Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 4

message: I have nominated for deletion three articles about Canadian residence halls: Medway-Sydenham Hall, Ernescliff College, and Saugeen-Maitland Hall.  Although I am interested in hearing your thoughts on these particular article, I am more interested to see if this establishes a general consensus regarding the notability of individual residence halls which do not appear to have extraordinary histories of any sort.  --ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Canadian residence halls nominated for deletion 

message: A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding the listing of alumni in articles.  Your thoughts and opinions would be welcome in the discussion!  --ElKevbo (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP discussion of alumni 

message: I've listed the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article at peer review.  Any feedback would be very much welcomed.  Thanks. Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

message: Duke University has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 152.2.128.80 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke University FAR 

message: Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot?  We at WP:CHICAGO  are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satyr 

message: I have merged Student Life New Zealand into Student Life (university ministry), and plan to do the same with Student Life Australia. The article they are being merged into seems to lack notability too, as I have indicated with the template, and might itself be merged into the apparently notable Campus Crusade for Christ. Nobody seems to be watching them, and they were all created by one-edit wonders, so I need some more feedback. Richard001 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student Life articles 

message: We're trying to get this article down to a more manageable size and suggestions would be appreciated. We're getting close to what we want. Wrad (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article looks much better.  Any more slimming and it would start taking away crucial parts of a proper article.  Great job again! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[BYU]] article slimming 

message: We've got some questions about use of the infobox template, asked at the template talk page and discussed initially here. Anyone familiar with the usage of  is welcome to shed some light. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting this WikiProject know. :) Esrever (klaT) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template usage 

message: For anyone who's interested, I've created a userbox for the long-running British quiz show University Challenge – visit  for instructions on how to use it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk–</span> 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''University Challenge'' userbox 

message: Greetings,
An editor named "Me" has placed a tag on the IWU page, of which I am the primary editor. His reason for doing so is simply because I am affiliated with the school - not that I made any biased POV comments. The vast majority of Wikipedia contributors edit a page they are affiliated with, so I don't know where he's going with this. He even admits that I cited everything, but that he just wanted other people to know that I'm affiliated with IWU. I'm sorry, but you don't place a massive warning tag on the top of an article just because you feel like it.  I've never had any problems with this page and do everything by Wiki guidelines. This guy is clearly overstepping his authority - I think he's a wanabee Wikipedia administrator. Please remove his tag and tell him not to put it back.
Thanks,
Manutdglory (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiana Wesleyan University 

message: An edit war is threatening to brew over this issue at the BYU article once again. Those who participated earlier are welcome to do it again, as well as anyone else, of course. Wrad (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship issue at [[BYU]] 

