Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Does being a UARC quality as an academic affiliation?

Doing a spot check, it doesn't look like being a UARC is usually listed under academic affiliations. I could be way off base, but is that an appropriate thing to list under academic_affiliations? Darkage7_[Talk] 17:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Darkage7, are you talking about on the UARC's page? I think {{Infobox institute}} might be a better fit for such an article, but if this one is to be used, |parent= would probably work better than |academic_affiliations=. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, the University of Washington's Applied Physics Lab is a UARC, affiliated with the Navy. Under UW's "academic affiliations" it doesn't list it. It does list that it's a space-grant and a sea-grant university. It seems to me like that might be an appropriate place to list that it's also a UARC. Perhaps I'm just barking up the wrong tree. The more I think about it perhaps such a connection is more appropriate for the Lab entity's specific page, rather than the University itself. Darkage7_[Talk] 19:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would save that for the lab's page. |academic_affiliations= has in its description that it should be used only for Academic organizations of which the institution is a member and provide essential definition of the institution (mission, values, activities, etc.). A lab within the university being affiliated with the Navy doesn't mean that the university as a whole is defined by that affiliation. (I'd also say that being space grant isn't an affiliation that warrants listing, cc ElKevbo.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the direction the discussion is going and the advice that has been provided. ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Make the former name an optional but not required field in infobox

For some universities, the former names include a long list of different names. The length of the former name list may even be equal to or longer than the half space of the whole content in the infobox. For this situation, it is not appropriate to put the former name list in the infobox，as it will significantly damage the readability of remaining important information in the infobox. We should make it an option to either include the former name or not. Jianghaizhi (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Having so many former names that it would bloat the infobox seems like a rare situation. But in the event that that is indeed the situation, editors absolutely have the discretion to not include them. Sdkb ^talk 23:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The parameter is already optional and, as Sdkb says, editors have the discretion to not include all former names. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

They are here because of an dispute at University of North Texas. There is an open discussion in the Talk page - you're welcome to weigh in there in that specific context. ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

An argument for OpenStreetMap

Hi, is there an argument for placing OpenStreetMaps (for example via Template:Mapframe) to add area and place of a university in the Infobox of its article. Something like maps of Template:Infobox museum. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This could be an option. However, the problem is that, unlike most museums, a university is seldom well identified by a single point. See, for example, University of Oxford § Map. Maps identifying the location of a university within a larger area (e.g., using something like {{location map+}}), rather than on OSM, would probably be more useful. Robminchin (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin If we set for two areas the same wikidata identifier, then both areas will be highlighted when rendering in Infobox. This scenario is applied for example in Shiraz city map:

You can see that in Shiraz map, some areas are split area. So it is no need for {{location map+}}. The OSM will be adequate for split universities in one city. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see that that is working, but I can't see how it is working. Where is the shape defined in the wikidata entry? It also seems like this would be a lot of work to define the areas that probably wouldn't happen, resulting in misleading maps with single pushpin locations for the universities. Robminchin (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin No. We should only set for two (or more) areas the same Wikidata_id, and OSM will highlight both. Such a simple process. No more work is required. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the current {{location map+}} approach uses a single point already, so this wouldn't create a problem we don't already have. And overall, OpenStreetMap is a newer and better map system. I'd support a shift to it. Ideally, we want to be displaying the campus boundary, but where that's unavailable a point will suffice. Sdkb ^talk 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: You're going to have to explain this better, because somewhere the area to be highlighted must need to be defined in some way. Robminchin (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my ignorance of these mapping functions. Would we need to account for articles that use this infobox and describe institutions with multiple, disparate locations? These different locations are sometimes very far apart, sometimes in different continents. ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo These OSM maps would be optional (not mandatory), and in the seldom case that they are "in different continents" we can

1. Remove OSM
2. Only show the main building
3. Show OSM with zoom = 1 so that all locations in different continents will be displayed

See, all these three scenarios can be implemented very simply. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• These are valid concerns, but as above, they're ones that are already present with our existing design of the infobox. Sdkb ^talk 04:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I sandboxed probably the true code at Template:Infobox university/sandbox. Please inspect that. And this is the test of code which works fine:

Sharif University of Technology

دانشگاه صنعتی شریف Dāneshgāh-e sana'ti-e sharif
File:Sharif University of Technology 2 Pouya Latifiyan.png
Former name	Aryamehr University of Technology
Motto in English	The Place of Intellectuals and Elites Transforming National Talents into Global Bests
Type	Public Research University
Established	1966 (1966)
Endowment	US$ 0.5 billion (2021)
President	Abbas Mousavi
Academic staff	460 (Full-time) (Fall 2022)
Administrative staff	395 (2021)
Students	10,812 (Fall 2022)
Undergraduates	5,659 (2021)
Postgraduates	3,390 (2021)
Doctoral students	989 (2021)
Location	Tehran , Tehran province , Iran 35°42′6.47″N 51°21′5.18″E
Campus	Urban, 74 acres (29.9 ha)
Newspaper	Sharif Daily Scientia Iranica
Colors	Dark Blue
Sporting affiliations	19 sports IUSF
Website	en.sharif.edu

I think these two lines can be added, and is an improvement. At least we can test that for 1 week and wait for its bug reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk • contribs)

Looking at that example, I don't think that's really the best implementation. The two problems: First, it's redundant to the map you get when you click on the globe next to the coordinates. I'd prefer that it replace it. Second, it's uncollapsed, and I don't think it's due to use up so much space in the infobox (which should have lead-level weighting) on a map when the most salient piece of information (the location) is already given. A detailed map showing the shape of the campus and its surrounding environs can be saved for the article's campus section, as I did at our FA Pomona College. Sdkb ^talk 16:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Type

The current TemplateData proposes using formulations like [[Private university|Private]] [[Proprietary education|for-profit]] [[law school]] for |type=. This poses problems:

• Accessibility. If all of the links are unclicked (or all clicked) a reader cannot easily distinguish between Private for-profit law school, Private for-profit law school, Private for-profit law school, etc.
• Semantic meaning. This approach amalgamates multiple types into a single, undifferentiated phrase. This makes it difficult for technologies like screen readers or data reusers to interpret.

