Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 6 September 2009

Higher education Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Werdnabot Template:WPUNI sidebar

Admissions info in "Academics" sections

(Transfered from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Admissions)

I'm wondering if information about admissions statistics and practices belongs in the "Academics" section of the article, as is outlined by the article guidelines. Strictly speaking, aren't a school's academics the scholarly pursuits there (viz., teaching and research)? It seems illogical to combine the two, even slightly synthesized in its subtle implication that who gets in influences the academic activities at the institution. I suggest that notable admissions information be allocated to its own section. Any thoughts?– DroEsperanto 19:58, 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)

Hm, unless we went with a People section like Madcoverboy advocates, I'd just as soon leave it under Academics. True, admissions isn't necessarily about academics, but it's often thought to be ("selectivity") and fits better there than under Student life. I don't really think that it's worthy of its own section, for two reasons: a) That's at least as bad as having a separate Research section, if not worse -- just as many liberal arts and small colleges don't have a research focus, many U.S. colleges don't have admissions policies worth writing an entire section about. b) I also think that it'd just encourage boosterism for those institutions with selective admissions policies -- much like having a separate Rankings section, which right now is just an option under Academics (I wouldn't advocate splitting that off, either). --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Although "it's often thought to be", without an explicit, NPOV, and verifiable (read: non-existant) explanation of its connection it seems pretty non-sequitur at best and POV'd at worst (in the implication that this school and its academics are great because it's hard to get into). I like idea of some admissions data being used in a "People" section, although selectivity data still seems like it would be difficult to integrate for the same reason. I would suggest an admissions section only for schools with notable or unusual admissions statistics or policies (I can see a defense being made for inclusion of Harvard's selectivity, because how hard it is to get in there is part of its fame, or schools for whom going SAT optional was controversial or otherwise a big deal). Otherwise, I think it should probably be put into a section about the student body, or linked to in "External Links".– DroEsperanto 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that admissions information should only included for universities with notable or unusual admissions statistics. I still find myself having to push back against editors at some liberal arts colleges that insist on asserting they are "highly selective" in the lead or opening sentence and can point to a variety of quasi-reliable sources such as Princeton Review to back them up when in fact these institutions have 50% or higher admissions rates. My point is, it's hard to assess where to cutoff and I believe the information serves a basic descriptive purpose so long as it is tightly proscribed and neutrally presented. One need only look at the difficulties in reigning in all the "Ivy" designations (Southern Ivy, New Ivy, Public Ivy, etc.) to see the problems in enforcing a cutoff on an identity that is explicitly defined, to say nothing of attempting to determine which universities are entitled to an admissions section. Editors are welcome to see what I've done re: a "People" section at Massachusetts Institute of Technology#People and Northwestern University#People. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. I agree that raw admissions data does serve a purpose, but I think we'd have to be careful about what information we put in a section titled "Admissions". Information about the makeup of the student body (like the average SAT scores and percent in top 10% of their class of the matriculating students) would belong in a People or Student Body section, since it is undeniably a description of the student body, but I'd prefer to put information about acceptance rates in "Admissions" section since it's more of a description of the application pool and admissions policies than of the student body. Similarly, I'd think that rankings belong in the academics section and not in an admissions section, since they're primarily supposed to be a metric to describe the quality of academics (although selectivity is 15% of the USNWR undergrad ranking).

I'm also wondering what other data should be included in a hypothetical admissions section. Should information about the application process be included, like Early Action/Early Decision/rolling admissions, Common App or not, etc.?– DroEsperanto 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

General concern

I am not directly involved in this project, but I often consult Misplaced Pages articles on universities, and I work in one and have worked in several others. My concern is that too many Misplaced Pages articles on universities read as positive publicity, and not as encylopaedic dispassionate articles for the reader who really wants to know about a particular university. I do not like the way that one of the goals of the project is expressed as "...represent the interests of colleges and universities...". Surely Misplaced Pages should be representing just the best approach we can make to the truth? For example, in the article on one university I know well, there is no mention of severe financial problems under the immediate previous vice-chancellor (rector, president), problems that alter the facts of how the university can operate now. Another university I know well has also written the previous highly-influential president (rector, vice-chancellor) out of the article, even though he was the major influence on the shape of the institution now. In another case, the discussion page comments that much of the (positive) editing of the article is coming from an I.P. address within the rector's office. That is hardly neutral NPOV Misplaced Pages editing. Should there not be rules that the history section of each article about a university should include salient verifiable information about the recent past of the university, whether positive or negative, and that the recent past should not be airbrushed out? Also, there should be rules that editing that comes from a universitiy's administration or its press office or similar should have the potential conflict of interest made clear? University people are often clever, and they are cleverly mis-using Misplaced Pages as a tool for good publicity, not as an encyclopaedia.Gordoncph (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns. However, I don't believe the problem is so much a result of internal policy as it is that most of the people who will edit college/university articles will be students or staff there and are more likely to want the article to make the institution sound good. There is an essay called Avoid academic boosterism that touches on some of what you've mentioned.

Regarding your suggestion for a rule regarding history sections, I think that's already somewhat implied by NPOV and the desire to have complete articles, although maybe it could be added more explicitly to WP:UNIGUIDE. As for the COI problems, the conflict of interest guideline already states that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested."

