Talk:Wake Forest University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Movies filmed at Wake

This seems like an entire section that reveals a very obscure piece of trivia and should be eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.54.122 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

John Engel

How exactly is this guy notable? JHMM13 (T | C) 03:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page does not utilize the wikipedia universal format for universities. Some one should work to make it up to date. ArchonMeld 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit of a stretch

I have removed this sentence: "Wake Forest is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the United States." It's somewhat of a judgement call as to what constitutes "one of the top universities in the United States," but I wouldn't say being 27 puts it there. "Top unversities in the United States" ususally means something along the lines of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc. LaszloWalrus 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of the thousands of universities in the U.S., I think #27 on a respected list right alongside UNC-Chapel Hill, BC, Georgetown, etc. means it can be considered one the top universities in the U.S. I'm putting the phrase back in. JHMM13 (T | C) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I guess it is; the phrase seemed a bit odd to me. LaszloWalrus 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Top 30 is generally considered a Tier 1 School for Law Schools and there are MANY more colleges than law schools, so I think the top 30 for a University is "a top university"

Clearly Duke students should be the ones editing this page

"Clearly?" Duke students have a right to edit any page they want. JHMM13^(Disc) 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Out of Control

This is an encyclopedia not a place for every possible piece of information available. What's next - listings from WFU phone book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulpicius (talk • contribs)

I agree that it has gotten rather long and it needs a lot of cleanup. I think we now have the giant piece of limestone from which we can sculpt a featured article. If you wish to delete sections you find unnecessary or reduce them in size, you should consult the user who has made these changes and get to work on it. I sincerely hope you do because it would be nice to see Wake on the front page. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much, but I think the alma mater and fight song lyrics should be listed.

My Philosophy Behind my Wake Forest Edits

I am the one adding most of the info regarding Wake Forest, and no I am not Joe Martinez, but I do go to Wake Forest. What I have done is compiled the best features of all college articles into the Wake Forest article. I edited this article with 3 types of readres in mind:

• Perspective Students
• Current Wake Students
• Those out there trying to get a grasp of the quality of Wake Forest (be it academics - and trust me they use wikipedia a lot too, corporations, and etc.).

I want them to get a comprehensive idea of Wake's qualities (and I only speak the truth) either for giving them perspective on their potential future or for resources to be tapped.

I do agree it is one giant piece of limestone. What I was hoping someone would do is to create a easy directory tab (which I do not have the technical knowledge to do) like the one that exists at the bottom of Duke's article, that would allow easy access to information about Wake Forest, both inside information and general. Basically I want the information to be readily available and none of it cut.--Charhally 06:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to get onto Wikipedia enough to do anything about it myself. I encourage any users here to take the initiative to push this article to featured article quality. As you said, many people rely on the quality of this article to learn about Wake. Good luck, and thanks for your work! JHMM13 (T | C) 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Wake Forest

Oh and someone needs to make a History of Wake Forest article.

Image:GirlStudying.jpg

The illustrative photo used in this article is hosted at the Commons:, but it's against Commons policy. It has been removed and will soon be deleted. Thanks for your understanding. —UED77 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) But I don't understand -- exactly what Commons policy was violated, to what extent, and why does this result in removal? Thanks for understanding that I don't understand. Glen

Images

Guess what. Unsourced or unfree images are unacceptable here or at the Commons. Please take the time to understand Wikipedia:Image use policy and Commons:Commons:Licensing. If sources and proof of a free license are provided for any of the images I have deleted I will happily restore then. When in doubt please ASK FIRST to save everyone else's time cleaning up after you later. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Commons:Commons:Help desk. Thankyou. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Opinions

Some of the paragraphs added recently seem to be mostly unverifable opinon. I removed them. Salsb 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article has quite a bit of bias. I have removed part that said that the professors are respected by their colleagues and the students work ethic and great education enabled the university to produce Rhodes, Truman, and Marshall scholars. It might be true, but it's very vague and uncited. LaszloWalrus 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seal

Please bring up your image disputes with the appropriate Wiki authorities with regards to the Wake Forest seal. I uploaded it with a fair use claim. If you do not agree with the claim, please do not just delete it from the page. Thank you, JHMM13 (T | C) 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion after 11/11/2006 Merger

