Talk:Ohio State University/Archive 1

message: Is there any real need for a massive section of links in the middle of the article? Also, many parts of this page are woefully outdated (the Buckeye Bullet story isn't new or particularly relevant to the University itself). I'd say this whole article needs a massive renovation.
Any football fans out there?  The Ohio State Buckeyes football team really needs its own page.  Unfortunately, I hate football...  ; )  
There should also be something about the campus riots from the past few years.
Postdlf 12:04 5 Apr 2004 UTC
I added some external links. CES 03:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: I have applied the template that is outlined at the Wikiprojects: Universities page. Please add/delete as necessary. --Taoster 19:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: Universities template 

message: Recent edit added a phrase clarifying (I suppose) that there is more than one OSU.  The editer added Oklahoma State and Oregon State that go by the same abbreviation.  Is this really necessary?  US(outh)C(arolina) and US(outhern)C(alifornia) are without notice, as are UT(exas) and UT(ennessee).  I doubt many people confuse schools in Oregon, Ohio and Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas, or California and South Carolina.Rkevins82 04:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I've seen the error in my ways and tried to clear-up the pages in question. As a Buckeye fan though, there is only one OSU, and this year, only one UT ;> Rkevins82 04:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to clarify? 

message: - Further broken-down rankings of US News
 - Mention of The Ohio State fight song & Carmen Ohio
 - More about campus culture (?) It doesn't mention Mirror Lake or the Oval.
Just ideas! JD79 18:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More thoughts - the alleged haunting of the spire at Orton Hall and some of the legends about the oval...possibly stuff about the old steam tunnels. JD79 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items that could use mention 

message: I am extremely disappointed with the image used on OSU's page.  While other schools' pages have official seals or logos that look quite impressive, Ohio State's has a photograph featured as a wallpaper on the university's website.
Could someone please find an actual professional looking OSU logo to put on the page?  The square logo would be great; the official seal, in color, would be even better.
--buckeyes1186 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Logo PLEASE 

message: The template cuts info and I would like to revert it, but would like some feedback. Rkevins82 05:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the template that was in use before looks janky, both in appearance and in the underlying old-fashioned html representation. Wikipedia already has a predefined style for organizational taxonomies and it seems like it should be used here. The information that was removed is present elsewhere in the page, but if you're adamant that it be present in the taxonomy, I'm sure thee's a way to extend it somehow. --Bricoleur 06:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The old infobox was ugly.  However, there is no way to extend the current template.  I would prefer information over aesthetics. Rkevins82 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking at the documentation for the taxobox, and I'll just define a new template with the same appearance and the information present in the old table layout. --Bricoleur 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bricoleur. Rkevins82 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  University template 

message: Buckeyes incorrectly links to the OSU page now. The word could refer to a number of things. Rhhs 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected Buckeyes so it points to Buckeye. - EurekaLott 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckeyes 

message: The end of the athletics section discusses recent academic scandals involving Jim O'Brien and Maurice Clarrett.  I am going to remove this statement, and before people jump on me for being an alum let me explain why.  The "Maurice Clarrett Scandal" is a total non-scandal.  After being relieved from the team, he said he was paid from boosters and coaches and made many allegations.  The fact is that nothing came from this nearly two years later.  He declined to interview with the NCAA about these supposed infractions and no action ever came from the incident.  In the case of former coach Jim O'Brien, he loaned money to the mother of a player who was looking at OSU for school.  The player did not come to OSU and the only action taken was a self-imposed one by the university.  Jim O'Brien is actually suing the university for wrongful termination since he didn't do anything one.  Once again this is not really a scandal, and actually not really that recent either, since it has been over a year or two now.  Anyone who wants to revert the edits could kindly give their reasoning here before editting wars start. -Thebdj 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandals 

message: I think that there should be a section on academic achievements and rankings that is at least the size of the athletic section.  After all, by varying rankings, Ohio State is somewhere between the 30th (U of Florida Center for Research University Data) and 60th (USN&WR) ranked major university in the US, as well as the top rated public university in Ohio, ranks 15th (public or private) for the amount of research conducted and has an endowment that's closing in on two billion dollars.  Also, it should be pointed out that with the abandonment of Jim Rhodes' admissions policies in 1987, that were directed in large part towards the university he flunked out of as a freshman, Ohio State has also become the most selective public university in Ohio (although admittedly the numbers between it and Miami(OH) are very close).  As is done with athletic conference affiliations we should also have a link section for the other CIC schools.
The alumni section is very disorganized and unruly.  Could we break it up into catagories, as is done on the Michigan page?  As for the inclusion of Jeffrey Dahmer, I have to question its logic.  It's my understanding that he attended the university for only one quarter before flunking out, so his time here certainly didn't shape what he would later become.  Had he graduated from Ohio State or committed any of his crimes while attending, I think that he would certainly merit inclusion.  As it is, I'm not so sure.
Also, we should add Ohio State's conference affiliation in men's hockey, which is the CCHA. Sam Harmon 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics, Alumni Section & Hockeye Link

message: I've added a paragraph expanding on Ohio State's rather quick emergence as the state's flagship university, noting both its 1916 inclusion into the AAU and the role of Governor Davis (21-23) in funding the expansion of Ohio State's physical plant.  I'm new to this, so any suggestions or pointing out errors that I've made is entirely welcome. (Sam Harmon 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've corrected the university's endowment to reflect its total at year's end 2005.  Here's my reference:   --Sam Harmon 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment 

message: The Sentinel is not a "right-wing" newspaper, it is merely an alternative political opinion paper, and publishes articles of a variety of political views.  Changing the description from the "right-wing" to the more accurate term "op-ed" is completely valid and shouldn't be subject to needless alterations.
Hobbes557 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Changes 

message: If nobody has any objections, I have a long overnight flight to Europe this weekend and would like to use the time to organize the alumni section into catagories (i.e. business, arts & literature, politics & diplomacy etc.), as well as adding a section for notable faculty members.--Sam Harmon 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already done this in a text file.  I can post the recommendations this weekend and we can collaborate. Rkevins82 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted my changes before I saw your note.  Sorry.  Feel free to look over what I've done and merge it with what you've been working on.  As I've mentioned previously, I am new to this and am unsure how to collaborate on an article without posting it first.  Your help in this regard would be very welcome.  Thanks again.   --Sam Harmon 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni Section 

message: I'm curious as to the removal of Ohio State's inclusion in the 2001 publication of a listing of "public ivy" institutions.  While I think that both this edition and the 1986 book that included Miami(OH) tend to be overly subjective and not the best available rankings, they are legitimate references--in both cases.  I also question the motivation for its removal by an anonymous editor whose primary edits have been on the Ohio University page.  I am working on a more detailed section of rankings and academic points of pride for Ohio State and plan on reinstating it there--unless someone can make a strong argument for its exclusion.   --Sam Harmon 14:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds appropriate.  Don't worry about the list page.  You have put signigificant work into it and I will probably only make a few changes.  Also, please sign with four tildes, as that makes it easier to leave you comments. Rkevins82 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Public Ivy" Designation

message: I'm curious as to the details of how the Miami president was "instrumental" in the founding of Ohio State other than simply failing to gain the land-grant status for his own institution.  Even Miami's own official history, The Miami Years makes no mention of his role other than Miami's failed effort to be designated the land-grant institution.  I'm going to leave it in place until I can do some more research on Ohio State's earliest years; however, I am starting to believe that this may be another apocryphal story that floats around the Miami campus as fact.  Does anybody have any relevant ref. on the matter?   --Sam Harmon 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded this section to more accurately reflect the founding of Ohio State and the peripheral role that Miami and OU's failure to gain the land-grant played.  Seriously, only the "mother miami" mentality could take a failure so colossal that it resulted in the university closing down and somehow spin it into some "point of pride."--Sam Harmon 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miami President Stanton & founding of Ohio State

message: Under the football section, I think it would be interesting to have a trivia comment about those in the Heisman Trophy race. Many times after a team plays the Buckeyes, the player's "stock" seams to drop rapidly (except Woodson). Despite the "Unwin" (yeah, yeah, I'm a fan, sue me.) to Texas the Texas player who was up for the running, his "stock" dropped after the game.
S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heisman potentials come to "die" 

message: I've changed the date of the vote on Ohio State's early curriculum and focus to 1873. Referance: .  I can't find any competing referance that it occurred in 1878, which wouldn't make sense anyways as the university's opening curriculum reflected the expanded focus.--Sam Harmon 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Curriculum Vote

message: I would like to add several Time Magazine covers that have featured Ohio State alumni to the alumni page.  I've added two that were already in use elsewhere on wickipedia.  In researching this, I found that there was a rather contentious debate concerning the use of Time Magazine covers as it relates to copyright and fair use concerns.  This appears to have been resolved in favor of their use as low-resolution thumbnails.  I'm a little unsure as to how to upload them with all the proper tagging and "fair use" explanations, so that they won't be deleted.
:Done.  I just hope I did it right.--Sam Harmon 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni & Time Magazine Covers

message: The "Organization" section really makes the article look awkward--bisecting the middle of the article with a long list of external links.  I don't know how to resolve keeping the content in a more elegant manner, but it is something that should be considered.--Sam Harmon 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at other Big Ten university articles, and the few that do include some form of organization table do so at the end of the article.  I've made the Ohio State page similar, which IMHO makes the overall page much more clean and flowing.--Sam Harmon 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization Revisited

message: Now don't get me wrong, I love OSU football. But, information on the 2006 NFL draft and the players who went to which teams seems a bit out of place. Seems like it should have it's on seperate page or something. If included here, you should include every year of the draft and every Buckeye that has ever been drafted. I realize 2006 was a stand out year because so many Bucks were drafted, but I don't think it belongs in this article. I'll wait for replies, but I plan on removing the section if there are no reasonable objections. --Scotsworth 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but just don't want to get into an edit war over football.  I do think that Ohio State sports should have a seperate article, with the main Ohio State article just hitting the highlights.--Sam Harmon 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is anyone interested in making a seperate OSU sports article? All of the information about the 2006 draft, while concise, is out of place in this article, and i'm tempted to delete it altogether. --Scotsworth 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be a serperate "Ohio State Buckeyes" article, linked from the main Ohio State article.  Seeing as the main article still needs some work and athletics are not my primary interest, I'm not going to take it on.  To make the Ohio State article worthy of Featured Article status, however, it will eventually need to be done.  At to the 2006 draft info, I feel that it has the shelf-life of a firefly.  In other words, by August it needs to go.--Sam Harmon 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 NFL Draft 