I also encourage you to be bold when you come across problems like these and just delete or modify the tone of content if it's clearly POV'd. – DroEsperanto 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As DroEsperanto outlines, there are already a bevy of policies, guidelines, essays, and other administrivia that will certainly back you up on your criticism of university articles being airbrushed. The business of enforcing them is the responsibility of every reader and editor. If it's the case that there are IP editors editing topics with which they have a clear conflict of interest, please notify the powers that be at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

However, I would caution against using the university's article as a coat-rack to discuss controversies surrounding particular individuals actions, especially in light of the potential for this material to violate NPOV, biographies of living persons, undue weight, and recentism. It's a delicate tightripe we must walk, but the overriding aim of an article about a university should be to describe the university, without placing emphasis on controversies, rankings, etc. to the exclusion of basic, common descriptive information. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am grateful for these constructive comments, and also for leading me to a few good Misplaced Pages articles I did not already know. It is right to be bold but I am not going boldly to edit the two articles I referred to earlier because I have COI of my own. I will wait for others to do the necessary editing. A current example and potential test, where I have absolutely no COI, is the University of Oxford. John Hood retires as Vice-Chancellor soon. There is a good and fair account of his work in Oxford in the Misplaced Pages article about him. It is factually and descriptively relevant to the recent history of the university, and likely to remain relevant for some years. We need to ensure that there is a reference or link that remains in the University of Oxford article so that users of Misplaced Pages who do not know Oxford can find the factual and relevant description. I will keep watching! Gordoncph (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Boston College

Especially in light of concerns raised by User:ElKevbo, I want everyone to know about the "discussion" going on at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-19/Boston College. --King of the Arverni (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That entire case fails the WP:IDONTLIKEIT test. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Ivy League university presidents

Hi all. I've recently started editing the article List of Ivy League university presidents. Another editor and I are having some disagreements over how the article should be formatted (namely over the section headers and the categories), and I would certainly appreciate the input from any other editors so as to establish a broader consensus. Esrever 05:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content fork to me. Why does it exist at all, when the chief content is cut-and-paste from List of Presidents of Brown University, List of Presidents of Columbia University, etc? — mholland (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mholland re: the superfluous nature of its existence. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree it's a content fork and overcategorization. AfD? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RAE 2008

Is there an agreed format for writing about the 2008 RAE results? The scores are confusing at the best of times and most universities could probably write about them in a way that makes them look good. It would be good to have an agreed standard amongst the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkejazz (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Who or what is "RAE" ? --ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he/she is referring to this. – DroEsperanto 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Temple University

There is an edit war brewing at Temple University‎ and the article for its current president. I'm not sure what to do but it seems that (a) the material is relatively well-sourced and notable but it's (b) not needed in both articles, at least not in full, and (c) it's way too long. Suggestions on how to handle this? --ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed outright, from both articles. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for unhappy employees to catalogue their grievances. The text is referenced, but it's a POV synthesis of local news articles, to advance the argument that "Labor Relations under Hart have reached a nadir at the University". — mholland (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Authorization for Creating a Task Force: Community Colleges

I am currently working on improving accredited Community College pages to bring them up to standards and wanted to begin a task force focusing on Community Colleges. I am working on my own to add information, citations, and open photos and images and I would like to find assistance where possible. A task force may be the best way to do this. I would appreciate assistance and recommendations. IlliniGradResearch

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it, you don't need anyone's authorization. Misplaced Pages operates along the lines of the old adage: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will get started. I have already completed a couple of red link community college articles such as Rend Lake College and John Wood Community College and Shawnee Community College. Please feel free to join in and offer advice and input. Thanks IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Florida State University

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Florida State University article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review is here. It is my opinion that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. There are several dead links, areas of the article that need to be referenced, and a general tone to the article that does not appear neutral. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors. Please contact me on my talk page should you have questions. H1nkles (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Move

Thinking of moving Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines to Misplaced Pages:College and university article guidelines since it already holds guideline status. Any thoughts? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Master, Warden, Provost and President &c

Currently, there are separate articles about masters, provosts, wardens, rectors, presidents and principals. These mainly seem to be lists of all the different jobs someone with that title may hold, like a dictionary entry.

Given that these can all refer to the same job, and since Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary we should be writing about jobs rather than the various titles and what they can mean, would anyone have any objections to merging all these into (or, in the case of provost and president, linking to) one article about the job rather than the title. For example, if we titled that article "Master (college)", it could start something like:

A master (alternatively provost, warden, rector, president or principal) is the head and chief executive of a college.

At the moment, many of the articles start by saying "blah is the title given to", but I think it would be better to have one single article about the job, which mentions in passing that different institutions call it different things. Good idea/bad idea...? Charlie A. (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, although there are some problems. For example, a provost is not a president. A provost usually reports to the president, who handles a lot of external and fundraising matters, and handles internal matters like overseeing a dean of students and a dean of faculty. Since you're proposing a merger of several terms into one article, it then might make sense to have an article on Academic titles or something, and sections for each of the terms, including professor, dean, vice president, &c. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true. The difficulty is that not only do different universities have different hierarchical structures, at different institutions different jobs have the same title (e.g. the president of Clare Hall, Cambridge does not have the same job as the president of the University of California) and the same jobs have different titles (e.g. the president of Clare Hall, Cambridge does have the same job as the provost of King's College, Cambridge).

Sorry if that's a bit muddled. It's quite a muddled area. What I'm suggesting is there be one article for the "head of a college" (e.g. the provost of Trinity College, Dublin, the rector of Lincoln College, Oxford, the master of Christ's College, Cambridge) and another for the "senior academic administrator" (e.g. the provost of Oregon State University, the pro-vice-chancellors of Australian Catholic University). Instead, what we have at the moment is an article for each title and an explanation of its position at different universities across the globe.