Is it possible to define the appropriate technique for merging two articles? The Nov 12 revert suggests "reverting plagairism edit". I made the Nov.11 edit - there was an amount of new information added in edits of 6 different parts of the article, as well as a merging of the WFU Study Abroad article. I am guessing this merging of the WFU study abroad article was the reason for the reversion. According to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages, it's ok to copy text between articles if merging ("How to merge pages, second alternate version"). If that was not the issue, could the reverter point out the other content that needed reversion. --Turketwh 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information included in this merger was plagiarized material from wfu.edu. I'm not implying that you did it, I'm saying that it is safer to keep it off this article, and I don't have time to sift through what is good or not. If you want to merge it and find out what is plagiarized and what isn't, go for it. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Faculty List

While some of the people on the notable faculty list are well known by the general public (Maya Angelou for example), many of the others may not be outside of a particular field. This section could use cleaning up (reducing the list), better explanations of why they are notable, or more links to Wikipedia pages instead of just a text list. I think the way the NC State article is doing this is pretty nice: List of North Carolina State University People --Turketwh 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

religious affiliation?

Is there one anymore? There clearly was at one time, but did it fade away? Can someone with an understanding flesh that out and possibly add to the intro paragraph whether the school is religious or not? --Bobak 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the school is no longer affiliated officially with the Baptist Church, but unofficially, there are obviously some ties that remain. Wake Forest is not a religious school...it used to be, like many other Unis. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some documentation on the previous Baptist affiliation on the WFU website (from the original Baptist starting of the University to the finalizing of the split in the 80s). It could be useful to do some research from that data and add this to the history section, particularly given it's significance to the University. I'll see what I can start gathering up over the holidays. I also have a WFU history book which probably has some information. --Turketwh 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blank space on the top of the page

I can't seem to get rid of this. What gives? JHMM13 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

new ranking

buisness wekek has ranked the calloway school #17 in the country for 2007. 152.17.52.193 06:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to support this claim: 2007 undergrad b-school rankings. If you want, you can put it in the article in the appropriate place. JHMM13 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done this now. JHMM13 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wake-lg.gif

Image:Wake-lg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External links removed

The following links are in violation of our policy and our policy stating that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. I have removed them and I invite discussion although I implore editors to make specific reference to policy. I am sympathetic to arguments such as "They're useful to some readers" and "It's an official university website" but those are not workable reasons for adding links to every article. We have to draw a line somewhere and those two policies cited above are where Wikipedia editors have collectively drawn the line for all articles.

The specific links removed are:

• Wake Forest University Press
• Old Gold & Black student newspaper
• Google map
• Windows Live Local satellite image - Color overhead picture of the main portion of the Wake Forest campus
• The Student (online magazine)
• Wake Radio
• Wake Forest College Birthplace Society
• Wake Forest School of Divinity

--ElKevbo (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no policy violations, including WP:EL. Each of the links is related to the article and adds information not found in the article. None of them is spam. So before deleting them again, please explain how they violate policy. We have to draw the line with ELs that add nothing to the article and with spam. But the vague argument that WP is not a directory of links tells us nothing. If I use that rationale alone, I could remove virtually every EL on Wikipedia. Give us specifics please about where policies are violated. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a closer look and removed two of the ELs. But the others clearly add to the article and do not violate WP policy. Ward3001 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First, several of the links are problematic because the External links policy states that "In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." So that means all of the wfu.edu links are problematic.

Second, two of the links are maps of the campus. I'm sure there is a perfectly decent map on the institution's webpage and if there is not then we certainly don't need to provide links to two of them.

Third, the length of this listing and the eclectic content indicate to me that this is an attempt at creating a directory of links related to Wake Forest, a definite no no.