message: I want to dispute the "flagship" status of OSU in the realm of Ohio higher education.  That remark is unqualifiable.  OSU does have the most students of any school in Ohio, unfortunately all that does is make them the loudest.
:I'm not certain that the use of the term flagship is inappropriate, and the statement makes it clear that this is a matter of perception.  The term is used often by the University's Presidents, and in vaious places outside of the school.  Do you just want to complain or do you want to suggest more neutral language that reflects the school's relatively much larger enrollment, faculty, and budget?  (Please sign talk pages by typing four tildes, "~~~~.") -MrFizyx 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link to Berdahl's speech.  He couldn't have stated better the situation in Ohio, where a lack of control and leadership combined with pork barrel politics has led to every lesser state school feeling entitled to try and become something they're not.--Sam Harmon 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether, the Ohio Board of Regents chooses to officially designate Ohio State the flagship university or not, the fact remains that it is the flagship and is widely viewed as such both in Ohio and outside the state--and that is the point the article makes.  This has nothing to do with football or the number of students, and everything to do with Ohio State's rankings (undergraduate, graduate and research) vis-a-vis Ohio's other public universities.  When another Ohio university matches Ohio State in the rankings, has ANY members of the National Academies on its faculty or gets accepted to the AAU, we can reopen this discussion.  The history section also makes it clear that the state government 100 years ago did make Ohio State the flagship university, and the decentralized and redundant system we're stuck with today is largely a product of Jim Rhodes populist, anti-intellectual policies of the 1960's and 1970,s.--Sam Harmon 15:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on two points.  First, Ohio State University is not the flagship, as it does not hold an official position above the other universities in the state, is younger than many, and only in the last few decades has achieved the degree of academic standing it has today.  Second, Sam, I disagree with your reading of Ohio's history with regards to university.  From before the founding of the university until today the state has consistently favored maintaining balance between the universities.  An early example is the state's rejection of folding OU and Miami into a state system under OSU, instead hoping they would serve different populations and geographic constituencies.  More recently the state has capped enrollment at Ohio State, also capping the aid it can receive, while not doing this to any other university.  Rhodes' policies with regards to higher education may not be popular, but for poor reasons.  His administration built the infrastructure for the improvements at Ohio State in the 1980's and 1990's through the capital budget.  Yes, he invested in community colleges throughout the state.  That decision is still popular among many, as it keeps college "within reach" of students, reduces costs, and serves the technical professions. Rkevins82 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you bring up some interesting questions, Rkevins82.  Yes, it's true that OU and Miami were not folded into a single university system.  There is also equal, if not more compelling, evidence that the Ohio legislature did intend on Ohio State being at the very least first among equals.  Three specifics spring immediately to mind.  First, in 1891 when Ohio State became the first public university funded by a permanent tax levy.  Second, the Eagleson Bill in 1906 which prohibited Miami and OU from offering doctoral education or conducting basic research and third the 1921 university building fund which was split 72-14-14 between Ohio State, OU and Miami.  As to the relative youth of Ohio State, this is one area where Ohio's system of higher education is somewhat unique.  If one reads Berdahl's speech on what defines a "flagship university" he does make an allowance for not being the oldest university in the state when the university was founded under the Morrill Land]Grant Act.  As to academic reputation, yes Ohio State's has increased significantly in the last two decades, but I would argue that it was always ahead of Miami and OU even in the darkest days of the Jim Rhodes policies--particlularly in terms of graduate/professional education and research, which is a fundamental basis of a "flagship university."  AAU membership is probably the most significant factor here.  Remember also that there also wasn't this mania over college rankings until the mid to late eighties.  The enrollment limits were actually instituted with the blessing of Ohio State.  They saw it as a necessary step in abandoning the conditional admissions policies of the 60's and 70's and also saw it as preventing a future governor from reviving Rhodes' plans for a 100,000 student Ohio State.  Ed Jennings and Herb Asher are very clear about this in their oral history interviews.  I'm not saying that everything Rhodes' touched was bad.  Ohio clearly needed a community college program.  His policies, however, did hold Ohio State back (at least on the undergrad level) twenty years, inherently favored quantity over quality (as in the "a four year campus within 30 miles of every Ohioan")and led to a bloated and redundent higher education system, that, given current tax structures, Ohio can not afford.  BTW, thanks for the book recommendation.  I found a copy from a used bookstore in Seattle.--Sam Harmon 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion seems rather moot given that the initial complaint has remainded that user's only edit.  I gather that someone was just blowing off a bit of steam.  The article never implies that OSU is an "official flagship." -MrFizyx 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but knowing how dearly some partisans of other Ohio colleges cling to this Lake Wobegon view of higher education in Ohio--where every college is above average and there's no seperation between them and Ohio State, it's probably best to settle and define the issue now.--Sam Harmon 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship status 

message: I would appreciate some feedback and assistance with the tasks identified (or any others you believe we need).
	The Ohio State University
Campuses	
Columbus Main Campus
• Delaware Center
• Lima Campus
• Mansfield Campus
• Marion Campus
• Newark Campus
• Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
• OSU Agricultural Technical Institute
Academics	
Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies
• College of Medicine and Public Health
• Max M. Fisher College of Business
• Moritz College of Law
• Reading Recovery
• Ross Mathematics Program
Athletics	
Bill Davis Stadium
• Brutus Buckeye
• Illibuck
• Jerome Schottenstein Center
• UM-OSU Rivalry
• Ohio Stadium
• Ohio State University Golf Club
• OSU Ice Arena
• St. John Arena
• Woody Hayes Athletic Center
Facilities	
Hilandar Research Library
Ohio State University Airport
• Ohio Union
• Orton Hall
• Wexner Center for the Arts
• William Oxley Thompson Memorial Library
Media	
Buckeye TV
• The Lantern
• WOSU (AM)
• WOSU-FM
• WOSU-TV / WPBO
Research	
The Big Ear
• Buckeye Bullet
• Byrd Polar Research Center
• Stone Laboratory
• Chadwick Arboretum
• James Cancer Hospital
• Large Binocular Telescope
• Mershon Center for International Security Studies
• Mobius project
• Newman projection
• Sarah (chimpanzee)
Student life	
Across the Field
• Buckeye Battle Cry
• Buckeye NutHouse
• Carmen Ohio
• Hang on Sloopy
• Activities & Organizations
• The Ohio State University Marching Band
The logo we have on the Ohio State University page does not have the correct colors for the web, as shown here. Rkevins82 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks very good.  One thing is that the blue links and text wash out against the red background, making it very hard to see.  Maybe a lighter, brighter shade of red would solve the problem.
You have the John Glenn school listed twice.  I'd add the Mershon Center.  It's one of the universities more prestigious departments or centers, and it does have its own wikipedia article.
The Hilander Research Library also has a wikipedia article.
If we're going to have the Big Ear, we should also include the Mount Graham telescope, which is actually more relevent these days.--Sam Harmon 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Ohio_State_University]] 

message: Hi.  I've been putting together pages for each of the Big Ten's basketball student sections and was wondering if someone would be interested in expanding and maintaining that of the Buckeye NutHouse.  Thanks!  --BroadSt Bully 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckeye NutHouse 

message: Someone created this which I'm assuming is a neighborhood in Columbus named for its location?  I think that's what it is at least.  Would someone mind taking a look at it and improving it since its related to the university.  Metros 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[University Area, Columbus, Ohio]] 

message: The external links refer to the OSU ChallengeX Team, and mention that there are several others.  However, nothing makes the ChallengeX Team stand out among the other project teams.  There's a full list at .  If any team stands out, it's the Buckeye Bullet.  It seems like this should be dropped and a link to the project team list should eventually be put on an Ohio State University College of Engineering page.
Agreed. ~Kruck 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  project teams 

message: I'm removing the sections for each branch campus.  I don't think that every branch campus needs its own entry.  Here's my reasoning.
1) To give each branch campus a prominent part of the article is not consistent with how other Big Ten university articles are set up
2) It clutters up the article
3) It gives the roles of the branch campuses a focus in the article that is disproportionate to their role in the university.  The branch campuses are a very minor part of the university.  Ohio State, in fact Ohio State never wanted them in the first place, and only built them in response to OU trying to encircle Columbus with branch campuses.  Ohio State also lobbied strongly in the sixties to have everybody's branch campuses folded into the community college system but was unsuccesful.  Today, the branch campuses function more as independent community colleges than as integral parts of the Columbus campus--with different missions, different admissions standards and so on.--Sam Harmon 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there shouldn't be an inline section describing each, but it might be a good idea to put links to the wikipedia pages about all the branches and not just links to the cities themselves. Perhaps it could be in an infobox or a related articles section. The pages are currently only found in Category:Ohio State University. Bcirker 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I changed the links in the second paragraph from the cities to the branch campuses. That'll do until we come up with a more elegant solution. -- SwissCelt 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch Campuses 

message: The academic rankings section of the article is a little hard to follow. I think the information would be easier to read and compare in a table. What do you think? I haven't finished the table, but I could do so if people think it would be useful.
=== Tables ===
 Ohio State College Rankings
Category                                           	US News and World Report: National	US News and World Report: Ohio	Other rankings
Fisher School of Business: Undergrad               	17                                	1                             	N/A
Fisher School of Business: Graduate                	21                                	1                             	The Economist: 28th InternationallyThe Economist: Which MBA.
Moritz College of Law                              	39                                	1                             	N/A
College of Medicine and Public Health: Primary care	33                                	1                             	N/A
College of Medicine and Public Health: Research    	32                                	1                             	N/A
Table shortened to save space
~Kruck 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that we as a society put way too much stock in rankings of colleges and universities, but that is a matter of personal opinion I suppose. That being said, if we are going to include these sorts of things in the article, a table does read easier than inline text. My suggestion would be to have subheadings under each college or department so it would read as follows:
 (College or Department)-------------Rank
    (Specific Subject)---------------Rank 
Bcirker 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: Ohio State College Rankings
Category                                           	US News and World Report: National	US News and World Report: Ohio	Other rankings
Fisher School of Business: Undergrad               	17                                	1                             	N/A
Fisher School of Business: Graduate                	21                                	1                             	The Economist: 28th InternationallyThe Economist: Which MBA.
Moritz College of Law                              	39                                	1                             	N/A
College of Medicine and Public Health: Primary care	33                                	1                             	N/A
College of Medicine and Public Health: Research    	32                                	1                             	N/A
Table shortened to save space
~Kruck 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that we as a society put way too much stock in rankings of colleges and universities, but that is a matter of personal opinion I suppose. That being said, if we are going to include these sorts of things in the article, a table does read easier than inline text. My suggestion would be to have subheadings under each college or department so it would read as follows:
 (College or Department)-------------Rank
    (Specific Subject)---------------Rank 
Bcirker 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: Another option would be to have the article link to a separate page with a table of rankings. ~Kruck 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other options 