message: Is there any? The only consensus I read out of the the previous debate was that it depends on the university. I frankly find this to be a failure of will and a continued lack of consensus. I admit that it appears that many editors feel that rankings can or should remain in the lead, but by no means should this discussion be WP:SNOWed. UNC's lead, for example, would appear to be palatable: 
In both teaching and research, UNC has been highly ranked by publications such as BusinessWeek and U.S. News & World Report. 
It lacks the tackiness and recentism but introduces peacock-ery since "highly ranked" is completely unsubstantiated - top 10? top 100? when? etc. Indeed, that many leads still claim the school has "high selectivity" in the very first breath reveals the extent to which boosterism must be actively combated. What consensus, if any, do we have on including rankings in the lead? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, based on the above comments, it seems like the weight of the discussion leans pretty heavily toward leaving things as they are, i.e., determined on a case-by-case basis.  While that may be unsatisfactory to you, I think it's indicative of the fact that there are many right ways to write a Wikipedia article.  If there are specific instances of "peacockery" or rankings overkill that are unpalatable to you, perhaps you could bring that up on those individual articles' talk pages.  As it is, though, I don't think you're going to find WikiProject-wide consensus for your proposed changes. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends not only on the university, but one how it's said--yes, I agree the UNC statement is perfect--there's not really the need to say any more. Those who advertise them more prominently give the implication that without the emphasis, people won;'t realise how good they are. Perhaps the guidline should be: as ingle sentence, without specific numbers.  DGG (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the consensus is case by case. On the example sentence from UNC, I'm inclined to lean towards Madcoverboy's opinion that it is neither tacky nor too recent. but lacks precision and hence leans toward peacock-ery. It is the imprecision that bothers me most. As for inclusion of "high selectivity" in the lead as an indication of boosterism, I would say it depends on whether a reference (such as the Carnegie ranking) is given. I realize that rankings and selectivity statements sound like peacock-ery and boosterism to many people, but I do think they have value. I have had many conversations over the past few years about university quality with people. From my experience, there is vast ignorance about the differences in quality between different schools. Rankings may be imperfect and may be imperfectly applied by some, but they have great value just in raising questions of what differences in quality along diverse measures (e.g. class size, faculty ratios, publication rates, research emphasis, awards, etc.) might mean to the prospective student. They raise the discourse from a level of raw boosterism to one based on relevant comparable characteristics. Vantelimus (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: assuming the material is supported in the article, I continue to think it appropriate for the lede paragraph. You are giving arguemnts why the ddetailed material on ranking should be included at all, not why it belongs in the lede. DGG (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's one way to look at what I wrote. Another is to infer importance of including rank information in the lead since it is important information to a great number of those likely to be reading the article.Vantelimus (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I'm not sure if anyone watches the page, but there are few requests for (re-) assessments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment if anyone who contributes here can help.  I'm probably not impartial enough to look at them myself... LostOldPassword (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally try to go through and clean those out on a semi-regular basis, but I hesitate to futz around with the GA-to-A-Class assessment.  I find the distinction between GA and A to be fairly meaningless; both represent a standard of excellence that falls short of FA (not that there's anything wrong with that) but that is still well above B-Class.  I think those articles are typically better served by peer review or the FAC process than they are by me taking a look at them.  If others feel like taking a crack at them, though, by all means do so.  Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessments 

message: Hello. I was disambiguating links and after a series of pages while looking in-depth, ended up on Högskolan pages, one which needs to be histmerged (University of Kalmar) and another I'm not sure about (University of Skövde). Should they stay (and the latter also histmerged) or should they be at University College (with the latter redirected)? --Squids'n'Chips 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Högskolan/University College 

message: I can't find anywhere else to ask this. Is there an infobox for collegiate secret societies in North America? If not, what might be the best alternative? --Geniac (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of one.  You could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies or modify the fraternities one. Hippo (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, crap. I would have asked there if I had found it. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a secret. - X201 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret society infobox? 

message: Currently, 1272 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Okay, I stumbled onto this article when it was created and I've tried to assist those involved with the article ... but the simple fact is that I'm not active with WikiProject Universities, so can't provide those writing the article with the amount of assistance that they need to fix this article.  I've simply started ignoring some issues as they get reverted back whenever I try to clean it up.  Can someone with more experience with WP:UNIVERSITIES take a look at Kalyani Government Engineering College, and see if you can help the contributors over there get it cleaned up to at least follow basic style guides?  Thanks in advance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help - I'm glad I posted here, I had spotted many of the issues you mentioned and had left notes on one of the contributor's talk page; but had also missed a few.  Familiarity with the guidelines goes a long ways towards simplifying the copy-editing of such articles! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem!  I'll start putting some standard headers in so that others can improve upon it. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with [[Kalyani Government Engineering College]] 

message: So... I've kinda stopped doing them from the lack of interest and lack of real progress.  I kind of want to start it back up again, but I want to see if there will be enough support for me to attempt it.  Any followers?
Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Fortnight........ 

