Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comments

Please comment on the guidelines here so we can get them up and maybe even part of the manual of style. —Noetic Sage 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology used

A few initial suggestions on better wording for the guidelines:

• "School" - here in the UK at least this term is never used for a university overall, though is used for some internal departments. "Institution" is probably the best term to use if "university" is being overused.
• "Athletics" - this seems to mean "sport" rather than just track & field. Would "sport" be a better overall term?
• "Academic colleges" - this seems to mean a department, rather than a subdivision of a collegiate university, but I'm not too sure.
• "A larger system" - this seems to mean a university system as used in the US. Elsewhere there are a lot of collegiate universities (e.g. the University of London), federal universities (e.g. the former Federal University of Surrey) and I'm not sure what term to use for the University of Paris. I'll come back to this in my thoughts on some of the instructions.

Timrollpickering 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!! I knew when writing the guideline that it was horribly US-biased but I have little experience with non-US systems. Your terminology suggestions are exactly what I think needs to be improved with the guidelines. Perhaps we can go through and use more general terms (or even use clarification for different countries in parentheses). Then again I love parentheses (really!). —Noetic Sage 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on substance

Generally these look good, some comments on individual areas... Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

• the common (not necessarily official) name of the school

"Official" is a complicated word as a lot of institutions have more than one "official" title - for instance Durham's charter says it's the "University of Durham" but the official university style is "Durham University". In casual conversation in an academic context "Durham" is usually sufficient to identify this place (the same with "Cambridge", "Leiden", "Heidelberg", "Harvard" and many others) but that is really a casual usage and would look silly as an article title. Because it's very hard to determine what the current common name of the institution is (especially when the name change is recent), most UK university articles are at the current branding as the best way to work out the titling. I really can't see an easy way to determine the "common name" for many universities.

There's also the problem of what to name universities in non-English speaking countries as some use an official branding that is the name in English (e.g. University of Heidelberg) but others keep the name in the native language form (e.g. FernUniversität Hagen) and some don't have that much of a profile in the English speaking world at all (but shouldn't be considered non-notable). Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree this is problematic. Perhaps we should word it as the "current branding" of the university? I only used the term "common name" because that's what WP:NAME suggests. What do you think? —Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - I actually think the common branding may be the best form to go with as a default - it's normally what the university is currently putting out to the world, it's usually the main "formal" usage rather than casual nicknames that no-one would ever write formally and it's the easiest way to settle "University of Foo"/"Foo University" debates and exactly where to put any punctuation. Otherwise a "common names" founders on the problem that most common usage is often over casual and would never be contemplated for formal writing. Timrollpickering 10:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as you're not using the common names to deal with anything other than the University of X/X University problems, because you'll have problems with the common names of the many "X Institute of Technology" having their common/branding names to be "X Tech". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Never use abbreviations in titles.

This could be another point of contention as several institutions explicitly markets themselves by the acronym. Until the institution changed its name completely this month we had an article at UCE Birmingham, the name the institution was using, rather than varieties such as "University of Central England" or "University of Central England, Birmingham" and so forth. Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Although some universities might market themselves this way, I think we need to say (in accordance with WP:NAME) that abbreviations not be used. SUNY Cortland and other schools in the SUNY system brand themselves this way, but I do believe we should discourage it. After all, I had no idea what UCE meant until you just told me. Similarly, I'm sure you probably don't know what SUNY stands for. It is most clear if we avoid abbreviations.—Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - the thing is in some cases the acronym is so well used to the point that the full name is less familiar (e.g. BBC, NASA) and in this particular case "UCE Birmingham" was a very common name used to refer to the institution regardless of what it actually means. It's the "what the heck is the common name actually in use?" problem again. Timrollpickering 10:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• For universities that are part of a larger system, in general the university name is followed by a comma and the name of the city in which the school is located. For example University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Diego. Some systems use at, which is acceptable (University of Colorado at Boulder). Most university websites should provide clarification, but all schools in the system must use the same naming convention.

See my comments above about the need to be clear what this "system" covers. The UK doesn't have "university systems" as I understand them but does have both multi-campus universities with a wild variety of names for campuses and some federal universities. Trying to impose any consistent name form on the colleges of the University of London would be very messy - whilst King's College, London is only a comma away from the name the institution uses, Birkbeck College, London is seriously out of date (it's Birkbeck, University of London) and Queen Mary, University of London offers the problem that "& Westfield" has been dropped from day to day usage and "Queen Mary College, London" strictly refers to only one of the four colleges that merged to form the current QMUL. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Colleges of the UK) for an attempted standard form that wisely failed because of this.

Then what about non-English speaking countries where it's hard to decide if these are or aren't systems? For example the University of Paris - there's thirteen (independent) parts including Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris-Sorbonne University, Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris 8 University and Paris-Sud 11 University to pick just a few of the names. Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can actually make a separate section for each country's standards in this realm. In the US it is very systematic and schools make the most sense to have similar naming conventions within the same system. What I mean by a university system is a collection of schools in the US that are all part of the state school bracket and share a governing board - one board of regents oversees all schools in a university system. As almost all non-US schools are public, you're right that this is a hard distinction to make. I think separating this subsection by country might help. —Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Timrollpickering 10:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

• For schools that share a name, both schools should follow their name with the highest uncommon location in parentheses.

Another potential problem is that whilst in the US "University of Foo" and "Foo University" may have separate meanings (e.g. Miami University isn't the same as the University of Miami), this isn't the case in the UK were both name forms are used for most universities. Fine to a point but what about cases like the University of York in the UK which is often called "York University" per this, but York University is in Canada. We may need something on what constitutes international ambiguity with such name forms. Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this goes back to the naming convention of institutions. Even though University of York is also called York University, that isn't the name of the article. So if there was a University of York in the US I would think the US article should be titled "University of York (United States)" and the UK article would be titled "University of York (United Kingdom)"

It's not the article name but the two versions are very commonly in use for institution. An obvious case is the University of Oxford where "Oxford University" is heavily used in the formal title for many individual parts of the university e.g. Oxford University Press, Oxford University Student Union (spelt that way) and so forth. Here I don't think the "University of Foo" and "Foo University" distinction is enough to separate two institutions - this may be different in other parts of the world where such a distinction is often in day to day use. Timrollpickering 10:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• For university athletic programs University can be dropped from the article name and instead followed by the mascot name. For example: Stanford Cardinal and California Golden Bears. Some schools may keep University based on convention (New York University Violets). Also see #Sub-articles

This probably needs to be tagged as US specific - an article on sport at my college would look downright incomprehensible at "Queen Mary London Mary"!!! Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, the Division I standard in the US isn't clear in other countries. Perhaps we could just say "Division I programs in the US or exceptionally large programs in other countries" could have their own article?—Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

"Campus" - a lot of institutions have multiple campuses and sometimes these are branched into individual articles. Clarity on when to do this, and also how to name the articles (especially as sometimes the same name can mean different things in a university's history - for instance the University of Kent at Canterbury was the name of the university as a whole until 2003 but is now officially the name used for the Canterbury campus only, but still widely used for the whole institution). Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• We should create some clarity here, yes. How about we say that branch campuses should have their own article only if they are semi-autonomous in that they could potentially operate without the assistance of the main campus. So US-based state systems (like mentioned above) would have their own articles whereas institutions that have a remote campus overseas would not merit its own article.—Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Organization" - "Discuss the administration, especially the president" doesn't mean much at first other than a thought "feel free to vent your spleen". Also "president" could be an ambiguous term - here in the UK universities have a split head system with the Chancellor a titular head and the real heading being done by the Vice Chancellor. There have been rows on some pages such as University of Bradford as to whether or not information on controversial things a Chancellor has said or done should be listed on the university page. Timrollpickering 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Totally agreed. Could you help clear up the terminology as far as President goes? We could mention that too much information on a university president/chancellor/etc could merit a split into that person's own article, but that this section should be a summary of the organization of the university.—Noetic Sage 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Versions of English to use

This may need to be specifically mentioned as English is heavily used for international communication in academia so there could be a lot of universities where there's an appropriate "local form of English" to use but it could be very hard to determine what that is from websites alone (and the output of their academics may not reveal it either as most journals and publishers have house styles).

