Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Tagline

Please see the recent additions by Lawson.kemp. I believe a tagline is already accounted for by using the motto parameter. Although these aren't exactly the same, I think only one of them is necessary. Other thoughts? —Noetic Sage 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Universities often and actively use both, one, or none. I believe that we should allow the template to be a little bit more flexable. (i.e. YorkU: Motto = Tentanda via (The way must be tried)/Tagline = Redefine the future) nat.utoronto 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
While this is true, a lot of universities simply use taglines as yearly or seasonal sayings, so this field can very rapidly fall out of date. Even in the example you gave, "Redefine the future" is one of those things that is modified whenever the university decides to launch a new publicity campaign or student drive. It usually is not at least semi-permanent, unlike mottos. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but I'd probably lean towards what Noeticsage and Huntster have pointed out. Motto rather neatly accounts for any long-term branding messages a university might want to use to define itself. Esrever (klaT) 13:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
My school University of North Texas as abandoned its Motto in favor of a tagline that is used along side the name of the university. I feel that it is needed for the template. Without it, UNT will not have either.
NThomas76207 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just a textbox categorization. Deal with it. lol. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC) I'm supposed to be civil. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please maintain civility Jameson. Thomas, I would suggest that this is more the exception than the rule. Just place the tagline in the motto field...since the university doesn't have both, it really won't make a difference. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the template can't provide for both a motto and a tagline field? I would say putting the tagline in the motto field does make a difference. This is an encyclopedia and calling a tagline a motto is inaccurate. And, for universities that have both, it would be ideal if both could be shown. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

With recent changes made to the infobox and continuing suggestions to bring back fields that have already been debated, I suggest that we add protection to this template. Many similar templates already have protection, and this way ordinary users that have not been part of the discussions will not be able to modify the template to their liking. Thoughts? —Noetic Sage 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per my update section above :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
checkYAgree - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be hard to get an admin to agree to protection as a preventative measure.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Unless there is a persistent sockpuppet or an edit war, IMO as a sysop, this should not be protected or needs to be protected as we do not issue protection as it would be a "preemptive" measure. Obviously if another sysop decides to protect it, then I have no problem with that. nat.utoronto 01:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin name

Might I suggest we change this field to a more general "other name"? Some would use this for a Latin name, others for another classical language or for an overwhelmingly common nickname, and Universities whose native names use other alphabets could use this field for transliterations. --Xyzzyva (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxomania

Template-wallahs are needed to read and/or contribute to the long-ish ongoing discussion of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Infoboxomania, focusing on various problems using the template in individual university articles.

The most straightforward fix to the various issues raised there would be to make the "date established" and "city" parameters optional in this template, to avoid propagating erroneous information about schools with ambiguous founding dates and schools that are located in multiple cities. It appears to me that those two fields are "required" in order to enable the generation of (1) the range of dates active for closed schools and (2) the city, state/province, country text sequence. Can these items be made optional in the existing template, or will it be necessary to create a set of alternative templates?

--Orlady (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how an optional field would solve this problem, though it isn't necessarily a bad idea to make all fields optional, I suppose. By definition, a date of founding and establishment is institutionally decided on (see the article to which the parameter links). As for any specifics, those can be found under footnotes. As for erroneous information, this will always be an issue and simply needs editors to correct that information. As for multiple campuses, you often find that information to display the "main campus" of an insitution, or even a list of two cities or states. Any other campus information will often be found in the article text. I suppose that they could be optional, but don't see how this helps the Wiki ideal of offering information. Every school has a founding date, self-determined, and every school has some sort of a location, whether a main campus, multiple campuses, or a headquarters. Footnotes would be found under the heading "Notes and references" as determined by Wikipedia information on referencing. Thoughts? Aepoutre (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently, all fields in the infobox are optional except for Name, Date established, and City. As noted above, I believe the latter two are required for technical reasons related to template implementation; no one has said that these two facts (and no others) are uniquely vital pieces of information for every university. (Don't you hate it when reality has to be modified to conform to the limitations of software?) Moreover, the template is pretty inflexible with respect to these two items.
  • Location. I agree that every university has some sort of location, but the template unreasonably requires that location to be exactly one city, and it does not allow for annotations such as "main campus" or "location administrative offices." As a result (for example), the infobox for State University of New York currently proclaims the totally erroneous and misleading information that 414,000 students are located in Albany, New York (a city that has a total population, including students, less than 100,000).
  • Date. The difficulty with the establishment date field is that some institutions, for various reasons, have ambiguous founding dates or multiple founding dates. Rather than attempting to footnote the infobox to document these idiosyncrasies, why not allow editors to leave this field blank and tell the story in the article? Granted that there is a tendency for Wikipedians to parrot the institution's official version of its story (saying, for example, that Blackburn College was founded in 1837 when in fact it did not open its doors until 1859[1]), should the Universities Wikiproject be placing roadblocks in front of contributors who try to tell the story correctly?
--Orlady (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good points. State University New York, however, is actually a state university system. To look at the individual universities, all of which have their own presidents and administration, you'd look at SUNY Albany, etc. So the Infobox University doesn't really apply there in the traditional sense. It's more an article with a list of the colleges and about the system than about a university. For another example, UMass Amherst is the flagship university of the University of Massachusetts system and is often referred to as UMass, but there is a UMass Boston, UMass Dartmouth, UMass Lowell, all of which would have separate articles with infoboxes. In that case, there might be a separate infobox for a public university system? Just a thought, but not one I heavily advocate.

