Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice

Discouraging "Controversies" sections

I propose adding something to these guidelines explicitly discouraging separate sections in articles dedicated solely to "Controversies" (similar to the advice here). Too often, those sections become dumping grounds for trivial events that have little or nothing to do with the college or university and have no lasting impact. When there are important controversies of lasting importance, they should be integrated into the article in the appropriate section that provides readers with useful context. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Controversies do not flow in other sections like "academics", "athletics" etc, so important controversies would likely either not get added at all, or would be at risk for being deleted for being in the "wrong section". Seems more appropriate response to such concerns would be to discourage addition of trivial events, while including controversies sections but encouraging inclusion of meaningful controversies of lasting impact. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree. History may be the default location for a controversy but others would fit into Campus, Student life or other sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversies can be fairly recent, so I'm not sure "History" is the best fit either. I suppose such content could often be moved to a new subsection under "History" called "Notable Events in Recent History", but I still think a better approach is simply to leave the "Controversies" sections while discouraging trivial content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be fairly unusual for there to be a genuine controversy of lasting importance that wouldn't fit into one of the recommended sections that describe areas central and common to most colleges and universities e.g., faculty, research, student life. Can you provide any examples of controversies that wouldn't fit into those sections? ElKevbo (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agreed that content in controversies sections could be included as recent history, but think that doesn't solve problem of trivial content, which is why I think trivial content in general should be discouraged, instead of entire sections.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice

Discouraging "In popular culture" sections

The guidelines currently have a paragraph discouraging separate "In popular culture" sub-articles but I propose extending that discouragement to "In popular culture" sections in main college and university articles. The issues are the same and the reasons to discourage sub-articles are the same reasons to discourage sections: In most cases, the sections are Wikipedia-editor selected examples of links the college or university has to popular culture. The links are often tenuous and it's rare that any sources are provided that synthesize and discuss the role the college or university has played in popular culture. Without such sources, the section is pure original research which violates one of our core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. It should encourage the sourced material to be incorporated into the article, if possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree. However, a few universities are frequently referred to in books, films, etc. and sometimes that is a notable topic in its own right. List of fictional Oxford colleges for example. This doesn't apply to the majority of institutions. "Cultural references" is a better section heading. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

src: static.independent.co.uk

Discouraging mission statements

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines has an NPOV section in which it states "Avoid mission statements and goals. They are generally promotional." This seems as true for Universities as it is for schools, and I'd like to see something similar in these guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - duh, the mission of any school is to educate students. (Eye whent too a reel gud skule. Deyir mison statment inkluded "Produce good speellers." But I didn't graduate.) No need to repeat that same fact no matter how artfully it is presented. - S. Rich (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Style discussion underway

A discussion about the style of the academic course names is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Names of academic courses. Ibadibam (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

src: www.collegemagazine.com

Article title in native language

WP:ENGLISH would favor names in English, but I've seen many WP articles about international universities titled as per their native language, e.g., École nationale de l'aviation civile, Université de Montréal. Any guidelines here, please? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't so much that we favor names in English... it's that we favor whatever names that appear in English Language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME). It may be a cultural bias in the English Speaking world, but it is not that uncommon for English Language sources to present the names of French institutions in French. It much rarer with names of institutions in other languages (for example a Czech University... English Language sources almost always translate their Czech names into English). Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

src: static01.nyt.com

"In popular culture" section of Pepperdine University article

A discussion is underway in the Talk page of Pepperdine University regarding the article's "In popular culture" section. Input from interested editors would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

src: c2.staticflickr.com

Académie Julian

Their is on ongoing dispute concerning Académie Julian. The issues concern whether lists of faculty and alumni should be in the main article or in a separate list article, and whether these lists should include names that are incompletely sourced and red-linked, please see Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. We have already received a Wikipedia:Third opinion but this has not resolved the matter. Please review the issues raised and help us to reach a consensus. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

src: catdc.org

greek system

re Wikipedia:College and university article advice#Student_life, does the project have a position on summarizing vs itemizing houses within the greek system, such as this edit? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

src: www.collegemagazine.com

Redirects from old names?

Not sure where to start discussion on this. Is there any guide to whether redirects should be created for former names of a College/University. For example, to create Frostburg State College as a redirect to Frostburg State University. If so, should a redirect category be created for this?Naraht (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created several redirects of this type. I have not encountered a guide, but my practice is to always create redirects for well-established related names. I aim to use the following templates (these populate the redirect categories):

• Official former names, {{R from former name}} or possibly {{R from historic name}}
• Short-form and long-form names that do not match the article title, {{R from alternative name}}
• Well-established unofficial names and common erroneous names, {{R from incorrect name}}.
• Predecessor institutions that were merged into the target institution, {{R from former name}}{{R with possibilities}}
• Subsidiary institutions (e.g. a medical school redirecting to its parent university), {{R from subtopic}}{{R with possibilities}}
• Spin-off institutions that are now independent but do not have a separate article, {{R to related topic}}{{R with possibilities}}

With your example, if Frostburg State College was simply renamed as Frostburg State University then create a redirect using {{R from former name}}. If Frostburg State College merged with other colleges to form Frostburg State University then make redirects for each with {{R from former name}} and {{R with possibilities}}, as the old colleges were different institutions which might merit separate articles.

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

src: cdn.psychologytoday.com

Ranking notability

When is a ranking notable enough to include? Must it have a secondary source reporting on the ranking in general, a secondary source reporting on the ranking being applied to that specific university, or could there be no secondary source at all? Also, does it change from academic rankings to various cultural/social ones? K.Bog 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding new US based ranking - Heterodox

I am thinking of adding the Heterodox Academy ratings of college viewpoint diversity[[1]] to college pages. This is a relatively new ranking system, but has received some coverage (e.g. [[2]] [[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] and I think is notable enough to include--although certainly not in the lead of articles. I am thinking that in the rankings sections of colleges I'll add statements like: "University of Chicago received a ranking of 98 out of 100 on the Heterodox Academy ratings of college viewpoint diversity--making it the top ranking school of the 150 universities evaluated." Before I start adding, I want to get feedback from the community on this. Thanks.- Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that this - or nearly any new - ranking system is notable enough to be included in many articles. If it were up to me, I'd insist on waiting a few years before making the decision to include a new ranking unless there were exceptional circumstances. My reasoning is that it's relatively easy for something new to get some media coverage. It's only if scholars and reporters continue making use of the ranking system over the course of several years that we get a good sense of whether the ranking is genuinely notable or if it was just a novelty. (Yes, I would also remove many of the rankings included in many articles especially the ridiculously bloated Rankings of universities in the United States article.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with this. The aforementioned ratings are not notable to appear in a plurality of articles. Frankly the coverage of the new system is limited and adding them at this point would be promotional. It would be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• ^ "Guide to Colleges: Top 150 Universities in the US". HeterodoxAcademy.org. 

Source of the article : Wikipedia