I'd also be in favour of merging a lot of the articles on "de-facto chief executive of the university" (e.g. vice-chancellor of University of Bristol, president of Brown University) into one article. That would take a lot of doing, because of the vastly different systems of governance of universities around the world. However, there's a distinct job of "being in charge of a college" which is usually called a master or a provost in the UK and Ireland, and the information on that job is spread over many different articles. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the rest of the world. It's basically being top dog in a constituent college of a larger university (e.g. colleges of University of London, colleges of University of York). Charlie A. (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a little too close to original research to me, unless any published sources have used that kind of language or comparison. Maybe just merge them into Academic administration? — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick google search turned up: , (at the bottom, under the heading "colleges"), , (at the bottom, where it lists the different heads who have resigned, they are loads of different titles, but The Times considers them all "heads of college"), (half-way down, under the heading "Rector-England").

These all refer to Oxbridge masters, though I'm sure I could draw up some sources for the masters at Durham, York, London and Dublin with a bit more digging. Charlie A. (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of University of Glasgow

University of Glasgow has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

USNWR

The new rankings hit the newsstands and web today (August 20). Be vigilant in simply updating the numeric score, rather than reproducing every single ranking or expanding the rankings into the lead or other sections. Also, from this AP report, another interesting ranking from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni grading general curricular requirements available here. I'm a bit preoccupied with RL issues at the moment, but I would appreciate it some enterprising editor could update Template:Infobox US university ranking to both include the ACTA as well updated references for USNWR. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would we include a terribly flawed ranking published by a far right wing group intent only pushing their viewpoint and agenda? --ElKevbo (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Every ranking employs methodologies of questionable merit to push the particular publisher's viewpoint and agenda, so I don't believe we can draw the line in the sand there. However, if this group is actually the educational analogue (or extension) of a CATO Institute, John Birch Society, or some such unabashedly partisan organization as ElKevbo asserts, then I stand corrected and it probably should not be included. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I RFA and see that ACTA is sponsored by the Bradley Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation which are demonstrably conservative organizations, but I don't see them as explicitly partisan. I'm not wed to the idea of including them in the template nor does their methodology seem entirely transparent and airtight, but I nevertheless like to see notable and reliable rankings in which "the usual suspects" don't rank that highly as a litmus test for the NPOV tolerance of editors. Forbes and Washington Monthly do a nice job of upsetting the USNWR status quo, in this regard. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you do a little bit more research about this organization. They're not the worst group in the world but they are explicitly partisan.

Regardless of the organization's flaws or strengths, we need to ensure that their ranking is notable before including it anywhere. I see that it has been mentioned a few times in mainstream sources but I'm not satisfied that this new ranking has risen to the level that merits inclusion in this template. I expect that this ranking will fade into obscurity very quickly but only time will tell. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: the updating of the template, would it be worth adding a small message at the top of the template for a couple days saying "USNWR has released new rankings, please update the template" or would that be too disruptive? Also, have the education/engineering/med school rankings also been updated? All of UChicago's are the same. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-peer review on Colgate University?

Hey everyone. Basically I've been doing a lot of work on the Colgate University article, and I could use someone to sanity check it for me. I guess I could submit it to WP:PR, but I'm not entirely sure that it's even at that level yet. Could someone stop by and give their thoughts on the article? There's always room for improvement, but since I've been going it alone, I could use another set of eyes before taking it anywhere. Oh, and perhaps a reassessment in order; the article is current ranked as C, but that was given quite awhile ago. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Residence Hall Association

I just prodded this article and gave my reasoning on its talk page - essentially I think the topic is too undefined and vague, yet simultaneously too specific to the workings of each university to really develop into a broad-based and well-cited article. I would imagine that each college's article (or if there are articles about dormitories) could make a note about whatever kind of iteration of an RHA that college does or doesn't have. If you have any thoughts on remedying the underlying problem, please go ahead and fix it, but I don't think adding a lot more citations about every college's unique situation will be helpful. Thanks! Surfer83 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings notability

In light of the discussion above as well as a new debate at Talk:Johns Hopkins University, I think we need to clear the air about how we're going to go about deciding what rankings merit inclusion or not. The JHU debate centers on including or excluding the Forbes rankings on the basis of its supposed methodological unsoundness and thus reliability or notability for inclusion. The issue of assessing the notability of university rankings has never been fully discussed in my view and I'm not comfortable with the editors of each article adjudicating which rankings to include or not include given the obvious potential for these discussions to give undue weight to only positive rankings. I'd like to begin what I'm sure is a spirited discussion about amending WP:UNIGUIDE to more explicitly establish what rankings should or should not be included in an article or infobox template. This primarily concerns US universities, but there is also a proliferation of international rankings as well.

• Do we exclude rankings based upon lack of notability? How do we establish this notability?
• Do we judge methodological soundness as a measure of reliability for the source and for inclusion?
• Do we exclude popular but unreliable rankings but include potentially non-notable but more reliable rankings?