The simple solution is to amend the TemplateData to recommend that, where there is consensus to list multiple types, they be formatted as a list, using {{flatlist}}, {{ubl}}, or any similar option. Courtesy ping to users in the discussion that prompted this post: @Moxy, ElKevbo, and Sdkb:. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo.

For the given example, a flatlist would potentially look like

• Private
• For-profit
• Law school

. I dislike that approach for grammatical reasons. "Private" is an incomplete thought on its own. When we say Private for-profit law school, the "school" can apply to everything, but if we broke them apart with a horizontal list, we'd need to say

• Private school
• For-profit school
• Law school

, which would be redundant.

MOS:SOB is qualified by When possible. Blue seas are never desirable, but they're not forbidden either, and I'd argue that here is one place they're inevitable, since having appropriate links/grammar takes precedence. Sdkb ^talk 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: See Talk:Columbia University § Type for prior discussion. Sdkb ^talk 05:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb and with the points made by ElKevbo in the linked discussion. MOS:SOB states "When possible, do not place links next to each other" (emphasis added). The flat list suggested not only looks terrible but is also ungrammatical, so isn't a possible option.

The semantic meaning is given by standard application of English grammar, so shouldn't be a problem for any competently designed screen reader, any more than 'large green apple' or any other phrase with multiple adjectives. Robminchin (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the noun at the end of the phrase is not just an affectation of a few Wikipedia editors - it's critical because this template is used for all kinds of institutions e.g., colleges, universities, schools, seminaries. And if piped links and phrases with multiple adjectives in Wikipedia are an accessibility problem then I'm afraid that's a much bigger problem than we can address in this one template. ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

a much bigger problem than we can address in this one template. I agree, but if that was a reason not to address a problem we'd never get anything done. Conversely, I don't agree with the "grammatical" pleading; "type: private" is a perfectly reasonable fact-value pair, and is widely used not only in this template but in others as well - compare for example {{infobox company}}. Similarly the "kind of institution" piece; if there is a desire to clarify the institution type then list it as a type, making it clear and available to reusers, rather than repeating it across multiple entries or tying it to one in particular. As to "when possible": here it is possible. Aesthetic preferences are not a good reason to discard that possibility, nor is "it's not forbidden". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "rather than repeating it across multiple entries or tying it to one in particular." This isn't an "aesthetic preference" - it's the cleanest, most straight forward way to handle this.

It really seems like you've come here to "show how it should be done" without any regard for the experience and expertise of any of the editors here who have worked in this area and worked with this template for many years. I appreciate your questions and your recommendations but they don't seem to acknowledge that we do it this way for some very good reasons. ElKevbo (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I.e. actually present "Type: University".

I do appreciate that you (collectively) have worked with this template for many years. But that doesn't mean the way you've chosen to do it is the best or only way, and in this particular case the local approach here diverges from projectwide guidelines and best practices. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you earlier on the thread, the way it is done here is entirely in keeping with the guidelines: MOS:SOB is quite clear that there will be times when the use of multiple links sequentially is unavoidable and thus acceptable. It is also clear that the opinion among editors here is that your proposal is not a workable solution. Robminchin (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the infobox company template has four mutually exclusive options for 'type'. This is a very different usage of 'type', referring specifically to ownership, that makes no sense for universities. It cannot serve as a model for this template. Robminchin (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The obvious, simple solution to this is: "Law school (private, for-profit)", which solves both problems (links not being separated by any non-linked characters, and phrase run-together as if a unitary expression), without requiring use of any templates like {{hlist}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

for update the logo of JE Mondejar Foundation College MMS2024 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a link to the new image. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

adding a tuition field

Hello, I was wondering if anyone else would support adding a tuition field to this infobox? I think a lot of people looking at universities on Wikipedia would want to be able to quickly see that. We could add an in-state tuition and out-of-state tuition box. Any feedback? Hannahthom7 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it might be a good idea. It might be better done as two definable labels, as "in-state" and "out-of-state" are US-specific (the UK equivalents would be "home" and "international", for example). Would we want to also include fees for (post-)graduate courses? At that point things could easily become complex with different fee levels for different schools. Robminchin (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No thanks. This is way too complex and ever-changing to be appropriately captured in the infobox as has been discussed many time (in the Talk page archives). ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not add this field. It would be highly misleading, because a large proportion of people do not pay the nominal tuition rate, and the true cost of attending a university or college often includes housing and meals and other fees that are not accounted for in a standard way. We run the risk of having outside people saying inaccurate things like "According to Wikipedia, it costs $60,000 per year to attend Foo University." – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Please add a field for university “Acceptance rate” TapticInfo (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a basic parameter for universities globally that needs to be in the top infobox. For US institutions, 'admit rate' (which is presumably what is being requested here) is already given in template:Infobox U.S. college admissions, which is (usually) placed in the admissions sub-section under academics. That seems a far more appropriate place for it. Robminchin (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this would not a good addition to this already bloated infobox. As Robminchin said, this is information best left for a more specific portion of the article body. Further, many editors mistakenly add material to articles about U.S. colleges and universities "admissions" processes when the information is only about undergraduate admissions; a generic parameter labeled only "Acceptance rate" would likely contribute to that confusion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)