message: Anyone who know the Geographic coordinate system of each OSU campus please help filling it out.
Hey User:140.254.115.130, please sign discussions with four ~'s, like this: ~~~~. I'm not sure how you think the geographic coordinates could be used, but they're almost certainly not published by the university branches. To get an idea, though, you can just search Google Maps for "Ohio State campus" or something and get the coordinates from the URL. I could get them if you'd like. ~Kruck 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Google Earth, the coordinates of the clock tower of University Hall are: 40°00'01.03" N  83°00'52.25" W with an elevation of 748 feet above mean sea level. That sounds right to me because there is a marker soutwest of that building indicating the 40th parallel as surveyed a while back. Bcirker 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good - Google Earth should be a good source too, probably the best available. ~Kruck 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographic coordinate system for OSU campuses

message: I am just curious.  Based upon the sentence in the following: "Although Ohio operates a decentralized system of higher education, Ohio State is widely considered both within Ohio and outside of its borders to be the flagship institution of the state's public system of higher education."
My question is if the Ohio State University has only one president.  Deans/directors are in charge of its other small campuses.  How can you call that this system is "a decentralized system"?  From my view, this is a centralized system.  For example, if we look at University of California or University of Illinois, their campuses have their own presidents and seem to operate independently.  Each campus has its own policies and societies.  I would consider  University of California and University of Illinois have a decentralized system. Am I missing something here?   Thanks--140.254.115.50 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the comment states Ohio not Ohio State.  Ohio has no "system".  Actually UI and UC are both centralized systems, with state systems where there are individual campuses, but the state has created a system with a "single" university with multiple campuses.  Even if each university has its own president.  The key is not the President, which honestly is as much of a ceremonious role as it is anything else.  The key is the Board of Trustees.  In Cal and Illinois, there is only a single board of trustees.  Ohio State's individual campuses have their own Boards and more importantly, the state has no central system. See if the link helps.  Check for public universities.  -Thebdj 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about Ohio State University's system 

message: There is an artcle about the Buckeye Bullet -- this may also be of interest to add somewhere: DARPA vehicle. Rkevins82 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special projects in engineering 

message: Right now, the word communistic (in the first sentence) redirects to homosexuality. I'll change the redirect to communism like it is supposed to.  But is that the intention of the word?  If the adjective form of 'community' is meant than I'd suggest 'communital'.  John Reaves 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check older history of the page, the word is supposed to be coeducational but it was vandalized. I corrected it. ~Kruck 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communistic

message: Hi, I just sent a request for feedback from Wikipedia:Peer review on the Ohio State University article.  It is the first step to become a featured article on Wikipedia.  Let's work together and respond to peer reviews Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ohio_State_University--140.254.115.133 10:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article nomination

message: There is a mediation case going on about this current issue. I have made a statement saying what I think is going on, and what the problem seems to be from a third point of view, please correct me if I am off on any of the finer points of this issue. Feel free to comment on the mediation page, or if you all decide to comment here, then do so! I hope that you all will accept me as a neutral third party in this issue, and we can resolve this quickly and efficiently. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-11 Ohio State University|Mediation]] 

message: I removed this chart for a couple of reasons.  First, I don't see the need to include it.  The infobox breaks down current enrollment, and the overview notes that Ohio State is the largest single campus in the country. I don't see the need to take up that much space in the article to detail enrollment figures that are out of date.  Second, the article was orignally placed squarely in the middle of the rankings and recognition section by an anonymous editor.  I moved it to the campus section and left it there to see if the editor planned on making any additions that might have made its inclusion more relevent.  This never happened, leading me to believe that--given its placement--it was simply included a by a partisan of a certain other Ohio university in some lame belief that Ohio State's large enrollment somehow negates its top rankings in the state.--Sam Harmon 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Size" Chart

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
# Support ABCBS 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Questioning accuracy of survey with few votes===
Shouldn't this survey have lasted longer to get more opinions? I think one should be up for at least a week or two, as there are clearly much more people who have strong opinions on this controversial topic than the 10 or so who checked this talk page on their watchlist those few days (check the users who commented on this topic in the archives). I think that to gain true consensus on this topic, we should have more users commenting.  hmwith  talk 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (old)

message: Shouldn't this survey have lasted longer to get more opinions? I think one should be up for at least a week or two, as there are clearly much more people who have strong opinions on this controversial topic than the 10 or so who checked this talk page on their watchlist those few days (check the users who commented on this topic in the archives). I think that to gain true consensus on this topic, we should have more users commenting.  hmwith  talk 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning accuracy of survey with few votes

message: Opposed: While it's a great thing that this group does, being authorized to raise scholarship money is not really the same as being an actual part of the university's operations--or in particular, its honors program.  I have no problem with a seperate article, but it shouldn't be part of the main university article.  Ohio State has thousands of similar (if not quite so unique) scholarship funds.  Are we going to include them all?  The Young Scholars and Land Grant Sholars programs are fundamentally different.  They are large scale (each over 100 students per year), run and funded solely by the university and are central to the university's mission of access.--Sam Harmon 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Ohio Stadium Cake]] into article 

message: I just redid the OSU template () because, frankly, it was too big. I decided to take a look at this article and noticed it was up for GA nomination. This is not a GA review but I'm sure that will come later. However, I did have some comments that I believe will get this article a pretty quick rejection from the GA people. First of all, please correct your citations to follow WP:CITE (i.e. use the citation templates). Also, please minimize the number of external jumps in the article. Having them in the See also section is fine, but there are too many in the Schools and colleges section. I, also, would like to see more content in the History section. I am not a fan of short paragraphs, so please try to work paragraphs that are less than 4 sentences long into other paragraphs or try to expand them. Please resolve any merge suggestions before nominating for GA, so you all may want to solve that one pretty quick. Some sections look too short; such as Student organization, Leadership & service, and Ohio State-affiliated media (also, you and instead of the ampersand in the section title per WP:HEAD). This will also reduce the size of your TOC which I believe is too long. I also question the necessity of the Points of interest section. But anyway, that is a quick review. Bear in mind I didn't actually read the article so I do not have any advice on wording or opinion on unsourced statements which may come later from either myself or a GA reviewer. Good luck!↔NMajdan•talk 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on the article 

message: I was doing cleanup and WP seemed to think that this link below (with a break in the URL) is a spam link and wouldn't let me save the page.
http://collegeuniversity. suite101.com/article.cfm/gay_friendly_college_campuses The Advocate College Guide
No clue what the story is there, so I'll let one of the regular editors figure out what (if anything) to do about it. Esrever 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam? 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
===Comments===
Overall the article is well-written, includes broad coverage of the university, and has generally nice images. I did find some problems with the article which I don't believe can be completed in a week (thus my decision to fail the article rather than put it on hold). I realize that the article was nominated over a month ago, so if it has changed significantly since then feel free to bring the article up to GA standards and nominate again. Here are my suggestions for improvements:
* Adherence to the manual of style was for the most part good. However, the lead should not be an introduction. Rather, it should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Consider placing some important facts and data snippets in the lead that would explain the entirety of the university in a few short paragraphs.
* Similar to the comments that were left by Nmajdan above, the table of contents needs to be cleaned up a bit. Student life is especially clunky. The last 4 of those subsections (4.4 Activities and organizations, 4.5 Student organizations, 4.6 Leadership and service, and 4.7 Student governments) can probably be combined in some way. Also, the Points of interest section seems like a trivia section to me. I would integrate the points into the rest of the article. A few of them can go under the campus section. The Ohio State media section is not worth its own header — it only has two sentences. Integrate that into another section that you deem appropriate.
* The references that were used in the article were appropriate and reliable, as far as I could see. However, there are numerous reference problems. First, the references cited need to be adequately referenced in the article. What I mean is that you should include the title of the work, the publisher, the date, date accessed, and any other information. Simply including the URL is not enough (but it's a good start). Second, the article is very lacking of needed citations. Some sections have no references, which needs to be improved. This is especially important in the History section. But other sections have similar problems: Rankings, much of the Student Life section, and Notable Alumni. Any time you quote anything it needs to have a reference immediately following. I also found a number of potentially controversial claims that needed references: "Ohio State was the first university in Ohio to be extended membership into the Association of American Universities", "Although development had been hindered in the 1870's by hostility from the state's agricultural interests and competition for resources from Miami University and Ohio University, both issues were eventually resolved", and "The Ohio Union was the first student union built by a public university", for example. Read through the article as if you knew nothing about Ohio State and put references where you think something needs support. Generally any time you cite a statistic, something that may be questioned, a quote, or refer to something people claim or argue, you need a reference.
* The article was very broad in its coverage, which was good. However, it was not focused at all. Sections like Student Life are far too descriptive. If all of that information is really notable then consider creating a new article for all Ohio State Student Life. I imagine, though, that most of it does not need to be included. For example, in Student Governments, the sentence "this goal will be achieved through student advocacy, programming, promoting student leadership and involvement, and facilitating communication with university administrators to promote student success in all facets" can be removed as it does not add much. If readers need to know more about what student governments do, then wikilink them to the page on Student governments. Other sections I noticed this focus problem were Academics (rankings are not needed for every school and every program - try to include only those that are most important) and Campuses (again, consider breaking this section of into a new article if it is all important - though that may be doubtful).
* I questioned the fair representation without bias because there was nothing in the article that would give OSU a bad reputation. I don't think the article quite fell into a categorization of boosterism, but considering there were no news stories or references to information about bad practices, labor disputes, budget issues, town-gown relations, or anything that would present the more negative side of OSU (every major university has one) - that made me question whether the article gave fair representation.
**I do not understand it since when that a good article has to include a bad mark (reputation). Also, this is an institution of higher education, the institution itself cannot do any wrong, it is just what it is.  This article is just a report that provides some information about OSU.    Personal opinions should be included separately from facts.  If someone at OSU does something wrong and gives a bad reputation to the school, it should also be reported separately in his/her biography.Ohho (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: Overall the article is well-written, includes broad coverage of the university, and has generally nice images. I did find some problems with the article which I don't believe can be completed in a week (thus my decision to fail the article rather than put it on hold). I realize that the article was nominated over a month ago, so if it has changed significantly since then feel free to bring the article up to GA standards and nominate again. Here are my suggestions for improvements:
* Adherence to the manual of style was for the most part good. However, the lead should not be an introduction. Rather, it should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Consider placing some important facts and data snippets in the lead that would explain the entirety of the university in a few short paragraphs.
* Similar to the comments that were left by Nmajdan above, the table of contents needs to be cleaned up a bit. Student life is especially clunky. The last 4 of those subsections (4.4 Activities and organizations, 4.5 Student organizations, 4.6 Leadership and service, and 4.7 Student governments) can probably be combined in some way. Also, the Points of interest section seems like a trivia section to me. I would integrate the points into the rest of the article. A few of them can go under the campus section. The Ohio State media section is not worth its own header — it only has two sentences. Integrate that into another section that you deem appropriate.
* The references that were used in the article were appropriate and reliable, as far as I could see. However, there are numerous reference problems. First, the references cited need to be adequately referenced in the article. What I mean is that you should include the title of the work, the publisher, the date, date accessed, and any other information. Simply including the URL is not enough (but it's a good start). Second, the article is very lacking of needed citations. Some sections have no references, which needs to be improved. This is especially important in the History section. But other sections have similar problems: Rankings, much of the Student Life section, and Notable Alumni. Any time you quote anything it needs to have a reference immediately following. I also found a number of potentially controversial claims that needed references: "Ohio State was the first university in Ohio to be extended membership into the Association of American Universities", "Although development had been hindered in the 1870's by hostility from the state's agricultural interests and competition for resources from Miami University and Ohio University, both issues were eventually resolved", and "The Ohio Union was the first student union built by a public university", for example. Read through the article as if you knew nothing about Ohio State and put references where you think something needs support. Generally any time you cite a statistic, something that may be questioned, a quote, or refer to something people claim or argue, you need a reference.
* The article was very broad in its coverage, which was good. However, it was not focused at all. Sections like Student Life are far too descriptive. If all of that information is really notable then consider creating a new article for all Ohio State Student Life. I imagine, though, that most of it does not need to be included. For example, in Student Governments, the sentence "this goal will be achieved through student advocacy, programming, promoting student leadership and involvement, and facilitating communication with university administrators to promote student success in all facets" can be removed as it does not add much. If readers need to know more about what student governments do, then wikilink them to the page on Student governments. Other sections I noticed this focus problem were Academics (rankings are not needed for every school and every program - try to include only those that are most important) and Campuses (again, consider breaking this section of into a new article if it is all important - though that may be doubtful).
* I questioned the fair representation without bias because there was nothing in the article that would give OSU a bad reputation. I don't think the article quite fell into a categorization of boosterism, but considering there were no news stories or references to information about bad practices, labor disputes, budget issues, town-gown relations, or anything that would present the more negative side of OSU (every major university has one) - that made me question whether the article gave fair representation.
**I do not understand it since when that a good article has to include a bad mark (reputation). Also, this is an institution of higher education, the institution itself cannot do any wrong, it is just what it is.  This article is just a report that provides some information about OSU.    Personal opinions should be included separately from facts.  If someone at OSU does something wrong and gives a bad reputation to the school, it should also be reported separately in his/her biography.Ohho (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 09:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that quote makes it a pretty open and shut case as far as naming conventions go.  Anyone with any new arguments care to weigh in?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your position has no support from the naming conventions, and very little support from the consensus of editors (which is more important). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait so the quote above isn't from WP:Naming conventions?  All of the protests to date except one have been based on that policy.  If the policy also contains that quote, then I think that nulifies those objections.  The only other complaint has been that this was brought up before.  If that's the only reason not to move then I think there's consensus to do so.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an artful misquotation of the subpage on The. The true wording is "A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. This is a weak version of the common-name rule." There is no evidence, and we should require the same evidence as the page linked to, that this is common usage outside OSU. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.179.67 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The? 