This is easy for the Anglosphere - use British English for the University of London, US English for New York University, Australian English for Monash University etc... etc... But what is the correct form of English to use on Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, Leiden University, Nangarhar University, Agostinho Neto University, Salahaddin University and Universidad Católica de Temuco? Timrollpickering 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this issue is explained by WP:ENGVAR. Simply stated, we should first go with the relevant version of English (as you mentioned the US version for New York University and British English for University of London), and if that's not possible (as in the French universities) then we should use what the primary version is historically in editing that article. Wikipedia prefers to use words that are the same in all variants, but there are some guidelines to start.—Noetic Sage 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominant/distinguishing characteristics

When reading university articles myself, I'm often just looking for a thumbnail of the dominant or distinguishing characteristics of the institution. I'm thinking it might be a good idea for it to be a guideline to put some sort of summary of these in the intro. For sourcing, it might be easiest to look at how press reports describe the school, or for what reason the school appears in press reports. In many cases, "community college that serves the ___ area" is all that needs to be said. There are so many random liberal arts colleges in the country, it might be necessary to dig a little deeper. What are the largest departments? What are the highest-ranked programs? What is the dominant demographic (local, national, from a particular ethnic group or religion, etc.)? Are there graduate schools? Does the school have a claim to fame, such as a sports program, or notable professors?

Look at say, Wake Forest University. The intro only tells me the location and that it's a private coed university. It seems there is more to the story than that, which should be in the intro. Compare that with MIT, which seems to have the sort of information I'm looking for, even though it is a bit scattershot. (I'm thinking that having a list showing departments by size and ranking would give you a better idea of what's MIT is best known for, and what most students go there for, instead of the rather vague "science and technology focus" angle.) Harvard's intro has a collection of random facts, most of which don't seem that important. Reading about it for the first time, I'd want to know that it's the oldest college in North America (which is mentioned) and that it's the most applied-to university (which isn't mentioned). It would also be a good idea to get an idea of the scope of the institution (liberal arts, but also with strong science programs, plus several top-rated graduate schools). -- Beland 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issues you're bringing up are prevalent in almost all Wiki articles. The problem is that many people do not understand the WP:LEAD policy. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an intro. This seems to be what you're looking for. For an article to become a good or featured article it must satisfy this criterion. If you take a look at some of our WikiProject's accomplishments you will see that most have a good lead. If you think the info you're looking for is important, I suggest being bold and adding it yourself. Good thoughts. —Noetic Sage 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures in the lead

Are we in favor of having pictures in the lead? I am personally against it, but some people seem to like adding pics in there. See Florida Institute of Technology. I would be in favor of adding something to the lead section saying no pictures in that section. KnightLago 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I'll go ahead and add it.—Noetic Sage 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yup, I added the picture to Florida Institute of Technology. It doesn't necessary "belong" in the lead. I felt the article seemed bare without a picture, then again the school seal is on the infobox. :D It looks fine in the History section anyways. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Thoughts about the article guidelines

Are the article guidelines that we set out acceptable?