message: The above article is currently being considered for GA nomination. Any comments regarding how ready the article might or might not be for such consideration would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eastern Nazarene College]] 

message: I've been working on the History of Northwestern University and have taken care of most of the pre-WWII history and a smattering of topics since then. I would welcome other editors' assistance in expanding the article, getting it assessed, and nominating it for GA and FA in the coming months. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Northwestern University 

message: The 2008 NRC assessment of US research doctorate programs will be released in September 2008:  All you boosters and rankings-lovers out there, get ready to start your engines! Madcoverboy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was that who was talking about using bots to do this kind of stuff??  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 NRC assessment 

message: List of Brigham Young University alumni is undergoing an FLC here and your help is needed—it didn't pass its first time through because not enough editors commented. Please assist...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good, just take out the booster-cruft (acclaimed, best-selling, etc.). Madcoverboy (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please vote/participate 

message: [cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India:]
K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (an article on part of a university) is a gruesome mess. The gruesomeness is quite distinctive, too: it immediately reminded me of the deleted article on Prem C. Pandey, who perhaps not coincidentally is prominent within the article on the Center.
My gut feeling is that this is such a shambles that even if an article is worthwhile it should be started afresh. Should it be started afresh? Should it be deleted? -- Hoary 01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick way to clean up that article is to first have all of the PDFs and ELs deleted.  See what meaningful text remains (clean up the blobs of text that has no encyclopedic value), and then add the correct relevant ELs for ref tags.  I know I may be removing some good EL refs, but at this point, I'm almost to the point of nominating it for CSD as a list of links.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies 

message: As far as I can tell, this is the best place to ask for the help I'm needing: I've been doing a lot of work on the Larkin page, and am aware that we're missing an evaluation of his work as a librarian. Someone gave me a link to a useful source, but since I know nothing on this subject I thought it would be good to try to find someone with specialist knowledge of university libraries to decide what would be the notable elements that should be included on in the article. I've put a very brief sentence, with this ref, at the end of the Philip Larkin#Posthumous reputation section in the hope that someone else will expand it. Thank you! almost-instinct 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a clarification, this is a WikiProject on the universities themselves.  You might get better help if you asked the guys at WP:Biographies, where they focus on WP:BLPs.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also try WikiProject Librarians. KnightLago (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I tried to find a project like that! Wonder why I failed. Bye! almost-instinct 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, always here to help. KnightLago (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get some references. There's a great deal--he would have been notable for that alone. DGG (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philip Larkin]] as a librarian 

message: Just stumbled upon the above article at FAC. See here to leave comments. KnightLago (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Princeton University Department of Psychology]] at FAC 

message: Greetings,
I am the primary editor of the Indiana Wesleyan University page. A sourced 'criticisms' section was recently added to the article, but there have been several attempts by people associated with IWU attempting to delete this section using unregistered accounts. This seems contrary to Wikipedia standards - simply deleting something because you don't like it, even if it's true and sourced. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could put a partial lock on the page for awhile to divert attempts at deleting the section by unregistered users.  Thanks.
Manutdglory (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you mention is an unsourced, original research, and highly-POV atrocity that should be stripped out of the article in its entirety. The single source is a blog post by a coach, the rest of it are textbook violations of WP:COATRACK, weasel-words and event notability - where is the justifications from the administration, reactions from the student newspaper, coverage by local newspapers, comments by church leaders, etc.? If it was really a historic controversy worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article, then its coverage would be legion from these sources. If this coverage did exist, it should be merged into the history section, not stand as a standalone section. My google search for Indiana Wesleyan and Shane Claiborne returns nothing of import besides blog posts, so I don't see how this condition being met. Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox for this kind of ax grinding, it should come out. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiana Wesleyan University 

