Talk:Villanova University/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Seal

I just reverted Meganfoxx's edit that changed the infobox image from the general logo with the "Villanova University" text to a plain lseal. I actually am in favor of changing it to the seal, it's just that the new image was pretty low quality. Instead, we need to get a full color image of the seal up. I'll see what I can find, but in the meantime I'm reverting it back to the blue logo. nf utvol (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I'm pretty sure this article should mention the fight song and the alma mater, but I don't know where you'd find a source or what section it should go in.Wldcat (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the university website has something about both songs. I know that the guys who wrote the alma mater were relatively famous -- they wrote a couple other well-known songs. —  MusicMaker5376 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Can't seem to find it. I know I've seen something on them somewhere.... I'll look more later. —  MusicMaker5376 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would say they should probably go in the "Traditions" section. The fight song could go under athletics.... —  MusicMaker5376 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.villanova.edu/advance/alumni/about/history/fight_song.htm lyrics and whatnot. no real history of the music though... nf utvol (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The authors of the Alma Mater are Alan Dubin and Joe Burke, neither of whom apparently went here, but who, from the wikipedia articles on them, seem to have been fairly important in music history. I don't know anything about music history, so if someone who does could figure out how to integrate that into the article, I think that would improve it.Wldcat (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I suppose that would be appropriate in the "Traditions" section. I think that both songs are still under copyright, but we can get a sample of the Singers singing the Alma Mater and the band playing V for Villanova. I know I've seen detailed histories of both songs somewhere.... —  MusicMaker5376 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Should we archive this talk page? It's gotten pretty unruly...nf utvol (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating reassess

6 months or so ago we were discussing what should be done to move this article up from a B class. We've made a lot of progress, and have gotten through most of the goals that were set. What should be done now to bring it up to GA or A? In addition, I am going to go get pictures of Connelly Center for the Student Life section, as well as Villanova Stadium for the athletics section and the stadium article.nf utvol (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of work has been done, but there is still quite a lot to be done before it gets to a GA or beyond. I would suggest perusing some of the articles at Wikipedia:Good Articles#Educational institutions to see what would be necessary to get it to that point. I was today just thinking about setting up a to do list.

One of the main things that needs attention is the Academics section. It's just a (probably slightly outdated) list of majors. I'm not sure exactly what would need to go into each section, there, but check some of the other articles and maybe see what they have. Arguably, it's the most important section in the article. —  MusicMaker5376 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added an empty to do list. Anyone can add to it as they see fit. —  MusicMaker5376 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added quite a few other things. Looking at some of the other school GA-class articles, I would say that these sections are necessary. —  MusicMaker5376 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good! We're getting some more good ideas. The game plan should be to maybe get these done over the summer, then get this up for a peer review, then to WP:GA.
I would suggest picking something on which you intend to work from the to do list, and sign it with three tildes (producing just your username) so we know who is working on what. —  MusicMaker5376 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Academics section

I agree that a lot more needs to be added to the academics section. I think we definitely should mention the Core program, because that's sets apart the university, because there's a sort of philosophical debate in the academic world about how much of a core curriculum should be required versus elective. I don't know where you'd find a source for that. Maybe there's some Villanovan article debating the pros and cons of the core curriculum, or some press release after the core was modified, or something along those lines.
The learning communities should be included because they're becoming a bigger and bigger part of campus life, and I don't know to what extent they have them at other universities. Again, I don't know where'd you'd find a source for that (maybe some sort of admissions material), and it might belong in student life or traditions rather than academics.
We should probably mention notable research that the faculty and students have done or are doing. I don't know what that is. If faculty are required to research, that should be mentioned, as well as any other requirements for faculty that exists (I don't know what they are, if there are any). The mission statement of the university says that Augustinians get "appropriate" preference in appointments of faculty. I think that's definitely worth be included, and I'd add it right now, but as the academics section stands, it would be very out of place.
I'm pretty sure I heard when I took a campus tour that all faculty are required to teach. If that's true that should definitely be included- again, it says something about the outlook of the university.