Feel free to add more questions below or discuss the preliminary ones I've proposed. Please also notify other editors of this discussion here. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this as a defense of ranking systems, which all have severe intrinsic flaws. But the Forbes system would almost certainly receive a failing grade in any decent first-year graduate research design course:

1. Using post-graduate debt loads and graduation rates as stand-alone measures of quality essentially guarantees that schools attended by the less well-to-do will be relegated to the bottom of the rankings. Obviously, if a researcher chooses to consider such issues, the least he or she could do is to measure these variables in some sort of socio-economic context, that is basic social science. The Forbes system does not do so.
2. And speaking of basic social science, the use of a self-selected sample such as RateMyProfessors.com is simply preposterous. It merely displays what a small, unrepresentative sample have reported to some snarky website. (And no, the fact that all schools face the same problem doesn't level the playing field; awareness and use of RMP may vary significantly between campuses, and organized efforts may be mounted by various student groups.) Furthermore, the use of internal faculty evaluation by many universities voids the legitimacy of using RMP even further.
3. As for using Who's Who in America, even a cursory level of research should have revealed Tucker Carlson's brilliant takedown of the entire Who's Who enterprise. Carlson's article, after all, appeared in FORBES MAGAZINE! (http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0308/063.html).
4. Using salary surveys on payscale.com based on self-reported data by a self-selected group of alums. Not only is it not a scientific sample with no effort being made to verify possibly inflated salary claims, the data also takes into account only alums with terminal bachelor's degrees, so schools where a high percentage of graduates go on to graduate and professional programs will effectively be penalized by having many of its highest-earning alums pushed out of the data.
5. Glaringly absent, in all the Forbes focus on outcomes and satisfaction, is any consideration of selectivity. If you ignore selectivity (scores, class rank, admit rates), you are ignoring how the most capable students, the ones with the greatest range of choices, have voted with their feet and with their parents' wallets. The "votes" of every student - not just a self-selected few who report to payscale.com or ratemyprofessor.com - are aggregated in the selection metrics. So I think these (or other data reported in the Common Data Sets, such as freshman retention) are more reliable indicators of quality (as used by the ranking systems of USNEWS and ARWU) than the metrics Forbes uses.
6. Finally, as I have articulated above, Forbes mixes cost-related and quality-related factors in a very unprincipled way. This is an unorthodox way to rate things, whether we are talking about cars and washing machines or universities. Better to separate cost from quality in order to expose how much extra value one gets for extra cost. This ranking hides that. The criteria mixes outcomes with satisfaction and performance factors, but the outcomes (Who's Who listings or top salaries) are not necessarily the ones most sought by individual students or schools (even assuming they are entirely attributable to college quality, which they aren't).TennisGrandSlam (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict, argh! Well, I noticed this and couldn't resist, although I'm not sure how much I can contribute to a meaningful discussion. Here's my dilemma: while I often tolerate rankings in Misplaced Pages articles with reliable sources, I really hate rankings. I hate rankings for the same reasons most people who hate rankings do: I feel like it's just a way for magazine to make money and support the status quo, for popular schools to stay popular and rich schools to stay rich. I guess there's something very Darwinian in that, but I don't think it's really good or natural selection, either. I think it's odd that schools like Daniel Webster College can be top-tier one year and on the verge of bankruptcy and loss of accreditation the next. And even if every single third- and fourth-tier school went bankrupt and defunct this weekend, you'd still have third- and fourth-tier schools next year -- they'd just be schools that used to be top-tier. I'm not sure there's any real benefit to the ranking, but maybe I'm just not competitive enough. I actually like the NAICU U-CAN method of presenting information on face value, and I'd love to see Misplaced Pages eschew rankings in university articles in favour of that method (a great way to avoid some WP:BOOSTER issues, I suppose). But I realise that'd also be quite unpopular, and I don't feel as though my argument is either new or terribly cogent. I suppose that I just wanted to contribute, since it feels like I haven't been around much lately! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, I completely agree! I would readily vote in favor of a policy to eschew rankings entirely in Misplaced Pages university articles.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Forbes rankings goes, if it can be verified by other people (not just our own deduction) that Forbes is unequivically not reliable for what it claims to be reporting (significantly moreso than USNWR and other rankings), then we shouldn't use it. That being said, this raises the question: if we use rankings in articles to sum up the quality of institutions, are rankings published by newsmagazines really the most reliable source? I would argue probably not, although many people would argue differently. I feel like if we list them, though, we're inherently endorsing the rankings as reliable indicators of quality. That being said, I have a hard time thinking to ban rankings from all articles, because I think they do have some value in conveying the nature of an institution (prestige, mostly), although whether the good that does outweighs the bad of shrouding the basic description of an institution in rankings madness is questionable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm arguing for getting rid of rankings (I admit that I'd like that, but I'm mostly arguing for the sake of argument here), but I disagree with the whole "I think they do have some value in conveying the nature of an institution (prestige, mostly)" because of the whole WP:PRESTIGE issue. Selectivity, for example, can, to some extent, be determined via Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which doesn't rank. On the other hand, USNews lists Southern Nazarene University as "selective" in the new 2010 rankings -- but it's an open admissions college. I realise it's my own OR, but that doesn't sound at all reliable to me. And, if prestige is important, I'm sure we can find plenty of books and articles that aren't concerned with ranking to back up "real" prestige. So, thoughts? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this conversation dead or do we really think that banning rankings use is a great idea? I can start planning a party if it's the latter. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a foregone conclusion that a blanket ban on rankings would not be accepted by the community. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we honestly going to put Forbes rankings out here? Hopkins dropped like 70 places to like 140-150 this year. How much credibility can you put on a ranking that allows a school to fluctuate +/- 75 position slots per year. Forbes even wrote an article back in 1999 on how flawed the "Who's who in America' list is... Now they are using it as a part of their core methology for the Forbes ranking. I think a graduate student could have developed a better ranking system than Forbes. lol --Phead128 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the issue as I see it: no matter how questionable rankings are, they a) seem to be popular -- although I'm more a fan of trying to find out than assuming the foregone conclusion -- and b) seem to factor into verifiability. That is, to say that they're unreliable based on what we have so far mainly seems to constitute WP:OR. That said, if there's some way to determine that USNews, Forbes, &c. do not constitute WP:RS then we'd have a shot at taking them out. That's the only way, if you ask me, and until we can prove that then I don't see how there's any way to exclude any of them. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that any ranking being published by a major and otherwise well-established organization has the presumption of reliability and is also necessarily notable even if their methodology is as unreliable as counting how many times the letter "Q" appears in the student roster. It's not our place to nitpick methodologies because every ranking methodology is necessarily imperfect. If you want rankings in the article, you don't get to cherry pick among the notable ones. The matter at hand remains how to establish notability, not reliability. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment of Texas State University