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project would like to invite all interested parties to a discussion on College Football player notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to notability discussion 

message: I have tagged List of UK universities by date of foundation as unsourced: the classification -
 1 Ancient universities 
 1.1 Medieval universities 
 1.2 Universities founded during the Victorian period 
 2 Red brick universities 
 2.1 The civic universities 
 2.2 Intermediate period 
 2.3 Second wave of red-brick universities 
 3 Plate glass universities 
 4 Intermediate era 
 5 New universities 
 5.1 1992 universities 
 5.2 Second wave of new universities
and the text looks like WP:OR to me.  The list also seems to be ordered mostly by date of Charter or grant of university status, and not establishment. The two are rarely the same, and for some institutions, identifying a date which is both neutral and objectively 'correct' is very difficult.   Would it be more prudent to reformat this list into a single table, or to redirect it to List of universities in the United Kingdom? — mholland (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of UK universities by date of foundation 

message: Hi all!  There's currently a discussion brewing over at Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over the inclusion of both seals and logos in university articles.  My argument is that it's not a valid fair use under the non-free content criteria because #3A calls for "minimal usage".  Since seals and logos serve the same point (displaying a university-approved visual identity), I don't think it's acceptable to include both.  However, I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that consensus may hold that is kosher.  Any thoughts from anyone on this end? Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I'd type if I were putting together the information for a university logo:
 
 
 Category:University logos
Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  seals and logos 

message: Will a few people take a look at Talk:Loyola College in Maryland (in the Name Change section at the very bottom) and offer their opinions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School name change - opinions needed 

message: Just in case you missed it on the Project homepage, Texas Tech University has a featured article candidate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University. I invite you all to go and comment on it. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC: Texas Tech University 

message: Long story short, I'm looking to improve an article on my own community college.  It's in fairly decent shape but I did want to expand it a bit.  I was wondering if anyone knew of a community college article that I might be able to use as a reference?   Bvlax2005 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the accomplishments section on the main WikiProject Universities page there is a list of good and featured articles. See here. But, I only saw one Community College and it is a good article. The problem with good articles is that they range greatly in quality. My suggestion would be to find a featured article that is like your community college. If your college has multiple campuses or is part of a system, is really old, or newer, etc., scan through the featured articles and find one or even a few that fit, and then you can model your article after those. This will ensure you have a good reference. KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community College 

message: 2007 USC Trojans football team is a featured article candidate:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team. Please review and comment on the nomination. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC: 2007 USC Trojans football team 

message: I invite others to contribute to a discussion at the Talk page for Indiana Wesleyan University.  There is a dispute involving a textbook used for a required course and criticism related to that text and course. We welcome others' views and input.  --ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at Indiana Wesleyan 

message: This edit may be partly a correction, but it is clearly a mess: no summary, no new source, different numbers, and (unless things have changed greatly since I was college age and they've added a third SAT) combined SAT scores of 2100 are impossible. Could someone on this WikiProject possibly sort it out? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help sought at [[Wesleyan University]] 

message: ElKevbo has raised the issue of making greater use of the Carnegie Classifications in WP:UNI articles because they are comprehensive, NPOV, and well thought-out. Obviously, I agree with him and I am trying to think of the best way to incorporate them and here are the unwieldy solutions I have come up with:
* (Easy) Expand the University infobox to include these classifiers and create either a main-space page or documentation page to describle the acronyms. Native editors or a task force populate the fields on their own.
* (Medium) Include the classification in the body of the article to structure a paragraph elaborating upon it with specific data. Native editors or a new task force populate the fields.
* (Hard) Create a bot (similar to the geography bots) to scrape the Carnegie database and either create new articles or populate new sections within existing articles. I have no experience here and I don't know that the development, testing, and approval time would ultimately be any more efficient than just strapping down and doing it by hand.
Let me know your thoughts. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to note that Carnegie only classifies US institutions.  That is why in the past I have advocated for a separate infobox for US institutions so we could include this info.  I would be amenable to inserting the information using a template in the body of the articles, too, although I'd like to think about that more or see how it might look.  We might be able to take some text from our article on the classification scheme. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easier, just do what we do know and include it in the text where it can be fully and properly explained. That seems to work fine now, why change it? Also, I don't like the idea of some kind of structured paragraph. KnightLago (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that things "work fine now."  Further, why the opposition to some structure and consistency?  Isn't that what we use other templates for?  --ElKevbo (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Without distinct US/other national infoboxes at our disposal then yes, I'd agree with KnightLago that status quo is probably the best way forward; simply use this resource as a third party source to support any assertions on classification etc. If people dispute the use of this particular source then they might cite another to show contrast (i.e. everyone can 'win' here). ColdmachineTalk 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would view anyone who seriously "dispute[s] the use of this particular source" with grave suspicion.  It's certainly not perfect or above criticism but it's definitely the gold standard.  --ElKevbo (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnegie 

