Jump to content

Talk:Ivy League/Archive 4

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

MIT?

Isn't MIT part of the League for some purposes? When I attended an Ivy, financial aid decisions and policy were discussed by all 9 schools, coordinated so that prospective students would not have to base their decision on cost, but purely on which school they thought was best for them. (This was later the subject of an antitrust action by the Department of Justice.) I got the impression that there were other elements of cooperation between the Ivies and MIT as well.Academic38 (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MIT and the Ivy league institutions were part of an overlap group in the early 1990s to "efficiently" allocate financial aid for students so that individual institutions didn't get into bidding wars. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Overlap Group, thank you. The Overlap Group was active at least as far back as the 1970s when I was accepted at both MIT and the Ivy I ultimately attended. And I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the Ivy/MIT argument that the Overlap Group was a good thing, though our financial aid director was pretty much lying to the faculty/student oversight committee about some of the Overlap Group's activities. (It was a fun time to be a student journalist.)

Do you know of any Ivy/MIT cooperation beyond the Overlap Group? Regardless, we should add a few sentences to the article about the Overlap Group. Academic38 (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Ivy League more than an athletic conference?

As of June 25, 2015, this article portrays the Ivy League as an athletic conference that arose in the mid 1950s. However, this is inconsistent with the historical record. The Oxford English Dictionary tracks the usage of the phrase "ivy colleges" to the 1930s in the NY Herald Tribune, and finds use of "Ivy League" in 1939 in a publication at an Ivy League college. J.D. Salinger in Catcher in the Rye describes an unlikeable character as having "... one of those very phoney, Ivy League voices...."; this was in 1951, long before an NCAA athletic conference was formed. Given this history and given the ubiquitous usage of the term in India and China as a group of elite universities rather than an American sports league, would it be appropriate to rewrite the first paragraph? User:China_is_wonderful 00:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs clarification

Why is there, in some cases, 3 schools listed for the football and basketball championships??—DMCer™ 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ivy League does not does not have tie breakers or a post-season tournament for most (perhaps all?) conference championship titles. For the Big Dance, the League champion with the best overall NCAA record goes on to March Madness. For football, there is no post-season. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Not 100% accurate. Basketball uses a one-game play-off format similar to Major League baseball in case of ties to decide the NCAA automatic bid. So, if two teams tie, then they are both considered League Champions but they'll play against each other a few days after the final weekend to secure the playoff spot. Likewise, a three-way tie sees two teams play each other, with the winner playing the remaining team. Also, baseball and softball have a League Championship Series, with the winners of each division playing a best-of-three series for the League Title and NCAA bid. 165.206.43.4 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, thanks. Perhaps that should be explained in the article. I got to one and I didn't even know. Perhaps I would've if I'd ever been able to wake up in time for a game.—DMCer™ 11:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
True, true. I've added a citation for basketball. I'll work on football. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Map is Incorrect

The map with the colored states is incorrect, it has New Hampshire grey but Vermont green; I think someone got confused as to Dartmouth's location. If it isn't fixed by the time I find myself at a more photoshop friendly computer I'll do it myself. Fuzzy901 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're looking at File:Ivy_League_map.png, I think you are the one confusing Vermont and New Hampshire. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right. I found the actual problem: the map below it places Dartmouth's red dot a little too far west, in Vermont; I assumed the bottom map was correct for some reason. That still leaves a cartographical problem; I'm probably not the first to become confused... Fuzzy901 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivy League championships

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before (a quick look through the archives didn't turn anything up), but why are the champions for football, men's basketball, and men's ice hockey listed here? While those may be three important revenue sports for some Ivy League schools, I'm not sure that justifies this list here. Why list just these three sports? Why not add in women's basketball championships, for example, or lightweight crew? I'd argue that this is just indiscriminate information that needs to be published on the League's own site, and not on Wikipedia. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do it for years, but I'm forgetful and busy. Hockey is listed only because I'm a huge fan. You should totally go for it. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, since no one's objected after a couple of months, I'm going to remove those three sport championships. Esrever (klaT) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify the references to 'hockey' with the modifier 'ice' or 'field'.Pegordon (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Undergraduate vs. graduate enrollment

The Ivy League is more than an undergraduate athletic conference, so I strongly disagree with Cornellrockey's last edit. Why don't we have the info box simply list both undergraduate and graduate enrollment separately? Academic38 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Cornellrockey on this one. Undergrad enrollment is probably the most important number, though perhaps we can recognize total enrollment somewhere else. Esrever (klaT) 17:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Another !vote for including total as a separate entry in the table. Parts of the article are substantially about academics and other non-athletic facets of the schools and this group of them. However, I propose an alternative to "a separate column" for this info. Instead, have two rows in the Enrollment column, or else narrow those columns' headings. The table is already kind of wide (or if it's narrowed, it gets tall with lots of blank space due to wrapping of Motto), so I don't think another large box with just a number in it looks nice.
School Enrollment
Undergrad Total
Foo U 10 11
School Enrollment
Foo U 10 (undergrad)
11 (total)
Either of those saves some screen real estate. DMacks (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not fair to simply list undergraduate enrollment, since it places universities with specialty graduate programs (i.e. Harvard medical school) at a disadvantage to those with large undergrad enrollment . Pillsberry —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