As for the founding date, like it or not a founding date is institutionally-set, and any evidence to the contrary would, as you said, be dealt with in the history (or summarily in a footnote, too). Many colleges and universities choose their founding date as the academy or bible college that birthed a major university, and the history starts there, noting at what point they were "officially chartered" or "opened their doors" or were "accredited" or awarded "degree granting power" by a state, as these aren't historical so much as official. I wouldn't have an issue with making them optional, true, but the way the work now does work if you understand how university systems and founding dates work, respectively, in context. I don't think that having "fast facts" in addition to a lengthier history is a roadblock at all. Chances are that the tennesseeencyclopedia.net is either erroneous (not exactly an encyclopedia brittannica, although that is prone to reporting erroneous data, as well) or that it just doesn't mention the parent institution because it's a cheap tertiary source. If we were limited that way, a founding date would need to change every time a college changed names, so I'd say that it'd be more of a roadblock to start ommitting information just because it's more complex; far better to offer a summary and then an explanation. Like an abstract to a paper! Remember that we are going for more information on Wikipedia (for the most part), not less, and infoboxes are only a way to simplify that for us, not to ignore the article content. Aepoutre (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SUNY should technically list the location of the Office of the President for SUNY altogether, much like the University of California system. UCs spread over Berkeley, Los Angeles, Riverside, Merced, Davis, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Irvine, and Santa Barbara. (I hope I didn't forget one) However, their Office of the President for the entire university system is located in Oakland, California. This should be a standard fix the SUNY system as well.

Same applies to the establishment year. While individual universities may stretch backwards in history, the establishment year for a university system should be the year the system was established, not the earliest establishment year for one of the universities in the system. As for conflicting establishment years for the university, as I have said before, the establishment year should be whatever year the institution claims its establishment to be. Any other information, including university mergers, moves, and discontinuation (some universities were not in operation during certain time periods) should be noted in the History section of the respective university article or its respective History of X Institute/University article.