Hi, Texas State University's rating is currently "start." Will someone reevaluate it, bringing it's Article rating up to date? Also, a list provided on what more to improve about the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks, --147.26.208.127 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup template

What does everyone think of the new {{Cleanup-university}}? I tried to model it after the new {{Cleanup}}, but I'm not terribly skilled with these things. Feel free to tweak some of my mistakes. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Help With Definition of "Established" Date

I looked through the table of contents for all the talk pages and couldn't find an answer to this: Is there a consensus as to what it means for a University to be "established" on wikipedia? The issue has arisen on a couple pages I've worked on. First, in a discussion today here Talk:University of Kansas, I maintain that the date must be either when the university opened to students (1866) or was chartered by the legislature (1864). However, KU's seal says "Estalished 1865." I can't find anything to support this date on the seal. Notably, KU's website does not reference anything happening on 1865. The KU website states: "Opened in 1866, the University of Kansas is a comprehensive educational and research institution..." Likewise, the history linked on KU's own website begins: "When the University of Kansas opened on September 12, 1866..." . This Kansas Cyclopedia history also does not support 1865.

With respect to ancient universities, a consensus has arisen that the foundation date is the date the institute is recognized by a royal or papal charter. (See List of oldest universities in continuous operation.) I did some work on this page, University of Santiago de Compostela, and although the university itself claims to be founded in 1495, and actually celebrated its 500th anniversary in 1995, wikipedia states it was founded in 1526 based on the date it was chartered by Papal Bull.

Finally, Iowa State University presents another case. Its infobox claims it was "established" in 1858. I'm not sure where this date comes from. The legislature chartered it in 1856, and it admitted its first students in 1868. The university apparently celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2007. Clarity and consensus on this point would be useful.-Kgwo1972 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, founding year is whatever an institutions says it is. For example, Boston College uses its charter date but Boston University doesn't. Sometimes schools will even absorb others and take the other's founding year, if it's older, like in the case of University of New England (although I maintain that this is a rather questionable practice). It's not regulated in the U.S. any more than "college" vs. "university" is, and University of Kansas probably says 1865 because it's a compromise between 1864 and 1866. It's not really a big deal, so if the seal says 1865 I'd just leave it at that and make a note explaining the confusion (like at Harvard University). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I will change the founding date for the University of Santiago de Compostela to 1495 (which it already is on the Spanish wiki, I've noticed). -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense if a) that's what the university claims as its founding year and b) there are no legal statutes or other regulations that would void such a claim. Obviously, you can't just make stuff up, but most institutions' official histories are generally considered reliable enough when it comes to a year of establishment. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The university claims that date, and in fact had a major event to celebrate its 500 anniversary in 1995. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Iowa State (sorry I neglected to address that), the history on their website ()) says 1858. It's the second footnote in the article. Seems you were incorrect about the charter date for Iowa State (the bill was introduced in 1856 but wasn't signed into law until 1858). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I took those dates from the wikipedia article itself, so I guess those are wrong. Anyway, I did look up further information on ISU's 150th anniversary celebration, and it was from 2007 to 2008, so that jibes with 1858.-Kgwo1972 (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as I posted on Talk:University of Kansas, I don't believe it's ultimately up to wikipedia editors to decide that a university was established at a date other than what the university claims. Also, there is no more data to support changing the date in the article to 1866 than there is for 1865. Finally, one of the articles that Kgwo1972 found cites 1865 as the year the board of regents for the University of Kansas first met, so I'm guessing that is why the University uses '65 as their establishment date. Ryan2845 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As I commented on various talk pages (including this one) a very long time ago, I believe that the "established" field in the {{infobox University}} template should be made non-mandatory, so that it would not be necessary to choose one establishment date for the ambiguous situations of institutions that can claim multiple founding dates. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that making the field non-mandatory solves the problem at all. Frankly, and please don't take offense, but such a move seems unnecessarily silly because all institutions claim an establishment year -- UK clearly says 1865 on it's seal -- and in cases requiring clarification, there's a footnotes section for the infobox. Seems to me as though all the tools needed for the job have already been made available to us in this case. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady's point that "established" is an ambiguous/meaningless term if it means whatever each school individually wants it to mean. (I'm fairly surprised that there's no wikipedia consensus on what "established" does mean.) Including that date in the infobox imparts little knowledge to the reader other than: this is when the school claims it was established. However, since we also categorize each school by date of establishment, I also agree that making it non-mandatory in the infobox does not solve the problem at all. Oh well, moving on. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I see four problems with that argument:

1) Institutions constantly self-define their names, their founding dates, their affiliations -- all of which are backed up by reliable sources.

2) There's no need to be surprised because there is consensus -- that it's self-defined.

3) If you don't want to include the established year because it's self-defined, then you might as well remove the motto, the name, the endowment, and everything other bit of information that is based on self-reported but verifiable data.

4) That it's useless information sounds like a terribly subjective statement to make, and doesn't seem to pass the WP:IDONTLIKEIT test.