What sort of disadvantage, exactly? Esrever (klaT) 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The disadvantage to the reader is that it makes Cornell seem like a larger university than Harvard or Yale. Simply listing undergraduate studies gives a bias to the universities with larger undergrad enlistment. Pillsberry —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

But graduate students don't play sports, do they? So graduate would be irrelevant, and undergraduate would be the way to go. The Ivy League is about athletics, after all. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Ivy League is not simply an athletic conference, but a union of universities known for their academic excellence. For that reason, graduate enrollment is relevant. Pillsberry —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC).
I disagree somewhat. While the members of the Ivy League may be known for their "academic excellence", that's not the primary purpose of the Ivy League. That its members happen to be old, well-established, and highly ranked doesn't mean that's what's most important, and a connotation is by its very definition not a denotation. But let me put it this way: no one in the "specialty graduate programs (i.e. Harvard medical school)" competes in the Ivy League. I certainly don't think that listing only undergraduate enrolment puts any one institution at a "disadvantage". And with that, I've probably said all I'm going to say here. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no inherent "disadvantage" to being smaller or larger. This article isn't a vehicle to advertise for the 8 schools, so it doesn't really matter if one is perceived to be too large or too small. As others have noted, this is an article about an athletic conference primarily, with some attention paid to what the term Ivy League has come to connote. Esrever (klaT) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If this article is primarily about an athletic conference, I would say that the article's focus is inherently flawed. The idea of the Ivy League, and the identity of its members, was known long before it was an official athletic conference. (I may be beating a dead horse here, as it seems people on both sides are willing to add a listing of graduate enrollment, too. But I'll have to leave that with better Wiki technical skills.) Academic38 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Duh, mooter than I thought. Thanks, Pillsberry. Academic38 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When I read the introduction, it struck me as an unbalanced mix-and-match, talking about undergrad colleges and then comparing university-wide endowments. So I added a sentence about the range of overall enrollments to allow a more accurate perception of the relative sizes of the universities (as opposed to their undergraduate populations). Cbmccarthy (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the enrollment statistics in the table are up to date. I just looked at each school's website. Penn and Harvard have over 25,000 students total. Cbmccarthy (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, to make this a better article, it should discuss at least briefly the great differences between the composition of the various schools. Brown, Dartmouth and Princeton are far-and-away undergraduate institutions, with undergrads comprising 73%, 71% and 67% of their student populations, respectively. (I just went to each university's website, got their latest enrollment statistics and put them into an excel sheet). On the other hand, undergraduates comprise only about 25% of the students at Harvard and 29% of the students at Columbia. At Penn and Yale, undergrads are also the minority, at about 41% in each case. Harvard, Columbia, Penn and Yale have world class law schools, medical schools, business schools, engineering schools, etc. By contrast, Princeton has no professional schools and Brown only has its medical school, founded in 1970 and largely funded by the state of Rhode Island as the defacto state medical college. The cultures of the universities are thus very different. Another way to put the issue: some Ivies (Harvard, Columbia, Penn and Yale in particular) are huge "research" universities and are much more comparable to places like Chicago, Berkeley, etc than each other; whereas others (Dartmouth and Brown in particular) are more comparable to elite liberal arts colleges like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, etc. This should be noted to give a fuller picture of the institutions, especially as Wikipedia is relied upon by readers all over the world who may not have a clue. Cbmccarthy (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

table

Can someone with more experience with wikitables take a look at the one in this article? For some reason, I'm not seeing a divider between Dartmouth and Harvard, and I don't know how to fix it myself. Esrever (klaT) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue of what your talking about, please clarify more? South Bay (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize as I re-read that that it's not very clear. In the table "Members", there's a line dividing all eight schools. The one that I see (and perhaps it's just that WP doesn't display right on my browser/OS) is missing the line between Dartmouth and Harvard. Is it missing for you, too? Esrever (klaT) 22:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I normally use Firefox to view/edit WP, but when I look at the same table in Safari, it looks correct. Guess it's just an error on my end. Esrever (klaT) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, people make mistakes all the time, no worries..South Bay (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I meant more that it seems to be a rendering error. That is, the table renders in Firefox without the divider between Dartmouth and Harvard. I'm curious as to whether anyone else viewing the page in FF is seeing the same problem, or if it's just a problem on my end. I don't make mistakes. ;) Esrever (klaT) 01:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I use Firefox and I have no clue what your talking about.. South Bay (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks correct on my x11-firefox1.5/osx-10.4. DMacks (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Ivy_League_(colloquialism)

I've nominated the article Ivy_League_(colloquialism) for deletion. All the relevant cited notable information is in Ivy_League#Other_Ivies. This article is not about "ivy league" as a "colloquial" term. Its about some vague concept of "prestigious schools" which promises to be a academic booster-magnet --Work permit (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Table again

I am wondering what the inclusion criteria are for the table. Why list the motto? Why not list the endowment size? Why list the nickname? Why not list the number of nobel laureates? Etc. Seems sorrrrrrrt of indiscriminate. Any opinions on this?