message: just thought i would let someone know, there is no OSU Cortland campus 128.146.115.93 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no Ohio State Cortland campus 

message: I was planning on establishing an OSU Medical Center entry, but wanted to inquire with the authors of this page at to whether I should branch off of the University's entry. I noticed the stem for The James and the request for further information on the Ross Heart Hospital. I could assist in contributions to those areas. I'm assuming I would be directed to contribute Medical Center information to the University's entry, so I thought I'd start by asking. LukeRussell17 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely deserves its own article. --- RockMFR 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the advice. I'm building the entry on my user page and will shift to public in a few weeks. LukeRussell17 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ohio State University Medical Center 

message: I was thinking about adding a small section on traditions.  If it becomes too large, I would probably make it its own article and leave a link in this page.  Before I get started, I want to see what others think and get some input on traditions.  Some of them are covered in Student Life but I think it might warrant at least its own section. OlYellerTalktome 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful about sourcing; we don't need invented traditions, which can fade as rapidly as they sprang up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like the mirror lake jump in have been covered by tons of reliable sources. That can be included. hmwitht 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions 

message: There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

message: Per the manual of style for university articles, the lead image in the infobox should be the university's academic . Does anyone possess or know where to find a higher-resolution version? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd that they'll allow it to be put on commercial sweatshirts and whatnot but not to be used in a non-profit encyclopedia. hmwitht 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: University seal

message: Image searching came up with nothing, as a student, I can request copies of images and marks provided I state intent. I filed a request with some padding but the guts of it are here:
When displaying icons, it is the policy of Wikipedia to show the icon in low resolution and to tag the photo with a large copyright notice, and a description of how the image obeys United States copyright law. An example of how the logo would be displayed in the article is  here, and, viewing the file in detail, a user is directed here to see the aforementioned legal notices.
I am hereby formally requesting a release of a low resolution (>200 x 200pixels, < 700 x 700 pixels) image of The Ohio State University Seal, to be used as a protected, copyrighted trademark that is not used for profit . The statement of the purpose of the seal:
"The image is used to identify The Ohio State University, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.For fair use on the topic of The Ohio State University. This image is a low-resolution image of  The Ohio State University Seal. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Use of the logo visually identifies the university and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC."
It is kind of an odd request as you don't usually ask for the actual file of a trademark from the owner. As expected, I got a polite "no":
The university logo, which appears on Ohio State's Wikipedia is the correct and appropriate logo to use on that page and elsewhere. The seal is reserved for use by the Board of Trustees on official documents such as diplomas. It's our preference that the box logo be a universal representation of the university.
I've done the research we're well within our legal rights to post the logo as public domain or by  replication under the protection of copyright law. The formal request was worth a shot. Westherm (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd that they'll allow it to be put on commercial sweatshirts and whatnot but not to be used in a non-profit encyclopedia. hmwitht 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image request

message: I created an article outlining the Aerospace and Astronautical Research Laboratory, a research facility owned and operated by the university. I felt the facility was important to include as an article on wikipedia because of its large budget, non-main campus location, and the magnitude of research conducted there.Famous, international companies like Boeing, GE, Honda, and Lockheed Martin all regularly use the lab and past research conducted at the lab. The article can be linked from numerous other Ohio State articles.  I put also put a link under the research tab in the OSU template. Westherm (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerospace Engineering Research Laboratory 

message: FYI, according to the school policy, our school color Identity is scarlet and gray:
Color Specifications
The Ohio State University Red (Scarlet)
•PANTONE 200
•CMYK: four-color process formula: 
•0 cyan
•100 magenta
•65 yellow
•15 black
•Web or interactive: Use web safe hexadecimal: #990000 or RGB values: 153, 0, 0
The Ohio State University Gray
•PANTONE 429
•CMYK: four-color process formula: 
•6 cyan 
•0 magenta
•0 yellow
•34 black
•35% black
•Web or interactive: Use web safe hexadecimal: #999999 or RGB values: 153, 153, 153
I personally think that we should follow/adopt these OSU standard colors through out the wiki pages but should not put any Scarlet and Gray formula just to make it look good.66.167.121.250 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the two colors that are currently used in the infobox. Where do you see an issue? hmwitht 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Official School Colors

message: Removed following paragraph:
For the 2006-2007 academic year, Ohio State undergraduates were awarded the following nationally competitive scholarships: one Marshall Scholarship, one Truman Scholarship, two Goldwater Scholarships, two Udall Scholarships, one Gates-Cambridge Scholarship, one Soros Fellowship, one Petrie Fellowship, one Beinecke Scholarship, one Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Scholarship, seven National Science Foundation research fellowships, two National Defense Science and Engineering Fellowships and seven Fulbright Scholarships. One student was also named to the USA Today All-USA Academic First Team."Cream of the Crop" Ohio State boasts top scholars Since 2000, 49 Ohio State students have been awarded Fulbright Scholarships.Fulbright Scholarship Database.  In November 2007, senior physics major Jessica Hanzlik was announced as one of the 32 recipients of the 2008 Rhodes Scholarships.
This represents an extremely small subset of all of the awards the university has achieved.  I reccomend starting a separate page for Ohio State University Awards if this type of information is desired. 24.12.205.22 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honors Programs 

message: I support the removal of the content.  If it's important to someone to keep, please make a different page.  There's no need to list every fraternity and sorority on this page. OlYellerTalktome 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Greek Life info 

message: Hi! I put the list of regional campuses, found within the article, into a new disambiguation page, with a link to it at the top of the article. This is how regional campuses are setup on University of Michigan's article. I also stated the regional campuses in the lead paragraph. If you think a different course of action should have been taken, please reply to this. Chriss.2 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Campus list to disambiguation page 

message: In the athletics section, there is the sentence, "Ohio State is one of only three universities (the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley being the others) to have won national championships in all three major men's sports (baseball, men's basketball, and football)."
It leaves out the fact that Stanford University has also won a title in all three sports. 
Football, 1926
Basketball, 1942
Baseball, 1987 and 1988
Thgeneral (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources please, before I change it? CTJF83 pride 05:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to restore the editsemiprotected tag when these souces have been provided. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 216° 24' 30" NET 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper source is http://www.ncaa.com, with the histories of the individual sports (lists of annual champions) being at .../history/baseball/d1, .../history/basketball/d1, and .../history/football/fbs. Since it was unprotected, I made the change w/cite. GWFrog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Thgeneral, 20 June 2010 