What I usually do when a founding year is complicated is the following: make sure the history section is comprehensive and verifiable, add footnotes clarifying the founding year in the infobox, and add more than one establishment category for schools that have merged or recognize two significant dates. I never considered doing these things such a hassle that I felt the infobox needed to be altered, but that's just me. Does it really seem that unreasonable a course of action? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the the way you are doing it - indicate in the article just whateven the date refers to. The infobox is just a summary and does not need the details. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On the thread of this conversation, I'm wondering what I should do in the case of the University of Chicago; as far as I know, the school doesn't claim a specific founding date (nothing on a seal or anything) and the news office provides conflicting information (this source says 1891, while this source claims it's 1890, and I think that milestones are celebrated based on 1892). I've made a point of never claiming a founding or established date in the article, stating exactly what happened when, but I'm wondering whether I should leave the infobox blank or use the date 1890 (when it was incorporated, which seems like the most official thing). An old version of the article said that the University traditionally dated its founding to 1891 but I've never seen any source that verified that. — DroEsperanto (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is some fun sleuthing. Well, using the official history on the web is always a good move but it's even better when it's actually confirmed by something like http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/brief-history.shtml. I suppose that news article was just wrong, because if you go up a section and then click on this link, it just corroborates the history page. 1890 it is, I suppose. If you can find equally reliable sources for 1891 and 1892 dates, don't be bashful about using footnotes. I've always been a fan of using  tags with a symbol. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would believe printed material from the institution over the website. I have found that University websites are authored by low-level employees and work-study students in comparison with printed materials which tend to be reviewed by a larger number of people. Reliable independent secondary sources is what Misplaced Pages seeks. Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with "The U"