I guess my practical suggestion would be to cut it down to the basics of location and size, but then it's not much of a table anymore.... Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think listing undergrad and graduate student body sizes makes a good deal of sense. The motto, not so much. If you want to remove the motto column and replace it with something more "useful" (e.g., endowment size), then I wouldn't really object. Esrever (klaT) 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split and rename article

This is a well written article but there may be a couple of different issues. There's a whole section on the history of the term "Ivy League" and how this term refers to the 8 colleges in general and not just the NCAA's athletic conference. I'd first like to suggest that this section be split off into a separate article since it has more of a historical and cultural nature and not locked into the athletic conference alone. The athletic conference was founded in 1954 while the term Ivy League dates back to the 1930s, so it's obvious that the historic term referring to these 8 colleges, and the cultural connotations involved with the phrase long predates this NCAA conference. Besides, the non-sports meaning of the phrase Ivy League is definitely deserving of it's own article anyway.

I for one was looking for info on Ivy League colleges and this article came up and the opening disambig line says "this article is about the athletic conference." Since I wasn't looking for the athletic conference I went to the disambig page and found nothing worthwhile there either. It was only after resorting to Google that I found my way back to this same article that did have good information about the history of the term Ivy League, way down later in the article where I didn't see it the first time.

Secondly, a serious question about the name of this article. Is this article named properly or does it need to be renamed? I don't know the legally registered trademark but according to the logo, the name of this athletic conference (which is the subject of the article) is "The Ivy League" - not "Ivy League". What is the officially legal name of the athletic conference? If the name of the athletic conference is "The Ivy League" then instead of splitting off the historic and cultural content to a new article, we should keep the historical and cultural content here and move all the athletic specific content (most of this article) to a newly created article with the correct name of "The Ivy League". Not trying to be a trouble maker but IF the word "The" is part of the conference name then it can't just be ignored. There are dozens of articles of tv shows and movies that have needed to be renamed due to this same issue. --Fife Club (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Support I could go either way on the name IF we knew the official name of the NCAA conference, but I totally support splitting off the historical and cultural portion of the term Ivy League in to its own article. For reasons given above, it's a topic deserving of it's own article both on sufficient content and the fact that that content can differ greatly from the main subject of this article. --Fife Club (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The third sentence of the first paragraph of the lede introduces the concept of excellence and elitism. Most of the next three paragraphs discusses non-athletic issues. The entire article is 3500 words. I am confused on why you needed to go "way down later in the article" to find what you were looking for. Of course, if you have a better way to section the article feel free to propose it. However, absent the canonical definition of the ivy league as the sports conference, your proposal for an article on the "historical and cultural nature" of the "ivy league" will devolve into an academic booster magnet and will meet a well deserved wp:afd (as other such "ivy league" spin-off articles have had in the past). I suggest if you feel there is significant historical or cultural information that is needed in this article, then add it (supplying wp:rs).--Work permit (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • btw, no need to support your own proposal :)--Work permit (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see any strong arguments here in favor of splitting this (quite reasonably sized and coherent) article. If the dismbiguation hatnote confused you, why not just propose a change to that? (And regarding the article title, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (articles), which clearly indicates we should stick with the "The"-less title.) -- Rbellin|Talk 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The athletics league and the cultural term refer to one and the same thing, i.e., the 8 schools in question. If you don't like how the information is organized, then propose changes to that, or a re-write of the introductory paragraphs to be more clear about the importance of the two conceptual meanings of the term. (Morethan3words | talk) 20:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. For most people in the world, the Ivy League is a collection of eight historically and culturally elite universities first and an athletic conference second. The name predates the athletic conference, and the universities are linked by much more than athletics. On a daily basis, the Ivy League makes news as a result of its impact on politics, art, literature, and academics; on the contrary, it rarely ever makes sports headlines! I propose creating an Ivy League (athletic conference) article. --71.235.239.166 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
When you say "the universities are linked by much more than athletics", do you mean to say there is a formal link between the ancient eight outside the athletic conference? As far as I have seen, there is none except for the "Ivy Plus" category already in the article. The entire first section of the article is devoted to historical name. Before the formal league, there was an informal athletic association. That's why its called a league--Work permit (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, we do not organize our articles based on how people see them. Just because people think of things beyond athletics when they think of the Ivy League does not change the fact that the League is an athletics association, and there is no other formal connection between the schools and no other way of differentiating them from other schools in America. For example, on this proposed article about the "historical and cultural nature" of the Ivy League, if you talk about the reputation for academic excellence you would have to explain why schools like MIT, Standford, U of Chicago, etc. are not included in the Ivy League. If you talk about the culture of elitism that accompanies the Ivy League, you will have to explain why Tufts, Georgetown, Vassar and other similar schools around the country are not considered part of the Ivy League. The simple truth is, the athletics association is the only way to definitively differentiate the 8 schools of the Ivy League from any other schools in the country, by any metric.