message: FYI, I have informed everyone that I could find that has recently taken part in this discussion and informed them that the discussion is taking place. I don't want to tell you want to do but I'd like to request that we steer clear of any WikiLawyering or incivility.  I feel that we have a pretty competent group here for this discussion and I'd like to see this discussion come to a strong conclusion so that we can put this to rest. OlYellerTalktome 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: “I'm going to wait to add my own opinion until the discussion gets started.”  Actually OlYeller, since this is your idea I think we would all benefit if you were to be the first to offer up an opinion.  Hammersbach (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'll go type it out it my next edit. OlYellerTalktome 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Added below. OlYellerTalktome 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I feel that there are a few ways to determine the definition of 'common' regarding the name of an article.  Per WP:COMMONNAME, "determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." which in my opinion implies that only reliable sources are to be used when determining the common name.  To me, that means that the number of Google search hits that a name receives is not to be used when determine how common a name is.  I'm not saying that anyone suggested it was the best way but I think it's best to be clear that it not be included at all in the metric.  The next step, in my opinion, would be to determine how we would measure the usage of each name by reliable sources.  Books and newspapers would be the easiest to check but we obviously won't be able to get a census of the usage.  That being the case, my schooling would tell me to take a random sample of a predetermined number of reliable sources, find their usage, and use that information to determine to a certain degree that one name is used more than another.  In short, my first point in the metric criteria would be something to the effect of "A random sample of reliable newspapers and books is to be taken to find which name is used more than the other (The OSU or OSU).  We may be able to try and swing a census with a Google Books search and Google News Archive search but that's not really my expertise.  Point to would be something like, "The reliable sources that are randomly sampled are to be published between date X and date Y" so that the most common name at the time could be used. Any thoughts? OlYellerTalktome 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what is going on with all these sections, so I'll just post here. Google News "the+ohio+state+university"&cf=all returns ~26,300 results for "The" and "ohio+state+university"&cf=all ~123,000 results without "the". Given the general Google web search results above as well as the accreditation, Dept. of Ed, and Carnegie Foundation sources I pointed out, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence to the contrary regarding the institution's common name. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  So then regarding the metric, your opinion is that pure Google News hits is the best way to determine 'common'? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added two criteria to help others understand this discussion format.  I would have liked to have waited to add to that section until the discussion was fleshed out in more detail.  Is there really no one that has seen this format before? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say that pure Google News is the best way. I've already demonstrated that 3 undisputably reliable sources, Google web search, and now Google news all present very clear evidence about what is the common name of the university. Since no editor has presented either guideline or factual evidence to refute my claims about the obvious common name of the university, I don't see why the goalposts keep shifting towards more baroque means of determining the common name. What is left to discuss? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  For the record, Google Books has ~1.1 million  without and ~560,000  with. What's next? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that a Google Web search is a reliable source or are you suggesting that every use it finds is from a reliable source? I hope that I don't have to explain to you that both cases are incorrect.  You also don't-say that Google News is the best way to determine common then immediately say that it should be used.  If you don't think it's the best way, what do you think is?  If we follow your criteria, the article should be called "Ohio State" because it returns 722k news hits (the other two uses were excluded as "Ohio State" would show up in the other two as well).  As "Ohio State" doesn't adequately describe what the article is (is it an article about the state of Ohio?), I don't see that WP:COMMONNAME can be used.  It seems that you think that this is a simple discussion and it's most obviously not or this issue wouldn't consistently brought up; it would have been solved years ago. The metric and the discussion on it are to determine a way to eradicate opinions from the discussion and follow facts.  We can call it a guideline if that's more familiar to you. OlYellerTalktome 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't use straw man arguments. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're deflecting.  I'm sorry if I've made you defensive, if that is in fact what you're being (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth).  Can you answer any of the questions I've presented? OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - The section below is for criteria that has been decided upon in this discussion. The only reason I added anything was because you didn't understand this discussion format which is widely used in the business world.  You apparently agree with two of the criteria though so I left those. OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please don't use straw man arguments: no where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your suggestion that I have is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you unilaterally get to decide what is or is not evidence? You also get to decide whether I'm making good faith attempts at consensus? No where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your attempts to distort my arguments and suggestions that (1) I fail to understand the complexity of the discussion and (2) would suggest employing such a facile criteria is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. I leave it to other editors now to refute the evidence I have provided because it's obvious that editors can't decide this without resorting to bad faith assumptions. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would offer that the assumption that this is an "easily decided issue" is rather flawed given that it has been debated for quite some time now... Hammersbach (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't unilaterally get to decide but you don't either.  As you (1 person) and I (1 person) disagree, I don't see how it can be added.  I never implied that you're doing something in bad faith; I'm not understanding where I could be perceived as doing that.  I'm not trying to distort your arguments and don't see that I have.  If I'm misunderstanding, please help me to understand; that's all I've been trying to do.  Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked; that wasn't my intention at all.  We disagree on some points but let's not be disagreeable. I'll be back after a few hours or tomorrow. OlYellerTalktome 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: According to the university's own FAQ page, the name was officially changed to "The Ohio State University" in 1878 as mentioned here.  Common usage, including within the university, dropped the "The" but in recent years the University has re-claimed the "The."   Thus, I do not see how the official name of "The Ohio State University" can be in debate.   The question at-hand is whether or not this article should be labeled with or without the "The." ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  There have been arguements that WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored and the official name used.  I agree about the official name but others have had differing opinions in the past. Again, we can probably ignore this section for now if not completely. I only added it so that discussions about what the official name is wouldn't be included in the discussion on the common name. As I see it, they're two totally separate conversations. OlYellerTalktome 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that there was any real question of the official name. Its clear from the website, its only about common name usage. But, what some consider the common name of the school, may not not what others consider the common name. Local common name should be greatly considered over what may be common in say, Northern Michigan.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the archives.  I don't really have time to find the discussions for you. OlYellerTalktome 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Arx Fortis in that there is no question about the Official Name, but the common name is IMO just "Ohio State University" - if you were to ask 100 English speaking persons across the globe "Name a university in Ohio" the answer you would get is "Ohio State University", I also accept if you asked 100 residents of Columbus the same question you would almost certainly get more answering with the "The" included. But the name that is used commonly in the English seeking parts of the globe is with out the "The". Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean no offense to you but your opinion about how the globe names the subject is irrelevant.  For one, it's an opinion based on no stated facts and all I have to do is disagree with you and we're both not-wrong and back where we started.  The metric is to help end this discussion with evidence.  Again, the official name doesn't matter right now; your reply probably should have been in the section above. OlYellerTalktome 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefix or No Prefix 

message: Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." meaning that the commonly used name should be used for this article.  I'm not sure that the pasted definition can be argued but the definition of common seems to be disputed so I would like to try and reach a consensus on a metric that determines what the definition of 'common' is (i.e. how many Google hits it receives, how its used most by reliable sources, etc.). OlYellerTalktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that there are a few ways to determine the definition of 'common' regarding the name of an article.  Per WP:COMMONNAME, "determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." which in my opinion implies that only reliable sources are to be used when determining the common name.  To me, that means that the number of Google search hits that a name receives is not to be used when determine how common a name is.  I'm not saying that anyone suggested it was the best way but I think it's best to be clear that it not be included at all in the metric.  The next step, in my opinion, would be to determine how we would measure the usage of each name by reliable sources.  Books and newspapers would be the easiest to check but we obviously won't be able to get a census of the usage.  That being the case, my schooling would tell me to take a random sample of a predetermined number of reliable sources, find their usage, and use that information to determine to a certain degree that one name is used more than another.  In short, my first point in the metric criteria would be something to the effect of "A random sample of reliable newspapers and books is to be taken to find which name is used more than the other (The OSU or OSU).  We may be able to try and swing a census with a Google Books search and Google News Archive search but that's not really my expertise.  Point to would be something like, "The reliable sources that are randomly sampled are to be published between date X and date Y" so that the most common name at the time could be used. Any thoughts? OlYellerTalktome 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what is going on with all these sections, so I'll just post here. Google News "the+ohio+state+university"&cf=all returns ~26,300 results for "The" and "ohio+state+university"&cf=all ~123,000 results without "the". Given the general Google web search results above as well as the accreditation, Dept. of Ed, and Carnegie Foundation sources I pointed out, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence to the contrary regarding the institution's common name. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  So then regarding the metric, your opinion is that pure Google News hits is the best way to determine 'common'? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added two criteria to help others understand this discussion format.  I would have liked to have waited to add to that section until the discussion was fleshed out in more detail.  Is there really no one that has seen this format before? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say that pure Google News is the best way. I've already demonstrated that 3 undisputably reliable sources, Google web search, and now Google news all present very clear evidence about what is the common name of the university. Since no editor has presented either guideline or factual evidence to refute my claims about the obvious common name of the university, I don't see why the goalposts keep shifting towards more baroque means of determining the common name. What is left to discuss? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  For the record, Google Books has ~1.1 million  without and ~560,000  with. What's next? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that a Google Web search is a reliable source or are you suggesting that every use it finds is from a reliable source? I hope that I don't have to explain to you that both cases are incorrect.  You also don't-say that Google News is the best way to determine common then immediately say that it should be used.  If you don't think it's the best way, what do you think is?  If we follow your criteria, the article should be called "Ohio State" because it returns 722k news hits (the other two uses were excluded as "Ohio State" would show up in the other two as well).  As "Ohio State" doesn't adequately describe what the article is (is it an article about the state of Ohio?), I don't see that WP:COMMONNAME can be used.  It seems that you think that this is a simple discussion and it's most obviously not or this issue wouldn't consistently brought up; it would have been solved years ago. The metric and the discussion on it are to determine a way to eradicate opinions from the discussion and follow facts.  We can call it a guideline if that's more familiar to you. OlYellerTalktome 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't use straw man arguments. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're deflecting.  I'm sorry if I've made you defensive, if that is in fact what you're being (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth).  Can you answer any of the questions I've presented? OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - The section below is for criteria that has been decided upon in this discussion. The only reason I added anything was because you didn't understand this discussion format which is widely used in the business world.  You apparently agree with two of the criteria though so I left those. OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please don't use straw man arguments: no where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your suggestion that I have is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you unilaterally get to decide what is or is not evidence? You also get to decide whether I'm making good faith attempts at consensus? No where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your attempts to distort my arguments and suggestions that (1) I fail to understand the complexity of the discussion and (2) would suggest employing such a facile criteria is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. I leave it to other editors now to refute the evidence I have provided because it's obvious that editors can't decide this without resorting to bad faith assumptions. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would offer that the assumption that this is an "easily decided issue" is rather flawed given that it has been debated for quite some time now... Hammersbach (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't unilaterally get to decide but you don't either.  As you (1 person) and I (1 person) disagree, I don't see how it can be added.  I never implied that you're doing something in bad faith; I'm not understanding where I could be perceived as doing that.  I'm not trying to distort your arguments and don't see that I have.  If I'm misunderstanding, please help me to understand; that's all I've been trying to do.  Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked; that wasn't my intention at all.  We disagree on some points but let's not be disagreeable. I'll be back after a few hours or tomorrow. OlYellerTalktome 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Common

