Talk:Duke University/Archive 3

message: Please protect this page from being vandalized again.
*I think being unprotected despite repeat vandalism sort of comes with the territory when an article is featured on the front page Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect Request

message: Eh? Isn't this a bit an odd thing to specify in the first line? Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tend to agree and deleted that word way back when it was up for Featured Status.  My rationale was that it was obvious and somebody pointed me to Wikipedia:State_the_obvious#State_the_obvious.  Even if we are supposed to "state the obvious," I don't know if it's significant enough to state in the first sentence.  In the three other American University FA's (Cornell University, University of Michigan, and Michigan State University), only one (Univ of Michigan) has "coeducational" in the first line.  So, I think either is fine, it's just a matter of preference.-Bluedog423Talk 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Disagree - it should be kept as some schools are still single-gender institutions. most FA University articles state as such. — BQZip01 — talk 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-educational?

message: I hopefully corrected some additional vandalism: someone added the phrase "Singapore is a dictatorship".  Yay.  
Joe V. 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism 

message: After about 150 edits, here are the changes: changes.  Excluding the two added refs (one by User:DukeEgr93 and one by me) and picture layout changes, there is a whopping total of 6 minor edits (2 misspellings, addition of "Latin for" for the motto, wikilink to William Preston Few and a short phrase following it, addition of the ranking of the physician assistant program in "notes,"  and a new wikilink to The Chronicle).
Anyways, I was wondering what others thought of the picture layout changes.  Here is how they used to be: old layout.  Specifically, look at these sections to compare the old and new: Undergraduate, Rankings, Libraries and Museums, and Football.  The new version places the photos under the headings of the sections, which makes sense since they belong under those headings.  However, it causes the heading to be on the left with no text beneath it, which I personally think looks bad.  With the photo beside the section (the old way), it is still obvious which section the photo belongs to (there is really no difference), but the placement of the heading is above the text instead of above the photo.  Thoughts? -Bluedog423Talk 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAotD edits and picture layout

message: The Duke University Wiki Project has now been underway for over 6 months, with only a few regular contributors and very few contributions from expert wikians. We still need help building the global reference for Duke University.
I guess I am asking the many extremely dedicated people who continue to work on this particular article if you won't also contribute an article to Duiki every once in a while. We could certainly use the help.
:It's fine that you want to get the word out about Duiki and I'd encourage people to add to it as well as edit it.  However, please do not add advertising within this article as you have done in the past.  Adding excessive external links to this article leading to Duiki is not productive and very annoying.  Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertising tool. Thanks for your understanding. -Bluedog423Talk 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think you'd get a lot more people to edit Duiki if you allowed anonymous IP edits.  Just my opinion, though.  I know you are trying to reduce vandalism, but having more contributors is definitely key.-Bluedog423Talk 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duiki 

message: Yes.  Anyone disapprove?  --Jesse Harris (Blacice) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. Too specific and would fit nicely into article. Not 100% against its own article, but definitely think it should be merged if there are no good arguments against. Nobody is going to search for Construction at Duke specifically. Not notable. Kushboy 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment. That is a daughter article that was once a part of the main article, but was separated out because it was thought to be too clunky.  --Ttownfeen 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose "merge," support deletion - I oppose a futher "merge," as the articles are already merged to a certain extent. That is, I do not think any additional information about construction projects should be mentioned in the Duke University article as there is already a paragraph summarizing the projects.  If the bulleted list is added it would definitely be bad for the article; contributing unimportant details while hurting the flow and prose.  However, I would not be opposed to deleting the Construction projects at Duke University article if others think it is too detailed and unimportant. -Bluedog423Talk 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with ''[[Construction projects at Duke University]]''? 

message: Although cute, someone has vandalized this page (again) and changed all references to "Duke" to "Dook"...  Can someone competent please fix?
Wikipedalist 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, apparently somebody at the North Carolina Research and Education Network doesn't like Duke. -Bluedog423Talk 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Duke" NOT "Dook" 

message: The men are out in the first round, the women are the number one team in the nation, and barely a mention about the women's program that I can find here, let alone an article. For shame! Wahkeenah 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it then! It is a wiki after all ;)  I'd definitely recommend adding a section about women's basketball to Duke Blue Devils first (women's golf already has a section; women's b-ball definitely deserves one too!) and then including only the most important information to this article. Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The head coach just won a major award and their program has been very successful lately.  There was also a story at ESPN.com about the students camping out for a woman's game, an event usually reserved for their men's team, but I can't seem to find it (was it for their game against NCSU?).  --ElKevbo 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's basketball 

message: The photo needs to be removed from Wikicommons and needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the Template:Non-free 3D art tag. As peculiar as it may sound, pictures of statues are considered derivative works since statues are works of art. For pictures of public buildings, though, there is an exemption. It looks like Charles Keck was the sculptor of the statue, so adding his name to the photo description would be a good idea. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, interesting.  Didn't know that.  I uploaded a new version, but don't know how to delete the old one.  I assume it will automatically be deleted since it is now an orphaned image (i.e. not used in any article). Thanks for pointing this out! -Bluedog423Talk 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: James Duke statue photo

message: I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I look at Duke's often for inspiration, so I was wondering if I could get advice.  I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university.  I am here because Duke, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, research university, and should have basically similar article styles.  Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like Duke.  How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved?  Who/where is good to ask for assistance?  What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.--Patrick 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for some help at [[Georgetown University|Georgetown]]