Similarly, you can not talk about the athletics association without talking about some of the other "historical and cultural" connotations the association has taken on. Therefore, in either article being proposed for the split, they would each have to talk about the other to complete the reader's understanding. As such, splitting them makes no sense at all, since there would be so much overlap between the two articles that they would end up being virtually the same article, just with a slightly different focus for each one. (Morethan3words | talk) 18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What makes the Ivy League a little different is the combination of snobbery and academic excellence in the collective (national) psyche. The only school outside the Ivy League with that kind of connotation is, perhaps, Stanford. The phrase 'MIT snob' is about as unlikely as 'Tufts nerd'. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Which schools are comparable in what way is not the point, the fact that there is no metric for the "collective (national) psyche," no clear way of defining an Ivy League school in this way from others is the point. Personally, I grew up and went to college in the Northeast. I would never call Tufts or Georgetown an Ivy League school, because they are not part of athletic association, but I certainly put them on the same plain of snobbery and academic excellence, and conversely I would not put UPenn on that same level, even though it is an Ivy League School. The main point being, if you do not have the athletic association to clearly define what is and what is not an Ivy League school, then how do you define Ivy League schools? There is no clear way of doing so. (Morethan3words | talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You define the Ivy League by the eight schools' self-selection into a single unit that includes meetings of the eight University Presidents and meetings of the eight financial aid directors, for starters. Tufts and Georgetown are not invited to these meetings, and Penn is. Academic38 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the cultural aspects of Ivy League are more important than the sports conference by a large margin, but I don't think that justifies a separate article. It's still the same eight schools. For the record, the school have official ties beyond athletics. Financial aid directors meet regularly to coordinate policy, though they can no longer coordinate offers to individual admittees since the Justice Department shut down that practice. And the University Presidents meet regularly. Academic38 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding meeetings of the presidents, I assume you mean meetings of Council of Ivy Group Presidents, which is is the governing body of the Ivy League athletic conference. What do these presidents and financial aid directors discuss at these meetings, besides common procedures around athletics? --Work permit (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ivy League Presidents have met to discuss divestiture from South Africa, anti-sweatshop codes for university clothing providers, sponsored a study of the success of black students in college, general admission policy (i.e., early admission), how to increase the racial diversity of their faculty; that's what I found from a search of Nexis. Financial aid directors may no longer meet in an all-Ivy group since the feds busted the Overlap group on antitrust charges, it appears from a Nexis search, so I withdraw the claim that they do. Academic38 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Either way, the meeting of those presidents (and the financial aid directors) is a derivation of the athletics association. One of the reasons the financial aid directors would likely have met in the first place would be to discuss the athletics association's rules on recruitment and how they should treat that from a financial aid perspective. The Presidents would likely never have met as just those 8 schools without the athletics association to delineate them early on. That is why splitting the article doesn't make any sense, in either article you have to talk about the athletics association to understand how the 8 schools were originally delineated. (Morethan3words | talk) 15:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any wp:rs sources? I asssume you discovered the Overlap group was not just the ancient eight, but included MIT. On the other issues you mentioned was the discussions limited to the ancient eight, with NO discussion from any other school?--Work permit (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes on reliable sources. I was personally affected by the Overlap Group; see Archive 4. The meetings were indeed just the Ivies, the Council of Ivy Group Presidents. For example, Gene I. Maeroff, "Ivy Presidents Confer on Divestiture," NYT, 6/21/85, p. B3, where the Presidents met with Jesse Jackson on divestiture policy. When does discussion on this proposal end? It's been going a month now. Academic38 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty clear already that there's no consensus to split the article, so I've removed the notice from the top of the article. The discussion can obviously continue here indefinitely if there are other issues of concern remaining. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coming in late but want to be on record. The structure and content of the article is clear. To address the concern that people might not read any further than the disambiguation line, I have rewritten the line to read "This article is about the famous group of colleges, and the athletic conference that gave the group its name" The cultural and popular identify of the group of schools is intertwined with the athletic conference. As for the title, Wikipedia policy does not try to determine the "correct" title, but uses the commonest and best-known name. This is because, in disputed cases, "commonest name" is easier to determine and agree on than "most correct" name. Thus, Samuel Langhorne Clemens redirects to Mark Twain, not the other way around. It is of very little importance because redirects are easily added for any other name. In fact The Ivy League already redirects to Ivy League (disambiguation). Anybody looking for The Ivy League will find what they seek. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(The) Ivy League (colleges) (athletics) (Conference)

(I don't have enough information to Oppose or Support that proposal. Here are some questions and suggestions. On second reading it appears that the "proposal" incorporates some questions so that it, too, is half-baked.)

What is a "formal" league or conference and how does it differ from what the future Big Ten had in 1896 or even earlier?

Similarly, clarify the governance of future athletic relations between the schools by the 1873 conference in Manhattan.

"The": I don't believe it is appropriate to maintain "The Ivy League" and "Ivy League" as separate articles, neither to distinguish an entity whose corporate name begins with "The" (and thereby segregate and focus on sports competition) nor to distinguish the noun from the adjective.