Personal thought: If something as simple as the location and year of establishment cannot be verified with proper WP:RS, one wonders if it has what it takes to be an article at all. There shouldn't be an argument over this. And frankly, I think this is a waste of time. Rather than deliberately attacking a wiki template over minor details (which, by the way, can be fixed with link breaks (<br />), mention in History sections in the article itself, or just plain data verification, a huge subjective debate has been ongoing uselessly instead of actually improving articles themselves. Lately, the original discussion has now turned into a personal debate, in particular, usage of my university's article for fuel (which by the way, was clearly cited in the article where the enrollment numbers came from, but just to clarify, I have added another identical reference onto the infobox enrollment listings). I seriously hope that the user who chose this route to hopelessly prove a nonexistent point will grow up and learn to evaluate things objectively. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I'm pretty sure that I agree with most, if not all, of what you've said, Jamesontai. Aepoutre (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Errmm... Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Infoboxomania there was a consensus-like agreement that the infobox needed to be changed so that it would not force the display of a singular city name and singular date of establishment for those institutions for which these items are ambiguous. I was hoping that (rather than starting the discussion all over again here) people posting here would review the other discussion and participate in it, but that didn't happen.
The impetus for the other discussion was that some editors who are active in writing university articles seriously dislike this infobox, but need to live with it because Wikiproject Universities guidelines say: "All institution articles should have an infobox providing the basic details about the institution." The initial suggestions were to tone down the project's emphasis on the infobox and to rethink what the infobox is really for. Specific concerns included that the infobox gives prominence to trivia, that it duplicates what's in the text, that it asks for information that can quickly become obsolete, and that the infobox may propagate misinformation. One editor's summary of the issues said: "The problem seems to be that we're trying too hard to force all institutions of higher education into one infobox that uses the same parameters. Further, we're trying to force too much information into the infoboxes and the information itself is far from standardized and objective."
Making "establishment date" and "city" optional fields would not resolve all objections to the template, but that change (together with a softening of the language concerning the need to use the infobox) would make it easier for editors to live with the infobox template.
With that background, I don't know where to begin in responding to statements here that say (in effect) that the infobox is just fine as it is, because everyone ought to know that an institution's founding date is whatever the institution says it is (thoughtful people armed with reliable sources beg to disagree!) and that the city named in the infobox as "location" is the place where the university president's desk is located. The problem is that not everyone "knows" these things, an infobox is not an effective format for communicating ambiguities, but an infobox that oversimplifies the actual situation can undermine the article it accompanies.
As for the criticisms of details of my examples, those details are beside the point. Those schools are merely examples that I happen to be aware of -- this not about those particular institutions but about many different institutions whose specific situations do not fit well in the standardized infobox format. As for the argument that the <br /> code allows additional data to be added to the infobox with ease, see User:Orlady/Stuff I'm working on/City-City-City for an illustration of why this is not a good work-around for schools with locations in multiple cities (and it works even less well for institutions such as University of Phoenix that are not all in the same state).
--Orlady (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to the suggestion that lack of a singular establishment date indicates a lack of sourced information, I ran across another example of this problem: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee displays 3 different founding dates on the university seal. History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee explains the meaning of the 3 different dates. The infobox for that school lists the middle of the 3 dates and provides a link to "details", but the hyperlink points to an article section that does not explicitly explain the 3 dates in the university seal. (As for the Blackburn College example that was dismissed here, its founder and namesake was engaged in establishing the school when he broke his hip and died in 1838, and the actual opening of the school was delayed for 21 years due to a financial panic and protracted litigation.) --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, please read the article before dismissing the infobox. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, as mentioned in History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, demonstrates 1849 as a small assembly of 17 students. 1855 was the establishment of the school, and 1956 is the actual merger into its current state as a university. User:Orlady, you're refusing to edit these anomalous articles, it does not serve any purpose or evidence that an infobox that covers thousands of articles on Wikipedia (and growing) should be changed. I'm wondering how much effort you're spending trying to find these out-of-ordinary articles just to prove a point. Look, all of us appreciate constructive criticism from time to time in order to evaluate our methods, but this has gone too far. Unless you can at least find 20-30 articles with identical problems that simple clarification in the infobox cannot attain, then we can talk about changing the formatting/coding of the infobox. Otherwise, please redirect your attention that require more pressing concerns. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree - I don't see why this is a problem. So one school has three founding dates. Who cares? Put all 3 in the infobox or only include the official one. It doesn't matter and is up to the discretion of editors. That doesn't affect the infobox at all. It is a standardized collection of information and obviously not all information fits nicely into the structure. But if one or two universities don't fit into it perfectly, frankly that doesn't matter to me. —Noetic Sage 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Orlady raises a reasonable point in a reasonable way. She gets a variety of comments, some of which I agree with, others of which I don't, expressed politely. But in at least one place, things go off the rails. It's here (interrupted by my numbering):
it does not serve any purpose or evidence that an infobox that covers thousands of articles on Wikipedia (and growing) should be changed. (1) I'm wondering how much effort you're spending trying to find these out-of-ordinary articles just to prove a point. (2) Look, all of us appreciate constructive criticism from time to time in order to evaluate our methods, but this has gone too far. Unless you can at least find 20-30 articles with identical problems that simple clarification in the infobox cannot attain, then we can talk about changing the formatting/coding of the infobox. (3)
What do we have here?
  1. Without claiming that Orlady agrees with all I've written, I'll point out that she, I or both of us have pointed out that certain aspects of infoboxes encourage (or even compel) oversimplification and obsolescence.
  2. "How much energy?" Clearly not enough, if you expect 20 or 30 embarrassing examples. "Just to prove a point"? Are the echoes of "WP:POINT" intentional here? If so, bear in mind that that censures point-making when it's disruptive. There's nothing disruptive here (unless politely and rationally persuading people to change their minds is inherently disruptive). Orlady's arguing of a point is entirely legitimate.
  3. "This has gone too far" -- so Orlady must come up with 20 to 30 embarrassing examples to drive home her point? Hmm. But if she did do that, setting them all out would take a considerable number of bytes. Would you then clobber her for going on way too far, for violating WP:POINT, or perhaps say that her "rant" befitted a blog but not a talk page?
I wrote above that Orlady's argument was entirely legitimate. A counterargument would of course be no less legitimate. I'd like to see it. So far, I've read that these infoboxes aid standardization (but not why this is a good thing), that lots of other Projects have analogous infoboxes (but not why that is a good thing), that lots of people like infoboxes (which is undeniably true, but in itself not particularly impressive), that infoboxes make it easy to find "basic" information (but without any convincing explanation of the criteria for deciding what's basic, or much concern about detail), etc. Rather than an argument, I see a rather complacent presentation of a fait accompli, with strong hints that attempts at change are merely disruptive. This all looks like argument, or non-argument, from inertia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really getting a kick out of this one. So you're telling us when you cannot come up with examples to support your defense, you bring in a physics term? Because that's the only point you've made in the however so many bytes you've been desperately trying to save. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have one. And as referenced by meta:Don't be a dick, "Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks". I'm sorry if I had come on too strong, but someone had to do it. This meaningless debate had to come to an end one way or another. I prefer to end it prematurely than to have corpses rot. Look, if you can come up with the 20-30 articles as I mentioned above, I don't see what needs to be done to edit an infobox that directly affects thousands of other articles on Wikipedia by this one change to suit one or two articles mentioned earlier (which I have already named numerous minor fixes to the information displayed that does not involve the infobox's main coding whatsoever.) Yes, I am being a dick about this, but someone had to do it. I rather have people label me as one than to drag this on further. Sorry. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Hoary's assessment above. Your arrogance adds nothing to this conversation and continuing to declare the discussion meaningless and closed only reinforces my opinion that you're either missing the point entirely or are ignorant of the basic issues underlying the discussion. Some experienced editors with demonstrable knowledge of the subject matter clearly believe there is an issue that needs to be addressed. That you disagree that such an issue exists doesn't give you the right or the ability to continue to attempt to shut down all conversation.
With that said, I haven't continued to weigh in here as the conversation is going around in circles and I think concrete action is needed to move us forward. I maintain that we'd be better off by addressing systems of higher education differently than we do institutions AND that we'd be better served by either adding some more American-specific fields to the university infobox or creating a new American infobox (primarily to add the various Carnegie Classifications). But I simply don't have the time right now to work on this. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said, ElKevbo. And not just your agreement with what I said but also your constructive proto-suggestion, compatible with my idea that, if infoboxing is to be done at all, it should be remembered that the world isn't (North) America. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm a very reasonable person, even if I'm being a dick. The reason I had to resort to that was because we were not getting consensus with two editors wanting change, and two editors who didn't feel like changing the infobox. When the balance is tipped, I'm for opening up these discussions once again. I'd like to see an official RfC on this issue. But before we do that, please make a list of points of why we back our opinions. If it's not too much trouble to ask, I'd like those of us who are for changing the infobox list the faults of the infobox as well as what you want to do with each of the faults you see. (I'm trying to get constructive criticism here, so don't just nag, name some solutions for us so we can work this out). Same thing goes for the oppsition. I'm going to start a new section so we can work this out and we can weed out some of the tension. Can we agree to do this? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Proposed Changes to this Infobox

