is given first. If it is felt that the order should be specified here, then I feel the formal visual identity should go first as it is normally more notable and longer established. But my preference is for the diversity of institutions to be recognised by having guidelines that allow editors to make the decision on an institution by institution basis. Robminchin (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with us trying to make a determination about what information is likely to be most helpful or recognizable to readers; we do that all of the time. In the U.S. context, it's been my experience and observation that most institutions significantly restrict the use of their formal seal to the point where they're used so infrequently that most people don't recognize it; you can see the first point documented in many styleguides and policies that restrict the use of the seal to the most formal of occasions (e.g., diplomas) or require explicit approval from the president. This is especially obvious when compared to the wordmark or logo that the institution itself uses very widely and licenses to others for their use, too.

So maybe this is really a country-specific difference or a cultural one where maybe we should allow for more flexibility? ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion, I support leaving the current WP:UNIGUIDE approach in place. Wordmark(s)/logos change more frequently, particularly for smaller or less well known institutions. The seal, symbol or other traditional mark such as a coat of arms is less likely to change. The latter were historically intended to serve as the long term symbol of the organization. In terms of looking at this from the reader's perspective, I don't know that the average reader really cares either way. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Hello! The logo used in this infobox is quite old. SKEMA Business School has a new logo. Can you please update the old logo and add the new one? The new logo can be found on the school's website https://www.skema.edu/. Thanks! Wander Writer (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You would need to upload the image first. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

For what is the "sports" parameter intended?

Can someone please clarify what the "sports" and "athletics" parameters are supposed to be used for? I see in the archive that they're synonyms with one added later to account for regional differences in language but I'm still not clear on exactly what the parameter is supposed to be used for. The language in the documentation is very vague: "Primary university sports." What does that mean? How are editors supposed to determine which sports are "primary?" And why should we be listing sports in this infobox at all (especially when most or all institutions that have prominent sports teams will have one or more articles specific for their athletic teams)? It seems reasonable to use this parameter to link to the athletic team's article or the the team's nickname; it does not seem reasonable at all for editors to try to insert a list of sports into what should be a concise summary of the essential characteristics of the institution.

(For what it's worth, there are also several other parameters of this infobox that are similarly vague, inconsistently used, and prone to misuse e.g., type, campus, affiliation.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of Nickname parameter

I've seen several instances that this parameter has been filled up erroneously. Yes, the parameter links to Athletic nickname but people especially inexperienced editors and IP has been filling up this parameter with standard generic denonym instead of the name of the collegiate/athletic team. I suggest to make this more explicit (List the parameter as "Athletic nickname" instead of just nickname or add a separate denonym parameter.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Always link to examples when you are making a suggestion like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For example in the Philippines (which adopts several US tradition), students (and faculty members) of University of Santo Tomas would be normally called as "Thomasians" but their college team would be known as the "UST Growling Tigers" (this itself has variations depending on the sport). Also I noted the misuse of the athletics field which is meant to be the sport the university is primarily known for fielding collegiate teams which is usually basketball and volleyball in the case of most Philippine universities.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Misuse for abbreviation is quite common in India institutes and clarification of this by using the correct parameter name will help. --Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong support. Seems like a WP:GLOBAL failure? I think athletic nicknames as a major thing are mostly an American phenomenon (at least, they're not a UK one), so users from elsewhere are likely to not be immediately familiar with what this field is intended for. TSP (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to an appropriate article. I think "Sports nickname" makes sense, but that may be my American bias. In some parts of the English-speaking world, "athletics" means only the sport that involves running, jumping, and throwing, which is different from the more general "Sports".

If we make this change, we should add |demonym=, recommending its use only if the name is different from the sports nickname. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Or if sports nicknames aren't a significant thing in your country and demonyms are. I think it would be odd to impose internationally the idea that sporting nicknames are more important than any other demonym - as I've mentioned, sporting nicknames being a significant thing is, as far as I know, an almost exclusively North American phenomenon (as is defining universities by their sports teams more generally).