message: I think it would be best if we try to discuss this metric in terms larger than that of this article.  We're obviously not setting a precedent for all of WP here but I think it's the best way to come to a consensus.  Please discuss your opinions here and we can create a list of criteria for the metric in the section below. OlYellerTalktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that there are a few ways to determine the definition of 'common' regarding the name of an article.  Per WP:COMMONNAME, "determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." which in my opinion implies that only reliable sources are to be used when determining the common name.  To me, that means that the number of Google search hits that a name receives is not to be used when determine how common a name is.  I'm not saying that anyone suggested it was the best way but I think it's best to be clear that it not be included at all in the metric.  The next step, in my opinion, would be to determine how we would measure the usage of each name by reliable sources.  Books and newspapers would be the easiest to check but we obviously won't be able to get a census of the usage.  That being the case, my schooling would tell me to take a random sample of a predetermined number of reliable sources, find their usage, and use that information to determine to a certain degree that one name is used more than another.  In short, my first point in the metric criteria would be something to the effect of "A random sample of reliable newspapers and books is to be taken to find which name is used more than the other (The OSU or OSU).  We may be able to try and swing a census with a Google Books search and Google News Archive search but that's not really my expertise.  Point to would be something like, "The reliable sources that are randomly sampled are to be published between date X and date Y" so that the most common name at the time could be used. Any thoughts? OlYellerTalktome 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what is going on with all these sections, so I'll just post here. Google News "the+ohio+state+university"&cf=all returns ~26,300 results for "The" and "ohio+state+university"&cf=all ~123,000 results without "the". Given the general Google web search results above as well as the accreditation, Dept. of Ed, and Carnegie Foundation sources I pointed out, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence to the contrary regarding the institution's common name. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  So then regarding the metric, your opinion is that pure Google News hits is the best way to determine 'common'? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added two criteria to help others understand this discussion format.  I would have liked to have waited to add to that section until the discussion was fleshed out in more detail.  Is there really no one that has seen this format before? OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say that pure Google News is the best way. I've already demonstrated that 3 undisputably reliable sources, Google web search, and now Google news all present very clear evidence about what is the common name of the university. Since no editor has presented either guideline or factual evidence to refute my claims about the obvious common name of the university, I don't see why the goalposts keep shifting towards more baroque means of determining the common name. What is left to discuss? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  For the record, Google Books has ~1.1 million  without and ~560,000  with. What's next? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that a Google Web search is a reliable source or are you suggesting that every use it finds is from a reliable source? I hope that I don't have to explain to you that both cases are incorrect.  You also don't-say that Google News is the best way to determine common then immediately say that it should be used.  If you don't think it's the best way, what do you think is?  If we follow your criteria, the article should be called "Ohio State" because it returns 722k news hits (the other two uses were excluded as "Ohio State" would show up in the other two as well).  As "Ohio State" doesn't adequately describe what the article is (is it an article about the state of Ohio?), I don't see that WP:COMMONNAME can be used.  It seems that you think that this is a simple discussion and it's most obviously not or this issue wouldn't consistently brought up; it would have been solved years ago. The metric and the discussion on it are to determine a way to eradicate opinions from the discussion and follow facts.  We can call it a guideline if that's more familiar to you. OlYellerTalktome 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't use straw man arguments. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're deflecting.  I'm sorry if I've made you defensive, if that is in fact what you're being (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth).  Can you answer any of the questions I've presented? OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - The section below is for criteria that has been decided upon in this discussion. The only reason I added anything was because you didn't understand this discussion format which is widely used in the business world.  You apparently agree with two of the criteria though so I left those. OlYellerTalktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please don't use straw man arguments: no where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your suggestion that I have is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you unilaterally get to decide what is or is not evidence? You also get to decide whether I'm making good faith attempts at consensus? No where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your attempts to distort my arguments and suggestions that (1) I fail to understand the complexity of the discussion and (2) would suggest employing such a facile criteria is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. I leave it to other editors now to refute the evidence I have provided because it's obvious that editors can't decide this without resorting to bad faith assumptions. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would offer that the assumption that this is an "easily decided issue" is rather flawed given that it has been debated for quite some time now... Hammersbach (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't unilaterally get to decide but you don't either.  As you (1 person) and I (1 person) disagree, I don't see how it can be added.  I never implied that you're doing something in bad faith; I'm not understanding where I could be perceived as doing that.  I'm not trying to distort your arguments and don't see that I have.  If I'm misunderstanding, please help me to understand; that's all I've been trying to do.  Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked; that wasn't my intention at all.  We disagree on some points but let's not be disagreeable. I'll be back after a few hours or tomorrow. OlYellerTalktome 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric Discussion

message: # Take the number of Google News hits per name and see which name is used more often.
:  Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric Criteria

message: Discussions never seem to reach a consensus on what the official name of the University is.  I sort of hope that we don't have to get this far but this section is dedicated to determining a metric for the official name if we get to that point. OlYellerTalktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the university's own FAQ page, the name was officially changed to "The Ohio State University" in 1878 as mentioned here.  Common usage, including within the university, dropped the "The" but in recent years the University has re-claimed the "The."   Thus, I do not see how the official name of "The Ohio State University" can be in debate.   The question at-hand is whether or not this article should be labeled with or without the "The." ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  There have been arguements that WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored and the official name used.  I agree about the official name but others have had differing opinions in the past. Again, we can probably ignore this section for now if not completely. I only added it so that discussions about what the official name is wouldn't be included in the discussion on the common name. As I see it, they're two totally separate conversations. OlYellerTalktome 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that there was any real question of the official name. Its clear from the website, its only about common name usage. But, what some consider the common name of the school, may not not what others consider the common name. Local common name should be greatly considered over what may be common in say, Northern Michigan.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the archives.  I don't really have time to find the discussions for you. OlYellerTalktome 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Arx Fortis in that there is no question about the Official Name, but the common name is IMO just "Ohio State University" - if you were to ask 100 English speaking persons across the globe "Name a university in Ohio" the answer you would get is "Ohio State University", I also accept if you asked 100 residents of Columbus the same question you would almost certainly get more answering with the "The" included. But the name that is used commonly in the English seeking parts of the globe is with out the "The". Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean no offense to you but your opinion about how the globe names the subject is irrelevant.  For one, it's an opinion based on no stated facts and all I have to do is disagree with you and we're both not-wrong and back where we started.  The metric is to help end this discussion with evidence.  Again, the official name doesn't matter right now; your reply probably should have been in the section above. OlYellerTalktome 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Name

message: To the anon ip who is reverting against consensus. Its BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS...., not BOLD, REVERT, REVERT BACK. Making changes without reason and removing content without explanation is considered vandalism and could and should be reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's User:149.4.115.3.  I left a user talk message for him/her.   71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]] 

message: I've read all the debate on this talk page about what the title of this article should be. Clearly, it should be The Ohio State University. For the record, I am not an alumnus of the school, but I do have many friends and relatives who are alumni. But I have thoroughly researched this issue with absolutely no bias, wanting only to learn what is appropriate. Amazingly, the most important key point missed in all the back-and-forth is that, per university guidelines and style protocals, the school name MUST (not "should") always include "The" whenever the full name (including "University") of the school is being used. According to the school, "Ohio State University" is NEVER appropriate and this should be respected by Wikipedia. It IS acceptable, in certain applications and in subsequent usages within the same document or other form, to use the alternate references, "Ohio State" and "OSU." But NEVER in its original reference. Quite simply, when "University" is included, then "The" MUST also be used. And the reverse also applies; when "The" is included, then "University" MUST also be included. When one is not used, then the other is not permitted to be used. So it is perfectly acceptable, for example, to have "Ohio State" on their basketball jerseys. However, it would not be appropriate, or allowed, to have "Ohio State University" or "The Ohio State" on the jerseys. Thoroughly browse the school's Web site (http://www.osu.edu/) and you will not find any contradictions to the information I am providing. Most telling is that the university's style guide (http://www.osu.edu/resources/styleguide.html#o) verifies this information. From a lighter, more practical standpoint, I am very confident that if you ask 100 random alumni of the university where they went to school, particularly if they are completing a job application or the like, they will, in almost every case, write "The Ohio State University" or, alternately, "Ohio State." If they are answering the question verbally, they will almost always say either "Ohio State" or, proudly, "The Ohio State University." Rarely will you find an alumnus use "Ohio State University" because the THE is engrained in them. I understand that Wikipedia has "common usage" guidelines. For purposes such as titling an encylopedic article, the common usage, without question, is The Ohio State University. One final note: "The" has been an official part of the university's name since 1878 (see http://www.osu.edu/news/history.php). Most colleges and universities do NOT have "The" as part of their name, but this school does, and has for 138 years. I hope this will be properly remedied by changing the article title to The Ohio State University, as it always should have been. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name can be considered, but it is not www.tosu.edu; in quotation marks, "The ~" gets 1/4th the results; the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress consistently omits 'the' for all current (2 U.S. Senator and 8 U.S. Representative) bios, albeit consistency within a single source. Dru of Id (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, two administrators advised me previously that using the "help me" on an article's talk page is not only appropriate for problems or concerns with the article, but preferred. Second, I have no idea what you (user "Dru of Id") are talking about or how your very confusing comments have anything to do with the issue at hand. And using the university's URL as an example of why "The" is not appropriate for this article's title is, with all due respect, nonsense. Their protocal and style guide for name usage applies to standard text and oral applications, not their URL. However, as I indicated in my original comments, "OSU" IS appropriate and permitted in specified contexts anyway. If you're truly interested in my concerns, re-read my comments and do your research. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to have a chat with any administrator who thinks that this talk page should have had a permanent  banner . Those who are interested can watchlist and discuss it here, of course. For those of us who try to help users with questions (particularly those from new users), having to remember that OSU will always be on the list of people who need help—even though it's not a person, and no one here needs help—simply makes no sense. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Ohio State is not the only university with a "The" in its official name. The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Michigan, the University of Arizona, etc. etc. None of them have a "The" in their article titles and Ohio State should not be any different. "The Ohio State University" may be official in their style guide but the same goes for a lot of other universities. No change is necessary. I hate to be rude, but 99% of the people who insist upon THE Ohio State University are egotistical alums who like to use that to lord it up over other people. That is not valid Wikipedia policy. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's clear to me that it should be Ohio State University. Enigmamsg 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, it's clear to me that it should be the The Ohio State University. Hammersbach (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's clear to me that it should be the The Ohio State University" Well ok, you can call it "the The Ohio State University" all you want, but your stance is not the consensus. The the the. Enigmamsg 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather childish, and timely, response from an administrator... Hammersbach (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's blindingly clear that it should not be the The Ohio State University, and it's clear to others as well. Enigmamsg 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I know I'm a little late to the discussion but I think this should be moved to The Ohio State University. Anyone will tell you its The. You see commentators say it during games and the players themselves call it The Ohio State University.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it oft referred to with the article, but the "the" is even underlined in the seal, unlike in the UMich and UT-Austin seals.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article title debate - The Ohio State University vs. Ohio State University 

message: I'm new, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this question but here it goes. I noticed that there is a list of Ohio State's colleges in this article and several of them have live links to their own Wikipedia pages. Is anyone planning to make pages for the other colleges and link them to this article? I can't write any of them myself because of conflict of interest. I work for the College of Optometry and would love to collaborate if someone starts working on a page for it. I know I'm supposed to give outside sources, but I've had a hard time finding them. So, as a starting place here's a link to our History page: http://www.optometry.osu.edu/aboutTheCollege/history.cfm. And this is a link to our Toppled Top page: http://optometry.osu.edu/toppledtop/. Can it have it's own Wikipedia page that links to our page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie at Ohio State Optometry (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at :Category:Optometry schools in the United States, it appears as though few optometry schools have standalone articles. Perhaps creating a subsection within this article and then redirecting Ohio State University College of Optometry to Ohio State University#College of Optometry (neither of which exist right now) might make the most sense. SpencerT♦C 15:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

text: If there aren't sufficient "outside sources" to create an article then it's likely that an article shouldn't be created.  ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

text: First, it's a misunderstanding of the Wikiproject's goal to believe that its members plan to create articles for each constituent part of every college or university.  In other words, you're talking about a part of a college when the project is discussing entire colleges and universities.  Second, even if you were correct then please keep in mind that small groups of editors (e.g. Wikiprojects, those of us in this discussion) can not overrule broader project-wide consensus.  In particular, every article must meet our general notability guidelines and those guidelines depend quite heavily on there being multiple independent sources.  That there are other articles that don't meet those guidelines and have escaped broader attention from the community doesn't give you license to ignore those guidelines.  But please feel free to work on something in a sandbox and see what you can come up with! ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: OSU College of Optometry

