Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why are seals emphasized?

(This discussion originated here but has become broad enough to warrant moving to a more suitable venue.)

These guidelines state: "All institution articles should utilize {{Infobox University}} to provide the basic details about the institution, preferably with an image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms."

We have discussed this issue before a few times in a few different venues. IIRC (I've participated in several of them), those discussions usually originate when an institution objects to our use of their seal and we ignore their objection because fair use allows us to use their seal without their permission or authorization.

But I raise a more fundamental question unrelated to copyright: Why do we insist on using seals or coats of arms?

In the American context, seals are rarely used and are generally not recognizable by most people. Although I support consistency across articles, this insistence on using seals seems very odd and counter to our objective of presenting readers with a way of quickly and easily identifying the institution via a visual identifier. I submit that for many American institutions there are other visual identifiers that are much more identifiable and useful for our readers. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. We can safely ignore the usage rules of universities, but those rules are nice guidance at times. That is, the seals go only on things like diplomas, for example, something that the average Wikipedian is never going to encounter. But the logos and other wordmarks go on a much more extensive array of offerings; they are, in my opinion, a better visual representation of the institution than a seal is (unless the seal happens to incorporate the logo). Just my two cents to get the conversation started. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ElKevbo. :-) The change to the guidelines was made per a short discussion above, which ended with my adding the seals and arms bit to the infobox guidelines ([1]). I believe the discussion involved ElKevbo, Aniraptor, and myself. It started because of a question about using the seal at Tulane University, but I included language about the coats of arms because of an old discussion I ran across involving Esrever, Aniraptor, and Madcoverboy among others ([2]) in which one editor commented that commonwealth universities (UK) don't have seals. Hope this info. is also helpful. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Esrever, I just posted my edit-conflicted info. without reading your thoughts. I wonder if the visual representation bit really requires that we use something that's more commonplace. My reasoning, in part, is that because this is an encyclopedia it's nice to have official seals etc. while I'm rarely if ever concerned about representing universities according to their logos used in marketing. The visual representation argument sounds to me like it's marketing-centric although I could be wrong. Esrever, I'd love to hear more about your opinion that using a seal/coat of arms in conjunction with a logo is a fair-use violation. Should we go back to the days of putting a campus pic at the top and a logo at the bottom in that case? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My complaint generally about lots of institutions is that including two non-free images that serve the same purpose (i.e., identifying an institution with a university-created image) is a violation of the non-free content criteria. Look at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article, for example. The seal at the top and the logo at the bottom both serve the exact same purpose in the article: they're identifying UNC-Chapel Hill. No critical commentary is being provided, no one's discussing historical implications; they're just decoration. By and large I'm fine with decoration, even non-free decoration, but the NFCCs specifically say that only one image should be used in such cases. I have no problem with the athletic logos generally, since they serve to identify university teams, which is a horse of a different color. But there's no valid reason to have both a seal and a logo in an article. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all UK universities do have coats of arms, shields and seals (and I suspect many other Commonwealth universities do because of the common origins), but they vary wildly in how far these are actually used - some incorporate them into the logo used on a day to day basis (e.g. the University of Oxford), others only use them on degree certificates and other formal stuff with students able to go their entire time at university without seeing them (e.g. the University of Kent). This has created some minor inconsistencies and occasional slow edit wars on UK university infoboxes over whether which way round the logo and heraldry are displayed. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly something worth discussing; we either choose standardization among the articles as our primary goal, or we select a more well-known symbol of the university for the infobox. I would have to say I err on the side of standardization; in the event that a university does not possess a seal, its logo would take precedence and nothing would appear at the bottom of the infobox. What constitutes the appropriate logo to use or image to use to represent a college is much murkier territory than selecting the emblem that occupies the position of highest importance in the institution's identity. This would most often be the seal, but can also be a logo.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) One other thing, in response to ElKevbo's noting that the infobox image is intended to present readers with a way of quickly and easily identifying the institution. Keep in mind that most American universities are known not by their academic seals or even their logos, but by, you guessed it, their big, chunky "college-font" sports team logos.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo and Esrever and support the view that seals are not necessarily the most adequate choice to put at the top of the infobox. Regarding the standardization issue, the current guidelines are already inadequate in this respect, since they say "seal or coat of arms", without giving preference to any one in particular. Given the inevitable variations among the world's universities, I think full standardization is hard to achieve any way. Now, I would like to comment on inquietudeofcharacter's observation that using something other than the seal on the basis of a visual representation argument is market-centric. I disagree with this view, and I don't think that the fact that this is an encyclopedia supports the use of seals in any way. Arguing in this way presupposes that seals are "official" while anything else is "marketing", and that an encyclopedia should favor official symbols rather than marketing symbols. But I do not think that this view is accurate, since it fails to account for several details. First, it's not like the seal is the most important symbol that represents the University. It is just an official symbol that, among all, represents the Board of Trustees or Corporation, which governs the University. This is very different from representing the University itself. To make an analogy, consider countries instead of universities. What is most appropriate to put in an infobox: the flag of the country, or the official seal of the Government of the country? I contend that if articles put only the seal and not the flag, the encyclopedia would not be doing a huge favor to its readers. Second, it's not like shields or logos are unofficial and nothing more than marketing instruments. They are also very important symbols of a university's identity. AniRaptor2001 makes an important distinction between selecting a general emblem for universities, and choosing what this emblem is in particular instances. But even here, I disagree that the seal should be chosen as "the emblem that occupies the position of highest importance in the institution's identity". After all, identity is a huge word here, and for the same reasons, I don't think the seal is the most appropriate symbol, identity-wise. In summary, my proposition is the following: let the guidelines state "preferably with an image of the institution's seal, shield, or coat of arms", and leave it to each institution to decide which symbol is the most appropriate. I believe this will allow for decent standardization, while avoiding the issue of people using the guidelines to justify choosing a symbol for a particular University which is not deemed the most appropriate by the university community. Both standardization and representation are pretty important, and I don't think that "this is an encyclopedia" is a strong argument for favoring officialness over representation.Horowitz00 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority in that I'd like to see the seals emphasized over whatever logo-du-jour was developed and focus group tested by a marketing company in the past 10 years. There's a reason why these images go on diplomas and other essential documents instead of the post-modern splashes of abstract color and shape: they're intended to be the immutable symbols of the university. I don't think our criteria should be "what is most recognizable" but rather "what is most encyclopedic". I guess I'm coming across as a curmudgeonly crank with this conservative interpretation, but to the issues of precedent, standardization, and encyclopedic style, I much prefer seals to logos. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, yes, and that reason is purely legal certification. Further, I don't think the discussion is about logo vs. seal, but about seal vs. other things. What I was arguing for in the Penn case, was to use the shield, which is not a logo at all. The shields are usually as old or even older than the seal, and I think they are at least as immutable as the seals, which are also open to change if the Corporation so desires. The shields of any Ivy League institution have not changed, as far as I'm aware, since the founding date, and they were not designed by a marketing committee. They are also not postmodern, but on the contrary. In fact, if you look at a Penn Diploma, you will see that it contains both the shield and the seal. Example: http://www.diplomaframe.com/images/full/35440.jpg. This just supports the importance of the shield. Further, some Diplomas don't even have either, so the argument that "the seal appears on Diplomas" is not even definitive. See, for example, Yale University's Diploma: http://www.diplomaframe.com/images/full/88649.jpg. I don't see why seals are more immutable than shields. They're equally immutable. I agree with you if we were actually considering logos, but I think you're confusing shields/coat of arms with logos. Even with your criteria of "what is most encyclopedic", I contend that the seal is not necessarily the most encyclopedic - see my country analogy.Horowitz00 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like we have some varying opinions here... let me know if this is an accurate summary, and I'll change whatever isn't...