message: Hello I would like to know if you could use your editing expertise to help us get Cal Poly Pomona's article reach GA-status.  I have been working on it lately but I've found it hard to improve without compromising NPOV or using peacock terms since I'm a student at Cal Poly Pomona. We have a WikiProject to have things more neatly organized and already requested the aid of the Collaboration of the Fortnight but they haven't responded yet. Thank you.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[California State Polytechnic University, Pomona|Cal Poly Pomona]] 

message: I have been working on the page Fitchburg State College for quite some time now. It hasn't been assesed by any of the Wikiprojects it is part of. I have reached the point where I realy need some more help or at least a peer edit so that I know what needs to be fixed or what can be added to make it better. I know that this school is not a world famous institution, but I would appriciate any help that anyone wants to give.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll take a stab at trying to see if there's anything I can do.  First a format check, then typo check, then if I have more time today, content/reference checks.  I'll post on the article's talk page regarding my comments.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I left some comments on talk regarding sources that should definitely be included before moving ahead as well as stripping out or converting the bulleted lists. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your comments.  I'm not going to proceed with content improvement until those refs are fixed.  The lists needs to be converted into one big gigantic academics section as mentioned on my review on that page.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitchburg State College 

message: Discussion of a merger. Please provide opinions if possible. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Southern_Nazarene_University#Merger_proposal]] 

message: Can someone please take a look at this user's edits?  He or she has been making many edits to university articles related to their status as Public Ivies.  I'm rapidly losing patience with him or her and would appreciate more level-headed advice and intervention.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't let yourself get wound up by this discussion. I find that Cite needed's point is useful. Articles should say "this university was included in .... list of 'public ivies' ", not "this university is a public ivy". Categories of institution are hardly every very hard-and-fast. And people outside the US are unlikely to be familiar with the term "public ivy" since it is quite new and doesn't apply in the countries where there is no clear distinction between public and private university. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't understand either concerns about readers not knowing what the term means nor why we should use the needlessly long language of "is considered by" or "is included in the list of."  Relative to the first point, we have an entire article on this topic and that article seems more than sufficient to explain the topic in detail (it's not at all complicated). For the second point, why is that kind of language even necessary?  If Moll or his co-authors decide an institution is a "Public Ivy" then the institution is de jure a Public Ivy.  They made up the silly term and they get to decide how it's used.  So any extraneous language is just that - extraneous.  Eschew obfuscation, my friends.  --ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't suggest getting into an edit war about it, but I do see your point.  I saw the borderline NPA violation on your talk page.  It seems clear to me that we should determine a standard for this.  I believe if we can determine some kind of consensus we can perhaps have him refer to the results of the discussion.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have written elsewhere, I am okay if we decide that this label shouldn't be used in the lead or anywhere in college and university articles.  But that decision should be reached through consensus and based on sound judgment, not merely because one editor thinks the category is silly and useless (a judgment with which I agree).  --ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to agree with Cite needed as well, just because some author published a book inventing a new catchy new category shouldn't be cause for these universities' articles to relabel themselves as such. The same goes for the "Colleges that change lives" and so forth. It often seems these laudatory passages take the place of the requisite rankings-cruft that would normally occupy the lead when the rankings aren't quite high enough. Similarly, the Princeton Review publishes all kinds of unflattering "rankings" and one almost never sees these included in the university's articles. Besides, all these "public ivies" or what-have-you are already well-recognized as excellent universities through a myriad of far more NPOV and reliable sources, so keep this book spam out of the articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Ivies 