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ohio State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061230092419/http://thecenter.ufl.edu:80/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Merit_Schol_95-04.xls to http://thecenter.ufl.edu/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Merit_Schol_95-04.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120731113145/http://www.columbusdispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/23/20060823-G1-04.html to http://www.columbusdispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/23/20060823-G1-04.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ohio State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140115191304/http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php to http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060929233821/http://library.osu.edu:80/sites/archives/manuscripts/part1a.htm to http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/manuscripts/part1a.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no rational reason to so prominently include reference to the November 28 knife incident in the "History" section. As it currently stands, the "History" section dedicates more than a quarter of its characters to this incident--more than the entire previous century of Ohio State's history. No mention is made of the substantial progress and expansion Ohio State made throughout the 20th century. In fact, the only Ohio State event the "History" section currently notes between the years 1916 and 2016 was Dr. Michael Drake's 2014 appointment as President. But Dr. Drake's one sentence is contrasted by a full paragraph about the November 28 knife incident. Certainly, this incident is not so substantial in the light of Ohio State's entire history to warrant such a significant portion of the section.
A discussion could be had regarding whether the incident merits any inclusion on Ohio State's page. The "History" section would certainly benefit from information about the University from the 20th century. Perhaps if the section was expanded, one or two sentences referencing the knife incident with a link to its external page may be appropriate. But as for now, I find it necessary to omit the paragraph as it currently stands. UncleJoe20 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you not "find it necessary" until there is consensus for the change, which I presume was your reason for beginning the discussion here. For my part, I don't feel strongly about it either way, other than that it should not be removed without consensus. General Ization Talk    01:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Also my opinion that what your second sentence really indicates is that the History section is deficient in its coverage of "the entire previous century" of OSU's history, not that the paragraph concerning the attack is overly long or undue.  The remedy for that problem is not to remove or decimate the discussion of the one historical event that is adequately covered. General Ization Talk    01:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently General Ization is on the right here.  The correct way to have a proper history of OSU is not to delete the part which reflects a current, important terror event, but instead, to add content on the past.  Imagine if one were to add a detailed, well-documented section on 1940's OSU, and to have someone delete it just because there is little content on 2000-2010 OSU.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mean time, I have added a  template to the History section to encourage its expansion. General Ization Talk    01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You requested expansion, and I added a section including some important, verifiable history from the early 20th century (the murder of OSU student Theora Hix by a prominent OSU faculty member), sourced from OSU's own pages (they felt it is important enough to have on their website). Books have been written about this; it's not like this is an obscure event. It was deleted with no explanation and no discussion. You said above that "The remedy for that problem is not to remove or decimate the discussion of the one historical event that is adequately covered," but you did this with my edits, which I spent time on. Could you please explain? Why should I spend time editing Wikipedia if people just unilaterally revert changes they don't like? -Qbert 212.38.183.142 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent inclusion of knife incident under "History" 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment 174.101.57.221 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".You must also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any articlePlease note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017 

message: I don't understand why "The" is not included in the title of the article. Based on WP:THE (specifically, the "when to avoid" section), it appears that this page should include the definite article in its title. I don't think anyone would dispute that the university capitalizes it in all of its press releases/kits/etc. I also doubt that anyone would dispute that the usage is "reasonably common" (note that this requirement is a much lower bar than the most common variant). And I also doubt that anyone would assert that common usage has "overwhelmingly rejected the The". Since the usage of "The" is supported by all three litmus tests, it strikes me that those who oppose its inclusion here simply don't like it, when the usage of the definite article at TCNJ has garnered exactly zero objections, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell "The College of New Jersey" is the official name of that instutition. And as far as I can tell, the official name of this institution is "Ohio State University", in spite of www.osu.edu titling itself with the "The". Calling it "The Ohio State University" appears to me to be a stylistic thing, although if someone could show me where it originated, I might change my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the article, though the link appears to be dead. You can find also find it here, which states "In 1878 the college's name was changed to The Ohio State University." I don't think you can get a more clear-cut statement than that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The schools official name is The Ohio State University. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is not. As far as the title of the article is concerned, many opponents of a name change usually use the naming guideline at WP:COMMONNAME to justify not using the schools official name as the title of the article. Some articles on Wikipedia routinely use the longer official names of topics as article titles. Despite that, there never seems to any clear consensus to change the articles title to The Ohio State University. There have been a few "move requests" over the years, all ending in no consensus, but there hasn't been one in quite a while and I wouldn't object at maybe taking a look at it again to see if consensus has changed on the matter.--JOJ Hutton 16:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that local consensus here does not (and more importantly, should not) overrule broader consensus at WP:THE. And the argument to use the common name is based on a faulty understanding of WP:AT, of which it is a part. AT specifically states "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name" and goes on to cite WP:THE for further guidance on the issue. Policy and guidelines support the inclusion of "The" in the title of this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of WP:THE. Thats a good argument. I can also use that same argument for page moves I was considering at Sun and Moon as well. Good info to know.--JOJ Hutton 17:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall we start an RM? Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

text: AGREED! It has been that way long enough for this Wikipedia to have changed it/., As with algebra, it does not have to be understood to make sense. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:ADA2:7904:8394:D53F (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't quite figured out the whole commenting thing, but the legal name for the institution (per trustee minutes) is "The Ohio State University", it's a pretty commonly asked question apparently. 17:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" yet again 

message: The student sex abuse scandal at the Ohio State University is completely absent from Wikipedia. (Indeed Ohio State Wrestling does not even have a wikipedia page! Which is a glaring omission, given its prominence and historical success). The scandal should be included here, too. Likely in the history section as it is for similar scandals at Pennsylvania State University and Michigan State University. Fluous (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Richard Strauss and the Student Sex Abuse Scandal 

message: I came across this publication while adding sourcing and it made me think someone with more insight into the school might like to do a section about the scholarly/academic journals put out by OSU. []. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  School publications section? 

message: An edit I would suggest adding to the tuition/admissions section is an updated price for the 2020 school year. The most recent tuition listed is from the 2014-2015 school year, which listed the tuition beginning at $10,037. According to Osu’s website http://undergrad.osu.edu/cost-and-aid/basic-costs the updated tuition for an Ohio resident begins at $11,084 with an additional $12,708 for room+board and for a non-resident beginning at $32,061 and an additional $12,708 for room+board. Relecteurj (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020 

message: I noticed that my edit listing Ohio State as a:
*The flagship school of the University System of Ohio 
*Public Ivy
*Ranked as one of the best Midwestern public universities in the United States
*Had an open admissions policy until the late 1980s; since the early 2000s, has become greatly more selective in admissions. 
*Is classified as a Research I university by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education
Was considered too positive to be included. And I'm uncertain why. It's a high-tier, good - but not exceptional on the level of Michigan, UCLA, UC Berkeley, et al. - flagship university school. And probably the best school in the state. If this was written in 1990. I'd agree that the edit would be ludicrous. But the next applicant year will likely see the average ACT score of the college be somewhere above a score of 30. The individuals admitted in 2020 had an ACT score of 29.5. Which places the present admitted student in the college above the 95th percentile in admissions and around the University of Georgia - which is undeniably pretty selective. All of these assertations are well-sourced, cite reputable sources, and widely mirror existing statements found on other articles about American universities. Is there anything about the edit that an editor finds wrong or objectionable? I'll modify "ranked as among the best public universities" to "ranked as among the best Midwestern public universities" if someone wants to change that. And I wouldn't object to modify my original edit to state that. Since Ohio State definitely isn't in the top-7 public universities in the nation — and almost certainly won't be for the foreseeable future. (The seven being UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, Duke, University of North Carolina, Michigan, and University of Virginia) TeaXaviers (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection is not that your edits have been "too positive" but that they're overly detailed for the lede and misplaced there. Please check out exactly how those other articles are written. And note that the lede should be a summary of information already included in the body; it should not introduce new information that isn't already there and it shouldn't need citations (because they're already in the body of the article). ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks. I wasn't aware of that rule. Are you okay with the new version posted? I transferred much of it to the rankings, history, and academics sections. TeaXaviers (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better! I moved it to the second paragraph of the lede and made some edits to trim details. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Any objections to this edit?

message: Why do we need to have the "Big Ten" included in the infobox twice, once in the sporting_affiliations parameter as "Big Ten Conference" and then in the academic affiliations parameter as "Big Ten Academic Alliance"? All members of the athletic conference are also in the academic alliance; it's redundant to include both (and the athletic conference preceded the academic alliance and is clearly the more prominent and meaningful organization for the institutions). Moreover, our documentation for the template defines this parameter as: "Academic organizations of which the institution is a member and provide essential definition of the institution (mission, values, activities, etc.)." How is membership in this organization "essential [to the] definition of the institution"? What critical information are readers supposed to learn from us including this in the infobox? We can't include every organization to which this university belongs - it would likely be a list with hundreds of organizations! - so why is this one so important and informative for readers that we must include it? ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including "Big Ten" in the infobox twice 

message: In the rankings and recognition section, national and global subject-wise rankings are based on 2020/21. Please use our news rankings for 2022–2023 for this section. Saminkabir278 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023 

message: Change instances of “The Ohio State University” to “Ohio State University”
The school is referred to by itself and some of its students as “the Ohio state university,” but official sources don’t support that.  The higher learning commission, the commission that grants the university its accreditation, has them list as “Ohio state university.”  The article is titled “ohio state university” but refers to it as “the Ohio state university” multiple times which is incorrect.  I think it may be appropriate to include a section about how the university and students sometimes refer to it as “the Ohio state university” but that is not actually the name it is accredited under.
Link for reference:  https://www.hlcommission.org/component/directory/?Itemid=&Action=ShowBasic&instid=1584 68.38.251.17 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is addressed here. As we do with individuals, we respect the right of institutions to determine and to advise how they are to be named. In this case, The Ohio State University was thusly named in the state legislation that gave it that legal name in 1878. There is ample evidence of the use of the "The" prefix in references to OSU. That HLC may omit "The" is not our concern. As for the title of the article, we regularly omit "The" in article titles when it is not necessary for disambiguation and would complicate searches.  Note, however, that The Ohio State University is a redirect to this article. General Ization Talk   14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

text: As for "official sources don't support that", you can't get any more official than Ohio's Ohio Revised Code Section 3335.01:  . General Ization Talk   18:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as the legal battles they have fought over their use of the "the"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023 

message: I've asked at Talk:Lane Avenue Bridge, is the Lane Avenue Bridge part of the OSU campus? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lane Avenue Bridge 

message: Colors need to be changed to correct ones “ruby and porpoise “ 772Local772 (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  College colors 

message: I was reading this online. Should this be in the article? Husounde (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you advocating for including this in the article?  ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not advocating for anything. I was asking. Husounde (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: After several years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office finally granted Ohio State's request to have the word "THE" trademarked on June 21, 2022. Go figure.  -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio State wants to trademark "The"? 