• Horowitz is a Penn alumnus and comes from the Penn discussion saying that seals should be supplanted by coats of arms if the latter is used more often, correct?
• I guess that I'm of the Madcoverboy school of thought and consider seals to be the "most encyclopedic", something like the highest or most official level of representation (aside from marketing).
• Esrever says that we shouldn't use both seals and logos because it violates fair use to represent the school with both.
• ElKevbo thinks that we should use what's most commonly representative of the institution, although I'm most confused by that opinion because you were initially supportive of adopting the current version of the guidelines.

We don't seem to have too much consensus here, other than the fact that the current guidelines are inadequate. I admit that I should've done a better job writing the guideline, and now it seems that the commonwealth universities comment from who-knows-when wasn't even accurate. So where do we go from here? Honestly, I could live with just about anything if the argument is cogent...

• Should we require that the main infobox image be the college/university administration building and then place the logo at the bottom?
• Should we require seal and logo, but swap out seal for coat of arms if an institution has one?
• Should we do away with the official symbols altogether and only use logos?

I really don't like the idea of only using logos, and I'd like to think it was moved to a lower parameter in the infobox because we didn't want to look like a college/university guidebook. The seal makes sense to me because it's the most official and legal representation of the institution, but not necessarily official in the marketing sense, and I thought that having the shield in the logo at Penn's article was a good compromise for using both -- but what do I know? Clearly, we can't make this decision just based on Penn but need to take everything into account, and I'm not eager to base my arguments off either a diploma frames website or too much more OR. How do we all feel about the idea of using campus photos for the main {{Infobox university}} image, just like at {{Infobox settlement}}? It feels like a rather outside-the-box suggestion, so I'm curious to see what people think (other than the fact that we'd need to do a lot of editing to re-standardise). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

inquietudeofcharacter, I agree with your summarization of my posture. I basically contend that seals and coat of arms are roughly equally official and encyclopedic, and that you should not restrict the choice to one of them. So far I haven't heard a strong argument that supports seals more than shields. I think solution (2) among the three that you provide is the most sensible. Basically, allow both for an "official" symbol (either seal or shield/coat of arms) and a logo. If this violates fair use as Esrever suggests (I really have no idea about that), then remove the logo and leave one official symbol, and let it be the seal or the coat of arms, without prescribing one, because some institutions will inevitably disagree with that prescription. I really don't like your idea of putting a campus picture in the infobox. I would consider this to be the most uncyclopedic of all. And regarding the Diploma frames web site: I only used that to counter the argument of "there's a reason why seals are on Diplomas" used by seal supporters to favor seals, by showing that not all diplomas have seals and that some diplomas also have shields. This can be easily verified on a real, authentic Diploma if you prefer. Horowitz00 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the input, Horowitz. I clearly disagree with the strength of the argument, but I value your opinion (I also have some other comments about the diploma frames, but won't get into that unless it becomes necessary). Esrever's fair use argument does make things interesting, but nothing would be violated if we used the combination of a copyrighted symbol and a campus image, which is one of the reasons why I suggested it. Some smaller, less-frequented articles I've come across do this, in fact, and cities to arrange their infoboxes this way (you offered a country analogy, Horowitz, and it make me think of settlement infoboxes). I'd argue that, while it may not be more encyclopedic than the use of official seals and arms, it's far more encyclopedic than the use of marketing logos and similar branding. Anyway, I'll shut up for now because I'd really like to hear everyone else's thoughts. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the idea of having a campus image as the infobox picture; the choice of the picture would be a point of contention, most campuses aren't terribly distinct from one another, and in terms of recognition, an official symbol does a much better job.— DroEsperanto (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but do any others' have thoughts and opinions to share? Has this discussion gone stale already and what does that mean for our contested guideline? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Common names / nicknames

The guidelines state, "Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal) and bold them, too." Such common names are helpful to readers so long as they are meaningful, i.e., reasonably known to the general public to refer to that particular institution. I know that Cal refers to a school in Berkley, CA and that UNC means the University of North Carolina. We now have editors arguing that "The U" should be included as a common name. I believe that "The U" is like the pronoun "it." Both are so ambiguous that they have no meaning unless its antecedent or context is clear from the conversation or discussion. If a student travels to a different state and is asked, "Where do you attend college?" he or she is not apt to answer "The U," because there are dozens of universities that could be called "The U." Perhaps we should change the guideline to read "Give other names for which the university may be widely known beyond its campus (e.g. Cal) and bold them too." The fact that a local website or a local newspaper uses a particular nickname like "The U" after establishing a context should not be sufficient support inclusion of a nickname in the article. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the discussion is not going your way on the other Talk pages, Racepacket, but please don't forum shop. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Many branches

Webster University has many, many branches. All are listed, probably by an insider, in the article. While the university is most likely "notable" for its ubiquity, I wonder about listing them all. I would appreciate suggestions. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Article naming conventions for departments

I'm looking at a number of the recent article moves by User:For Loop and trying to figure out what the standard should be. For example, he moved Department of Business Management, University of Calcutta to Department of Business Management of the University of Calcutta. That one doesn't sound so bad, but he also moved Institute of Business Management, Jadavpur University to Institute of Business Management of the Jadavpur University. That one in particular grammatically doesn't make sense. This is a user who has previously received warnings for disruptive moves to grammatically incorrect titles. (For Loop, Sita manu, and MikeDogma are all the same user.) Is this just more of the same game that he's played before, or is this actually correct, at least for the University of Calcutta? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Amend Guidelines for Nicknames

The instructions for the lead paragraph state, "Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal) and bold them, too." I propose that we change this to "Give other names for which the university may be known to the general public (e.g. Cal) and bold them, too." Several dispute have arisen over what are appropriate to list. For example, both the University of Miami and Miami University claim "Miami", but MU does not list it in its lead. Both the University of Miami and the University of Minnesota list "The U." I am concerned that it is confusing to the reader if a number of abbreviations are listed in bold in the first sentence, particularly if the University is then inconsistently abbreviated in the remainder of the article. We all know that institutional names get abbreviated, so it is not a valuable fact to report. If there is a compelling reason to document the nickname aspect of popular campus culture, it is best done somewhere outside the lead paragraph. In contrast, a well know abbreviation should be put in parenthesis in the first sentence and then used in the remainder of the article.