• It would be wise for us to improve our internal search engine. Wikipedia often will not find a page if you spell it wrong. We should take a page out of Google's book and make it so that an article is always presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refusedalways (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article guidelines are pretty good, although there should be a clearer policy on how to define the notability of a college in a university. I understand that some university colleges are not as notable as some of the other more well-established universities, but it is probably best to draw the line so we don't have the same thing happening when I tried starting a College of Engineering article on Florida Institute of Technology (and then have it AfDed on notability). I understand that when the article was tagged for AfD that I wasn't done expanding the article, but that's besides the point. I think it would save many future editors a lot of time we just draw the line and be as straight-forward as we possibly can. Same with student organizations, we should either strengthen our policy on the lack of notability of university student organizations. Perhaps instead of rewriting the policy we should just say that if it is not notable enough for any particular college or student organization alone to survive AfD, then an article list could suffice. See List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories. Also, I would recommend an infobox for the Student Organizations, (See Florida Institute of Technology#Student Organizations. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• And referring to the top of the page in regards to the terminology of "college" meaning academic department, it is slightly incorrect when applied in the US. In any major university in the United States have a branch of specialty. For example, Florida Institute of Technology has a College of Science, underneath the college lies Department of Biology, Department of Chemistry, Department of Physics, and so forth. College of Engineering has the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, and so forth. Although it works like a department, the term college represents a unification of several major specialties. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • In which case it's probably closest to what is normally called a "faculty" in the UK at least (although the construction tends to be the other way with the Faculty covering the broad divisions and the departments then being created within it). This presents the thornier problem that in some universities the "Faculty" is primarily just an administrative set-up that's not really of much interest (and the departments get trumpeted) whereas in others the faculty is quite high profile. This can reflect the level of inter-disciplinary research, the committment of the university to breaking down subject barriers (see University of Kent#Academic Faculties and Departments for one, ultimately unsuccessful, example) or even just the level at which the press office is located. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have a serious problem with this set of guidelines. As an editor from the United Kingdom, it is very obvious that these guidelines have been written with the intention of regulating the entries for Colleges & Universities in the United States of America, and from an American point of view. It troubles me that University & College systems internationally are different to that found in the United States of America, and the guidelines per se could (and already are been) used by deletionists to remove student organisation articles en masse from the project, especially Students' Unions. In the UK, with exceptionally few exceptions, Students' Unions are seperate legal entities from the institutions they are associated with. It is misrepresentative for the project to concider them non-notable as an excuse to push them into the same articles as their associated institution. The Legal status of UK Student unions are also changing to a registered Charity status in line with the Charities Act 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorstenGuise (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. forgot to sign my comment. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I think your misrespresenting student unions, they are essential another department of a university, which are funded primarily by the associated university operate out of university owned property and which also exercises finally control over all its decisions,just like any other department with the institution. as for the charity thing i think you've made a mistake there since most are already registered charities for tax reasons, how under the new rules they have to prove there of service to the community and just like public schools many will find this hard to justify. I think you should probably do it on a case by case basis as whether a particular union is notable i expect the big ones with many famous connections or histories will be but many of the post 1992 unis or just run of the mill ones aren't as alot of time its just the union trying to lift its profile, get free advertising or stroke the egos of the sabbs. Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • That's exactly my point. Look if there is clear established and specialized notability in a student union (obviously the well established universities would), then a case by case basis would be logical. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a press release agent. WP should never be used to promote the university. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • WP should never be used to promote the university. I agree 100%, student unions are frequently critical of their university, so implying they are a subsidiary in the same manner as US uni's is simply wrong and will mislead readers, while a student union not inherently notable it is not, as the policy currently states, inherently non-notable case buy case is the fair way and the policy for institutions in the US model should not be applied to ones following the British model which do not fit. As for a service to the community, does supporting students not count? are they not part of the community? Financial/legal advice for free, student welfare promotion, lobbying universities for facilities students need? Ignoring this, fund raising, either directly (e.g RAG weeks) or through sub-organisations such as the sports clubs doing sponsored events fund raising for external charities, considering the broad church covered as charities, most will easily pass. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I understand the roles of a student union, and in the USA, many universities also offer the same services to students free of charge as well. Now I would know something about that, because I was the student government vice president at my university of the fall semester. All of the clubs and organizations receiving student activities funding from the university are under the umbrella of the student government's SAFC (funding committee). I still do not see how these services make the organization notable, because if you're saying that just because UK student unions provide that kind of service, then I should have a separate article just on the student government at Florida Tech. It is a notability issue here that's at stake, not the roles of a student union. Please stick with the main subject. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, I wouldn't say that "troubling" would be the word when describing differences there mate. If you believe that the guidelines needs to be changed for student unions, you may write your own set of guidelines and propose them to be adapted, just like how this set of guidelines is trying to achieve consensus before adaptation. Yes, there are significant differences between the education systems in UK and US. However, student unions exist in just about every university. Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only. Now, I don't know (I'm American) whether the student union also serves as an "alumni association" for university graduates or not, but seeing that universities in America have their own alumni association separate from student unions, this topic would definitely needs some clarification. However, as for establishing notability for other international student union articles, you may state in the article's lead that the student union is a non-profit organization (or in UK terminology: Charity) with its non-profit registration listing made readily available. This should steer away from the university guidelines and begin to adapt to corporation guidelines on Wikipedia.- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - agreed. There seems to be a lot of weight placed on the fact that 'legally' an SU is a separate entity from the university. However, that's about as far as the separation goes. The SU wouldn't exist without the university; the university has a vested interest in the SU; the SU is comprised solely of people who also comprise the university etc. The two are undoubtably linked. Putting this entire argument to the side for a moment, and assuming that it was completely 100% separate, so what? All (UK) SUs are pretty much the same - there's little that differentiates one from the next, which is why (on the whole, with one or two examples) they're really not notable. _TheIslander 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - Disagree if the university folded the student union would continue functioning with the core focus of getting some compensation for the students and/or aiding there enrollment in other institution to complete their degrees, and fighting for the rights of the students in that situation it would cause a massive change in how it was run & it's aims BUT IT WOULD STILL EXIST! --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • without the university funding it or providing it with offices etc it would really exist, and legally wouldn't since it is a department of the university which the university must provide, even if just one guy and a small office, without a university you can't have a union. Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • In the long run I agree, however while sub-venations are a large part or student union funding, but not the hole most have independent investments (shares etc.) commercial areas (e.g. a shop or bar) which may operate at a profit all providing income streams which would not dry up simply due to the university folding, union's are also financially separate so, in the absence of a debt to the university, administrations could not touch these funds, in addition the probability of the UK government not stepping in and providing funding to support the attempts to help the students is also tiny (but without precedent so not fact but opinion) On the other point it is also explicitly stated in a universities charter that it must provide independent assistance with academic apeals, i.e. that the university's hierarchy dose not control the employment of the persons responsible for this but (to avoid a conflict of interests) hence is is explicitly not a department of the university but an independent realated enterty (similar manner to the Independent Police Complaints Commission IPCC. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• I think that there needs to be some reasonable separation between Universities and Student Unions, regardless of the notability issue. They might be somewhat reliant on each other for existance, but to lump the SU in with the main article is misleading. UK Student Unions are not a division within the university or college hierarchy, they are the political representative association of the student body. They are there to defend and represent students in the university system, not to follow a set university dogma, or provide just a social space. The Charities Act 2006 requires SU's to register no later than 2008-9, therefore evidence of charitable status (through a registration number) is not going to be available till then (Student Unions are currently exempt charities under the Education Act 1990, and did not need to register). I'm open to suggestion how we can deal with this issue. TorstenGuise (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• It seems to me that this proposed guideline pre-judges the need for any article about any student union. A UK student union is certainly not a part of the university, but the proponents of this guideline say that any information about student unions should appear on the university's article. It's utter madness to think that the, already long, articles about the parent institution would be able to support the details of the associated students union. Also, many of the SU articles that have arisen will have been split from the main university page at a previous time. It's like going around a roundabout with no exits! Andy (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The SU line is the biggest problem with the guidelines. In the UK, at least, many students unions are large, active organisations, of which most or all sports clubs and societies are members. Demonstrating notability is pretty easy, and for all but the smallest, there will be plenty of independent sources - in particular, the local press. I'd like to propose replacing "per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article." with "student unions/organizations/governments should only have their own article if they fulfil the general notability guidelines at WP:ORG." Warofdreams talk 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good fix, specific guidelines would still be useful --Nate1481( ^t/_c)

I don't see what the difference is. Why don't we just say "per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article, unless they satisfy general notability guidelines from multiple independent press, not just their university or local press." I think this will close the gap from organizations copying 43 references from their university newspaper from two sentences each. How does this look? I'm personally aimed towards closing this RfC by the end of the year. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that's more complicated and not strictly accurate? If they satisfy general notability guidelines, then what's the problem with them having an article - why should this not include references from their local press? The text you propose could easily be read in two incorrect ways: either that such organisations should almost never have their own article, which is precisely where the disagreement had arisen, or that such organisations may on rare occasions merit an article even if notability cannot be demonstrated. I appreciate that neither is a correct reading of what you propose, but really, why complicate it? If we really want to be specific, why not use the text I proposed with some examples? Warofdreams talk 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should simply state that SUs should never have their own separate article unless they satisfy WP:ORG. The guidelines already spell out what this entails so there's really no need to change it. We could clarify that this applies to unions in the UK/etc and student governments in the US. It's as simple as that. —Noetic Sage 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, simply saying something along the lines of "If the SU satisfies WP:N, include it, if not, don't " would be perfectly satisfactory. However, regarding Warofdreams' comment above: "why should this not include references from their local press?" - quite simple - that goes directly against WP:N itself. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If an article on a student's union can demonstrate notability through articles published by bodies not related to either the SU or the University itself, then it can by all means be included. _TheIslander 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. In the UK, "local media" would mean media from the same town or nearby area, and would typically exclude student media. Warofdreams talk 02:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this RfC is about WP:UNI's Article Guidelines, not WP:N or WP:ORG. I have updated our guidelines with minor details that better define how student unions can have their own article. The guidelines already had all of this information and never excluded or said that all unions are not notable. Please see the Student life section and if that is not satisfactory, comment here. —Noetic Sage 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) YAY! Do we finally have consensus? Can we really close this RfC by the end of 2007? NoeticSage, you have no idea how happy I'll be when we archive this in January. :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the current phrasing of the article guidelines?? —Noetic Sage 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus already... I certainly don't have a problem with it. And it doesn't seem like the bickering from before resurfaced. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know very little about the education system in places other than the United States, but I think this guideline does an excellent job of explaining how the notability requirements affect US universities. It's easy to understand and should be very helpful. I definitely support the changes. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Student Unions

Baring in mind the big difference between UK student unions and the way the term is used in the US should there not be seperate guidance on this issue? UK student unions are explicitly independent charities not part of the University. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The debate that has transpired over many UK SU unsuccessful AfD's in the last few days clearly indicates that the guidelines laid down here are unsuitable for application to UK SU's. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, why are we starting a different thread from the RfC? It's covering the same subject. Please stick to the same RfC to minimize confusion and repeating comments. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Final chance to comment