Please observe commented system as noted in coding before making changes. Don't make an donkey of yourself.  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks to me like someone is gaming the system here. What useful purpose will be served from reformatting the points that have been made in prior discussions? --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Although my spring break just began, I'm not gaming anyone here. A simple summary of what you and Hoary want to do and why should be very reasonable. Look, when other editors read through this new RfC, it'd be nice for them to see the points you're making without going through back and forth on two separate discussion pages. I don't see what I've done wrong here. Don't take it so seriously. WP:CHILL. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Way back at the beginning of the Infoboxomania discussion, I said: The most straightforward fix to the various issues...would be to make the "date established" and "city" parameters optional in this template. That's pretty simple. The "why" has been elaborated all over the place with examples. You clearly disagree, but you have not explained "why not" (other than to say, in effect, "because I don't think it's necessary"). By continually propagating new rules and protocols for discussion (including your earlier demand for 30 examples of the problem and now this insistence that discussion must be reformatted your way) you are creating a classic example of "gaming the system". --Orlady (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd label it "gaming the system" but it's certainly overblown and needlessly dramatic and bureaucratic. I do agree that those who oppose making those two parameters optional have not made a very good case. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not gaming the system, but you can label me as gaming the system, just like how you labeled me as a dick. When and if there is a good case to establish that a significant number of articles do not conform to the current infobox, I for one will be for the improvement of the infoboxes. However, to adversely affect an infobox setup that is already in place for thousands of WP:UNI articles without considering the resulting effects is not only not thinking about the big picture, but not thinking about tweaking specific articles in order for information to be properly displayed while preserving the main purpose of an infobox. If you won't establish the list, I will. Feel free to discuss it below. This section was only supposed to be used as a "directions" header. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha -- a hint of the reason for your opposition to this proposal! You say that the requested change "would adversely affect the infobox setup". Would you care to explain the particulars of your concern? (Remember that you are talking to people who are not adept at template creation and are generally unconvinced of the value of infoboxes, but are resigned to living with them because other Wikipedians are determined to add them to articles.) If you could explain where you are coming from, perhaps we could have a productive discussion. --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I was born in the late 1980s in Hong Kong, in a hospital. I moved to San Francisco when I was very little and grew up there. I currently reside in Florida. Now that I have shared where I come from, Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia for both serious research as well as quick reference. With that said, let's not change the subject here. Feel free to direct your attention to the sections below. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your response illustrates an important point. The question "where are you coming from?" was asked in idiomatic American English, which I inferred you would understand, based on your profile. The meaning was "What are the underlying reasons for your objections?" However, you interpreted it literally, as a question about your geographic origins. Infoboxes present a similar communication challenge. You, as a creator of infoboxes, know that "Location" refers to the location of the main administrative office of the university, but many readers are likely to interpret this literally, as the physical location of the entire university. Similarly, you know that the date given after the word "Established" might merely be an "official" date claimed in institutional puffery, and that it may be necessary to read many paragraphs of the article to determine its actual significance, but many readers will reasonably assume that it is unambiguously true. Infoboxes are useful for "ready-reference" information, but they are not effective at communicating subtleties and ambiguities. When the template design forces editors to insert information that is ambiguous or misleading into an infobox, the infobox becomes a source of "ready-reference" misinformation. Some of us think that avoiding misinformation is more important than standardizing the appearance of articles. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of proposed changes with listed reasons