Heated discussions can be found at: Talk:U of M, The U, The U, The U, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U (University of Miami). I propose that we learn from all of this, and come up with some guidance that will avoid these debates in the future. Personally, I don't think that exhaustively documenting college nicknames is a useful endeavor that is helpful to the reader. The cost to confusing the reader and debating among college partisans outweighs the benefit of including locally-known or ambiguous nicknames/abbreviations in the lead sentence or paragraph. Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in this project

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Neutral_point_of_view says "Do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and provide undue weight and emphasis to only a few publications' rankings or methodologies."

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Article_structure, especially the Lead portion, says "Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics."

The contradiction is wrt whether rankings should or should not be included in the lead? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Both quoted parts state that rankings should not be included in the lead.— DroEsperanto (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DroEsperanto. Well no. In fact, not at all. While the first part says "Do not use rankings in the lead", the second part says "Do not give inappropriate weight to rankings." In other words, the second part says, mention rankings, but without giving inappropriate weight. I'll wait for suggestions. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that given the first part, "due weight" for rankings in the lead would be "not at all" or at least "very very little" (Duke University, a FA, has a bit about rankings in the lead, but only because it has an entire section about rankings, which I'm ambivalent about, but I digress). I think the purpose of parenthetically including rankings in that second sentence you quoted is to emphasize that rankings are one thing that are often given far too much weight in the lead, not a suggestion to include it. If you'd like you can change the language of that statement to be less ambiguous, but personally I don't see it as an invitation to include rankings in the lead. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To maintain integrity I would hope that the "due weight" clause would be dropped. Vaguely summarizing that it is a "leading college" is worse than mentioning specifics IMO. I would rather see facts than mere WP:BOOSTER summaries. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that flagrant boosterism is bad, which is already stated in the guidelines. Not sure how the "due weight" clause supports that, though. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have two suggested choices -

• 1. We could write clearly in both parts that the article "should not mention rankings in the lead".

• 2. We could write clearly in both parts that the article "should mention rankings in the lead ensuring that only the appropriate weight is given with respect to factually stating the overall rank, avoiding boosterism, and ensuring that the appropriate weight be decided based on consensus."

How do you find these suggestions? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Great to pin it down definitely. My choice #1 would be more emphatic: "Must not mention nor allude to indirectly" or somesuch. I'm trying to avoid the misused "highly ranked" type phrase that we've all seen.

The second might include (what should be uncessary) "from WP:RELY sources" so that no one could weasel out with some local guide or other.

Good idea! Student7 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree. I think rankings are fine to include in the lead, so long as undue weight isn't given. As already noted, giving specifics is better than just "a leading university". Esrever ^(klaT) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Esrever, although I am with you on this, I'd look forward to a few more comments from others before moving ahead on any change.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. As I see no more discussions, I'll make the relevant change, that is, write that rankings are fine to be included in the lead. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

notability of non-accredited and non-degree granting institutions

My understanding was that non-accredited institutions (or institutions without a recognized accreditation) were not automatically assumed notable, and required significant coverage in non-trivial, third party sources, even more so if the school did not grant degrees. I've now participated in multiple AfD discussions where I was essentially told accreditation is no longer a factor, and if anyone calls themselves a school, even without legal or accreditation basis, they are notable. When and why did this policy change? 2 says you, says two 12:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It has appeared to me, based on your comments in the recent AfDs you refer to (Heartland Baptist Bible College, Elim Bible Institute, and UNVA), that you would prefer that Wikipedia not have any articles about unaccredited institutions. I am not aware that Wikipedia ever had a policy against articles on unaccredited schools. Furthermore, you have not been told that "if anyone calls themselves a school, even without legal or accreditation basis, they are notable."

My understanding is that the general notability guideline applies here, except that institutions that are documented (by the accreditor or a government agency) to be accredited by a recognized accreditor generally get a "bye" (i.e., they are presumed notable) for essentially the same reasons that high schools are generally presumed notable. Articles about unaccredited schools (I've worked on a lot of these) should be created only when there is 3rd-party documentation that substantiates the school's notability and enough sourced information (which often includes information from the institution, same as with an accredited school) to use as the basis for an independent article. Note that the general notability guideline does not require that the topic have been the subject of a comprehensive focused profile in a top-tier publication ("significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"); when multiple independent sources have covered different aspects of the institution, that should suffice. Sometimes the third-party-sourced content about unaccredited schools consists of news media reports about scandals or controversies associated with their unaccredited status. Somewhat ironically, the existence of that kind of coverage sometimes makes it easier to document "notability" for an out-and-out scam than for an apparently legitimate religious school (like Heartland Baptist Bible College or Elim Bible Institute) that eschews accreditation because accreditation is viewed as an unwanted entanglement with secular government.

Contrary to your assertion that you have been told "if anyone calls themselves a school, even without legal or accreditation basis, they are notable," there are myriad unaccredited institutions that don't have articles, in many cases because Wikipedians have not located sufficient 3rd-party documentation to substantiate their notability (or sufficient information to write an independent article). The ones that have articles generally are better documented than the ones that are merely included on that list. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I see it, the notability of any actual degree granting institution, with a real existence, is unquestionably appropriate for an article--accredited or no. The difficulty comes with non-accredited ones that it is sometimes not possible to demonstrate real existence--this is particularly difficulty for non-accreddited online-only schools.

For those that do not grant the equivalent of a US bachelors or associates degree, but only a certificate, they have not been considered automatically notable, whether or not accredited. Most of the accredited ones are,and I think that if it is a recognized accreditation, including one from an established trade association, they should get an article. For the ones that are not accredited, there is usually a considerable difficulty in demonstrating real existence, and even with real existence, impossible to determine that they are necessarily of any significance whatsoever. I tend to be rather skeptical with these.

For the sort of Bible colleges that often come to AfD, which are typically schools that as a matter of principle do not desire accreditation, I do not consider their lack of accreditation a factor at all.