We are having a disagreement on what may be listed as alternative names for the University of Miami. The article now reads "The University of Miami (commonly referred to as UM, or Miami of Florida,) is a private, non-sectarian university..." Some editors propose to add "The U" as another common name. They cite as a reference the website insidetheu.com (which is an athletics website devoted to the University of Miami) as authority for this claim. In turn, I have argued that students everywhere use phrases like "I am going to school now" or "I am heading toward campus." But that does not mean that every college in American would include "school" and "campus" in the list of its popular names. If a student were travelling to another city and was asked "where do you attend?" that would not be an answer. People at every university use the pronoun "it", but only when the antecedent is understood, but we would not list "It" as a commonly known name for the University. I offered the following counter examples of the use of "The U": www.theu.com, www.theu.net, restaurant, "Making voluntary contributions to the U is central..." and The U - University of Misssouri student radio station. Why include "commonly referred to" names and shouldn't the names be reasonably meaningful beyond the campus itself? Racepacket (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a pressing issue. There was a years old discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of alternate names for the University of Miami. And there are reliable sources that show that it is also called "UM", "Miami of Florida", and "The U", and the last one is used exclusively by ESPN to discuss the school. Racepacket for whatever reason opened up the discussion anew and is suggesting that there was no consensus on the talk page when it is such a trivial thing to be edit warring over with two other editors who have worked on the article for the past three years. The University of Miami is in no way the only university that is referred to as "The U" but "The U" is one of the more notable nicknames for the University of Miami.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. There is no reliable evidence that "The U" has a secondary meaning that is widely accepted that makes the phrase synonymous with the University of Miami. User:Ryulong is applying a standard that would easily allow "The U" to be added as a "common name" for at least two dozen other universities. The ESPN website for the general public, espn.com, does not use "The U" to refer uniquely to the University of Miami. There is a set of school-specific ESPN-sponsored college fan websites, but even then, the web designers were careful to give other context for the use of "The U" For example, the drop down menu calls it "Miami: Inside The U" and the graphic references uses the color-coded split-U logo of the school. I don't see anything in the cited website that would suggest that ESPN or anyone else seriously believes that the phrase "The U" has a meaning equating it to the University of Miami outside a narrow context which ESPN is careful to repeatedly state by way of clarification. I don't know why it is desirable to offer a list of "common names" at the top of the article, but certainly "The U" has far less support than "UM" or "Miami of Florida." Racepacket (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable evidence that "The U" is one of the many nicknames/shorthand names for "the University of Miami". The fact that an ESPN affiliated website refers to the school and its athletic teams (particularly the Hurricanes football team) should be enough of a reliable source that Miami is one of the multitude of schools that go by the name "The U" colloquially. The same can be said for the University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc. There is nothing in the article that states that Miami should be the only school that is referred to as "The U". It is simply one of many, and "The U", along with "UM" and "Miami of Florida" are perfectly and reliably sourced subsitute names for the school. Saying that other institutions also could use the shorthand name is not a sound enough argument in my book, or in ElKevbo's book as per his reply at Talk:University of Miami. It apppears that you solely brought it upon yourself to question a reliable source that has been in place for at least a year until your sweeping changes to the article as a whole took place. You are the only user who has had a problem with it in two years time. Since the thread was started by Do be good man (talk · contribs) in April 2007, sourcing problems have been solved for the names "UM", "Miami of Florida", and "The U" until Racepacket here revisited the sourcing issue for completely different sources used for the five character colloquial name. Since discovering it, he edit warred with myself and MiamiDolphins3 (talk · contribs), completely removing this source and editwarring over the inclusion of this source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, I do not see any justification for removing a well-cited nick name from the lead of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rynlong is correct that the inapplicable sources were removed. Neither references shows an independent, widely-accepted meaning. For example, trademark attorneys frequently conduct scientific surveys to measure the secondary meaning of a phrase to the general public. If the University conducted such a survey and the results got reported in the media, there might be support for the claim. But neither of the two cited references is enough to support the claim. No edit warring here, just an effort to check that each reference is applicable to the statement made in the article, and more importantly that we need a Misplaced Pages-wide policy on these "commonly referred to as..." names. In response to User: Ottava Rima, there is a difference of opinion here as to whether the nick name is "well-cited." The referenced website carefully sets a Miami context before using "The U" reference. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to create a new sweeping policy is not helpful when you remove two sources that refer to a school as "The U". Merely because the school is referred to by its whole name first and then "The U" is not a good enough argument to support the removal of any reference to support the statement. The two references on the article now (which were both removed by you Racepacket) clearly support the statement. Your removal of the references and the statement without any discussion beforehand, merely going off of a thread begun in April 2007 when there were no references for the statement in question, was unhelpful and more or less disruptive to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to create a new policy to deal with this. Our core policies are more than adequate. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been clearly stated here that Racepacket is disrupting the article University of Miami to set a precedent and create a new policy in order to regulate the nicknames and shorthand names of all universities and colleges on this project by edit warring over the inclusion/exclusion of the name "The U" from the lead paragraph University of Miami by suggesting that the two independent reliable sources do not support the statement. The symbolism of the school utilizes the extremely iconic split U logo and the official symbolism of the university was changed to include the split-U. The use of the UM article to set a precedent is disruption to make a point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have noted, there is a big difference between a logo that uses a specific typeface, color scheme and "split" and the generic prose term "the U." The two references that User:Ryulong offers are not "independent reliable sources" -- one is a university-specific athletic fan website which uses the full color split-U logo, and the other was a news article in the trade press that carefully set out the full name of the University of Miami before allowing the shorthand "the U" to be used in the story. Trademark attorneys frequently conduct scientific surveys to see if a word or phrase has a secondary significance. If the University of Miami were to conduct such a survey and the results were reported in the press, then such a reference would support a claim that "The U" is widely used as a common name for the University of Miami. I didn't remove the offered reference to make a point, I made a number of changes when checking that the footnoted references matched the main text. We need some experienced editors from outside Southern Florida to weigh in and decide this issue. I can find hundreds of quotations where "campus", "school" or "it" are used to refer to the University of Miami, but in each case the context is set first. What is needed is evidence that the meaning of "The U" is so well understood beyond that locality that is has become the common name for the University of Miami. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I would say that the ESPN site is sufficiently independent of the University of Miami itself (although I don't even know why it would have to be independent, since the University itself is a reliable source on information about itself as long as it isn't unduly self-serving). Perhaps this isn't the article you're referring to, but if it is, I don't see them use the phrase "The U" anywhere except when quoting someone else. Even if that weren't the case, using the official name before going to an abbreviation isn't evidence that it shouldn't be included; the fact that it's used at all provides verifiable evidence of its use (although the fact that a couple soldiers used the term doesn't seem to provide that). My judgment is that I'd like to see one more source refer to it as The U, although I think the ESPN site is fine and I bet that more sources will turn up. "The U" is not the same as "the school" or "the university"; no one would refer to the University of Maryland or the University of Chicago as "The U". — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there was another reference for the use of "The U" in a colloquial sense but it appears to have been supplanted by the US Dept. of Defense article. It still appears that Racepacket is trying to set a precedent to produce a new policy governing the use of shorthand/common/colloquial names for universities on Misplaced Pages, taking the article on UM as its test subject by forcing sourcing on one of its common names. The use of "The U" in reference to the school in both links should be sufficient enough, as they are third party and it is not like we are sourcing something that is contentious. The fact that the soldiers call it "The U" should be enough in my opinion. Just because it is known as "The U" in one locality does not mean that when someone uses "The U" in Minneapolis or "The U" in Salt Lake City, they are referring to Miami, which is what I think Racepacket is suggesting. The statement in the lead of University of Miami does not make that distinction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either source on their own would be enough; the ESPN site could arguably just be referring to the logo (like a hypothetical site about the Chicago Maroons being called "In the C" after their logo), and the soldiers' use isn't enough either (I could be quoted as calling University of Maryland "U-Mizzle" in an article despite that no one on the entire planet calls it that). But, together, they seem to indicate that it's a nickname, although if it really were frequently used it would be easier to come up with less borderline sources IMO. — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a university referred to by a name based on its logo and it is original research to assume that websites refer to UM as "The U" because of the split-U. The University of Minnesota is another "The U" and their logo is a giant letter M.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems possible, considering that the logo they use clearly refers to the Miamo logo (and they don't seem to use the phrase "The U" anywhere else). And my thought that "The U" in the logo refers to the UM logo is as much original research as your claim that it refers to the school, since no source explicitly states either and both are just our assumptions (or, for that matter, that a handful of brief references constitutes a nickname). In any case, UM is also referred to as "The U" here and in this Miami Herald blog, although neither of them are great sources. It seems to me that "the U" is a very informal way of referring to the school (unlike, for example, "Georgia Tech" for the Georgia Institute of Technology), and I have no opinion either way as to whether it should be included in the lead or not. It doesn't seem to be an outright hoax, but the sources are grasping at straws a bit.— DroEsperanto (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added two more additional references and have two more if necessary. Four references to show that this particular institution is called "The U" is nitpicking. There is enough information to show that the school is called "The U" in Florida and by major news publications in and out of Florida. It is in no way "The U", which is what Racepacket was picking at, but I've got enough there. Needing such intensive sourcing on a nickname is disruptive, as have much of Racepacket's other edits to the article have been (such as adding {{fact}} tags to every other sentence in the Athletics section). If the four sources related to and independent from the school are not enough, then I'll add the two other ones I found. If it's fine, then I think this issue is resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Several problems: 1) the "ESPN reference" is not to espn.com, the general website, it is to a local, school-specific athletic fan site. So it does not show that it is widespread usage. 2) The Defense Link News does not say or imply that people unconnected with the University of Miami understand "The U" to mean that school. (It is not a " US Dept. of Defense" article.) 3) The fact that a local sportswriter choses to name his blog "Eye on the U" does not demonstrate that "The U" has a secondary meaning. Reading the contents of that blog shows that its author is careful to distinguish between Florida State University and University of Miami rather than using "The U" without setting the context. Again, this is local, not a regional or national source. 4) The fact that President Shalala named her CD "The Spirit of the U" does not indicated that she or anyone else uses "The U" as a substitute for the name of the University. (Again, this is a local, university webpage.) We want to be helpful to our readers, and flagging "Cal", "UNLV", "UNC", "UTEP" or "SUNY" in the lead paragraph of an article tells them that such nicknames are broadly accepted. We confuse our readers and reduce our credibility when we treat an ambiguous "The U" the same way. I am not saying that "The U" must mean only one school. I am saying that people in a large part of the country, who are not connected to that school should automatically associate the University of Miami with "The U" before it can be listed. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the references that have been put forward utilize "The U" to refer to the University of Miami or its sports teams. Again, you seem to be suggesting that the use of "The U" in the lead paragraph suggests that this is the only university to be referred to as "The U". I have repeatedly said that there is nothing that says that. I have provided enough to show that locally, UM is "The U". I went to The U. I call it The U. I am wearing a T-shirt that has the split-U on it. You are just nitpicking now. You are suggesting that the use of "The U" should be nowhere on Misplaced Pages, because it is generally a local colloquial name, because there are many schools that are referred to as "The U"s. The name "The U" is not used anywhere in the article other than the lead. Stop obsessing over these five characters and find something else on Misplaced Pages to write about for a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Please don't mischaracterize my position. Misplaced Pages does not document local colloquial names, it lists nicknames with secondary significance that people not connected to the locality or school would associate with the institution. Anyone who has read a sports page would recognize "Cal", "UNLV", "UNC", "UTEP" or "SUNY." "The U" is not like those nicknames/abbreviations. As a University of Miami undergraduate, you would not have the objectivity to judge this. That is why independent secondary sources are needed. 2) Ad hominem arguments and put-downs will not satisfy the requirement that Misplaced Pages be well-sources, objective and verifiable. None of the sources support the claim that "The U" is a common name for the University of Miami. 3) Is it your argument that "The U" refers to athletics or the university as a whole? Your logo argument is based on the "Split-U" athletic logo. Please explain. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"The U" is a common name within the locality of South Florida. Merely because there are other institutions that go by the name "The U" in other localities does not preclude the fact that this fact should not be mentioned on the article. I have shown that news agencies and the University itself refers to itself as "The U" as do those in association with it. This in no way means it should not be mentioned at all as you have been suggesting. Institutions that call themselves "The U" and that other entities call the institution "The U" should have that fact mentioned in the article. I've added four separate reliable sources that you have thrown out for no reason other than they are local to the institution. I have proven this beyond reasonable doubt and this should be resolved per the fact that there are four separate sources supporting this fact, and I could clearly find more if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But the statement in the article claims that it is "commonly referred to as" the U. I read that as being anywhere in the English-speaking world, not just on campus. I know that words like "the U", "campus" and "it" are used, but with context or an antecedent to give them meaning. You make an argument that it is a reference to the "Split U" athletic logo, so are you saying that it is used like "Hurricanes" and "'Canes" in an athletic context or for the whole university? Racepacket (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also never going to be able to find something that says outright "The University of Miami is also called 'The U'". Everything that is out there references the University of Miami as "The U" which is as best as anyone can get for a citation for the trivial statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't support the statement with the footnote, then don't mislead the readers by adding the footnote. I have offered six different formulations on the University of Miami talk page:

a) delete all common names
b) (sometimes abbreviated as UM, or Miami of Florida, or The U)
c) (locally and colloquially referred to as UM, or Miami of Florida, or The U)
d) (commonly referred to as Miami of Florida, and occassionally abbreviated as s UM, or The U)
e) (commonly referred to as UM, or Miami of Florida)
f) (commonly referred to as Miami of Florida,)
or any of the above without the footnotes, because none of the footnotes really support the text. In my mind, "commonly referred to as" calls forth the type of anlysis used in trademark law that measures when a significant part of the general public associates "The U" with the "University of Miami." People are asked "What word comes to mind when I say Apple." A large number of people will say "Computer" or "iPod" rather than fruit, because it is a "strong" trademark with a secondary meaning. "Otis" will have most people saying "elevator." But if you ask "The U" , noone outside of Miami will answer "University of Miami." We need some test to see what (if anything) should be listed. The words "campus", "school", "it" and "The U" can all mean the University of Miami in certain contexts, but that is not the generally accepted secondary meaning. We are making a general statement here for the entire English-speaking part of the world, not for the undergraduate dorms on the campus. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Campus and school are common nouns; "The U" is a proper noun, which makes your comparison like apples and oranges. (Not every "University of" school refers the themselves as "The U".) And your secondary-association test is inappropriate; if you were to ask a sample of people what "Chicago" meant, virtually everyone would say the city, not the University of Chicago, yet "Chicago" is indeed an appropriate alternate name for the University of Chicago, increasingly more so the further you go from Chicago. What the nickname's primary association is frankly is irrelevant; all we need to know is that it has a sufficient level of usage (intentionally vague). — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Project-Class Higher education pages
• WikiProject Higher education articles