  • Change #1: Making "establishment year" field optional
  • Reasons for Change:
    • Reason 1
    • Reason 2
Support
  • I support this change. Having already discussed this at length in two other places, and seeing the length of comments already entered below, I do not think that this mew discussion format will be helpful. However, here are a few examples (drawn from articles I've encountered in my editing experience) of places where this would be useful: Blackburn College (official founding date is 1837; did not actually open until 1859; date the college mostly publicizes is 1913, when it became a "work college"; given all this, I don't think the establishment date is a key fact to be highlighted in an infobox); University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (considering that they advertise 3 different founding dates on the university seal, it seems presumptuous of Wikipedia to pick one to highlight in an infobox); Carnegie Mellon University (formed from the 1967 merger of two prestigious institutions, one founded in 1900 and the other in 1913; it seems to me that just listing the 1900 date denigrates the second parent institution and fails to communicate the story effectively; this is an issue with the entire article, which focuses on the Carnegie parent and mostly ignores CMU's Mellon Institute of Industrial Research parentage); Mount Mary College (like UW-Milwaukee, it has 3 possibly "establishment" dates, of which the middle date is the default choice, but the establishment date is not a key fact deserving to be highlighted in an infobox); Ashford University (complicated history with multiple dates that could be construed as "establishment"; given the nature of the history, I would not consider establishment date to be a key fact); American Public University System (article incorporates the formerly separate American Military University article; infobox gives the date of American Military University's founding, but American Public University System has a definite founding date that is later); Warnborough College (was it founded in 1973, 1997, 2006, or some other date? -- many options exist; suffice it to say that the date is not a "key fact" for this outfit); Anton Bruckner Private University for Music, Drama, and Dance (article would benefit from an infobox to tell where it is, but it mentions several different dates; I'd have to do some research to figure out which date to put in an infobox); and Newman University (reading the article, I ask whether the founding date was 1902, 1932, 1958, or one of the other dates mentioned in the article, but the website says 1933; if the date is a required part of an infobox, this place isn't going to have an infobox until someone commits to doing the research needed to sort out its history). --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this is a big deal. Just make it optional. Changing it as a requirement will not affect the other articles which currently do have a date plugged in (as long as the recoding is correct). Just do it.—Noetic Sage 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The label can be made optional with no impact on existing articles. The reasons given above by Orlady are sufficient to show establishment year is not a clean concept with a simple definition. Vantelimus (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  • I have not seen enough articles affected by this field to change an infobox that adversely affects over 4000 WP:UNI articles without considering its immediate effects if not recoded properly. An educational establishment should have (regardless of its field of expertise) an institution name, a year of establishment, and a central/main location where the institution conducts business. Supporters of this change has not named even five articles that has been affected over the 4000+ WP:UNI coverage. I have advised that I would support making this field optional if at least twenty to thirty university articles on Wikipedia that uses this infobox that is seriously incompatible enough that without changing the infobox, the infobox would be either giving false information to readers, or cause serious difficulties for the reader to find correct information/references.
    • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, as indicated on the infobox states establishment year as "1885 (details)", which provided readers sufficient warning that he/she should click on "details" for further clarification. (Also, seeing that the university seal has three large dates right on the top of the infobox, it should also catch the attention of the reader as well). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely how would this change "adversely affect" existing (or even new) articles? --ElKevbo (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Change #2: Making "city" field optional
  • Reasons for Change:
    • Reason 1
    • Reason 2
Support
  • I support this change for reasons I've already elaborated upon. Some additional examples of institutions with multiple locations or ambiguous locations: Potomac College (two locations, neither of which seems to be designated the "main" site), Strayer University (the article and infobox have conflicting information), Adam Smith University (who can be sure where they really are?), Mercy College (New York), Zion Bible College (relocating soon), Washington International University (another shadowy outfit with uncertain location), Warnborough College (doing business from two locations in two different countries), Universite de Wallis (if location is a required field in the infobox, this outfit won't get an infobox), Roane State Community College (just an ordinary community college -- not a university system -- with several campuses), and Park University (has a main campus in Parkville, Missouri, but important locations in other cities; editors have worked at annotating the info in the infobox, but it doesn't look like it has been easy to do), Monroe College (two locations, which editors awkwardly added to the infobox), and American InterContinental University (several locations; as a for-profit subsidiary of a corporation, it apparently has no main administrative offices, but rather has a parent company). --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't see why this is a big deal. Just make it optional. Changing it as a requirement will not affect the other articles which currently do have a location plugged in (as long as the recoding is correct). Just do it.—Noetic Sage 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The infobox is being used for many, if not most university systems such as University of Alabama System or University of Texas System. While the one I've edited (UA system), I put the city of the main campus which also is the city of the system offices, why not make it optional since the "System" as an entity actually occupies every city where there is a campus. I'm not sure why this is a big deal, if someone leaves the city out of an article that should have it, it'll get added in by future editors. jblake 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblake (talk • contribs)
  • Our world now includes the virtual. Physical location is not always a valid concept, especially now that universities are offering classes inside Second Life. Might as well make this optional.Vantelimus (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Same reason to oppose as I had with why I oppose Change #1. (Recap: An educational establishment should have (regardless of its field of expertise) an institution name, a year of establishment, and a central/main location where the institution conducts business.)
    • State University of New York: Article is about a university system, therefore the city section should not list all of the cities the state university system expands to, but only the city where the SUNY system heads out of, which on SUNY's website, lists as Albany, NY (which is what is on the article). This article should not be used as an example for the supporting party because the information on the article is correct and incorrect assumptions were made to consider it an example. (Other university systems also operate in this fashion, such as the University of California system).
    • University of Phoenix: University that has distance learning programs, 73 branch campuses, etc. However, its main location in which it conducts business is in Phoenix, AZ, therefore the infobox is correct.
    • ERAU: This private university "system" began as a private company in 1925 and should have a "(details)" link to its history to properly address the transition from private company to a private university in Florida, and then the later split-off to its second campus in Arizona. This article does not warrant a fundamental change in the infobox's code to adapt into this article, as most universities do not operate in such a way.
    • DeVry University recognizes its establishment date to be 1931, therefore, following suit from University of Phoenix, this private university system is just fine as is. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely how would this change "adversely affect" existing (or even new) articles? --ElKevbo (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Change #3: Disassociation of infobox from WP:UNI
  • Reasons for Change:
    • Reason 1
    • Reason 2
Support
Oppose
  • Absolutely preposterous. The objective of WP:UNI is to standardize university article formatting in addition to the betterment and expansion of higher education articles. Disassociation of this infobox will ultimately undermine this WikiProject, which currently serves as the exclusive WikiProject covering over 4000+ articles on Wikipedia on university-related articles represented all around the world. Undermining this WikiProject would directly disrupt the general upkeeping of these 4000+ articles. In addition, any other WikiProject that utilizes infoboxes as means to achieve standardization on Wikipedia would also be equally affected, including our sister project: WP:SCH, WP:CITIES, WP:ROADS, and many many more. The general usage of infoboxes on Wikipedia has been tweaked for years and the current system has worked thus far. These minor articles listed cannot even begin to amount to 1% of the current article coverage this WikiProject maintains, and therefore I propose that the anomalous articles these editors have had problems with should have its contents reexamined and corrected by editing the content, not the infobox. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Who has proposed this? If you're only proposing it to oppose it then it's a preposterous straw man. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose addition of optional Newspaper field