Contrary though to Orlady, I regard most of the schools on the list linked to as quite suitable for WP articles. Some have been deleted, but I think those need to be revisited--it is very possible that there is not consensus on this point, though naturally I regard my own view as the one which ought to have consensus. But one thing I think we all do agree on, that meeting WP:V is critical. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL regarding that "contrary to Orlady" comment. After "losing" some AfDs over diploma mill articles, I have reconciled myself to the idea that it's not worth the trouble to try to generate articles for every one of them. Anyway, diploma mills appear and disappear with great regularity, making it hard even to maintain a current list. Still, I'd be inclined to revisit several of these; candidates include American University of Hawaii, Canbourne University, University of Berkley, and World Information Distributed University. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• So I was the one who noted that an institution is probably more high profile than a high school in the initial of the three AfD's listed. That wasn't a statement that V wasn't important, but rather that V would be met appropriately with sufficient searching. In each of the three cases Orlady cites, the AfD's were kept (or are in the process of being kept) not because of some "inherently notable" standard, but because they are covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment about relating to "anyone setting up a school" (which I'll put out there was actually something I inferred from someone else's comment) comes from an earlier AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California School of Law that I had forgotten about, but I believe this was ultimately deleted due to failing the WP:V threshold. I disagree with your assertion that I argued unaccredited institutions have no place on Wikipedia, my point is that unaccredited school should not automatically receive an article, irrespective of whether they grant degrees or not. I was never making a blanket argument against Bible colleges or any unaccredited institution that have documented coverage in print or online soucres. 2 says you, says two 03:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Accredited" universities?

A recent change narrowed down the notability guideline so that instead of it saying "all colleges and universities are notable", it said "all accredited colleges and universities are notable". This seems to substantially change the scope of the statement to go from "all" to "accredited", so I thought I'd bring it up. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is one where there's a lot of international variation. Here in the UK the right of an institution to call itself a "university" is rigorously protected but anyone can start a "college" (the word has possibly the broadest definition going here) and I think accreditation of "colleges" is done on the basis of awards & qualifications (usually from recognised national boards or the relevant group in the sector) rather than by institution. A tiny little college teaching something like language courses isn't inherently notable IMHO. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that; interesting. I wonder what the implications are for a school like the notoriously unaccredited Pensacola Christian College. Does this mean that PCC gets an article because it's known for being super-conservative and unaccredited, not for being a college? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a significant change that should be discussed. I'm not yet sure what to think. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a "my bad" arising from a WP:BOLD edit apparently with a host of implications I hadn't considered. My intention was to not extent notability to institutions simply because they had the words college or university in their title. I thought that accreditation would be a fairly low bar to clear. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I happen to agree for the most part, although there are a number of religious schools that choose not to be accredited. I thought that the "all colleges and universities" was sufficient when it was paired with the caveat "this is an application of the general notability guide, not a replacement for it." Perhaps we could reword it to say "Generally, these articles are notable" along with the caveat. I just wouldn't want someone to try to delete all the pages in Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. — DroEsperanto (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to DroEsperanto's concerns, I'd also be worried that some people would want to delete an article if the school lost its accreditation or something. Perhaps we should include schools that have been accredited at one time, or keep the accreditation criterion and let articles on notable unaccredited schools remain for other reasons of notability (though I'm not sure what those might be -- I'm just thinking of the way that the various bio notability guidelines work). And what about defunct colleges? I thought the WikiProject wording had once been that "all colleges and universities are notable and should have articles" or something like that, and I've seen many fascinating articles on defunct schools. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there are always going to be edge conditions such as the aforementioned religious institutions. I simply don't want an astroturfer using the wording of this policy to defend an article about a degree mill. Perhaps a list of conditions such as being accredited, or being a member of a notable association (if these non-accredited religious colleges affiliate themselves thusly, although I see this getting into mucky territory of inherited notability), etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree re: the diploma mill issue. Perhaps we can include this accreditation clause, with the caveat that probation or revocation of accreditation from a formerly accredited institution would not be grounds for deletion. Furthermore, that unaccredited institutions such as Pensacola Christian (for lack of a better example) are probably notable for other reasons. That is, I'm sure their desire not to be accredited and their extremely conservative lifestyle gets enough press and would provide plenty of reliable sources for an article on its own merit. That last bit sounds more like the different notability guidelines for biographies in general vs. biographies of musicians, athletes, &c. Thoughts? And what about defunct schools? They obviously wouldn't be accredited, so how do we get around that? Are they just not notable to begin with? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary, so losing accreditation, merging, going bankrupt, etc. would still make them notable. Consider the Old University of Chicago and other Category:Defunct universities and colleges in the United States. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, and stupid of me to forget. Re: defunct institutions, though, even NEASC wasn't founded until 1885 (?) and it's the oldest regional accreditor in the U.S. So we would make exceptions for defunct institutions from before the days of accreditation (or at least before it was widespread -- Harvard wasn't even accredited by NEASC until 1929...)? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be stale, but in light of Madcoverboy's most recent, and excellent, point that notability isn't temporary, I'd be in favour of re-instituting the accreditation requirement, with the explanation that a) notability isn't temporary and can't be lost even after a school loses its accreditation, b) schools like Pensacola Christian may meet other, more general, notability guidelines, and c) defunct institutions may also be exempt. Thoughts, anyone? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly necessary. I think stating that, in general, colleges and universities are notable, but that this doesn't trump the GNG (perhaps with using the example of a nn diploma mill), is sufficient. I'd rather encourage diploma mill articles and then have them deleted than potentially discourage people from writing about unaccredited but notable institutions. — DroEsperanto (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that "accredited" should remain omitted. When I came across this guideline in July, and shared some thoughts above, it was before the pagemove to top-level projectspace. I'm not sure how I feel about promotion from individual WikiProject guideline to site-global Guideline, on the strength of a 2.5 day discussion with only 2 participants other than the proposer expressing preferences either way. The policies and guidelines existing not to bind but to help and inform concept aside though, it seems factors such as variations by country on government vs. disparate private accreditors, mandatory vs. voluntary accreditation, and genuine distance learning institutions that aren't diploma mills, dissuade from imposing an "accredited" requirement for inclusion on the encyclopedia. The general Notability guideline serves to meet cases for which the "accredited" clause is being proposed. –Whitehorse1 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think I've come around on this and the addition of "accredited" is unnecessary. (1) There are already a variety of other policy mechanisms to deal with articles about diploma mills, (2) my thinking was entirely too US-centric with regard to accreditation processes, and (3) there could be a host of unintended consequences for indisputably notable but unaccredited institutions. Nevertheless, I am still wary of the current wording which seems to automatically grant notability to any institution with the word college or university in it. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm fine either way. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "college/universitys" should not automatically get an article/notability. That would be WP:SPAM IMO, unless they have been around awhile to gain notability in the preferred ways, documented elsewhere. Student7 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Official Website in Infobox AND External Links Section?