This is an encyclopedia article and the links in the External links section should only be those that those that add something unique to the reader's understanding of the subject of this article. Adding links to this list merely because they are to webpages associated with the institution - no matter how neat or cool the webpage - must be considered only in light of its ability to add knowledge about this subject in a manner that we can not do with this article. This is not a directory of links merely related to Wake Forest. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I had already agreed above to removal of the maps (and, in fact, removed them), so that was a moot point before you even mentioned the maps.
  Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• That leaves six links, hardly a "directory of links" for WFU. In any event, the number of links constituting a "directory of links" is a matter of opinion, and your opinion (despite your assumptions) is not better than anyone else's opinion, so that must be decided by consensus.
  Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I assert that WP:EL and WP:NOT represent a far broader consensus than the three of us editing this Talk page... --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's rephrase that more accurately: WP:EL and WP:NOT as distored by you in an attempt to justify poorly considered, knee-jerk deletions that you didn't bother to look at in some detail. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would accept moving the link for the Divinity School to the article's section on the Divinity School (a more convenient place anyway), but policy purists would seize the opportunity to claim that external links should not be in the body of the article and immediately delete it without regard to the convenience of the reader (Yes, we are actually writing this encylcopedia for the reader, not ourselves).
  Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to compromise on that particular link. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Contrary to an ill-considered assumption, the remainder of the links are not necessarily a part of the WFU website, a fact you might have discovered if you had actually clicked the links and checked them out. The Wake Forest College Birthplace Society link is to a website of an organization that is only related to the current university by history, a fact that is easily discerned by someone who actually reads the website, because the university is not located at the same campus (or even the same city) as the site of the original campus. But to someone who just casually assumes that the words "Wake Forest" contained in the link automatically means it goes to the same website, that is a fact that might be overlooked. The facts (if anyone cares to know them) are that the university was originally in a town named Wake Forest, but is now in a town named Winston-Salem. So "Wake Forest" can refer to either the town, the old campus, or the current university.
  Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll overlook your crude and unacceptable attempts to insult me and merely state that I did overlook that particular link. I'm not convinced by your discussion, however, that the link belongs here. But I don't feel particularly strongly and would compromise on that one if you feel very strongly about it although I certainly don't understand that... --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether you are "convinced" or not, it is not a link associated with the university. That's the fact of the matter. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• The links to the campus newspaper, radio station, and online magazine are not part of the university's website.
  Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous claim. That pesky "wfu.edu" domain contradicts your assertion. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you had taken one second to actually click the link and then look, you'd see that they simply redirect from "that pesky 'wfu.edu' domain". Websites frequently have redirects to websites that are not part of their own website. The links could be re-written without any connection to the "wfu.edu" domain. But I didn't create the links as they are, I just went to the three seconds of trouble to click and look. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• So with removal of the maps, and placement of the Divinity School's website within the article, we are left with five links, four of which are not part of the university's website. They pertain to the university; otherwise that would be a genuine policy violation to include them. And they are not spam. So the knee-jerk, unfounded conclusion that this is some huge "directory of links" is absurd. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Horse crap. Those "wfu.edu" links are unmistakably part of the same website. And we must draw the line somewhere when keeping articles from becoming directories and that's a pretty good bright line. This is not DMOZ or Yahoo!; this is an encyclopedia article. If the links substantially add to the reader's understanding of the topic then they're good. Merely adding links because the groups are associated with the institution is the very definition of a directory. And if they're so important then they need articles and links in the "See also" section and not the "External links" section.

So convince me these topics are extremely significant and informative - not just because you need to convince me but because that's the bar to meet for adding or retaining External links. Merely liking the link or vacuously asserting that it's important isn't good enough. And remember that the onus is on those who wish to add or retain material. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made reasonable points, and you chose not to assume good faith by responding "Horse crap" and describing my opinions as vacuous. I'm not jumping to your irrational demands, especially with your completely inappropriate aggressive tone. And you have conveniently ignored most of my points. So we shall continue to disagree, and if others wish to express an opinion perhaps a consensus will emerge. Until then, however, I caution you against assuming that you own the External links section and thereby that you can make decisions as a consensus of one. Ward3001 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point on arguing over a handful of links at the bottom of this page. If it were 40 links, then I would agree, but it's only 5 or 6. I think it's time to take a deep breath and move on to improve another article. CH52584 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Process and respecting widespread consensus are important. But I'm not going to live and die because editors of one article don't understand our policies or like them. It is a fairly minor problem but it's a problem nonetheless. And I'm content to leave these problems here and move on as they are indeed minor. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but unfortunately some editors demand that things must be done their way despite what's best for Wikipedia and its readers. Ward3001 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And you continue with the personal attacks. I'm done interacting with you until you can learn to behave. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And "Horse crap" and "vacuous" comments are not personal attacks? Once again, a narrow-minded, inflexible, incredibly strained interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is shoved down the throats of everyone except the person who conveniently wants to use it for a personal agenda. Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to get back on topic, but has anyone decided as to the validity of leaving the links? I feel as though they systematically provide pertinent, helpful information. Furthermore, I feel as though, in the case of a University article such as this one, such information would be widely helpful to anyone looking at or researching the school. And Ward, what "personal agenda" are you describing? Would there be an ulterior motive behind leaving or removing links? I can't seem to find one. Strombollii (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Movies or documentaries filmed at the University

Movies or documentaries filmed at the University is a really good section.