It is definitely true that they all teach. I have no idea where to find a reference for that though. It one of the reasons why Villanova never really developed into a large research university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.69.204 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I thought should be discussed for addition would be the Mendel Medal, which they've given to scientists "who have done much by their painstaking work to advance the cause of science, and, by their lives and their standing before the world as scientists, have demonstrated that between true science and true religion there is no intrinsic conflict." I think it's notable because a lot of notable scientists (including Paul Farmer, off the top of my head) have received it (and it is informative about the outlook of the school), but only 2100+ hits turn up for "Mendel Medal" on Google.
I'm kind of just brainstorming for the world here, and I'd like to get others' thoughts on this before going further.Wldcat (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about the Mendel Medal- this year, apparently there was no recipient, and I can't find an explanation as to why.Wldcat (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just got my alumni magazine and it says the medal will be presented this fall to Rev. George V. Coyne, S.J., Ph.D.. Dppowell (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Degree list

I agree with User:ElKevbo and have removed the degree list since Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory of everything. These degree lists are unwieldy and largely relics of a consensus that is long gone among the university community. Look to any other university GA or FA and you will not see a list of every degree in every program in the main article, if anywhere. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of the list-pages of Wikipedia, I created a separate list page for the academic programs and linked to it from the Academic section.nf utvol (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry buddy - I just nominated that for deletion. It's nothing personal and I hope there are no hard feelings! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, no hard feelings. I've done my share of nominations... I spelled out my reasonings in the AFD page.nf utvol (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Art of Villanova"

The Villanova homepage now has a section called "Explore the Art of Villanova." You go to www.villanova.edu and it's under "Villanova News". I don't know how long it will last, and I don't know how much of the information is useful, but maybe this could be used to beef up the campus section or to add pictures (I don't know if they're usable under wikipedia's policy, but if you eventually got a free pic, the caption could include info from this site.)Wldcat (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "special olympics" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.villanova.edu/studentlife/specialolympics/ |title=Special Olympics |accessdate=2007-10-09|work=villanova.edu}}
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.villanova.edu/studentlife/specialolympics/|title=Special Olympics|accessdate=2007-10-09|work=villanova.edu}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

German Edition

Haben wir eine andere deutsche Sprecher? I set up an entry on the German wiki for Villanova, but my abilities are somewhat limited. Any help expanding it a bit more would be appreciated! de:Villanova University

Removal of Pop culture section

Recently, the Pop culture section was removed, with an edit summary citing WP:TRIVIA as justification. According to WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not, removing text is not encouraged nor justified. Rather, WP:TRIVIA#Guidance suggests that questionable text be incorporated into the main body text, as suggested by WP:TRIVIA#Guidance. Therefore, this removal was reverted.

Subsequently, the restoration was reverted, with the text being deleted once again. This time, the edit summary reads "those don't appear to be at notable or based on verifiable sources; please discuss in Talk before restoring the material as those are serious problems".

Hence, this discussion...

Both of the removed topics have sources that are easily checked; I just did that. One's source is the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and the other is a fan site wiki operated much the same way as Wikipedia. That source can be easily augmented by another IMDb source [1]. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles citing IMDb, which is generally recognized as verifiable. Therefore, these two topics have (or can have) verifiable sources and I suggest that the Pop culture section be restored and, when time allows, its contents be appropriately moved into the main body text, as suggested by WP:TRIVIA.

Since I despise edit wars, I will wait for the Wikimmunity to voice its opinion before taking any action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I dispute that the sources for these two facts are reliable. IMDb itself doesn't even seem to support that claim in its own FAQ. And a "fan site wiki" is prima facie unreliable.

Second, even if those sources are acceptable then the facts themselves are simply non-notable and fail to rise to the level of importance or interest to be included in an encyclopedia article. Contextless quotes from cartoons doesn't seem to be the stuff of encyclopedias to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that these sections are labeled trivia should be enough to convey the relative importance of the material to the rest of the article, namely, little to none. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. If the material is based upon reliable sources and can be integrated into a history, student traditions, or other sections, by all means retain it. I agree with ElKevbo's observation that the sources for this section don't even pass the smell test for reliability. There are venues for compiling pop culture references, but Wikipedia neither is nor should be one. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur regarding notability. The facts are not disputed, only their importance, which in this case isn't even close to marginal. Allreet (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, which it was why I removed them. In addition, if you refer to the archives for this page (from almost a year ago), this matter had previously been discussed, and consensus apparently reached with then-current editors, regarding removal of said section. A recent editor simply reverted back the deleted text. I'm for deletion of the section as non-encyclopedic and irrelevant to the article in question. Seriously? A *single* mention on a *single* episode of "The Simpsons"? Alphageekpa (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's Inclusionist philosophy, I almost always question removal of cited text, especially when the reason given for the removal is not what the cited Wikipolicy says. In this case, the Wikimmunity has spoken. That's the way it's supposed to work. CASE CLOSED. Truthanado (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of NAICU text