message: The lead paragraph currently ends with "Admission standards tightened and became greatly more selective throughout the 2000s and 2010s." However, as is noted at top of the academics section, Ohio State is a Public Ivy. It is also listed on the Public Ivy Wikipedia page which itself cites "Greene, Howard R.; Greene, Matthew W. (2001). The public ivies: America's flagship public universities (1st ed.). New York: Cliff Street Books. ISBN 978-0060934590." 
Other Public Ivies are given a more fitting end to their first lead paragraph that reflects their status. What first comes to mind is UVA whose article reads, "UVA is considered a Public Ivy, or a public institution which offers an academic experience similar to that of an Ivy League university." I know at least Miami of Ohio also has a reference to it's Public Ivy status within it's lead paragraphs.
Should the lead paragraph be edited to properly reflect the Public Ivy designation by for example changing "Admission standards tightened and became greatly more selective throughout the 2000s and 2010s." to "The Ohio State University is considered a Public Ivy, a public institution which offers an academic experience similar to that of an Ivy League university."?
Njb500 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead Section - Public Ivy Status 

message: Okay. Here's a suggestion for a compromise. Instead of demanding that the "The" be either added or stricken entirely, we should remain objective. How about this: in the first sentence of the article, it is referred as "Ohio State Univeristy" but then goes on to say "(commonly referred to as Ohio State, OSU, or The Ohio State University)". This acknowledges the presence of its title while remaining neutral. The general public knows Ohio State as Ohio State University, while insiders know it as "The Ohio State University" for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it, the title of the article should be named as the subject is most regularly referred. See Honda or Chrysler and not their entire names as examples. The true name of the subject is The Ohio State University (I hope no one is stubborn enough to make me prove that). The full name of the subject should be mentioned in the article and not as "commonly referred to" but as its true name. From this current version, the only thing that I think should change is the name over the seal in the info box. OlYellerTalktome 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be The Ohio State University. Any Buckeye will tell you that. Its not a made up name, its on every piece merchandise about the school.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Everything says "The Ohio State University". Look at the logo. Look at the LAW! The wiki rule says that if it's frequently used then we can put "The" in the title and for debate to be this fiery it's obvious that "The" is used. People against the move are probably from rival schools. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I interrupted two men talking about college ball on an elevator because one asked who "they" were playing that week, and the other said "Ohio State", and as part of the Ohio diaspora, I said, "Is that anything like "THE Ohio State?" and they were puzzled. This happened in California. Guess Ohio enlightenment has not shined everywhere. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:7471:6558:41FE:5E44 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your anecdote is irrelevant and your elevator friends are incorrect. 169.253.162.2 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Comment I'll buy that the real name is "The Ohio State University" and also buy that many people call it "Ohio State University" and/or "Ohio State" -- but the question comes to what should the article be called? Here's a few examples:
*Homer Woodson Hargiss (his full real name) was often called "Bill Hargiss"
*James Earl Carter, Jr. (his full real name) went by Jimmy Carter
There are countless examples where one subject has a "full" name and the article is named after the "common" name of the subject, and then there are countless other articles where the "full" name is the article name. And the bottom line is that none of it matters--what matters is what does consensus think we should do with this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: William Marshall Rice University and Leland Stanford, Junior University are the full and official names of other universities, it doesn't mean they are the names of the article. As a point of reference, the Dept. of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS accrediation all refer to Ohio State University without a "The". Madcoverboy (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I agree with Jeffrey's suggestion. Enigmamsg 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that any school should be listed by its official name. Redirects should be used to remove any confusion. I don't think anyone would be shocked to search for "Ohio State University" and be ridirected to "THE Ohio State University". Moreover, when in use in discussion in other articles, the university should be mentioned using the official name. By naming the article the official way, you users can simply wikilink the name like this: The Ohio State University, rather than this: The Ohio State University or, even worse, this: The Ohio State University. As for the other University examples given, I posit that the school articles SHOULD be listed using their formal name with redirects used as needed. The same logic follows University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There are many colloquial terms for this school ("UNC," "Chapel Hill," "Carolina," etc.) but the article is literally University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, even though that is rarely the common usage in conversation. Moreover, what is "common" in one area or to one person may be something completely different in another area or to someone else. For example although most people might attribute "Carolina" with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, many alumni of University of South Carolina, people in the area of Columbia, SC, and people associated with other schools in the Southeastern Conference would disagree. The same can be said for "USC" (University of Southern California vs. University of South Carolina).++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Google bombing to assess common name usage reveals that "The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits while "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits. Although it is not the case here, for ambiguous acronyms such as USC, that query appropriately returns a disambiguation page. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: School names change (regarding the name at accreditation). If the situation wasn't ambiguous, we wouldn't still be having this conversation. The school identifies itself with the prefix and the US gov't recognizes the prefix as can be seen on tax forms. If we want to actually move forward with this conversation, I think we need to decide if its 'official' name even matters and what we define as 'official' because those seem to be the two points of contention. OlYellerTalktome 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: (At Madcoverboy)The Common naming convention is a good idea, but there are too many assumptions being made here. First, Madcoverboy seems to assume that what he/she considers the common name for the school, is what everyone else assumes is the common name. Not only is that not true, but historically, this has been a problem for like, ever. Secondly, Madcoverboy, assumes that wikipedia policies are binding, and not subject to interpretation. I can most likely safely say that just about every policy and guideline on wikipedia has seen a "consensus overrule" at some point or another. Now, this seems to be more or less a POV issue, rather than a straight up and down issue or common name conventions. As so, since the local common name, as well as the official name of the school is THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, common sense dictates that the full official and local common name be used.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming nothing, I'm simply stating extant consensus, operant guidelines, and facts from the world at large. User:Jojhutton has just articulated the I just don't like it argument for overturning stable Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe anyone is disputing its official name is "The Ohio State University". This is stated unambiguously in the first sentence. The issue is whether or not the title of the primary article should include "the". Wikipedia guidelines specify that the common name used by reliable sources, rather than official name, should be the name used for the article. Given that the Department of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS all refer to the university without the "the" and clear preferences of approximately 7 million websites referring to it sans-"the", the common name of the university clearly has no "the" and thus the article should remain named exactly as it is now. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the 'sense' can't fundamentally be 'common' if a discussion spanning a few years can't be concluded. Like I said, let's discuss what our definitions of 'common' and 'official'. Is 60%/40% no-prefix/prefix mean common or does it need to be 80%/20%? The percentages are representation of whatever metric we determine. If we decide that we'd like to use the official name because the common name is too ambiguous, is 'official' determined by the highest gov't body's usage, the school's usage, publications' usage, etc.? Like I mentioned before, the IRS and OSU use the prefix but Macoverboy showed that the body that gave OSU its accreditation and some other large gov't bodies don't use the prefix. We're all basically spouting out (presumably) facts without actually getting anywhere. I'll start a new section with a more structured discussion when I get some time today. OlYellerTalktome 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  WP:COMMONNAME clearly states: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name..." Again, to the extent that there needs to be any more discussion, it should ensure that the article is titled in a way that reflects the common usage in reliable sources. As I stated before, no one is disputing the official name. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: as per Jojhutton and others, I don’t believe WP:COMMONNAME is as clearcut as some may have us believe. It also states, “Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name…” (emphasis mine), and the legal, official and proper name is The Ohio State University. Hammersbach (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have to look at the examples given on WP:COMMONNAME-Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"), Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus"), Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea") and Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos") coupled with the banner on the main website which omits the The, and the results from google analysis by Madcoverboy ("The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits vs "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits.) all point to the common name being "Ohio State University". Codf1977 (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Point of order Should this discussion be listed on WP:RM? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments about the official name are with regards to the direction this conversation usually takes. If it's not disputed, that's great. The only reason I'm hesitant to apply WP:COMMONNAME is the section that says, "..technically correct but rarer forms." I interpret this to be talking about situations where the technically correct name is used far less often than the common name. Also in this case, the the commonality of both methods is disputed and should be addressed more adequately. In my opinion, determining a metric off the bat would be the best method of determining 'common' in this case. As for listing the discussion at WP:RM, I don't really care either way. If we don't have enough editors here to come to a intelligent consensus, then maybe we should list it there. The problem I usually see happen is that many editors who are unfamiliar with WP guidelines/policies get involved and try to turn it into a vote. I'd like to keep the discuss informed unless we need more eyes but I wouldn't say we should attempt to hide the discussion in any way. OlYellerTalktome 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OlYeller, since you have suggested (three times now) that a "metric" be established, would it be possible for you to maybe take a swing of the bat and actually recommend one? Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I realize I've been doing a lot of talk and not backing it up. I've been pretty busy the last two days and haven't gotten the time to start it out. Sorry about that. I'll get to it within the next two hours. OlYellerTalktome 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ya, adding "THE" would cost extra.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They also don't say "University"... your evidence is anecdotal at best. You could show the same with a huge number of other school sports' uniforms. OlYellerTalktome 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. The position that a T-shirt would always use an official name is unsound. By that logic, Clemson University would just be "Clemson." University of Southern California would simply be "USC." Examples abound. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the mere fact that this question has garnered so much controversy demonstrate that "the Ohio State University" has broad enough common support to invoke the WP rule that a technical name should only yield to a common name if the common name is "substantially" higher in usage. The "Jimmy Carter" article has been offered regarding this argument, however only a small percentage of the population would have referred to President Carter as "James Earl Carter," whereas as, substantial percentage of persons are aware that Ohio residents, OSU alumni, and a broad swath of collegiate supports fans are all aware that the correct name is "the Ohio State University..." and that stating otherwise inside the state of Ohio, will generate a verbal correction from the listener(s). Hneilm (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Comparing this to people's name does not really apply, especially as celebrities commonly have stage names (sometimes legally changed). But if you want to go there, these names are also what the person in questions calls or called themselves. For example, Jimmy Carter campained for president using his nickname. If that logic is to be applied here, "the" would be inclulded because that is what the college calls itself. I think the UNC Chapel Hill example works well. I went there in the 1980s and never knew of the "formal" name until it showed up on my diploma. Sports announcers call it North Carolina. People who go there call it UNC, Carolina, or the University of North Carolina. The suffix of "at Chapel Hill" was added somewhat late in the school's history because the names of teacher's colleges and the like were being changed to UNC plus a city name. Despite history and common usage, the Wikipedia entry is listed as University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Similarly, Oklahoma State's Wikipedia article is Oklahoma State University–Stillwater and the University of Illinois is in Wikipedia as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Think about it this way. If the university's name were to change to Ohio State University at Columbus, would anyone question changing the name of its article? Rublamb (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio State University vs The Ohio State University