Just kidding, it's a silly section. Call me crazy, but I think it should maybe just be a sentence in another section! Sempersoph (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In that there is only one film listed, I think moving the link for that film to the "See also" section would work. I'll do that in a few days if no one objects. Ward3001 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Logo

An anon editor has repeatedly replaced the more current logo (File:Wake Forest University logo.png) with the seal (File:Wake Forest Seal.gif) with no rationale. The general practice on Wikipedia articles is to use the current logo that the university uses. If no reasonable rationale is provided for the change in the next 24 hours, I will change it to the preferred image. If the anon continues reverting, there will be a report for 3RR violation. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Revert to official seal in infobox. According to infobox description, the image at the top of the infobox is the university's official or ceremonial seal, shield or coat of arms that is used for high profile ceremonial events such as convocation, for degree certificates, and official transcripts. The image at the bottom of the infobox is the university subsidiary logo, such as branding image, logotype, athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar image used on stationery, business cards, publications, newsletters, advertisements, Web sites, flyers, or signs. The previous logo at the bottom of the infobox is an old logo that is no longer used by the school. Meganfoxx (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The seal image is the University's legal seal, but it is not currently used as a logo by the University. It may only be applied under express permission of the President or Board of Trustees, and its use on Wikipedia is not fair use. File:Wake Forest University logo.png is the correct official logo of the University. MtP (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (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) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

vg well i love the demon deacon so much founded in 1834 motto for humanity established in 1834 with over 200000 under and over grads

WFDD

The link and info to WFDD was under the heading: Student Media; WFDD is in fact not a student-run radio station.

I believe WFDD deserves its own section on the page, such as Wake Forest University Press has. I can make that change, but if someone else has an opinion I'd be glad to hear it.

Thanks.

BTW, this is what I removed:

• WFDD is the broadcast service of Wake Forest University, with a signal of 36,000 watts broadcasting to 32 counties in North Carolina and Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.113.68 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be student-run. It only has to be affiliated with the university. Students do, in fact, participate. I restored it. Cresix (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of students

Hi,

I would like to update the number of students. The current numbers are:

Undergraduates: 4,775

Postgraduates: 2,576

Thanks.

MCA70 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue here since you have a connection with the subject. Do you have a reliable source for that? If so, I don't see any problem with your making the edit since it is not a controversial issue. Cresix (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source is WFU's Institutional Research Fact Book (http://www.wfu.edu/ir/factbook.html). It is not currently cited. Should I cite it when making the edit? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCA70 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I made the change. Thanks for info. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.MCA70 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Women's Basketball

Hi,

Some of this information is out of date and incorrect. I'd like to submit the following as a possible rewrite:

In 2012, Jen Hoover took over as coach from Mike Petersen, the program's all-time winningest coach. Hoover (then Jenny Mitchell) is the program's all-time leading scorer and rebounder, was a three-time All-ACC selection and was a member of the ACC's 50th Anniversary Team in 2002. Hoover was part of the program's only <a href="/wiki/NCAA_Women%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship" title="NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship">NCAA Tournament</a> appearance in 1988, when Wake Forest beat Villanova and lost to Tennessee. Wake Forest has appeared in the <a href="/wiki/Women%27s_National_Invitation_Tournament" title="Women's National Invitation Tournament">Women's NIT</a> four times, all under Petersen. The Demon Deacons play their home games at <a href="/wiki/Lawrence_Joel_Veterans_Memorial_Coliseum" title="Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum">Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum.</a>

I did not cite any references as I did not see this as material that could be challenged, but I can do so, if the editors think it would help.

Thanks.