An editor has challenged both this guideline and standard practice by insisting that there not be a link to an institution's official website in the External links section if such a link already appears in the infobox. WP:EL appears to be contradictory on this matter so I've raised the issue for discussion. Please join the discussion or at least keep an eye on it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability

[3]. --Demetrioscz (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would urge a more thought towards rewriting the section on notability. In my view, its a bad way to lead an essay, because it starts off with an argument that is essentially the same as WP:IKNOWIT. You would have thought that for a subject area such as universities there would be a greater understanding of the concept of notability: that it is based on sourcing, rather than a generalised rule such as "All universities and colleges are notable".

The reason I say this is that there is a whole swathe of institutions being created that have not yet reached maturity, and in terms of notability, probably don't register in terms of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Most of the editors here will probably be familiar with their own colleges that are well funded and have existed for decades if not hundreds of years. However, in the Third World, where the bulk of humanity lives, new institutions are being created (e.g.Category:India university stubs), some of them may never reach the level of notability that is presumed to exist in the West. It seems to me that this section needs to be qualified, and brought in line with WP:GNG, with perhaps a link to WP:SPAM which marks an important boundary between articles that contain information, rather than adformation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was impressed with the foregoing which seemed like a learned, well-presented discussion, so I read the "notability" subsection. Now I don't understand the objection. Could you "sketch out" not the actual language, but what you would say, informally, in a replacement paragraph? (The current paragraph seemed okay to me). Student7 (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture

We're told:

"University of X in popular culture" articles are generally not notable and should be integrated into the rest of the article.

The huge majority of articles are not notable. (The John Seigenthaler article is a rare and sorry exception.) I presume that what was intended was something like:

Material on "University of X in popular culture" is generally not notable and very few articles so titled (or similarly titled) should exist. Where such an article does exist, its noteworthy and reliably sourced content should normally be integrated into the body of the main article on the university (and not listed within any "In popular culture" or similar one section), and the pop culture article deleted.

However, others are more enthusiastic than I am about allusions in TV programs and so forth, so I hesitate to fiddle with this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as tv programs go, editors need to decide whether a tv program is more important than the university or vice versa. It would be hard, maybe impossible to come up with a tv program that would do justice (honor?) to Harvard or Oxford. But maybe the Community College of Midville would be quite flattered. Mentioning fictional stuff seems more WP:PR for the media, than being anything helpful for the article. The article is supposed to be factual. How does mentioning a work of fiction help that? (BTW I confess I have trouble with this as well, but every once in a while I get WP:BOLD and erase some or all. Let's face it - it is trivia in the worst sense!

Having said that, it is possible for someone to have a factual (documentary) about the college. Or a prize-winning fictional book, not just a run-of-the-mill one. And they must have articles, of course. And be footnoted as to content. And the mention can't be trivial. "As the hero was driving through Midville..." Come on!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

actually, I pretty much disagree with this guideline, as applies to major universities and colleges. I auspect it dates from a time when popular culture articles were not taken seriously. Some universities are very extensively covered by multiple films and books, and in many cases there shouldeven be unambiguous documentation discussing not just a particular work, but the coverage in general. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC) .

College papers and notability

I changed to text to a less dogmatic view. There is no policy or guideline in Wikipedia which says that substantial and independent in a respected and independent college newspaper absolutely cannot contribute to notability. I have seen no consensus in previous discussions of what is a "reliable source" and what is "independent" to justify the blanket statement which someone placed in this essay. Some such papers have independent editorial boards, identified articles, and editorial review of content, and may be considered as independent and reliable a source as a general circulation newspaper in a town of comparable size. There are others which are merely a house organ of the college administration and which exist to promote the college and its activities uncritically. A given source must be judged on its own merits, and such a blanket condemnation is inappropriate. Edison (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter how independent a college newspaper is, they are necessarily not third party organizations: their raison d'être is to cover university-specific topics which are not sufficiently notable for traditional news organizations to cover (e.g., student body politics, sports coverage, etc.). As such, they cannot be used to establish notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking notability in general or of stuff relating to their school? If it's the latter, I'd agree with MCB. But I think that college newspapers (at least some of them) can be used to establish notability for non-related things. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree in toto with Edison. Agree in toto with the changes Edison's made. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We are always assuming here that there is a) a conflict in facts or b) poor WP:RELY for a large number of facts. I think in the latter case, material needs to be tagged and argued out. In the first case, I would think that an outside ref is needed. College papers are trying to sell themselves and often have an inflammatory approach to any topic. They need readers. We're not talking Law Journal here. Like the evening news, listeners/readers come to the article with the idea that this ruling by the Dean/or whoever, is the end of the world as they know it. The rest of us yawn! Most colleges papers are well down on my list when real facts and perspective are needed. "In two years, who will even remember this...?" Student7 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC says regarding notability: "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." Some college papers are silly rags, others do notable and independent journalism. I would argue for case-by-case basis. Would a series of in depth coverages about a musical or drama group in a small town, exclusively in the local paper and local TV station, make the article about them a speedy keep? We do not know what relationship might exist between the principals of the local group and the publisher, or how much local boosterism motivates the publisher. Edison (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Individual student organizations

We are having a difficult problem regarding an organization at Cornell University and can use some help and guidance. Historically, Cornell had a number of "literary societies" in the 1868-1888 time frame. These were a combination of debate clubs and toastmasters. Some of us read the sources as saying that one of these societies terminated in 1887. A group of editors (perhaps with a connection to the local chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity) claim that Phi Kappa Psi "absorbed" the society, and created The Irving Literary Society. They furthered added links to that Wikipedia article on the fraternity website to lend credibility to their claim. The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society in May and the article was userfied. On October 1 it was restored at Deletion Review. I then moved the article to Cornell literary societies and removed any claims of linkage between Irving and Phi Kappa Psi. The other editors recreated the Irving article by cut-and-paste creating a POV-fork. I have some specific questions:

• Under WP:ORG, individual chapters of national fraternities are not entitled to separate articles. If the independent secondary coverage is more than a hundred years old and may not even be the same organization, how do we go about enforcing the policy?
• When an organization makes claims that certain notable people are members of that organization, what documentation/sources are required to back up the claim? (In this case claims extend to Thorsten Veblen and John F. Kennedy, Jr.) I can understand how independent secondary sources may not cover a speaker being offered an "honorary membership" in a group as part of delivering a speech to that group. However, I am troubled that an undergraduate organization claim "honorary members" who are long-dead and can't refute the claim. Should Wikipedia even include list of "honorary" members of an undergraduate group whose only connection to the group is giving a speach?
• Perhaps we should tighten up our notabiity standards for student groups. It is very strange that the current Cornell Debate Association, which is opened to all students and has activities open to the public is ineligible for separate coverage while a second group, claiming an undocumented link to an earlier debate association that disbanded in 1887, is not open to non-members of a particular fraternity, and conducts secret events, would be eligible for separate coverage.
• I have problems with coverage of secret groups because of reliable coverage and reliable sources. The sources I have seen indicate that an organization ended in 1887, but two editors, implying access to internal documents, have the opposite view. Absent some national renown, like Skull and Bones, Wikipedia should be very reluctant to cover secret societies, because we can't offer reliable, balanced coverage.
• It is very difficult dealing with new editors who main purpose is to publicize a specific student organization via Wikipedia. We are trying to walk a fine line between being welcoming and protecting our credibility.
• I was very surprized that Deletion Review considered the matter without notifying WikiProject Cornell or this wikiproject. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Is it acceptable to list all people who have been awarded an honorary degree by any given university/college? It seems to be excessive to me and to be a list that, in most cases, will never stop growing. I do realise that most recipients of honorary degrees will probably already meet WP:GNG but if these things are to be noted anywhere I would have thought it better that they be recognised in the article for the person rather than the institution. Views would be appreciated, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It is excessive and wrong. They did not earn the degree. They did not derive their notability by getting a degree from college x. Quite the reverse. College x bribed them to give a speech in order to derive notability from them. The insertion of (say) President Bush 41 getting an honorary Doctorate in Laws from College Y is non-WP:TOPIC for Y. Definitely meaningless for the Bush biography.

An exception might be made for someone with no degree. Like degree-less Grandma Moses getting a honorary doctorate in Arts from someplace if that was the only place that ever gave her one. But usually just WP:PEACOCK for College X. Having said that, it might be okay to list Bush along with other past commencement speakers. Just not the degree which is basically trivia. Student7 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Student7 said, it seems to me that names of commencement speakers are generally nonencyclopedic trivia, except in rare instances where there was something noteworthy about the speech or the event -- for example, the speeches by Winston Churchill and Mikhail Gorbachev at Westminster College (Missouri). --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, lists of honorary degrees should not be included in the university article, it's trivia and WP:PEACOCK Reg porter (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alumni

A query about alumni, irrespective of whether they're in paragraph form or as a categorised list.

As far as I am concerned, no-one should be called an alumnus of an institution unless they saw their participation through, which in the case of university students would usually mean that they graduated. I do understand that the term is sometimes used in other contexts (just "being there", as the WP article on the subject explains) but if anyone knows of any discussion regarding this in relation to universities then I'd be grateful for a pointer. I've seen an example of a student who did one year at a university, moved to another university & did one year there and then dropped out of education altogether - and has been claimed as an alumnus by both universities, which seems like madness to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. An alumnus need only attend, not graduate (and therefore can be an alumnus of many schools, IF notable). Note that even a current attendee can be construed as an alumnae. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alumna. Student7 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I did mention the broad scope of the WP article on the subject and you are correct if that article is taken as a baseline. Obviously, your stress on notability is essential and probably there should be no person listed as an alumnus of anywhere who does not already have an article on WP in their own right. I just feel that in the narrow view of university articles, rather than a broad dictionary definition, it does (or will) tend to lead to relatively specious associative connections being made. And probably claims which only cast a good light on the institution concerned because I suspect it is a fairly common perception that most of these articles are heavily edited by current students etc who want to "big up" their current residence etc. I understand this tendency - I probably would do the same myself if I was still at university - but it does not necessarily make for encyclopedic coverage.

I'm probably completely wrong in what I think, which is why I value your contribution as I hope to achieve a consensus one way or the other. To aid that, I'll try not to post any more comments under this heading and just let the community take its natural course of decision-making. Again, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In U.S. usage, "alumni" and related nouns most commonly refer to anyone who ever attended the school, not just graduates. This dictionary webpage describes that definition and notes that some other English-speaking countries have terms like "old boy" that apply to former students. However, the "old boy" terminology is not seen in the U.S. Another standard U.S. dictionary definition is that of Merriam-Webster, which includes the words "has attended or has graduated" [4] For Wikipedia articles about U.S. universities, the term "alumni" should not be restricted to graduates, but may include any former student. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there isn't a clear cut method to distinguish between versions of attendance:

• In past centuries it was not uncommon for people to do a full course of study at an institution but not actually go through the formal process of graduating and/or taking out a degree without this posing a problem or else they might take it out later on in life - for instance A. P. Herbert studied law at Oxford before the First World War and qualified as a barrister just afterwards (although he never practised) but didn't actually formally take his degree until 1936 when he had just been elected as a Member of Parliament for the university. Herbert's case is sourceable through his memoirs because of later events in his life, but for a great many people the specifics of whether they were actually conferred a degree and their formal standing in the university afterwards are not very well recorded at all because few people see the need to check the distinction and it made no noticeable difference in their life thereafter.
• Then there's the problem of non-degree courses. I myself studied at one institution and completed an award there but it's not a degree and the word "graduation" has never been used in connection with my completion and the ceremony held. I honestly don't know if it's technically correct or not to say I'm a "graduate" of the institution, but I am certainly considered an alumnus by the institution, not least because I was able to vote in the election of the alumni rep on the institution's council.
• And there are cases of people who abandoned their studies early for one reason or another but nevertheless for whom it seems strange to arbitrarily declare non-alumni. Harold Macmillan studied for two years at Oxford before going to fight in the war, but afterwards refused to return as he felt the atmosphere could never be the same with so many of his year now dead. Later in life he served as the university's Chancellor. It would feel odd to remove him from lists of alumni and he's far from a unique case.
• There's a particular mess with adjunct institutions and continuing education/extra mural/extension departments where it's not always clear whether or not someone is or isn't a "member" of the university and thus an alumnus afterwards - at an extreme Jeffrey Archer's precise status in his Oxford days was murky even at the time - see [5] for a bit of this.
• And of course for a lot of people the details of their time at university are so poorly sourced and/or they're not subject to the level of scrutiny of Archer so it's impossible to tell whether or not somebody was a graduate or if they meet some other arbitrary rule of inclusion/exclusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We've used the term "alumni" in the past. Perhaps "Notable attendees" would be more appropriate. Anyway, I haven't been able to keep notable professors out of the articles I am watching. Most of them never attended. So "notables" like for place articles might be more useful and generally understood. We don't want to use separate criteria for inclusion among schools in various countries due to a difference in definition of one word. Macmillan being an excellent example. Student7 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Notable attendees" does sound more appropriate given the points raised above. Could I ask people to consider this essay, which sort of addresses a similar situation with regard to cities/towns etc. I realise that it is an essay but the points seem to me quite reasonable and perhaps could be applicable here. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What not to cite section?