The text describing Villanova's participation in the NAICU and the University and College Accountability Network has been restored. It was removed with the edit comment "University rankings: rm NAICU spam". There is no reason to believe that it is SPAM; the organizations exist, are notable (have Wiki articles) and the NAICU's website confirms that Villanova is a participant. Truthanado (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. What does NAICU have to do with rankings? Amerique^dialectics 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NAICU allows readers to compare colleges. If you believe that it doesn't belong in this section, then may I offer that you suggest where else in the article it should go. It is a factual statement. Truthanado (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless it provides some sort of pretense of an independent evaluation of particular colleges i don't see how it is relevant in a section on rankings. i also don't see how Villanova's participation in NAICU is in itself especially critical to an understanding of the university. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Maybe list the particular participating colleges on the NAICU page. Amerique^dialectics 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't take issue with this attempt at transparency. But I simply don't think it rises to the level of being encylopedic. Why should Villanova's decision to participate in this movement be included in an encyclopedia article? It might help to read and address WP:RECENT.

In frankness, I am displeased that this text was placed, with an external link in contravention of our policies, in so many articles with no discussion or attempt to ascertain if it was even a good idea. It has all the hallmarks of WP:SPAM, regardless of the notability of the organization named in the text. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a simple rule I try to follow. I'm not sure it is explicitly quantified in Wikipedia guidelines and policies, although it is often quoted during discussions (example: the recent decision to delink auto-formatted dates in WP:MOSNUM). When in doubt, I ask myself, "Is this good for our readers? Does it provide them information they might be interested in?" In this case, the answer is "Yes"; a high school junior or senior doing research on prospective colleges, or their parents doing the same, might find this useful. Truthanado (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an admissions brochure or guide to college admissions. I am sympathetic to your position but unswayed by your argument. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree then. One more question, if I may. Why do people look in an encyclopedia? To find information that is important to them. That is the true meaning of "encyclopedic". Truthanado (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No Kappa Sigma fraternity at Villanova

Over the past several months, some anonymous IP editors have added Kappa Sigma to the list of fraternities. Kappa Sigma has no charter at Villanova, see the Kappa Sigma website; it's not listed there. Each time it has been reverted and will continue to be reverted until and unless someone can provide a verifiable source that clearly defines Kappa Sigma as being a legitimate fraternity at the University. Truthanado (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not I who have been doing the addition of that information, however a Google search of the terms "Kappa Sigma" and "Villanova" yields this 2008 press release listing Villanova as one of Kappa Sigma's 30 new "colonies" introduced in the past year. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Augustinians in North America

"The North American foundation of the order was founded in 1796 when Irish friars arrived in Philadelphia. Michael Hurley was the first American to join the Order the following year. Friars established schools, including universities throughout the Americas, including the only two Augustinian institutions of higher learning in the U.S. Villanova University in Villanova, PA and Merrimack College in North Andover, MA.

High Schools were also founded in the U.S. including: Austin Preparatory School Reading, MA, Malvern Preparatory School Malvern, PA in 1842, St. Rita of Cascia High School in Chicago, IL by 1909, St. Augustine High School San Diego, CA in 1922, Villanova Preparatory School Ojai, CA in 1925; Cascia Hall Preparatory School Tulsa, OK in 1926;Monsignor Bonner High School Pennsylvania in 1953; St. Augustine College Preparatory School New Jersey in 1959 and in 1962 Providence Catholic High School in Illinois. The educational and spiritual traditions of the Order of Saint Augustine (1244 CE) enrich each of the academic communities."

This has been removed from elsewhere (Merrimack College; and Augustinians) the last time without reason given: it probably should not be included anywhere as it may be direct copy from another website.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

College Republicans section

The section on the College Republicans blatantly violates the NPOV policy. It belittles the College Democrats and makes seemingly pompous, unverified claims. Additionally, the section reads like an advertisement. I have posted the NPOV tag to this section. Please make this section comply with the NPOV policy, or it will be removed. --Tsk070 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)