Is there an Ivy League (Athletics) Conference with capital C or AC? Either way, "Ivy League conference" or I.L. athletics or I.L. a.c., without parentheses, may work to distinguish the intercollegiate sports. In turn, where its clear that the article is about intercollegiate sports, it will be appropriate to mention track and field as well as football, and so on. --P64 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I see that this is categorized as a B-class college football article. --P64

Big Ten Conference and Big Ten baseball champions begin in 1896 and thereby cover history under the bold names as well as Big Nine and Big Ten: "The Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives was founded at a second meeting on February 8, 1896.[8] Lake Forest was not at the 1896 meeting that established the conference and was replaced by the University of Michigan. At the time, the organization was more commonly known as the Western Conference, consisting of Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Chicago, and Northwestern." --P64 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No that is not Britannica

Lay off the drugs, that is not Britannica. It's called 1911encyclopedia.org which says(at the top) that it is BASED on 11th edition of Britannica. If you use common sense you will see that this is not a reliable source. It looks like a poor mans wikipedia. Why don't you grab the reliable source it has and put it on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference in question, referring to the founding of Penn, is verbatim from 1911 Britannica as also found here; you haven't given any reason at all to remove the other link you're proposing to remove, from Brown, nor said why you're removing the text about the C of E background of Penn's founders. Please stop reverting and explain why you think it's reasonable to delete these things from this stable and well-sourced part of this article. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The wikitable isn't organizing correctly

If you try to organize the table by numeric value, it only considers the first value. For example, it thinks 700 is greater than 5000 because seven is greater than 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on it at the moment, but Help:Sorting is the starting-point to figuring out the solution. DMacks (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The navboxes at the bottom of this page...

Do they really need that much colour?

In defiance of Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates I'd like to point out these lines from Wikipedia:Navigation templates and ask what others think:

  • Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative
  • There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles

--Paul_012 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

They're all green (no problem there), barring a blue one. Not sure why that is. Internally, they are all in each school's own colors. I don't see any problem with it, if anything, I think it helps to identify the school. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of the color, I updated the color of all the templates from whatever green they'd been using to one drawn directly from the league's logo.
Beyond that, I don't know why the Ivy League page needs all of these navboxes anyway. I imagine anyone who's on this page probably isn't looking to navigate to a particular Ivy League marching band or to a particular head coach's page. Maybe I'm wrong. Esrever (klaT) 16:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Standardize facility sections

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Breadth of championships

I would like to start this off with my opinion that the information is not original research per WP:COUNT. I could recognize the significance of this information if it was presented in an understandable manner. Is this information based on how many different sports each school has won a championship in? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Yes, it's not OR if it's just WP:COUNT, but why is this information being broken out and presented anyway? Why give it any weight at all? Esrever (klaT) 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Founding Date for the University of Pennsylvania

Note 21 has a VERY strong bias to it. According to sometime Penn History Professor Edgar Potts Cheyney, the University did indeed consider its founding date to be 1749 for almost a century. However, it was changed with good reason and primarily due to a publication about the University issued by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The year 1740 is the date of the establishment of the first educational trust that the University had taken upon itself. He states further that, "it might be considered a lawyer's date; it is a familiar legal practice in considering the date of any institution to seek out the oldest trust it administers." He also points out that Harvard's founding date is merely the year in which the Massachusetts General Court resolved to establish a fund in a year's time for a "School or College". As well, Princeton claims its founding date as 1746--the date of its first charter. However, the exact words of the charter are unknown, the number and names of the trustees in the charter are unknown, and no known copy is extant. With the exception of Columbia University, the majority of the American Colonial Colleges do not have clear-cut dates of foundation. (Edgar Potts Cheyney, "History of the University of Pennsylvania: 1740-1940", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1940. 45-52) The idea that the alumni wanted to change the date to "best" Princeton is not grounded in fact and I would like the author of this footnote to provide a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.239.233 (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2013

In the "Pre-Ivy League section, the statement concerning the influence on the "Southern public college movement" is factually incorrect. The flagship universities of the states of North Carolina & Georgia were not founded during the first 2 decades of the 19th century. Instead they were established in 1789 & 1785, respectively. Thus, the text should read something like "...in the decades surrounding the turn of the 19th century..." Fritzn (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Good point! Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for article change to reflect accurate portrayal of rankings.

(Are only US-citizens allowed to edit the main article?)

The 2013 QS world university rankings (800 universities, worldwide, (see: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013 ) and on which the US World News US-only ranking is based) ranks these universities as:
Brown 47
Columbia 14
Cornell 15
Dartmouth 119
Harvard 2
Princeton 10
U. Penn. 13
Yale 8
These are their world-wide ranks, and not their US-only rankings.