This section is the final chance to comment about the article guidelines before it is considered a guideline. The policy has not received comments in over a month, was put through RfC and the village pump, and seems to have consensus. Please comment positively or negatively. —Noetic Sage 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Although I know little about the British education system, this does an excellent job of addressing issues for American higher education. Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The guidelines here ONLY favor the American system, and the numerous deletionists on wikipedia who will use it as an excuse to attack the British pages en mass, as happened when these guidelines were first drafted. From my perspective there should be regional variations of the guidelines for all systems, where notability is adjusted relative to the National market. (sorry, had no internet for a month)TorstenGuise (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To be clear, the notability that is laid out in these guidelines does not differ from WP:N. It merely applies those policies to university articles. As such, regional variations of notability should not matter because as long as the articles satisfy WP:N they are notable.—Noetic Sage 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Many deletionists will ignore WP:N and use this as the excuse to mark articles for deletion, many of which have fought, and won their place in wikipedia in the past. That's not really my point, but I do feel that sweeping changes made in this guidelines just doesn't cater adequately for the British University System. Collegiate universities are not dealt with well, and support services less so. For example. The University of London is made up of 31 colleges (see Collegiate university. There are also marked differences with the type of university (Ancient, Red Brick, Plate Glass, Post 1992 Universities). It needs looking at (and if I'd had internet acces for the past month or so, I would have). TorstenGuise (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose still needs some re-phrasing or clearly stating it is based on the US model. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Examples would aid in this process. What can be rephrased? Keep in mind everyone that this is proposed a guideline, not a policy. As such it is a suggested way of structuring the article, not a policy for how articles must look. Feel free to make tangible suggestions for improvement or edit the guidelines themselves. Additionally, there is a section that explains some pages may not fall within these guidelines due to national differences or article history. I realize this doesn't solve the problem of being US-centric, but it is helpful.—Noetic Sage 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• No mention of structure of British universities such as chancellors or charters, all the examples are on US universities the policy could easily have a {{globalize}} tag on it. No mention is made of city universities only campus based ones, or disambiguation with regard to ex-polytechnics, and where here line between collage and university is very blurred, Oxford Colleges vs The University of London? and my pet peeve on the lumping together or student organisations which is misleading and dose not make clear that student union is means something completely different in the UK and other places i.e. not just student government, in this it is put on the same level as a social club. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support + Comment: Instead of insisting on the failure of this set of guidelines, I have not seen anyone actually doing anything practical about this. Look, if you can't agree on it, propose a fix. Write a set of guidelines that would adapt to British system. However, don't block good change for a general set of guidelines is being put in place. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - these proposed guidelines only really confirm what is already laid out in WP:N. I still maintain that the majority of British Student Unions aren't notable, and in this respect I fail to see why any difference in the British and American systems is relevant (and, before responding, bear in mind that I myself am British, attend a British university, and am part of a not particularly notable British SU). _TalkIslander 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of SU's are not notable. It still doesn't solve the problem of the guide bein US centric in may places. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see how British Student Unions are so different from local fraternity chapters in the US: sure they're "independent", but their existence is contingent upon proximity to the university. I agree with Jameson, the "British opposers" have had ample time to make their case but have not offered a reasonable alternative in line with WP:N. One legitimate concern that was pointed out, however, is that the guidelines adequately account for the different between the US "colleges/schools/departments within a university" and the UK "colleges/schools within a university" - e.g., the American model often being far more centralized and organized than the UK's independent/interdependent system. But to Nate1481's comment, British post-technics or city universities are not so different from many community colleges or former "normal" universities here in the US. Finally, (and I hate to trumpet American exceptionalism and I couldn't provide a reliable source to back this up either), outside of Europe, most other universities have adopted the "American system" of rigid organization. Ultimately, I could support a guideline that provided the UK system with exceptions as need be owing to the influence and prominence of the universities, but I see no need to "glocalize" this guideline to the peculiarities of each region/nation's own organizational oddities. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Going off on Madcoverboy's comment on the adaptation to the US system, even Hong Kong, UK's former colony, is now adapting to the United States 4-year system now. I'm not trying to attack the persons who are opposing this set of guidelines, but please try to provide a reason why you personally don't like it and do something about it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment The point is the US system is not the only system these guidelines are not about who has what but about do not cover the variety that exists. If the guidelines are based on the US model this should be stated explicitly and where differences are important is should be noted.

As to the similarity to fraternity the fact they are both related to students is about it. UK Unions are Statutory bodies and students are members unless they resign. The differences are far greater but that is the critical point.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

the "British opposers" have had ample time to make their case but have not offered a reasonable alternative various people made their case above but no attention seemed to be paid to it.

to Nate1481's comment, British post-technics or city universities are not so different from many community colleges or former "normal" universities here in the US This just makes my point. City Universities are full universities that don't have a central campus but have buildings spread through the city center, while ex-polytechnics are (now) full universities but may need disambiguation between the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University. Community colleges equivalents are present but are not universities (e.g.NESCOT) Teach higher educational courses, but lack a charter to award degrees independently and must be affiliated to a university. NONE of this is covered or even a mention that there are different systems. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be made entirely clear that the guidelines can't just be used as an excuse to delete numerous articles. CR7 (message me) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, what's your point? Guidelines exist for articles to adhere to. If articles don't adhere to them, certain actions need to be taken, which in the case of things like notability is deletion. _TalkIslander 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment To clear things up I added additional clarification at the top of the notability section. Please read the changes and see if that suffices.—Noetic Sage 03:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No I hate to add to the disagreements to this discussion, but the concession of this set of article guidelines' by adding that statement basically just make it look like "Hey here's what we believe articles should be, but don't pay any attention to it whatsoever... it holds no credibility." Wikipedia has deleted numerous student union articles (and kept only a few) for good reasons. This set of guidelines is not to attack the notable organizations which already has proven notability by community outreach, extensive press coverage, and significant importance. This set of guidelines is to target those who add random student organizations and student unions of smaller universities with little or no importance. Statutory body or not, student unions are established to represent the student body, which, if the university cease to exist, so would the student body, which would eventually dwindle down the student union until its existence is no more. The idea that somehow people united by a location affiliation would somehow be notable after its disbandment is ridiculous. Student governments, residence hall associations, and similar university organizations represent a portion of/or an entire student body whether the students feel like it or not, even if members of the organization's administration are elected, appointed, or somehow selected to their respective roles. The point being, that the organization uses the university's students as their self-appointed governing power, therefore it is part of the university - just like a special interest student group. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The point isn't about Student Unions. I agree most are not notable, but that's down to WP:ORG stating most student unions are on the same level as any thing in the US is wrong, there is, to my knowledge, no statutorialy independent organisation that must exist for a university to award degrees. this is the case with student unions./rant
        • More critically is the lack of a broader perspective in accepting that other types of University organisation exist.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'll let you slide on that comment as long as you're not implying that I'm narrow-minded and refuses to accept that there are other things in the world. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • By broader prospective I was commenting on the guideline, which dose lack breadth and perspective not any editor --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should as a member of the project have joined this debate earlier. In Commonwealth countries (it is not just a UK v US issue), Student Unions vary considerably. The statement that they get their money and building from the university is true in some cases, but quite false in others. Student Unions often own their own building and do business in it, either directly or by renting out space for coffee bars etc. Funds can come direct from the government on a per student basis. The parent university may process the funds to the union but they can rarely withhold funds in a dispute. Membership of the Union (one for everybody) in many cases is compulsory for all students. In Australia the federal Parliament under John Howard passed a Bill making membership voluntary. That has lead to the destruction of some Unions, but others are doing well because they own their building to raise money and offer attractive services. Nevertheless it was a major issue.To conclude, UK and Commonwealth Universities are very different from US Universities. Ignorance of these differences is often annoying. For example, please do not call Commonwealth Universities, Schools, or Halls of Residence or Colleges, Dorms. The different words reflect real differences. Words with different meanings include School (University or College in US, large Departments or Faculties in some other countries); Faculty (staff in the US, a group of several disciplines or departments in other counties); Alumni is only slowly coming into use in the Commonwealth, replacing "Old members"; are just a few. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said the US and UK were divided by a common language? --Bduke (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we are not debating the notability of students' unions. We are currently debating the merits of the article guidelines. If you think part of the guideline is inadequate, please say why and give suggestions for improvement. Thank you.—Noetic Sage 07:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of that, but thought there were issues about Student Unions that highlighted some of the problems. in particular, my comments about language is pertinent. The guidelines is still very US-centric. Take the sentence " In this case it may be acceptable to create a separate academics article (see Michigan State University academics)" under "Faculties and academic colleges". That article title took me by surprise. An article on Melbourne University academics would be equivalent to an article on Michigan State University Faculty. We need to be much more careful about language. For a start that article should be renamed Michigan State University academic programs. Let us head that section something like "Academic divisions of universities" and start with something like.