The free label is being used by many of the university articles I've seen to display the school newspaper. Many (most?) universities have a school newspaper. The inclusion of the newspaper in the infobox free label slot by many university articles seems sufficient evidence that "newspaper" should be a standard optional field in the infobox. This will free up the "free label" to be used for something less common and perhaps something unique to each university. As an optional field, adding "newspaper" can be done in a way that is non-breaking to any existing page. Articles which currently use the free label slot for a newspaper can be migrated to use the new field over time when the need arises to use the free label slot for some new information. Vantelimus (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few (over 1,000) university pages and never seen the free label used for a newspaper. I do think it is a neat idea, however, and would like to see some examples. Can you post some here? Thanks! —Noetic Sage 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In the United States at least nearly every university has a newspaper. I can see a potential for the field to become problematic, however. The majority of schools will have a main paper and a number of smaller papers. The smaller papers will generally want to be seen as on par with the major paper at each school, even though they're often alternative weekly's, occasional opinion journals, literary journals, or just badly written ideological screeds from a campus' disenfranchised extremists. I've seen some low-grade edit warring over this, and have some worry that a template field could invite more. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We just went through a purge of numerous extraneous fields, such as debt, public transit, and fight song. I cannot imagine that a newspaper has significant enough importance to mention it here, when it can be dealt with at better length in the body. And as JayHenry mentions, there will be those that want to list every official and unofficial newspaper printed on and around a campus. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Vantelimus isn't the first to ask for something like this. WP:SCH has "|newspaper = " a field. However, I must admit the amount of alternative press in most colleges and universities themselves may prove more problematic than its worth. I'd go for just describing the university newspaper (and any other notable university presses on campus) under the Student Life section of the main university article or its respective Student Life subarticle (if available). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But outside the US not all institutions have a newspaper. Some have a magazine, some have a publication that changes status almost every year depending on who's editing it and so forth. Okay we can solve that one by using a more generic term like "Publication". But then there's the problem of multiple papers at an institution (e.g. Cambridge has both Varsity and The Cambridge Student), especially if the institution is either multi-campus or has sub-parts with a very strong identity (particularly medical schools). Equally problematic is determining just how "official" the publication is (some are published by the university, some by the students' union, some have an independent existance, others overlap in various combinations with funding sources and the degree editorial independence not always consistent with who is publishing it). Plus there's the question of just how significant the publication is - a semi-regular magazine with a poor circulation and low readership (but guarenteed funding) is not on the same level as a weekly newspaper that's widely read. And of course published print is not the only form of student media - radio stations, online news forums and so forth could all equally make the case that they are on a par and must be included as well for balanced coverage. This is the kind of thing that's better handled in text rather than trying to contort convoluted facts into an oversimplistic table. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just went through a bunch of universities and have to admit it is far less prevalent than I thought. But, it does seem to be common among university pages I have edited. Here are some examples: University of California, Berkeley - The Daily Californian; Columbia University - Columbia Daily Spectator; University of Southern California - Daily Trojan; University of California, Los Angeles - Daily Bruin; and University of California, Irvine - New University. That list is California heavy, so maybe my perception is just off since I am California based (some would say biased). I agree with the observation that alternative student newspapers could create contention over representation in the infobox. Thanks for the feedback. Vantelimus (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, since I'm from California as well. Perhaps using the custom field is the most neutral approach to this issue until there is significant increases in other universities inputting their main university newspaper into the infobox. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed. Newspapers, and a lot of schools have a few as mentioned above, can easily be discussed in the article text. The infobox is not for every common thing universities have. KnightLago (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of coordinates