The paragraph:

Ivy League schools are viewed as some of the most prestigious, and are ranked among the best universities worldwide.[5] All eight Ivy League institutions place within the top twenty of the U.S. News & World Report 2014 university rankings, including the top four schools and five of the top ten.[6]

should either be reworded to say that they are among the best in the US (not worldwide), and leave the ranking info alone, or the ranking info should be changed to reflect the actual world-wide ranks. (Perhaps the second sentence could read: "All eight Ivy League institutions place within the top quarter of the QS world university rankings, including six of the top twenty and three of the top ten.")

I realize that US citizens are very proud of their Ivy-League universities, but the juxtaposition of the worldwide superiority claim together with the results of US-only rankings shows up to me as misleading and not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.177.241 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that only US-based editors can edit the main article. The article is semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. If you want, you can register an account and make the changes yourself. What you suggest seems fair to me. Esrever (klaT) 20:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth

All 4, Calvinist origins, and the name Eye Vee is in the Roman Numerals for the Arabic number 4, that is IV, pronounced as "Eye Vee", thus the name "Ivy". The inferred privelage is a basic Roman Army "League" with Left flank, Left centre, Right centre, and Right flank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.128.117 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Unsubstantiated Claims

Consider editing due to problems with the following paragraph:

"The Ivies are all in the Northeast region of the United States. Each school receives millions of dollars in research grants and other subsidies from federal and state government."

  1. The apparent topic sentence (first of the paragraph) has nothing to do with the rest.
  2. Ivy League schools receive millions of dollars in research grants (probably billions) --- but so do hundreds of other research universities in the USA. So this is not a very distinctive attribute of them (and no reference is given to support this undistinctive claim).
  3. Research grants are not subsidies, it is misleading to call them such.
  4. The article claims the schools receive "other subsidies from federal and state government." This is completely unsubstantiated, and is worded in an inflammatory manner. It should be removed, unless the article wishes to go into specifics about what subsidies Ivy League institutions receive --- and whether or not these subsidies are comparable to those received by non-Ivy League institutions.

Citibob (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I'd agree it's not a very distinctive claim, as plenty of schools receive lots of money from the feds. But I'm not sure the part about subsidies is inaccurate (financial aid dollars are subsidies, for example), and I certainly don't think it's worded in an inflammatory way. It strikes me as having a pretty matter-of-fact tone. Perhaps others will disagree. Esrever (klaT) 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the statement about research grants is not distinctive; I would imagine that virtually every university receives millions. It adds nothing to the article. I do not understand the "subsidy" statement. Subsidy is generally "money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low." Financial aid is not a subsidy to a school, but rather to the student. Subsidy should be removed or supported. Finally, the "all" in the following is redundant: "The Ivies are all in the Northeast region of the United States." I sought to remove it. Avocats (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

poor students in the Ivy League

User:Tomwsulcer has added information a couple of times about how tough it is for poor students to get into elite colleges and has kindly included references. I've twice removed that information, not because it's not accurate or well sourced, but because it's fundamentally not about the Ivy League. Yes, the Ivy League is mentioned in both the NYT and Time stories s/he referred to, but always in the context of other elite schools (e.g., "the Ivy League and other highly selective schools (emphasis mine) in the Time article). If anything, this usage could be cited as an example of Ivy League being a stand-in for elite, but the articles s/he cites are not specifically about the Ivy League and its admission practices. Esrever (klaT) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ivy League schools are elite institutions. You've removed TWO sources now saying that poor students continue to have major difficulty getting into elite colleges (which include the Ivies). The second source specifically mentioned the Ivy League. Looks like a case of article ownership here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose if I tried to add a third source saying that poor are rare at the Ivies, such as this one, you'd remove it too, on the dubious grounds that the article was talking about elite colleges (a larger set) than just the Ivies, which are clearly elite colleges. Read what it says: "a narrower, more elite group of 28 private colleges and universities, including all eight Ivy League members, researchers at Vassar and Williams Colleges found that from 2001 to 2009, a period of major increases in financial aid at those schools, enrollment of students from the bottom 40 percent of family incomes increased from just 10 percent to 11 percent".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I just think it's fuzzy data is all. I'm not saying that the Ivies aren't elite colleges--far from it. I'm merely noting that it would be better to find a source that indicated the effect that such changes had specifically at the Ivies. Sure, enrollment increased from 10% to 11% at 28 colleges, but what was the increase at the 8 Ivies? Perhaps it went from 10% to 20% (though I think that's unlikely). I think these articles are commenting on a broader societal problem and using the Ivies to reinforce a notion of what "elite" is. We agree on that point. I just think it's disingenuous to keep lumping them all together. I'm interested in how the data disaggregates. Esrever (klaT) 13:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's disingenuous to make an original research conclusion that somehow the eight Ivies, out of a sample of 28 elite private colleges and universities, were somehow different from the other twenty elite schools. If the Ivies were miraculously different, admitting lots of poor students, wouldn't the researchers would have pointed that out? Of course they would, but they didn't, because Ivies like the other elite schools primarily cater to upper class and upper-middle class students from affluent backgrounds. The trend is clear: the proportion of poorer students at top schools has virtually unchanged from 2001-2009, from 10% to 11%, and your removing information with three separate references violates Wikipedia's policy of WP:NEUTRAL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the discussion above is so acrimonious and it would be helpful if both of you could cut out the rudeness and borderline attacks.