"Universities are divided into divisions based on academic disciplines. These are named in a variety of ways. In the UK and Commonwealth, universities were traditionally divided into Faculties such as Science, Arts, Business, and Medicine, covering a range of disciplines, and which were divided into Departments covering individual disciplines such as Chemistry or History. However, more recently, some universities are divided into Schools which group a small number of related disciplines and which either replace Faculties and Departments or replace departments and are themselves grouped into larger Faculties. In the US, universities are often divided into Colleges."

Note I start with non-US examples to avoid the US-centric trend and that the US sentence needs to be expanded by those who know it better than I, in spite of time at the University of Georgia. The term "College" needs to be explained on an international basis. This section, because of the language confusion is not clear. the section of sports or athletics as you US folk like to call them is very US-centric and does not help in my view to guide us the inclusion of articles on university cricket clubs and the like, although some such as Oxford and Cambridge are notable, playing County sides in cricket. More later. --Bduke (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have updated some of the language in the guidelines, please look at the diff and see if they are acceptable. As far as your suggestions for non-US examples, I agree that we need some. But the example articles we include come right off of our accomplishments list. I don't think it's prudent to link to articles that are lower than GA-class just because they are non-US. This would give readers the assumption that these are good examples when, in fact, they are not. Perhaps we should just eliminate all examples from the guidelines? That would remove some of the US bias. But I think it's important to remember that the guidelines cannot include terminology that is inclusive of all countries. Many of you mention legitimate concerns with terminology differences between the US and the UK, but we're forgetting the entire non-English speaking world. Nothing we could possibly write would be 100% inclusive of these countries. So we're trying to craft a guideline that works structurally to guide all university articles. Perhaps we could just make this note at the top of the page? I think the one there already explains this; university articles may differ for various reasons and not fit into these guidelines.

As a small note about the academics article, Michigan State University academics is correctly named. The article includes rankings, academic divisions, programs, etc. Calling it Michigan State University academic programs would be inaccurate since that is one part of the article. Furthermore, the guidelines do not say what to title these pages, we only give examples. The Michigan State article could have been named whatever they felt like, and other universities can title it otherwise. This is why maybe examples are a bad idea. Also, I don't think the article guidelines are a place for explanation of what terms mean or how universities are structured. That's what wikilinks are for. If someone doesn't understand what alumni are, then follow the link and look at the terms section. If we explain every term and apply it to every country we will never get anything done. Thoughts? —Noetic Sage 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, can someone please clarify the polytechnic addition to the disambiguation section? It seems far too specific and does it mean don't disambiguate the city page, the university page, what? I don't really understand it at all. What would you be redirecting to?—Noetic Sage 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The section "Faculties and academic colleges" has improved a little, but the use of the term "academics" is still very confusing to me. I have never, even on my trips to the US heard that term used in the way it is used here. In the UK and Australia, "academics" is shorthand for "academic staff" as opposed to "administrative staff" or "non-academic staff". I would use "academic programs" to cover "rankings, academic divisions, programs, etc.". There is also a clear difference between, say, Colleges at Oxford University and Colleges in US universities. Why can we not just talk about constituent parts of a university being not normally notable, but can in some cases have articles. We either explain terms as I suggest, or if, as you suggest we do not explain them, then we should not use them. I am finding it hard to be constructive. This page is so US-biased, I do not know where to start. I have had 50 years in universities in four countries plus a 5 month sabbatical in the US. If I am confused, I am sure everyone from outside the US is going to be. The point is not that someone does not understand a term. The problem is that they think they do understand it, but they are wrong. Maybe it does not matter, but I have seen too many articles put up for deletion by someone from the US who clearly does not understand that language is being used in a different way. I fear these guidelines are just going to give those of us outside the US more hassle in opposing deletion of articles which should be kept.--Bduke (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You bring up good points. Academics here means anything related to the academic portion of the university. So it usually includes a description of the colleges/faculties, rankings, etc. I can see where it would be confusing to non-US schools. I think your suggestion of using "academic programs" might work, but another option is "academic profile". I'm not sure which one people prefer or if there is another option, but I think a change in that section would help things out. I don't think the demographic information that is currently included in the structure is appropriate and hardly any featured articles include it. Thoughts?—Noetic Sage 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I call again for comments on how to improve these guidelines. What else should be changed? We have been discussing this for months now, I think it's time to gain consensus.—Noetic Sage 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

It should be noted that TorstenGuise has been canvassing against these guidelines, something strongly advised against by Wikipedia guidelines (which have been accepted by the community). They have contacted at least five editors, though I don't have the time to check whether these editors have expressed an opinion one way or another here. If they have, this situation should definitely be taken into account before it is decided whether concensus has been reached, _TalkIslander 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking briefly through this users contributions, they have also posted a message at the UK Wikipedians' notice board, which would count as excessive cross-posting and campaigning, reading the style of said post. I have now reverted this. _TalkIslander 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I made 5 posts, not all the same, but with the purpose of trying to get a bit of interest in the project with people that are not from the USA. Interestingly, only 1 has decided to contribute anything, and that was on the guidelines as a whole.There was no malice of intent.

I think you're taking things a bit too seriously here. I'm interested in the guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to be fair and representative of all different further education systems. I freely admit, that in my opinion the guidelines as written are biased to the American model of further education, and fail to meet the needs of the other systems.