Hello again! Has this project considered the possibility of adding a section to the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines regarding a list of unusable sources? I've been working on Wesleyan for some time now regarding a large number of poor citations (some irrelevant, some violations of your policy on self citing) and came to discover that Stateuniversity.com is a known Wikipedia mirror and that it may not be cited per Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. I've removed it from Wesleyan University and confirmed that it isn't in any other colleges and universities in Connecticut, but is in over 100 other articles on the 'pedia. I'm also thinking that insidecollege.com is also a bad reference as it does not attribute its data -- it's all anonymous polls and paid entries. Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Organisation and administration section, UK

I'd appreciate comments on what should go in this section for UK universities. Can we make the current guidelines a bit less US-centric? UK universities nearly all have the same structure. The UK universities are established by Royal Charter. The date when they got the charter and full university status should be mentioned in the history section. They all have a Senate or a Board of Governors, consisting of bigwigs plus student and faculty reps. This is not very interesting information, IMHO. We certainly do not want to list all Senate members. They virtually all have a Chancellor and a Vice-Chancellor - these people should be named somewhere in the article. There is consensus that "public university" does not apply, although they are closer to US public universities than any other kind of US university. "Student government" does not really apply; they all or nearly all have a student union whose activities form the backbone of the Student life section, but it is not part of the university government.

What I say above does not apply to the single non-profit "private" university or the tiny number of for-profits. I can see that in the case of the collegiate universities that structure needs explaining, thus the section is easier to populate. But in the case of most universities there is not much to populate the section, that would not be true of nearly all UK universities. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fictional alumni

Some articles include fictional alumni, i.e., characters in a film or book. Has a consensus been reached earlier to include these characters in the "Noted people" section? I couldn't find a discussion on this. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't recall any such consensus. Wifione ^Message 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to include these in a separate section on the university in literature/media. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Law School article sections and subsections: employment rates, student debt

Recently different law school articles are featuring/sprouting sections about post-graduation student debt and employment rates. See, for example: University of La Verne College of Law and/or California Western School of Law. This raises some questions:

• Are other university or professional school articles showing such sections?
• If not, should they?
• If they should not, then should law school articles alone contain such sections?
• If such sections are acceptable (for law schools or in general), where and how in the article structure should such info be presented?
• If such sections are not acceptable, is such information (as opposed to sections) acceptable in university or professional school articles?
• If such information is not acceptable, can we develop a guideline which clarifies the use of such information?

Comments are welcome.--S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that indebtedness information can be included, but certainly not as a stand alone section. Unless there's a notable controversy about student debt specific to that school, the number is not of interest enough to be in it's own section. Perhaps it can be included as part of an overall section explaining financial aid or costs at the college. As for employment, it would need to be properly sourced, which seems less likely. DavidSSabb (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

David's comment about student debt is well taken. While this discussion did not go very far, I'd like to revive the issue of post-graduation employment. Seems that such data quickly becomes dated as the economy fluctuates. The edits I've seen (recently) in law school articles are citing particular post-graduation employment rates for recent graduating classes. Such data is certainly subject to aging. That is, if the class of '12 has a post-graduation employment rate in 2012, what is the rate for 2013? And how about the class of '11, '10, '09, etc.? Those rates will differ year by year and class by class – should those class employment rates be included? I suggest (and propose) that Project guidance be modified to specifically exclude article sections with such data. (BTW, I think I'll post a RfC to this discussion (or a new section).) – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Arizona State University

Hi all. I'm hoping any interested editors might swing by Arizona State University to help settle something. Recently, we've had a new editor show up who's been throwing in vague poorly-supported info in the lede of the article, often claiming things like "common knowledge." He/she is also in the habit of reverting any changes made to his/her additions. (For example: a current debate (on the talk page here) revolves around the definition of a "metropolitan university." If any of you are horribly bored and want to chime in, it would be appreciated. -Nick^talk 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discouraging "In popular culture" sections

The guidelines currently have a paragraph discouraging separate "In popular culture" sub-articles but I propose extending that discouragement to "In popular culture" sections in main college and university articles. The issues are the same and the reasons to discourage sub-articles are the same reasons to discourage sections: In most cases, the sections are Wikipedia-editor selected examples of links the college or university has to popular culture. The links are often tenuous and it's rare that any sources are provided that synthesize and discuss the role the college or university has played in popular culture. Without such sources, the section is pure original research which violates one of our core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree. However, a few universities are frequently referred to in books, films, etc. and sometimes that is a notable topic in its own right. List of fictional Oxford colleges for example. This doesn't apply to the majority of institutions. "Cultural references" is a better section heading. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging "Controversies" sections

I propose adding something to these guidelines explicitly discouraging separate sections in articles dedicated solely to "Controversies" (similar to the advice here). Too often, those sections become dumping grounds for trivial events that have little or nothing to do with the college or university and have no lasting impact. When there are important controversies of lasting importance, they should be integrated into the article in the appropriate section that provides readers with useful context. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Controversies do not flow in other sections like "academics", "athletics" etc, so important controversies would likely either not get added at all, or would be at risk for being deleted for being in the "wrong section". Seems more appropriate response to such concerns would be to discourage addition of trivial events, while including controversies sections but encouraging inclusion of meaningful controversies of lasting impact. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree. History may be the default location for a controversy but others would fit into Campus, Student life or other sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversies can be fairly recent, so I’m not sure “History” is the best fit either. I suppose such content could often be moved to a new subsection under “History” called “Notable Events in Recent History”, but I still think a better approach is simply to leave the “Controversies” sections while discouraging trivial content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be fairly unusual for there to be a genuine controversy of lasting importance that wouldn't fit into one of the recommended sections that describe areas central and common to most colleges and universities e.g., faculty, research, student life. Can you provide any examples of controversies that wouldn't fit into those sections? ElKevbo (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agreed that content in controversies sections could be included as recent history, but think that doesn’t solve problem of trivial content, which is why I think trivial content in general should be discouraged, instead of entire sections.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging mission statements

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines has an NPOV section in which it states "Avoid mission statements and goals. They are generally promotional." This seems as true for Universities as it is for schools, and I'd like to see something similar in these guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – duh, the mission of any school is to educate students. (Eye whent too a reel gud skule. Deyir mison statment inkluded "Produce good speellers." But I didn't graduate.) No need to repeat that same fact no matter how artfully it is presented. – S. Rich (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Style discussion underway