In any case, the argument that the references aren't specifically focused on the Ivy League are correct. However, the material does include the Ivy League so it's not an open-and-shut case. The current way in which the material is included in the article - one sentence - seems to be providing this material with the appropriate weight.

A better approach would be to add the material to the general College admissions in the United States article and briefly mention it in this article with a link to the larger, more expansive article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be acrimonious--far from it. I thought I rather clearly and dispassionately explained my position. Apologies if it was misconstrued, as I'm normally quite ready to admit when I've been uncivil. I agree that the material seems best suited to a more general article. Esrever (klaT) 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverting an established user twice, when a one-sentence addition was relevant, well-referenced, can cause testiness. Will heed ElKevbo's suggestions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you!
If you're interested in this specific topic, an article that was published this morning in the Chronicle of Higher Ed describes how the New York Times is going to be creating their own ranking "based on colleges' and universities' ability to attract underprivileged kids." This sounds like it's directly related to the material that we've been discussing so there will certainly be a lot more information on this topic coming out over the next couple of months. ElKevbo (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for sharing article. Will try to use that resource. Yes, the NY Times would do something like that, now wouldn't they? So Timesy of them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I undid your changes, it's true. But I provided a concise, polite, good-faithy (to coin a word) edit summary both times, and when it was clear you disagreed, I brought it to the talk page. I'm sorry if that came across as uncivil. Esrever (klaT) 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I too apologize that I got cranky.--20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Competition and athletics

Jakluge (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Chuck Mercein (Yale) was also on a winning Super Bowl team - he played for the Green Bay Packers in Super Bowl II.

Alphabetical order & bias against Pennsylvania

Why is Princeton placed before Pennsylvania in the listing of schools? This is unique to this article and shows a clear bias toward Princeton. Alphabetically Pennsylvania comes before Princeton since the word University is generally not considered to count in the alphabetization of schools e.g., Oxford University (which is legally the University of Oxford). I refer you to this guide to alphabetization for filing put out by Dartmouth (N.B. Rule 16.) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/recmgmt/forms/FilingRules.pdf Miguel (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how it shows a "clear bias" toward Princeton. Do you think readers will feel somehow more warmly inclined towards Princeton just because it's listed ahead of Penn? Neither of the other things you reference above really matter here. Nobody calls it "Pennsylvania University"—just Penn, UPenn, and the University of Pennsylvania. Dartmouth's thoughts on the matter aren't really relevant, either. "P" comes before "U", and the school is listed throughout the article as the University of Pennsylvania. Thus, Princeton, then University of Pennsylvania. If others here disagree, then certainly they are welcome to chime in on this point. I will defer to consensus. Esrever (klaT) 07:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this a very important issue and it's certainly not something for anyone to get upset about. It is common, however, for "University of" to be ignored when alphabetizing lists of universities. It's not universal and I'm not entirely sure that it's helpful for readers although I understand its appeal especially when working with long lists with a lot of "University of" institutions. I really don't care if that convention is followed here since it's a short list but it's absurd to claim bias for or against one or more institutions based solely on which alphabetization convention is followed here. If it's really a sticking point - which would be ridiculous - then another common conventions is to order the institutions by their (self-claimed and widely acknowledged) founding date. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's biased because even the official Ivy League website alphabetizes Pennsylvania before Princeton. Cf. http://www.ivyleague.com/landing/index Miguel (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you added the POV box back again, the burden is on you: in what way does this represent an actual bias? Esrever (klaT) 14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that there is a long-standing and fierce rivalry between the two schools. It is also common knowledge that Princeton disputes Penn's founding date, which is the date of founding for the earliest trust that it administered. Because of this Penn always precedes Princeton in academic processions. This has been controversial for decades. In light of this well-known tension, I am claiming that placing Princeton before Pennsylvania constitutes bias since: 1.) it places Princeton ahead of Penn on all of the lists on this website, and 2.) because it does not follow the official Ivy League website's alphabetical listing--both on the drop down menu and at the bottom of the main page. (It should also be pointed out that the Ivy League is headquartered in Princeton, NJ. If even they list Penn first alphabetically it seems exceedingly strange that Wikipedia should not do so as well...) Miguel (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The alphabet doesn't have a bias. Who cares if Princeton comes first in academic processions? That has nothing to do with this article, and has nothing to do with the correct order to list the schools alphabetically. Esrever (klaT) 02:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that this article on the Ivy League should not follow the method used to list the schools on the Ivy League's official website? Would you mind explaining that logic? Miguel (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not beholden to what the Ivy League does or doesn't do on their own website. Wikipedia is its own website, with its own rules for how information is organized, displayed, and categorized. Again, this isn't a "bias" against Penn--it's just a matter of alphabetizing. If you can convince other editors that the method of alphabetizing I've suggested is nonsensical, then by all means please do so. Esrever (klaT) 07:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a different method this is understandable. However, would you or one of the other regular editors kindly provide a source from the Wikipedia Manual of Style about alphabetization? I have been unable to find one. On the other hand I have come across a reference, regarding the names of institutions, that Wikipedia usually defers such matters to '"the institution's own usage." It seems odd that without any definitive judgment from Wikipedia on this matter that one would not defer to the institution's own usage.