I also freely admit, that my interest in the project was initially stirred by the mass-marking of students' union and student activities articles for deletion, due to the very strict application of the then draft, and still not finalised guidelines, most of which were done by Islander between 3-9 December 2007. TorstenGuise (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I accept that there was no malice involved in it, and on the face of it what you did was fine, i.e. letting people know that this debate was going on. However, take a look at WP:CANVASS - for such an act not to be canvassing, the messages have to be neutral. A message stating "Such-and-such a discussion is taking place over here, I'd appreciate your input" is fine; a message stating "Such-and-such a discussion is going on here, I think this is a really good/bad idea, and wonder if you'd see if you agree" is canvassing. You're pre-tainting a persons view, before they've even taken a look at the debate, and that's wrong, and that's what the guideline tries to guard against. I'm sorry if you think it's not a serious matter, but to be frank when deducing community concensus, it is. I hope you see where I'm coming from. _TalkIslander 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation 2

Use disambiguations rather then redirects for generic names e.g. Leeds University where two institutions, such as a former Polytechnic exists in the same city. (University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University)

"Leeds University" always means the University of Leeds and never Leeds Metropolitan University, just as "Oxford University" always means the University of Oxford and never Oxford Brookes University. This may be another US/UK thing - here in the UK it is very common to use either ordering for the name of the institution and this can even spread to official usage - for instance the Leeds, Oxford, Southampton, Cambridge, Birmingham and many other students' unions all have "Foo University" in the title; ditto the Oxford & Cambridge University Presses; the Cambridge, Dublin, Edinburgh & St Andrews, Glasgow & Aberdeen, London and Oxford university constituencies all used the form; Durham, Newcastle, Lancaster and Keele have all switched to "Foo University" forms for branding with no problems; and practically every link to the redirects (and there are huge numbers - Oxford alone has over 500 just in main space) means the university and turning them all into disambiguations when the new university has already disambiguated its name and makes no claim to be the "Foo University" strikes me as overkill. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this as it is relevent, if you are familiar with the naming of ex-poly's etc then it's fine, but for people (usually out side the UK) it may cause confusion. Would adding a tag line 'for an institution with a similar name see xxx'? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in on this, but only briefly, as I only hold a British passport... but don't know what I'm talking about on this issue nor do I have the expertise in British universities. However, Florida Institute of Technology had a naming problem back about a decade ago. We had Florida Tech that could describe Florida Technical College, Florida Technical University (which is now University of Central Florida, and Florida Institute of Technology. I suggest that a description as to the differences be noted in the lead section that would disambiguate the different universities. In addition, if a name change was involved, a more detail description of the name changes could be described in the History section. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion

This is a continuation of the "final chance" discussion above. Please either support or oppose the article guidelines. If you oppose, please state concisely what should be changed. Remember, we are not debating the notability of students' unions here, but rather are evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed article guidelines. Your comments are appreciated.—Noetic Sage 04:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support This has dragged on enough. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Enough already, these guidelines are fine. _TalkIslander 10:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support with caviats:
  •  Done Firstly "all institutions in the system must use the same naming convention" - I'd weaken this slightly, as I'm not convinced that this can be universally applied to all universities around the world.
  • For the disambiguation example, I feel that "Leeds University" is widely understood to mean "University of Leeds", and would almost never be used for Leeds Metropolitan University (I'm not familiar with the Leeds example, but I _am_ familiar with several similar examples with tradition vs ex-polytechnic universities elsewhere in the UK).
    • I am not familiar with the UK system myself, so what would you like me to change exactly on the guidelines? Use a different example? —Noetic Sage 13:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest changing it to a different example, from the US system which you're more familiar with. Bluap (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
        • To be honest, this was suggested by a member from a UK school that seemed to feel there should be a more international perspective of the guidelines, and I really don't understand what it does. I figured it made sense to those in the UK (but it appears that the example given doesn't even follow the guideline given). Maybe someone from the UK can clarify this?—Noetic Sage 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
          •  Done I removed this guideline because it didn't make sense and wasn't used in practice in the example.—Noetic Sage 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ironically, when you say "Never use abbreviations for the institution's related articles", one of the examples given is "Oriel College, Oxford", not "Oriel College, Oxford University". That being said, "Oriel College, Oxford" is the correct form, and is normally wiki-linked as "Oriel College, Oxford".
  •  Done You are still using the US-specific language "athletic programs". In the UK "athletics" means "track and field". I would suggest changing to "sports programs", which should be universally understood.
  •  Done Is the "Cardinal" in "Stanford Cardinal" really called the mascot name? In the UK, we would regard this as the team name. (The mascot might be named after the team, but the team wouldn't be named after the mascot.)
  •  Done Article structure. This article structure is probably good to get an article up to Good-Article status. However, to get up to Featured Article will probably mean customising this on a case-by-case basis. Under sub-articles, you need a link to the Summary style guideline.

But in spite of the above I think the idea of some guidance is good. Bluap (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the edits! Bluap (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• w00t! Yes... it's not a vote... but w00t for completing the edits... *barnstar time!* - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes

User:Noeticsage reverted several of my edits I made to the guidelines. Several issues I have:

• Research and endowment - These are completely unrelated topics and should not be confounded. Endowment and fundraising is a part of the organizational/administrative structure and is completely separate from research expenditures and accomplishments. Endowment information should be placed under the "organization" section.
• Academics - Why mention the academic divisions of the university here when there is an "Organization" section? "the notable academic divisions (such as faculties/schools/colleges) of this university." should be mentioned primarily in the Organization section and repeated as necessary in the academic section.
• Research and faculty - These topics make a far more natural pairing: faculty conduct research, notable accomplishments are associated with faculty members, size faculty scales with scale of research expenditures, etc.
  • "This section may be included as a subsection of academic profile, but there needs to be information regarding the size and composition of the faculty and annual research expenditures. Concisely describe the achievements of faculty members such as the number of members elected to national academies and any notable historic research accomplishments. Be sure to include any grants or special research projects like government-sponsored laboratories or major collaborations with outside companies or entities."
• Including general characteristics of the university from reliable sources (like Carnegie) should clearly be included whenever possible. Is it residential, research, majority undergraduate, etc.?

Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point in the research and endowment section. However, I cannot agree with you regarding the Academics section because I think since this is a university article, the primary function of the institution (academics) deserves to have its own section. To me, I believe that the Organization section should describe how the university comes together outside of its academic functions, such as its administration organization. I think the Faculty and Research section at the moment is good as it is. I guess I don't follow your thoughts as to what exactly you have questions about. Specify?  :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Research and endowment could be changed to something like Budget and fundraising to make more sense. I agree that research shouldn't be included in there, but the point is that there should be a separate section for monies raised and spent.
• Academics - I think the faculties can be mentioned in either section. I think we can leave it up to each article to do what fits best. It makes most sense to me to put it in academics because organization is more about the board of trustees and administrative divisions (part of a larger system, etc). It is also noted that the Organization section can be integrated elsewhere. It's important to remember that this is a guideline, not a policy. That means that things are flexible and nothing is set in stone. It's a good structure to follow but isn't mandatory.
• Rarely will an article mention Carnegie classifications and rarely is it useful for the average reader to have that classification. Although these classifications may be interesting to Higher Education professionals and administrators (being one myself) the average viewer of the article won't understand or care what some organization classified the university as. The new ratings system is much more complex anyway so I don't see a point in including it. I think you can just note if a university is a research university from common understanding or the university's own website. —Noetic Sage 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nice to see you back, Noetic Sage.  :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• I see my beloved Carnegie Classifications are still being given short shrift. I agree that straight-forward presentations of the various Carnegie Classifications would be of little use or interest to most readers. However, I still firmly believe that the classifications should form the basis for many of the common descriptors of institutions. For example, I maintain that we should be using the Size and Setting classification formulated by the experts at CFAT rather than the descriptions made by journalists and admissions/PR departments to describe institutions as small, medium, or large. --ElKevbo (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've actually been trying to use it for the Florida Tech article... but I've been wondering where and how I want to integrate the data in there. Since you love it so much... want to take a stab at this? :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Should people with honorary degrees be put in the "People Associated with" category ? GrahamHardy (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Many honorary degree recipients only set foot in the university for the ceremony (if even that - many aren't on campus) and the degree is given out for non-uni matters. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the recipient's bio article may say he/she received an honorary degree from the institution. However, unless the recipient contributed something worth putting in the university article's history section (with valid citations of course) it really isn't notable. Such major events would probably end up listed as what this recipient did on the university's history section, and still not that the university gave this person an honorary degree. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with other comments that honorary degree recipients aren't affiliated with the university in any notable capacity outside of their participation and recognition in a single ceremony. Honorary degree information is certainly appropriate for biographical articles, but not university articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Accommodation