MCA70 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

16:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just checking to see if there was a response on this item. I'd like to post more updates to the content, but I want to make sure I'm doing it in the spirit of the community. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks. MCA70 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to publish this item as there has been no objection. Thanks. MCA70 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, since I did not receive any feedback on the above changes, I am going to start making some other changes straight to the page. Again, I do work at Wake Forest, and my goal is to improve and update the facts and organization of the page. If anyone has any issues with what I'm doing, I'm happy to discuss or go back to submitting items on the Talk page for others to review before changes are made. Thanks. MCA70 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that going forward user KORYR will be helping me make changes to the page. He also will be working just to improve and update the facts and organization of the page. If anyone has any issues with our work, please let us know. Thanks. MCA70 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent men's basketball change

I believe that the change made to this section on March 26 should be undone or amended. It contains editorial language ("Despite ..."). But considering my role at Wake Forest, I do not want to do that myself. Since none of the sports entries talk about current coaching situations in the same manner (job status of current coach), I think the statement should be removed. However, if it is deemed important enough to stay, I think the first clause should be struck (seeing as it uses selective negative facts), sticking with the idea that on March 26, Ron Wellman said Bzdelik will be back for a fourth season. MCA70 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Student Orgs

Hello editors: I would like to have the following added to the Student Organizations section. Thank you for your assistance.

Debate Team

The Wake Forest Debate team has won the National Debate Tournament in 1997 and 2008, made the finals in 2006 and 2009 and has had four semifinal teams: 1955, 1993, 1994, 1995. Wake Forest has had two winners of the "National Coach of the Year" award: Ross Smith (1997) and Al Louden (1988). The award is named for Smith.

Notable Debate alumni include: Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the director of the Center for the Study of Terrorist Radicalization at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Larry Penley, the former president of Colorado State University; John Graham, the former regulatory czar for George W. Bush; and Franklin Shirley and Martha Swain Wood, both former mayors of Winston-Salem, N.C.

In 2010, Wake Forest became the first top-tier debate team in the country to go “open source” and share all its evidence and arguments online through a wiki accessible to other debaters.

MCA70 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add this since it is factual information. Note, the reason that a WFU site is noted as a reference is that the National Debate Tournament history site is located on our servers. MCA70 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Proposed addition: Admissions

Hello editors: I would like to add the following information to the WFU entry in a new separate section titled "Admissions." I would propose that it come after History and before Academics. Thank you for your assistance.

Profile

In 2012, Wake Forest received 11,407 undergraduate applications and accepted 34 percent. The yield rate (the percentage of accepted students who choose to attend the university) was 32 percent. About 79 percent of incoming freshmen ranked in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Forty-seven states and 28 countries are represented in the undergraduate student body. Twenty-three percent of Wake Forest’s undergraduate students are from North Carolina. Ninety-three percent of freshmen return for their sophomore year.

Test-optional policy

In May of 2008, Wake Forest made college entrance exams optional for undergraduate admissions, becoming the first national university ranked in the top 30 by the U.S. News & World Report to adopt a test-optional policy. Being test-optional means Wake Forest’s admissions process does not require applicants to submit their SAT or ACT scores, and students can decide if they want their standardized test scores to be considered.

MCA70 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and post this since it is factual information. MCA70 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Proposed change: new Introduction

Hello editors: I am proposing that the following information replace the current introduction paragraph for Wake Forest. It updates information and is more in line with wiki entries by our peer institutions. Thank you for your assistance.

Wake Forest University is a private, coeducational collegiate university located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Founded in 1834 by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina in the town of Wake Forest, N.C., just north of the state capital of Raleigh, the university relocated to Winston-Salem in 1956. The university officially split ties with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina in 1986, establishing an autonomous and fraternal relationship.

The Reynolda Campus, the university’s main campus, spans 340 acres (1.38 km2) and is located north of downtown Winston-Salem. It was originally developed by New York architect Jens Frederick Larson. The University also maintains Bowman Gray campus (just west of downtown), where its medical school is housed with Baptist Medical Center, and a business school campus in Charlotte, N.C.

With fewer than 4,800 undergraduate students and an 11:1 student-faculty ratio, Wake Forest is known for balancing the personal attention of a small liberal arts college with the scholarly opportunities of a large research university. U.S. News and World Report’s 2013 Best Colleges guide ranked Wake Forest 13th in best undergraduate teaching and 27th overall among national universities. Wake Forest also offers nationally acclaimed graduate and professional programs in Arts and Sciences, Business, Divinity, Law and Medicine.

In addition to being known for its academic reputation and Division I athletics, Wake Forest also remains the highest-ranking national university with test-optional admissions, has the third-highest study abroad rates among doctoral U.S. colleges and universities, and is recognized nationally for its commitment to personal and career development.