Any suggestions for which coordinates should be used in the {{coord}} tem[plate for multi-campus unis? Do all unis have a 'main' campus?Crispness (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all universities have a single discrete location, which is why the "required" status of the city field is so problematic. Fortunately, coordinates are optional. IMHO, the coord template should be used only if the university unit discussed in the article has a single discrete location. --Orlady (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation field

Would anyone have any objection to an optional abbreviation field? Many schools tend to have a semi-official or official one, and it isn't always necessarily the most obvious, either omitting part of the name (UNC for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) or switching the ordering (MU for University of Missouri). If so where would be the best place to add it? Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A simple solution without adding a specific field to the infobox is just to include somewhere near the top of the article that Massachusetts Institute of Technology (abbrev. as "MIT") ... It should do the trick. Unfortunately, abbreviations are one of those categories that would add possible unnecessary clutter to infoboxes. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why I would make it optional. Artichoke2020 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is needed. Initials and common names are typically mentioned in the first sentence of the article. KnightLago (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Adjunct Faculty?

Is there a section for adjunct faculty? If not, can this be added?

DonSlice 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the current Infobox template.
It's not apparent to me that this is the kind of "quick-reference" item that belongs in the infobox. The number of adjunct faculty in a university is not very meaningful as a metric, IMO, since "adjunct" status does not indicate anything about the extent of the person's connection with the institution. The article Academic rank says "'Adjunct' before the name of a rank (Adjunct Assistant Professor, etc.) may indicate a part-time or temporary appointment. Adjunct status may also be given to a faculty member from another academic department whose research or teaching interests overlap substantially with those of the appointing department." However, the adjunct faculty members of my personal acquaintance are people whose university connection is far more limited than this implies. They typically draw no pay from the university that lists them as "adjunct", but in fact are employed by some other institution. In some instances, their adjunct status is due to having taught a single course several years ago. In other cases, they may be serving on a single graduate student's committee. Adjunct faculty members such as these are available to the institution and its students as resource persons, but the total number of such people is not particularly meaningful as an indicator of institutional resources. Are you working on article for an institution where the number of adjuncts is important? --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

accreditation status?

Should the accreditation status of each school be mentioned in the infobox, at least for schools that are in the United States or in countries with a similar system of higher education? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article text can easily cover it. Also, the affiliations field can be used to add the initials of the accrediting agency. KnightLago (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Field usage

With ref to this edit as an example, an editor is adding street addresses and postal codes to this infobox transclusion in an effort to provide more information. Three questions:

  • Is adding the address/postal code good style vis-a-vis WP:NOTDIR?
  • The template doc mentions hCard "street-address" html, but there is no Street Address field in the template. What am I missing?
  • Are the edits as in the example above breaking the hCard format for country and locality, and is this significant?

Thanks for the advice! Franamax (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that street addresses don't belong in the infobox. I can't provide much insight into the template documentation, though. Esrever (klaT) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm always just a few minutes too late. The street-address is from a generic template: {{UF-hcard-org}} so it's not necessarily applicable to the usage of this particular template. Thanks for the response on general style - it seems that if street address is desired, it will have to be done some way other than changing the content of the existing template field instances. I've asked for comments at the University project too. Franamax (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the address should be added either. This information can easily be found on the schools website. KnightLago (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah I don't think the address should be added either. The information can be found on the university's website. Also, universities with multiple campuses would also begin adding their addresses even if it's down the street. Not including it would most likely be a more manageable answer. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

please: no phone numbers, street addresses, zip codes

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Kingturtle (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The motto and mottoeng fields

Just looking a few articles, it seems that the "mottoeng" field isn't always popular and editors are often placing the English in parentheses next to, or below the Latin. I'll admit to being guilty of that my myself as the label "Motto in English" is rather long, it's kind of obvious that the translation is to English, and just wanted to add a single citation for both the Latin and English. Also some people are adding "(<language>)" after the motto, and it all looks kind of messy. I wonder if we shouldn't look again at the format of the two fields. Maybe we could standardize it as something like: 

{{{mottolang}}}: ''{{{motto}}}''<br/>
"{{{mottoeng}}}"

e.g.