It also seems odd when the Wikipedia pages for virtually every other athletic conference follows the style convention I have advocated. I have listed a few below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Belt_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Football_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Conference

Miguel (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My best guess is that the "disregard 'University of' for alphabetization purposes" convention is followed in those articles because they each have several "University of __" institutions so the convention makes good sense there. This article only has one "University of __" institution so it defaults to the naive (and arguably more natural for readers and editors who don't often work with lists of colleges and universities) alphabetization scheme that includes that prefix.
Once again, in the absence of any evidence of a nefarious scheme this is purely a matter of style and convention where this is room for reasonable people to come to different conclusions. You're free to advocate that we change the alphabetization scheme used in this article but you'll need to do so with reasoned argument and evidence - and the other articles you've listed above is an excellent start! (However, it might also be instructive to see if there are conferences that only have one or two "University of" institutions to see how alphabetization is handled in those articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I give up. I literally don't care enough about this to keep coming back to this talk page every day to respond. If he's this convinced that the only way Penn will get the respect it deserves on Wikipedia is to list it before Princeton, as if that somehow conveys a privileged place in the universe and will lift Penn to the heights of glory, then by all means let him do it. I find the whole thing absolutely mind-bogglling, as I do so much of what happens on this website. But I guess I'm contributing to that myself. Esrever (klaT) 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have found two other athletic conferences where there is only one school fitting the style "University of" and where the alphabetizing convention I advocate is followed and they are the Mid-East Conference and the Southwestern Athletic Conference. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Eastern_Athletic_Conference and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Athletic_Conference The listing of the former affiliate members of the Northeast Conference also fit this criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Conference The Colonial Athletic Conference also ignores the use of "college" and places the William & Mary at the end of the list; the University of Delaware is near the top and UNC Wilmington is alphabetized by "Wilmington". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Athletic_Association NCAA Division I FCS & FBS Independent Schools are also organized without the listing of either "college" or "university" in their title. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_FCS_independent_schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_FBS_independent_schools It should also be pointed out that the Mountain West Conference alphabetizes the U.S. Air Force Academy by "Air Force" with no regard given to "United States". In light of this new information and the objections of another editor being dropped I am taking the liberty of editing this page according to the alphabetizing standards used on other Wikipedia athletic conference pages as well as according to that used on the official Ivy League website. Miguel (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Why don't you fucking put them in order by year of founding or something and get back to doing something useful, like improving the dysfunctional column widths and purging the absurd overprecision of the enrollment figures? Jeesh, what a worthless dispute. EEng (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in. Esrever (klaT) 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that way Harvard comes first, you see. I suggested it on impulse. EEng (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One can't put the schools in order by year of founding because, in this respect, Penn has another issue. Penn was chartered in 1755, making it the sixth oldest American college, after Harvard (1650), William & Mary (1693), Yale (1701), Princeton (1746) and Columbia (1754). But since 1899, Penn has claimed a founding date of 1740 to place it ahead of Princeton and Columbia. Those two schools still consider themselves to be the fourth and fifth oldest colleges, respectively. But Penn also claims to be fourth oldest, using a convoluted train of logic to connect itself with an educational trust which planned to open a secondary school for Philadelphia boys but failed financially before the school could open.
So switching from alphabetical order to a list by founding date brings another Penn-based controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.43.250.36 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I knew that actually, but just wanted to see how long it would take for someone to mention it. So how about east to west? That way Harvard's still listed first, which is all that really matters. EEng (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
How about ranking by endowment value? 2014 Ivy League football standings? Distance from Harvard Square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.43.250.36 (talk • contribs)
Well, open talk of money is tres gauche, so the endowment thing is a nonstarter. Distance from The Square is too obviously partisan, but surely there can be no objection to using the Hub of the Universe (specifically the State House dome) as our origin. EEng (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) A Back Bay matron told a friend she would be visiting her niece in Cincinnati. "How will you get there?", the friend asked. The matron replied, "We'll be taking the northern route – by way of Cambridge."

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ivy League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any ivy in the Ivy League?

Not to be too snarky but, where's the ivy? There are a large number of photographs of university buildings in this article, not one of which exhibits the eponymous attributes, not at all obviously if at all. Not one ivy-covered hall, much less an ivy-covered professor. If it's a joke, it's a good one. If it's not, then someone ought to rectify it. Challenge issued. 68.2.235.85 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. presidents in the Ivy League: should clearly state subset of college graduates

"Of the forty-three men who have served as President of the United States, fourteen have graduated from an Ivy League university." This should read something to the effect of: Of the thirty-two college graduates [...] for accuracy / specificity. I'd make the change but unsure of convention for counting them. Jeremy Cahill (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ivy League. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivy_League/Archive_4&oldid=1136830332"