MCA70 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding this intro after removing blatant academic boosterism.--Leachclunk (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Leachclunk (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

refs

Recent deletions from site

Hi, Since Leachchunk was banned immediately after removing large chunks of the site (many of which had nothing to do with my recent work and had been on the site for years), I'm inclined to restore all of them in the short run. Then if things need to be removed or adjusted, I think we can discuss them on this page, then take action. (For instance, Athletics does need to be redone, and we're working on a cleaned-up version). If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know. MCA70 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits from the banned sockpuppet per policy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Future site edits

Hi, I'm interested in continuing to provide updates to bring this page up to date. However, I haven't received any response to my "suggested update" posts on the Talk page in the past. I wonder if there is an editor who follows this page who would work directly with me to discuss changes and improvements. I'd like to hear from someone by the end of the week. If not, I'll go ahead and post items to the page again, doing my best to continue to stay within the focus of factual, encyclopedic information about Wake Forest. Thanks. MCA70 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section: Arts

Editors, I would like to propose adding the following section under the header of "Arts." Thanks for any feedback.

Every student at Wake Forest takes at least one course in the arts (art history, studio art, theatre, dance, music performance and music in liberal arts) before graduating. In 2011-2012, more than 500 Wake Forest students were directly involved in performances on campus, and 110 public exhibitions in theatre, music dance and visual arts held in Scales Fine Arts Center in 2012-2013. The University’s home, Winston-Salem, calls itself the “City of Arts & Innovation.”

Students also can take advantage of a number of other art-related opportunities:

• The WFU Art Collections consist of nine independent collections with more than 1,600 works located in 35 on- and off-campus locations. Every four years, selected students make an art-buying trip to New York City to add to the collections.
• Students are within walking distance of the Reynolda House Museum of American Art, the Wake Forest Museum of Anthropology, the Charlotte and Philip Hanes Art Gallery and START, the student art gallery.
• The theatre department, which allows students to participate from their first year, supports interdisciplinary exploration of its plays through the Interdisciplinary Performance and the Liberal Arts Center (IPLACe), which connects the performing arts and other academic departments.
• The student-run Reynolda Film Festival is a free weeklong series of film screenings and workshops featuring a keynote address by a well-known and respected representative of the film industry. Wake Forest also offers a Master’s program in documentary film, which includes professor Peter Gilbert, the Oscar-nominated producer and director of photography for “Hoop Dreams.”
• The Secrest Artists Series offers students and the Wake Forest community several opportunities each year to hear world-class concerts.

MCA70 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MCA70. Just saw your recent talk page posts and as an alumnus of WFU, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to try to improve this page. Just to give a little background, I graduated from WFU in 2007. I was at my most active on Wikipedia during my time there. I used the university's library to help bring this article to featured status, and with the Italian I learned at WFU, I wrote this page on the Italian Wikipedia.

In general, the tone of your edits is good, but the biggest problem is that the references you've chosen are all from wfu.edu. Having these as secondary (or complementary) sources definitely wouldn't hurt, but it's usually good form to cite third party sources (i.e. those with no clear potential biases). This is especially true for you, since you work in the Communications office at WFU. Having you helping out with editing the page is definitely a good thing, and from your edits and user page it would appear that your goal is to legitimately flesh out this page and not to create a veiled Wake Forest advertisement. However, to an outside observer, solely based on the sources you provided, it would appear that you're doing that latter (even if the tone of the edits is generally good). This is one of those times where it would be nice to have a larger alumni base :). I personally don't have the time to take a considerable part in shaping this page, but I check in periodically to see what's going on. Also if you ever have any questions, you can either leave a message here or on my talk page. JHMM13 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, JHMM13. They are definitely welcome. This has been a difficult project since the page really hadn't had much editing in several years. There's a desire to update the information and to make it equivalent to what is seen on our peer institution's pages. The tough part of that has been that Wikipedia rules seem to be different everywhere. So people at WFU see our peers have what looks like huge sections of their marketing material on their pages, uncited, etc., and that makes it tough to know what is OK and what is not. I've tried to edit everything down to the basics that would answer questions that people would have about WFU. As you noted, sourcing can be tricky, too. Items like our Fact Book and Common Data Set contain information that is audited, submitted to the government, etc., so it should be reliable. Beyond that, though, many University things are not written about by a third party (like our academic structure or something like that). I feel like I'm walking on a tightrope, but in the end, really the goal is just to get good information out there for users. I hope people can take it in that spirit, not like it's some battle about trying to "slip something on the page." MCA70 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are best enforced when the users cite infractions on talk pages. If you see something that looks like marketing material on another page, I strongly encourage you to bring it up on those pages. As an alumnus, I think it's in the spirit of Wake Forest to not source our editorial morals from other institutions :). With that said, I commend the efforts you're making and I hope the editorial policies here don't discourage you from continuing.