If we think inconsistency between countries is bad, an alternative would be to just have a single demonym field, with a note that in North America this will normally be the sporting nickname. TSP (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Reopened university

Haridev Joshi University of Journalism and Mass Communication was closed in 2017 and apparently reopened in 2019 or will reopen 2020. Can you suggest how to use the infobox in such a case? This is what I came up with, which seems icky.

|established =2012
|closed=2017, 2019-

--Muhandes (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In terms of how it displays on the page, that seems fine. Alternatively

|established = 2012 (closed 2017–2019)

does a similar job of getting the message across, without using the closed parameter. Robminchin (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Seal vs. logo

I realize I'm opening up an old can of worms here regarding the choice of using a seal vs. a logo at the top of a particular page. I stumbled across this in trying to edit the article on Carleton College, which is using the college's seal at the top. I'd like to try re-arguing that using the seal in the context of Carleton College doesn't make sense. According to their own internal guidelines, the seal isn't used... anywhere.. except for stamping diplomas and that sort of thing. It's not visible on any of their webpages. Staff are directed only to use it for a very limited number of (mostly print) purposes. It's not on the paraphernalia that they sell. It seems to me that discussion last time centered around the idea that the seal was permanent, and recognizable. In the case of Carleton College (see above guidelines, and search around the internet, if you desire), it's not recognizable because it's not used anywhere except on the page that indicates that its purpose is only for official documents. Of course, we are free to use that image with fair use. But I also think it is worth considering that Carleton College's own guidelines specifically indicate that their intention for this image is not to be used this way. IANAL, and so I don't claim that this therefore changes the nature of fair use, but it seems to me that we're not using that image in good faith. I agree that the seal is essentially permanent, but it seems to me that a current encyclopedia should reflect an current accurate view of the world. It's convenient for an encyclopedia if the college logo is permanent, but it just isn't -- and dropping a permanent seal in instead which is not intended to be used this way seems to me to be expediency in this case and not correctness.

FYI, this came up as a result of a conversation I just had regarding this article, which I'm including here for completeness. I'm looking for a change or at least a variance in the guidelines so that I can update Carleton's logo with its actual logo, rather than with an obscure seal that no one ever sees and is specifically not identified as the logo of the school. Thoughts? WorldsApart (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we were moving in the direction of a consensus that more flexibility in the guidelines would not be a bad thing, as which visual identifier is most important might be best decided at the level of individual universities. But then we all got tired of the conversation and moved on without actually agreeing to a change!

So, my suggestion:

• For institutions with a single visual identity, this should be given at the top of the page.
• For institutions with both a formal visual identity (e.g. a coat of arms or seal) and a public visual identity (logo) both should be given. The order of these should be determined for individual institution pages by the editors on that page.
• In determining which visual identity is given first, editors should have regard not only for the current usage of the institution but also the historical usage of the visual identity and the extent to which it is likely to be recognised generally (i.e. similar to the way in which the "common name" of an institution is determined).
• Where the logo is simply a wordmark created by the addition of the name of the university to a representation of its coat of arms, this should almost always be placed after the actual coat of arms.

This attempts to capture where I think we were last time we discussed this. What do others think? Robminchin (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how there was no other response to this, is there a next step, or does consensus consist of the two of us? WorldsApart (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I recommend first posting to the Talk pages of relevant projects (e.g., WP:UNI) to solicit further participation and input. You could also consider a formal RFC to try to get even wider input. ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I posted to the Talk page for WP:UNI. Thanks. WorldsApart (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to favour guided flexibility, rather than complete free-for-all or over-prescription, and Robminchin's approach seems sensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the guidelines around the use of non-free content generally frown on using two pieces of non-free content to do the same task (in this case, identify a college or university visually to a reader) when one would do. I imagine you're going to need to have an "either-or-but-not-both" rule, rather than your "both should be given" guideline above. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, Esrever. We should probably also add something along the lines of: "Use of non-free images representing the visual identities must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This will almost always apply to corporate logos, but where the coat-of-arms or seal is also non-free editors should pay particular attention to the requirement that 'Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.'" Does that sound like it would cover it? Robminchin (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Which parameter for system membership?

A significant number of colleges and universities are part of a system e.g., State University of New York, Virginia Community College System. How should this be documented in the infobox for the articles of the individual institutions?