FYI

 – MOS discussion related to this page

A discussion about the style of the academic course names is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Names of academic courses. Ibadibam (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Article title in native language

WP:ENGLISH would favor names in English, but I've seen many WP articles about international universities titled as per their native language, e.g., École nationale de l'aviation civile, Université de Montréal. Any guidelines here, please? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't so much that we favor names in English... it's that we favor whatever names that appear in English Language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME). It may be a cultural bias in the English Speaking world, but it is not that uncommon for English Language sources to present the names of French institutions in French. It much rarer with names of institutions in other languages (for example a Czech University... English Language sources almost always translate their Czech names into English). Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section of Pepperdine University article

A discussion is underway in the Talk page of Pepperdine University regarding the article's "In popular culture" section. Input from interested editors would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Académie Julian

Their is on ongoing dispute concerning Académie Julian. The issues concern whether lists of faculty and alumni should be in the main article or in a separate list article, and whether these lists should include names that are incompletely sourced and red-linked, please see Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. We have already received a Wikipedia:Third opinion but this has not resolved the matter. Please review the issues raised and help us to reach a consensus. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

greek system

re Wikipedia:College and university article advice#Student_life, does the project have a position on summarizing vs itemizing houses within the greek system, such as this edit? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from old names?

Not sure where to start discussion on this. Is there any guide to whether redirects should be created for former names of a College/University. For example, to create Frostburg State College as a redirect to Frostburg State University. If so, should a redirect category be created for this?Naraht (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created several redirects of this type. I have not encountered a guide, but my practice is to always create redirects for well-established related names. I aim to use the following templates (these populate the redirect categories):

• Official former names, {{R from former name}} or possibly {{R from historic name}}
• Short-form and long-form names that do not match the article title, {{R from alternative name}}
• Well-established unofficial names and common erroneous names, {{R from incorrect name}}.
• Predecessor institutions that were merged into the target institution, {{R from former name}}{{R with possibilities}}
• Subsidiary institutions (e.g. a medical school redirecting to its parent university), {{R from subtopic}}{{R with possibilities}}
• Spin-off institutions that are now independent but do not have a separate article, {{R to related topic}}{{R with possibilities}}

With your example, if Frostburg State College was simply renamed as Frostburg State University then create a redirect using {{R from former name}}. If Frostburg State College merged with other colleges to form Frostburg State University then make redirects for each with {{R from former name}} and {{R with possibilities}}, as the old colleges were different institutions which might merit separate articles.

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ranking notability

When is a ranking notable enough to include? Must it have a secondary source reporting on the ranking in general, a secondary source reporting on the ranking being applied to that specific university, or could there be no secondary source at all? Also, does it change from academic rankings to various cultural/social ones? K.Bog 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding new US based ranking - Heterodox

I am thinking of adding the Heterodox Academy ratings of college viewpoint diversity[[6]] to college pages. This is a relatively new ranking system, but has received some coverage (e.g. [[7]] [[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]] and I think is notable enough to include--although certainly not in the lead of articles. I am thinking that in the rankings sections of colleges I'll add statements like: "University of Chicago received a ranking of 98 out of 100 on the Heterodox Academy ratings of college viewpoint diversity--making it the top ranking school of the 150 universities evaluated." Before I start adding, I want to get feedback from the community on this. Thanks.- Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

I disagree that this - or nearly any new - ranking system is notable enough to be included in many articles. If it were up to me, I'd insist on waiting a few years before making the decision to include a new ranking unless there were exceptional circumstances. My reasoning is that it's relatively easy for something new to get some media coverage. It's only if scholars and reporters continue making use of the ranking system over the course of several years that we get a good sense of whether the ranking is genuinely notable or if it was just a novelty. (Yes, I would also remove many of the rankings included in many articles especially the ridiculously bloated Rankings of universities in the United States article.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with this. The aforementioned ratings are not notable to appear in a plurality of articles. Frankly the coverage of the new system is limited and adding them at this point would be promotional. It would be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Image gallery of notable students

There is a discussion regarding the inclusion of a large gallery of notable students at Talk:McGill University#Gallery of rich and famous. Your input is appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Student newspaper external links

Sorry for the delay in following up about this. @ElKevbo: you reverted my addition of If there is a reliable and independent student newspaper, link it. to the external links section. I'm generally conservative with which external links to allow, but I think college newspapers are a type of link we should let through. One big reason is that, as I noted in a past discussion mostly about town papers, including official sites but not newspapers would have the effect of introducing bias in the ELs toward the institution's self-presentation, which is normally positive (e.g. the official website typically won't mention that it's currently going through a major scandal, but the college newspaper probably will). Looking at the guidelines, per WP:ELYES criterion 3, we should have links to Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. College newspapers contain plenty of material that is too detailed or too heavily weighted toward recent events to include on a page, but that is nevertheless very useful for someone looking to learn about a school.

Of course, the nature and quality of college newspapers varies a ton between institutions, which is why I qualified the recommendation with "independent" and "reliable". If the only media outlet at a university is the PR office, we of course should not link it. But for the more typical case, I think it's a benefit to readers. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable position. I don't feel very strongly about this one or another. I'd really like to hear from other editors, especially those outside the U.S.

We need to have a larger discussion about the links in this section at some point later. Maybe - hopefully - this discussion can provide some clarity and foundation for us. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowssettle: You're a UK editor; any thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with Sdkb; most British university newspapers are independent of the university, and generally contain some quite good balanced coverage of events at the university. However, I think as always context is key, and if a student paper is effectively a uni pamphlet then that's not ideal. Independent awards can be a good measure at least over here for reliable papers if there's any contention. Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 22:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll re-add the advice for now since it seems to be the prevailing consensus, but we can always discuss further either here or as part of a larger discussion on ELs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Example doesn't follow rule

We list New York University Violets as an example of a correct title, but the page has been at NYU Violets since 2009. Should we update our guidance or move back the page? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo galleries in Notable People section of university articles

A number of university articles have the Notable People section turned into a photo-gallery of famous faculty and alumni. This seems excessive, gives the articles the flavor of a college marketing brochure, and greatly increases the size of the pages without adding value. Photos belong on the bio pages of the notable individuals. I propose that this be explicitly in the article style guideline as something to avoid. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As an example, New_York_University#Notable_alumni. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 73.89.25.252. --Bduke (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Gallery might be a relevant policy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a supermajority there, though not WP:SNOW, against galleries in the main school article. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

notability

The wording of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has changed and needs to be reflected here. Private tertiary institutions need to satisfy WP:NORG and have no inherent notability. VV 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, WP:NSCHOOLS has some similar guidelines. VV 15:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Two-and-a-half years later, I've made an edit to this advice to try to address this. ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)