Are there any guidelines on wether or not lists of accommodation are suitable for addition to university pages? Some pages have tables stating where the halls are located and what facilities they offer (eg. en-suite, catered) but I am not sure if this is perhaps too excessive in detail. BananaNoodle (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO (and let me be clear that residence life isn't something I think about or deal with often), it's nice to have residence hall information, such as what the residence halls are and what, if any, special types of students stay there (honors housing, all-girls dorms, freshmen only, &c.). I do think that information about "services" (ping pong tables and vending machines) is a bit excessive. I could be wrong, but I also think that most dormitories have lounges &c. so there's no great need to advertise common spaces, reading areas, and parlours. My reasoning is basically that information is great but that it's best to stay away from the information that makes an encyclopedia article read like an advertisement. I hope this helps. --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and logos

There's a discussion over at Talk:Tulane_University#Logo_vs._Seal about using the university seal in the infobox. My reason for bringing it up here is that an editor who opposes its inclusion, and is a fellow UNI participant (yay!), appears to read UNIGUIDE (when it says "All institution articles should have an infobox providing the basic details about the institution, preferably with an image of the institution logo") to mean that the logo should be used as the main image instead of the seal. While I read it to mean that logos are preferable to using building or campus pics as the main image and not preclude use of the seal, I could see how it might appear to communicate that logos are preferable to seals. Yet that would also seem to contradict the FAs and Infobox University examples. Any thoughts? Feel free to correct me if I've erred in my re-telling of the story, Aaron Charles. Dive in! --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One more bit of explanation, since a re-read of my own comments doesn't appear to convey this: I'm hoping that we can alter UNIGUIDE to make the wording more clear, whatever the "correct" interpretation might be. --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that in practice, we've usually decided on the seal, rather than the logos that most universities now display as their main public image. Cases in point; McMaster, Rice University, Duke University, are more well known by their newer logotypes than by their academic seals; however I feel that the seal is the highest and most formal symbol of the university, and should be at the top of the infobox. 07:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a process, then, for altering the language used in UNIGUIDE, or shall I just go ahead and do it myself? --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do it. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It done. --King of the Arverni (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Research and endowment

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines#Article_structure, editors are encouraged to create a section titled "Research and endowment". I see two potential problems with this:

1) The "Organization" section is also supposed to included endowment information. Should endowment numbers really be included in both sections?

2) Not all institutions are research institutions. Liberal arts colleges, for example, are supposed to focus on teaching rather than research. In general, I think it's fair to say that many small schools focus more on teaching or on praxis than on research. So why generally encourage a separate section on "Research and endowment" in UNIGUIDE?

I'd advocate for doing away with the "Research and endowment" section entirely, for inclusion of research info. under "Academics", and for inclusion of endowment info. under "Organization", but I'd love to hear other thoughts and opinions. --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this on WT:UNI a while back, though the discussion unfortunately was never copied here for posterity's sake. My overriding concern is that this section header is an awkward and uninformed proscription as research and endowment have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As you state, the endowment is fundamentally an apparatus of the administration and funds the organization as a whole; I believe any and all discussion of it should be entirely in the Administration and Organization section. Secondly, there are non-research universities and colleges that simply can't have a whole research section. However, I do think that what we now call the research section would be a better place to discuss intellectual traditions (e.g., "Chicago school" of X), notable faculty, as well as research programs and projects. Whether or not the research section needs to be a top-level header or subsumed under academics, I would leave to the discretion of local editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the discussion was a few sections above! Madcoverboy (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so do you think it'd be appropriate for us to go ahead with removing the second instance of endowment and discuss the research bit? I'm actually of the school that thinks constituent colleges and research should go under academics, but I think that at least the two of us are in agreement that the endowment info. shouldn't be doubled this way. Perhaps for now, we can just do away with that section, leave endowment to organization and put the research info. under academics, and then discuss the need for a separate research section. I wouldn't be entirely opposed if there were a caveat like "for research institutions, there should be a separate Research section." --King of the Arverni (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds entirely sensible to me. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I had some unexpected matters to attend to. --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Spot feedback

I hadn't seen this guideline before today and had a read through. It's well put together. A few possible areas for improvement struck me. There may be previous solid agreement for much of the text, so bringing them up here for discussion makes sense.

• The advice on student life and university traditions sub-articles as being "generally not notable unless they are so remarkably significant or unique to receive significant coverage in [independent RSs]" needs toning down—remarkably, unique, repetition of significant.
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Although some of these articles exist (Yale in popular culture), they should and will eventually be nominated for deletion (also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Discouraging encyclopedically inappropriate content is admirable. Nonetheless, the dependent clause is phrased as a threat, and I think should be rewritten if it's to stay. Plus, choosing an alternative name of that shortcut would be less aggressive.
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Copyediting will further improve the guideline. The Faculties and academic colleges section, for example, reads "In general these articles are not notable and should not be split off from the main institution article." It would be better phrased to reflect that notability independent of the main institution is required for constituent colleges to merit standalone articles.
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• It's probably worth mentioning leads should not include information not covered in the main body of the article, when covering them in the Article structure section.
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps the History section recommendation on including student protests should be tightened up to make clear those should be historically significant?
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. –Whitehorse1 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Admissions

I'm wondering if information about admissions statistics and practices belongs in the "Academics" section of the article, as is outlined by this guideline. Strictly speaking, aren't a school's academics the scholarly pursuits there (viz., teaching and research)? I suggest that that information be allocated to its own section if unusual or important enough to warrant one.– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the admissions information within the academics section calcified as an outgrowth of the misguided emphasis on rankings and selectivity. Nevertheless, I'm of a similar mind and have taken to making a "People" section under which student body, alumni, and faculty information are presented (for MIT at least). Instituting this change would be a major undertaking as the prevailing consensus and state of the art (e.g., FAs) are likely to hew to tradition. This isn't to say that tradition and consensus cannot change and I would look to the up-and-coming GAs and FAs to raise this issue as well as dropping a note at the more-trafficked WT:UNI to gauge others' sentiments. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Can we move UNIGUIDE to Wikipedia:University article guidelines if it has guideline status? One recent excuse for an editor to ignore it was that it was under the auspices of a WikiProject. It probably shouldn't make any real difference, but perhaps if it had a page like most other guidlines, that might make it look like it holds about as much authority as it actually does. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we try this a few months ago and get slapped down by non-UNI editors? Or am I confusing that with our escapades in trying to promote WP:BOOSTERISM? --ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If we did, it would've been before I was a member of we. ;-) --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you meant? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The failed proposal was for WP:BOOSTER (see here). I would support moving this article to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better name, I suppose. Anyone else? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Drop a note at WT:UNI FWIW. The silence will likely be deafening, but you'll at least have plausible deniability! ;) Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I always found it bizarre that this wikiproject subpage was a guideline and fully support this move. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to go ahead and move this ASAP. Any recommendations on how much longer we should give it? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and pull the trigger. I'm too lazy to deal with fixing all the redirects! Madcoverboy (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenge one of the guidelines listed here

I have a minor problem with one of the guidelines listed here that I thought I'd bring up. In the Neutral Point of View section of this page, it is written: "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted."