message: Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been up for good article reassessment since June 7. Please go and comment on the reassessment so that further consensus can be established. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd have to agree with you.  You've been doing some great work improving the article and it really should stay GA.  MIT's been on my watchlist for quite a while now and I hope it does not lose its article class.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just finished up with another round of edits and reorganization. I'd appreciate it if we could get some more eyes on it and wrap up a 6-week old good article reassessment. Please read MIT and comment on the  GA/R assessment. Thanks! Madcoverboy (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take another look.  We really need to get the old gang back together.  This project is getting quite...quiet... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Could someone swing by MIT sometime and re-assess for A-class? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIT GA/R 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Universities 

message: :Loyola College in Maryland has gone under some drastic changes over the years including the more recent decision to change the name to Loyola University Maryland. It is a competitive Jesuit institution with a very big influence on the city of Baltimore but its wikipedia article is like its reputation-awkward and comprehensive only to those who are affiliated with the university. If anyone can give me some help with this article that would great-im pretty new to this. Thanks.
P.S. Please be as harsh as possible.Interzil (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyola College in Maryland 

message: There is currently a debate at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism#Highly selective regarding whether or not terms like "highly selective" or "elite" (1) should be mentioned in the lead and (2) if they are examples of boosterism at all. Other editor's comments are welcome to develop a more thorough consensus on this issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After extensive discussion and blood-letting, we are seeking to establish consensus on a variety of issues relating to selectivity, classifications, and style in university articles. Please review the proposals and join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism#Proposed consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BOOSTER 

message: There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project.  Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate.  This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input.  Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a shot.  But you guys are probably looking for more participation than that...:D  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a policy issue with WP:ATHLETE.  I believe our efforts will be better spent on working on this policy to find a consensus rather than to create debates (on repeated issues) on individual AfD pages.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  I've been attempting to gain attention to College Footbal Notability for some time, but a few editors seem to rather just hit deletions. Thanks to all who pitched in, future comments are always welcome (and remember, you don't have to agree with me... I'm more interested in your take on it than if your take on it matches mine).--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large number of AfD's in progress 

message: The above article, about a university in Egypt, needs masses of attention and probably a name change. It is listed in the Articles in Need of Translation, where I have suggested that there is an English-language prospectus on the website that could be used for a complete rewrite. Thanks all for your continued efforts. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know a thing about Arabic... except for the numbers... eek - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, but I found the English stuff on the website and it was fine, like a standard university prospectus. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Higher Technological Institute]] 

message: 10 of 110 unassessed articles of WP:UNI were autoassessed based on already done assessments by other projects on the same talk page per request of - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs by TinucherianBot. FYI --  Tinu Cherian  - 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :D  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoassessment for the Project 

message: There are at least two other editors (plus myself) who are willing to restart the Collaboration of the Fortnight for this project.  If you are interested, please express your interest here on this thread.  Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNI/COTF]] Reunion 

message: The article List of universities in Ontario is currently at FLC; since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It needs more comments, so if you've got time, please post comments on the FLC. If you do not believe that the article can be improved further, feel free to Support it; otherwise, if you find issues with the article that are actionable, then please Oppose it. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments for the [[List of universities in Ontario]] FLC found [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in Ontario|HERE]] 

message: I recommend editors, in addition to using standardized data from the Common Data Set (if available), use the Dept. of Education's College Navigator to provide relevant and accessible statistics on their institutions as well. Obviously this is only pertinent to US institutions. On a related note, I notice that most articles do not include information on freshman retention or 4 or 6-year graduation rates, even though this information is often included into the rankings (which are so dear to many editors' hearts). I would encourage editors to include information on retention, graduation rates, as well as some financial aid information such students receiving need-based support, percentage of students who receive Pell Grants, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DoEd College Navigator 