Latin: Dominus Illuminatio Mea
"The Lord is my Light"

with an if statement to remove mottolang, mottoeng, and italics if the motto is already English, and maybe some Wikilinks. Does anyone agree, or have any other ideas.Hippo (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what's done as long as y'all can come to some sort of consensus. Recently, I've seen several editors edit war over this or at least revert one another and it's a huge waste of time and energy. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Founder tag?

Can we add an optional Founder tag? Banaticus (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it needed? Who would you define a founder as? The first president, dean, etc.? This is probably best covered in the text. KnightLago (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Affiliations

Considering how long a list of affiliations can get, would be a good idea to make this a collapsible field? Or are there some criteria for limiting the list that isn't noted in the directions? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a few examples of where there is a large list of affiliations? KnightLago (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just created an article for City College (Florida), and decided not to put in the affiliation list because they list 83 academic affiliations for their three campuses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, maybe to get on the same page we need to focus on what is an affiliation? I generally don't think of any partnership between schools and a business or a company as an affiliation. I think of thinks like an accrediting agency, a state university system, and major associations of other universities to name a few. You? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't work in these articles much, I just go with what the infobox says "List of academic/sporting affiliations and memberships" which to me is whatever list the university publishes as their list of affiliations and memberships. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to post a link to the list I could take a look. KnightLago (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. It is at http://www.citycollege.edu/catalog/20070228.pdf, starting on page 5. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really see much there. That looks more like a list of individual professional memberships and affiliations than significant college affiliations. KnightLago (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scarf

Most universities in the United Kingdom have their own academic scarves, to show off their school colours. I think an optional field entitled "Scarf" would be a good idea, if placed under the "colors" field. Would anybody be able to do this? Thanks. For more info, go to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Academic_scarf --WorldAtlas (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this. Its still just the school colors. Universities have many ways to show them off, we don't need to highlight them all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the articles are tending to use the "colours" field for the scarves anyway - see for instance London School of Economics. UK universities generally don't have the kind of formal corporate colour schemes that US ones do, with logos, crests and scarves often either choosing different colours or retaining earlier ones (and a lot don't use it in the academic dress either) and the scarves are the things that spring most to mind. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
As Tim says, scarves are probably the nearest thing to college colours in the UK (and are distinct from other possible colours - for example, Van Mildert College Durham's arms are red and white, but their scarf is black and yellow). Whether it's better to have a separate field and not use the Colours field for UK universities, or to use the Colours field for scarves in the UK, I'm not sure. I'm inclined towards the second, I think, so that when someone turns up and says "In Venezuelan universities, universities have distinctive coloured hats" we don't need a separate field for that. TSP (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Title IV Code

How do you feel about adding a field entitled "Title IV Code?" -- Saaga (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly would the field display? I don't know enough about Title IV to know what the output is or why it would need to be included in the infobox. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not providing an explanation with my question! A Title IV Code, also called a Federal School Code, is a six-character code (such as 002627 for Princeton, for example) that signifies that an educational institution is eligible to receive Title IV funds, such as Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, PLUS Loans, Pell Grants, Federal Work-Study funds, and loan forgiveness programs, from the U.S. Federal government. You can find a current listing of the codes at http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/0801FedSchCodeListUpdates0809.pdf. This field is important because, not only does it indicate this eligibility, it also provides students with the Code when filling out the FAFSA or other documents. -- Saaga (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
But how does that improve the article? This an encyclopaedia, not a prospectus or university catalogue. There must be all manner of codes for universities around the world that could go in the info box, expanding the template no end. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A similar code field is added to US High School articles with their CEEB code for SAT/AP/ACT reporting. The problem with that is it localized to US high schools... same thing here, Title IV codes do not apply to universities outside of the US. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with the two users above me. I'm not sure the addition of a Title IV code is really necessary or an improvement to the infobox. It's a U.S.-only field, and it's outside the scope of Wikipedia, which is not a directory. Esrever (klaT) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, not necessary for an encyclopedia article. KnightLago (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Faculty versus staff

Hi. There seems to be some confusion over the use of the faculty and staff variables. Whereas faculty in this sense is the number of staff, as per the American use, some editors seem to be interpreting it as meaning the number of faculties (in the sense of divisions of a university into departments and so on). See a correction I made here. I think this confusion is perhaps arising because we have fields for both faculty and staff in the infobox. Is there supposed to be a difference between these two fields, or could one be ditched? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The two can essentially be used interchangeably, but their usage varies by location. The template's instructions indicate that faculty= should be used for North American universities to represent the number of teaching/academic staff at those institutions. For other universities, the staff= field should be used. In those instances, the faculty= field should not be used to indicate the number of academic "divisions" an institution has. Esrever (klaT) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As I thought then. Is there any way to make it clearer to editors what the faculty field is for? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Other than directing them to the documentation? None that I can think of. Esrever (klaT) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we not insert a hidden comment with the relevant line from the documentation ("Number of faculty members. Use for North American universities and locations where the term "faculty" carries this meaning. Otherwise, use staff")? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Someone with more experience with templates would have to weigh in on that. I tend to be pretty cautious in messing with the actual syntax. Esrever (klaT) 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_university/Archive_4&oldid=1119503950"