So..onto the issue of sources. I strongly recommend having a good look through the page on identifying reliable sources (in particular the section on "self-published and questionable sources"). In general there is also something to be said about a variety of sources. If there is not enough tertiary information about certain academic structures at Wake, then perhaps it shouldn't be in this article in the first place. The Winston-Salem source you found is apparently a good one. The ones citing factual information about the university appear to be good sources. However, there are some problems with the phrasing that make it read a bit like marketing material. There's "Students also can take advantage of a number of other art-related opportunities"...to me "take advantage of" sounds like you're trying to encourage someone to go. Maybe instead something like "Students also have access to". However, I'd also consider maybe prosifying that list so that it doesn't read like a pamphlet handed to me by a WFU recruiter. Some parts of it just scream "marketing material" to me. For example: "The Secrest Artists Series offers students and the Wake Forest community several opportunities each year to hear world-class concerts". When you call the concerts "world-class", you really should back that up with something that isn't from Wake Forest's website, or leave it out entirely. When you think about it, that whole sentence is structured to have the focal point on the "world-class" part, since when you take that out, it sounds pretty odd. Little things like that matter, but I don't really have the time to nitpick everything. Just trying to convey the general air of neutrality that should be on Wikipedia pages. JHMM13 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said, JHMM13, and that's a very helpful deconstruction of what to look for in our wording and sourcing. On the other schools, I don't really feel like it's our place to police those pages, but just wanted to say that it makes it difficult for our writers to understand why I'm trying to hold them to tight standards and am cutting up their copy. And yes, I totally agree that we will not use those morals as a reason to do anything on this page. MCA70 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend not trying to copy or emulate most other college/university articles except for those that are Featured Articles or perhaps some of the better Good Articles. Many (most?) college and university articles are similar to this one in that there have few contributors and only improve or change by fits and starts, often out of sync with the broader ideas guiding the better articles in this project. Instead, adhere to the guidelines and make this article better than your peers'! If you're truly ambitious, get it to Featured Article status and see if there would be an appropriate way to have it featured on the Main Page where millions of readers will see it. ElKevbo (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wake Forest University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121010195720/http://jewishlife.wfu.edu/includes/updaters/Newsletter%20Sept%20Oct%202012.pdf to http://jewishlife.wfu.edu/includes/updaters/Newsletter%20Sept%20Oct%202012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080812142133/http://www.graylyn.com/the_estate/te_highlights.htm to http://www.graylyn.com/the_estate/te_highlights.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias Incident Report system

Apparently, starting this year, the school has an expanded system of anonymous reporting of alleged biased or hateful activity, including speech. I think this should be presented in the article if it is reallyso. Here is a biased report about (i.e., against) it: http://news.yahoo.com/university-squelches-freedom-speech-campus-wide-discrimination-initiative-021609702.html . I would add it, but I share the biases of the cited article and probably not write it NPOV. Furthermore, this site is the only one I found that mentions this move, so I'm not sure about its nature or even existence.Kdammers (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's the only coverage of this phenomenon then it doesn't warrant mention in this or any other encyclopedia article.

You might also want to note that the source you cited, The Daily Caller, is a conservative website and its description of the reporting system is likely biased by the website's overt political views. That doesn't necessarily mean the source is unreliable but its bias should be taken into account just as we do for any other source with an obvious bias (including any official materials published by the university in question which would likely have some bias in favor of the university). ElKevbo (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wake Forest University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603063541/http://www.truman.gov/meet-our-scholars/meet-our-scholars-by-year to http://www.truman.gov/meet-our-scholars/meet-our-scholars-by-year
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wfu.edu/housing/greek/omega.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wakestudent.com/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623115347/http://reynoldahouse.org//discover/reynolda/historic.php to http://www.reynoldahouse.org/discover/reynolda/historic.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)