message: I see I posted this at the wrong wikiproject Deletion of teacher assigned projects  Kopachuk Middle School...there has been a reply to whit that the student in order to meet his teacher's pre-requisite had to use user space rather than article space.  Why invite teachers and students to learn and write articles on wikipedia if they are deleted?  It seems moot.  SriMesh | talk 16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another school project where the teacher has asked the kids to write about local Edmonton bands which got speedy deleted, and the kids are giving up and asking why bother with the teacher's assignment if they won't stay on wikipedia.  band article deletion   The articles created at this Unannounced class project for the most part survived AFD, and they received help from various wikipedians about manual of style to help them through the AFD nominations. SriMesh | talk 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion and school projects 

message: Can this Wikipedia talk:School and university projects talk page project page have membership and admins -perhaps through  wikiproject Education  or its child projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia:WikiProject School Years, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative education, Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling... to help find articles which come onto wikipedia as is commented upon in the deletion section above and get deleted before it is discovered they are part of a class project, so that the teacher/students can be contacted about templates etc.  This message also posted at the other wikiprojects as well.  Kind Regards  SriMesh | talk 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it ....Wikiproject Classroom coordination with coordinators, and instructions for students with contacts.  Tis already made.  SriMesh | talk 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject membership - Admins - coordinators 

message: Cornell University has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornell FAR 

message: The category :Category:College radio stations in Oregon has been listed at CfD for those parties interested in the discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD for Category:College radio stations in Oregon 

message: There is an ongoing dispute at the Talk:St. John's University (New York) page between several users about the content and structure of the article. The argument is basically over what defines "controversy". Some argue that some of the items placed in the controversy section not only carry misinformation but also should not be considered controversial. The other side wishes to maintain all of them (and implement others that were deleted). Can some of you who are more experienced with University articles help in the dispute? I don't wish for another edit war to start. NyRoc (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look, but it would be nice to have more eyes on this.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comment for St. John's University (New York) 

message: Hi, 
I'm not a member of this project and do intend to become one, but I work in the world of colleges and universities and have noticed something that you might not be aware of.  In recent years there have been a number of schools aquired by Corinthian Colleges.  And all of their names have been changed (usually to Everest, sometimes to WyoTech) and, as far as I can tell, their histories are nowhere to be found on the new websites.  Which makes the work done by this WikiProject that much more important because without it, these histories will be lost.
Other expanionalist institutions are The Art Institute, Kaiser College, and (I think) Kaplan College/University. --*Kat* (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and understand what you're saying.  What needs to happen is essentially what happened to some of the editors who gathered the full history "family tree" of DeVry University.  They did a great job digging through their history.  Other ones very prominent include UTI and ITT Tech.  If you would like to start with one set of colleges for one university chain and move on to another one, that's fine too.  Let us know what you would like to do and what you see that you'll need assistance with.  :)  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat...I'm not a member of this project and I don't intend to become one.  But I will be happy to help provide information.--*Kat* (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O...k... If you don't want to update this article, that's fine, and you don't have to be a member of this WikiProject to edit articles.  If you simply want to leave the information to update the article, you may leave a message on the article's talk page.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corinthian Schools and other expasionalist institutions 

message: Yup!  We're starting the collaboration project again, but instead of every 14 days, it'll be every month.  Please vote for the topic you would like to improve!
Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing: [[WP:UNI/COTM|WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month]] 

message: The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion.  You may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.
This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Wikipedia a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way.  Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice.  If you feel this notice is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion 

message: This template is being changed and I would like to have someone take a look and make sure it's ok (the infobox affects multiple articles).  I tried to revert the changes until one of us double checks the code, but I don't think the editor read the edit summary on the edit and got... well... ticked off perhaps?  I don't know (see my talk page for the discussion.  Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox University Chancellor]] 