Some, perhaps most, articles use the "affiliation" parameter. I'm not entirely comfortable with this because membership in a system seems like a much more substantive relationship than being "affiliated" with a group. Some articles use the "parent" parameter. That's not a bad approach but the template displays this as "Parent institution" which doesn't seem quite accurate. And some articles omit this from the infobox altogether. That seems like a bad approach because it is critical information.

Do any current parameters work for this? Do we need a new "System" parameter? Are there other options or suggested approaches? ElKevbo (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the enrollment parameters

Can we please move toward consensus and clarification on whether the enrollment parameters should use headcount or FTE? If we can't come to consensus on which standard to use - and I'd be hard pressed to recommend one over the other without in the infobox - we should at least (a) make editors aware of the two standards and (b) require editors to clearly specify which standard they're using in any given infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if we have to require one or the other, but the enrollment numbers should at least be denoted as which type of count they are, and a footnote could explain them. Personally, I prefer FTE because I feel it is a more accurate snapshot of size. Further, a point to consider as far as standardization is where would the most standardized enrollment numbers would be derived from. Even in the US, not every university has a fact-book with the same standardized information or common data set that is publicly available. Then there is the issue of universities outside the U.S. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

For British universities, the standard is to use the Higher Education Statistics Agency student enrolment numbers. This is total head count, not FTEs – the FTE number would probably be impossible to find for most British universities as it is not part of the standard statistical returns. Recommending FTEs as the standard would therefore a) mean moving away from official, third-party government statistics and b) be very hard, if not impossible, to implement, probably requiring original research. This does not seem like a good idea. Robminchin (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Crazypaco: For U.S. institutions, we can get data for nearly all of them via IPEDS. Only the handful of institutions who don't accept federal funding (e.g., Hillsdale College, Pensacola Christian College) aren't included in that database but otherwise it's updated annually with enrollment data and a whole lot more. (I'd like to see us move toward pulling the available data into Wikidata - much of it already there but I don't know how well it's maintained - and automatically populating much of the infobox but that's a separate and unrelated discussion entirely.) Common Data Set data would also fill this need but it's maintained on individual websites by each institution so it's nowhere near as convenient as IPEDS (which can be partially queried for individual institutions through College Navigator and downloaded as large datasets via the IPEDS website).

Robinchin: Thanks for the British perspective. I would not advocate us encouraging original research in any capacity; we're completely reliant on the available sources of data and their standards. I don't even know if FTE is used outside of the U.S. as it only seems to be meaningful when institutions have a significant number of part-time students which is very common in the U.S. in our very large number of community colleges. ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, if IPEDS is used as a source for colleges and universities in the United States, are you proposing we utilize the Fall enrollment values or the 12 month enrollment values? Some institutions in my region I see report FTE enrollment to IPEDS, but report separately headcount to the state legislature. I have wrestled with this issue in the past. I don't know for certain there is a good answer, except to say that headcount is a more simple concept to communicate. In addition, schools commonly report the latest enrollment figures during mid-fall semester. That information would technically be considered the most accurate and up to date data. It would be helpful if there was a way to automate the data and make it consistent across institutions. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Randomeditor1000: Apologies for not replying until now! For U.S. institutions, the easiest thing for us to do would to simply report whatever IPEDS data is included in publicly accessible websites such as College Navigator. I think this - headcount in Fall semester on the official census day - matches what's in the Common Data Set which provides a stronger argument for us using it, too.

In all honesty, I think we'd really benefit from consulting with some Institutional Research professionals on this and many other related issues about the data we report for U.S. colleges and universities. A formal collaboration with AIR would be really good. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, I support using IPEDS and referencing headcount. I think the fundamental problem with conferring with AIR itself is that individual institutions themselves publish different count information based on their individual needs and at times their political posturing. Staff may not be able to provide to us a specific answer, we may have to collect a series of responses. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate Use of "Free" Parameter?

I used the Free parameter to add school newspaper names at [1] and [2]. User:ElKevbo reached out to me on my Talk page with the following: "Instead of adding the newspaper to the "Free" parameter of the Template:Infobox university in many articles, it might be better to start a discussion in the template's Talk page to see if it's a viable parameter. That discussion should also show if there is widespread consensus to add that information to the infobox at all."

Thoughts? Contributor321 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)