I agree we shouldn't be misleading, but the example cited above is most certainly NOT original research. The data from a rankings list are neutral, and breaking down the list by state doesn't involve synthesizing or creating any additional information that is not already contained in the rankings list. By the guideline written above, it would also be OR to say "all of the top 10 USNWR national universities are private." Although the cited source may not have 50 separate sub-lists for each state, it requires no inference or issue of opinion or interpretation for a reader or editor to sort the list (either electronically or manually) by state.

Again, I reiterate that I hate fluff and boosterism, and editors should certainly list a school's overall ranking if they're going to then list a sub-ranking, but I can't see how this sort of thing is in any way OR. -Nick^talk 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've always been on the fence about that thing, too. The complexity of the deduction doesn't seen any more complex than a population density calculation (which is not synthesis), but I think how it's presented is what's important. I think "University X is the second-highest ranked university in Minnesota in USNWR's 2009 rankings" is okay, but "According to USNWR's 2009 rankings, University X is the 2nd best university in Minnesota" is pushing it. I'm interested to hear what others think, though. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously an unverifiable cross-categorizing synthesis towards a non-neutral purpose (gaming the context to increase an inconveniently low ranking) which is why it should not be condoned. If one would not state that "Princeton is ranked first among national colleges and universities in New Jersey by USNWR" on the grounds that this is a tad overspecific as it's already #1 nationally, how can we condone "Rutgers is ranked first among public national colleges and universities in New Jersey by USNWR" (I'm assuming it is, but I don't actually know). I see no reason to coddle editors whose insecurities about their university's stature is somehow ameliorated by defining excellence downward: if it's ranked 51st, then simply and neutrally report only that. I am absolutely opposed to removing this from the guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that obvious. First, if you can verify the school's ranking, and you can verify the state in which a school is located, then you can verify the school's relative ranking within the state. Because that relative ranking is objectively verifiable, it cannot be considered original research. And, I have to say, you (Madcoverboy) are making a LOT of assumptions in your argument--particularly that the only reason someone would want to make such a statement is that they are an insecure editor who is trying to sidestep around their university's true ranking. Maybe that happens sometimes, and if there's something like that written in a way that is POV or contains a COI, then those edits can be reverted/rewritten under those policies.

My problem here is with the branding of the combination of two verifiable pieces of information as OR. What if we wanted to know the population density of a city (as mentioned above)? What if we wanted to know what the tallest building was in a certain state? What if we wanted to know which US Senator is serving the longest? Which major US city (over 250,000) has the hottest or coldest average temperature? All of these things are objectively verifiable, but may require a simple reorganizing of the cited data to find the answer. If the guideline on this page is OR, then all of these things are OR.

And just to reiterate what I said originally: Academic boosterism as described by Madcoverboy is bad, but it is already prohibited via NPOV and potentially COI. Let's not overreach with the OR guideline when there is no need to. I think that the guideline should stay, but be rewritten in a way that calls the POV and COI guidelines instead. -Nick^talk 16:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The statistics on population density, building height, and other examples you cite can both be objectively verified as well as readily verified by attributing reliable sources that publish the same information. WP:OR clearly states: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." More from WP:SYN: "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." Refactoring rankings is OR in addition to almost always advancing a non-neutral POV. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point here, but saying that a university that is ranked 2nd in a particular state doesn't seem (at least to me) to run afoul of "or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used". If Minnesota State College is ranked 34th overall and the State University of Minnesota is ranked 78th overall and there are no other MN schools between them, then saying that SUM is the 2nd-ranked college in Minnesota would seem to be directly supported by the source. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a fixation on the "advancing a position" part. We are not allowed to "advance a position" under NPOV, and I think that is why this ranking example is causing problems. If you assume for a moment that an editor wanted to state a plain fact that University X is the highest ranked university in State X, that is information that is 100% verifiable and not subject to interpretation. That is the part that I think should be permissible. However, any inferences or comments based on that info may well be OR or POV. And, what's more, US News now lets you search their rankings by state, meaning you can now get directly from US News's website, a list of the top national universities (or liberal arts colleges, or whatever) in a given state. Under this rule, then, state-by-state rankings are now fair game as they are provided from the original source. -Nick^talk 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate to put words in a user's mouth, but I imagine MCB thinks all rankings are advancing a position. :) Esrever ^(klaT) 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Esrever is not far off: I think including college and university rankings are unbecoming of an encyclopedia. To the extent that they're part of academic\admissions culture, receive coverage from reliable, third party sources, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it may not be our place to exclude them entirely as much as I don't like them. Insofar as rankings should appear in an article, I see absolutely no reason why only the notable information could not be wholly summarized and neutrally presented in a standardized template. Lay editors with clear COIs and POVs on the topic of their alma mater have little appreciation of the controversies, games, influence, and money underlying the outwardly "scientific" practice of distilling abstract statistical information into a single number and one need only go to the neglected articles for non-"flagship" universities to witness the tragi-comic undue weight placed on non-notable rankings with strategic disclaimers to boost the score and glaring omissions of notable rankings that almost always deemed to have methodological problems resulting in low scores. The fact is, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too: if you want rankings, you have to accept all notable rankings, even the ones that piss all over your school's prestige and reputation.

I see no reason why one would want to report the relative state-level ranking(s) of an institution any more than the relative state-level size of the campus, library holdings, number of honor students, or whatever other statistic one can imagine connotes "quality" except to advance a POV as this is simply unencyclopedic information. You almost surely wouldn't report it if it already was in the original top 10 ranking (see my Princeton argument). As much as USNWR may still allow you to search by state, it doesn't recenter the score for that state: it still reports the original national score and thus it's still original research to report anything else. It's not as though USNWR set out to rank these institutions on a state-by-state basis and it seems disingenuous to suggest that you're not advancing a POV when the 3rd, 21st, or 78th "best" college suddenly become the 2nd best college with a nice parenthetical disclaimer as well as a citation to a source that doesn't even back the assertion up. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But here's the thing MCB: I agree with you that there are very few legitimate reasons to include this info in an article. And the way you put it (suddenly becoming the 2nd best college w/ a disclaimer) is certainly not appropriate. I see completely how that is an intentional misrepresentation and is POV and is not permissible; however, I still don't see how it is OR. OR and POV are two separate things: OR deals with the source of a "fact," and POV deals with the context in which the "fact" is presented. All of your arguments seem to deal exclusively with the latter. And that's fine, but in the hypothetical situation in which there is a worthy and legitimate reason for neutrally reporting a university's ranking within a state, we should be able to report it. (Side note: In case you're wondering, I've never tried to write something like this in an article, nor do I particularly care about the rankings themselves.) -Nick^talk 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)