message: Maybe I just did a COTM on my own, but Rice University's article was atrocious - a "reputation" section at the top, absolutely no description of research activities, and huge sections on traditions. Somehow it was classified as B-class as well. I bumped it down to C and was bold and made a bunch of changes to align it with WP:UNIGUIDE. Swing on by and check it out and give some recommendations on what they can do to get it back up to par. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rice University]] 

message: ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written.  There is a very big discussion here.  The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes (which has an impact on University athletic programs).  You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned this on  and .  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Notability Discussion 

message: For all those boosters out there, a table of US News & World Report rankings going back to the 80s:  I haven't run the statistics, but it doesn't look like the rankings for any one university have shifted more than 5 positions for any one university in 20 years (except UPenn and WashU). Madcoverboy (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USNews historical rankings 

message: The current University Collaborations of the Month is University of California, Berkeley		
Every month a B-Class higher education-related topic is chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.
(Nominate future collaborations or  see past collaborations.)
This WP:UNI/COTM is effective: Dec 01 2008 ~ Dec 31 2008.
Pick your next WikiProject Universities COTM Candidate! </font>	
Every month a B-Class higher education-related topic is chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.
(Nominate future collaborations or  see past collaborations.)
This WP:UNI/COTM is effective: Dec 01 2008 ~ Dec 31 2008.
Pick your next WikiProject Universities COTM Candidate! </font>	
Every month a B-Class higher education-related topic is chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.
(Nominate future collaborations or  see past collaborations.)
This WP:UNI/COTM is effective: Dec 01 2008 ~ Dec 31 2008.
Pick your next WikiProject Universities COTM Candidate! </font>
Yes, it's that time!  A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.    
Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review.  Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines.  Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style.  Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on WP:UNI/COTM.  Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better.  Feel free to utilize  if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.  
And here's something even more radical.  See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project.  I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far.  I'd like to see more people actively participating. 
Let's start off the new COTM program the right way.  I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon.  Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the Berkeley article and did a bunch of work to start standardizing citations, stripping out the recentist bias, and introducing standard descriptive information and statistics on governance, student body, and classification. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin! 

message: I'm looking for some input on this CCCU template. It isn't complete, as it should link at least 110 separate articles (110 members, 70 affiliates in the CCCU, for which I've updated the lists someone began). IMHO this is rather large and makes navigation more cumbersome than a simple category. If so, would this make it a candidate for deletion? Am I simply wrong about the unwieldiness and shall I contribute to its completion myself? Looking for general consensus, as well as input from more experienced editors. --Aepoutre (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are always methods to further classify a long list into shorter lists.  For example, you could technically split the list into regions of the US before alphabetizing them; or perhaps maybe you could classify them by history, enrollment, or any other method.  But I see what you're saying.  I don't necessarily believe this should be deleted, as it does look like a useful navibox.  Perhaps more people may discuss what ways we can try to ease navigating the long list.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to have to agree with Aepoutre that I think that any category named as such should include all 110 schools even if they're red linked. However, this in onerous to use so I would recommend just splitting it into regional groups and making templates for each region and then exhaustively including all colleges and universities. Universities and colleges are accredited by regional associations, so this might be a useful distinction. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd concur with the above: this sort of template really ought to be comprehensive, even if that means redlinked articles. Geography does seem like a useful way of separating some of them out, though. Perhaps you could put expandable regional sections inside the larger template, or divide them into groups and lists based on geography. Esrever (klaT) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Screw it, I added all the articles and made the text of the navbox smaller so as to be less overwhelming. I examined the template for the Annapolis Group in order to do so. Gracias a todo. --Aepoutre (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large template input - delete? 

message: Just saw this added to Johns Hopkins University. I don't know how reputable or stable these are and I haven't had a chance to go through their methodology, but keep an eye out for them: Academic Analytics Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone update Template:Infobox US university ranking to include Forbes and this new source? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Rankings: Academic Analytics