Talk:University of Houston/Archive 4

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

|}

No link to Houston?

Since first wikifying the lead section of this article back on Aug 29 (in particular, adding links to it — the diff makes it very hard to see what I actually changed, so see the before and after versions, and also this discussion elsewhere in which the changes are made more obvious), and being completely reverted by User:RJN, I've tried several more times to wikify less and less (although the last two are similar), each time being reverted by the user who has patrolled this article the most closely recently, User:RJN (my last edit has not been reverted yet, but I expect it will). I readily admit that my original wikification was rather "liberal", but the subsequent ones seem entirely reasonable to me, and consistent with relevant guidelines. RJN disagrees, so I invite him/her to explain carefully on this page why we shouldn't have any of the links I've been trying to add. I will try to explain why I believe we should, and we'll see what happens. (For additional context, see my related posts] to RJN's talk page, and RJN's post to mine.) In short, I do not believe that RJN's views on linking in the lead are "mainstream"—or even consistent with relevant guidelines in some cases—so I'm hoping that more people will discuss this here who have a more direct interest in this particular article. - dcljr (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(Oops. Those first two mentions of RJN, and links to his user page, above weren't really how I had planned to leave this comment. I hadn't noticed until now that when I changed the earlier reference to cite him/her by name, I didn't reword the later one. The result might have been a slightly more "ranty" sounding post than I had intended. Oh, well... - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

I have explained on your talk page and on multiple edit summaries of this article why those items you have linked should not be included. You have already explained on my talk page and on various other talk pages (in order to change "policies" and/or "guidelines" to your liking) why they should be included. I also believe you are taking these "guidelines" (such as WP:LEAD and WP:LINK) too extreme and out of context. Remember these "guidelines" are to guide editors, they are not "policies" that must be enforced—they are merely to guide. (The punchline: Stop citing the "guidelines" in your edit summaries. I am familiar with editing Wikipedia and its "guidelines." You don't need to cite these "guidelines" to me each time you are trying to make a point.) –RJN (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If you don't like people quoting guidelines at you, might I suggest that you not make your opening talk-page comment on a matter of dispute consist of 15% original text and 85% material quoted from guidelines. - dcljr (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You first posted on my talk page citing general guidelines regarding wikilinking. I only cite other guidelines when people them at me. I have never—in my six years of editing wikipedia—have cited any policy or general guideline when discussing on talk pages. –RJN (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Until now, you don't seem to have dicsussed much at all on talk pages (at least for many months). Maybe that's part of the problem. (See my other comments below for more about this.) BTW, the specific guideline I want to "change to my liking", as you put it, was apparently the result of a "unilateral" edit (characterization by someone in old archived discussion) by a user some time back, and has been the source of several vehement disagreements by other editors ever since. It's not like it's just me who has a problem with that guideline... - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be disturbed to not see a blue link highlighting something in each sentence. I see your view of linking as merely highlighting important words and/or items so that they will stand out. If you must insist on an item-by-item explanation, then I will provide one in the near future. In the mean time, I have linked Houston in the "Campus" section of the article where it has most "context." It seems like you want Houston to be linked in the lede section as a highlight (to make it stand out) in order to let people know that the university is in Houston, and/or to make a manual or guidebook (per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) out of the first three sentences in the first paragraph of the lede. As I have mentioned many times before, it is preferred that only UH- and UHS-related items are wikilinked in the lede section to avoid distractions to non-related articles. The lede section is an overview of the article, and it does not need a sea of blue links for distractions to non-related articles not pertaining to the university, or the university system. Selected wikilinks to non-UH related articles are present in other sections of the article, just not in the lede. By the way, it used to bother me to not see a blue link in every other sentence when I first started editing Wikipedia back in 2005. I am much more conservative in placing wikilinks now because I want articles to look professional, not a sea of blue links that distract readers. –RJN (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe anyone reading at all carefully through the discussions I've been having at Wikipedia talk:LINK will notice that "not seeing blue" (much less in every sentence) is not my concern here. Not at all, in fact: other people have responded to my concerns citing purely visual concepts such as "sea of blue", or "blue link in every other sentence", but I have not, AFAIR, replied in any similar manner. I want "Houston" linked in the lead (and either "university" or "research university", as well), because it/they are highly relevant to placing the University of Houston in context as a university in the city of Houston. The principle here is not that people won't know what a university is, or what Houston is, but that since those two things most directly characterize UH, they are two things that readers will be "relatively likely" to want to get more information about while reading the lead (after all, even if most readers will know of Houston, no one will know everything in the Houston article.) And this principle extends to all other WP articles, not just articles similar to this one. I can't tell you the number of times (hint: it's a big number) I've followed such "contextual links" out of the lead sections of articles I'm looking at here at WP. It's a major convenience, if you happen to see something you want to check out right off the bat. I still don't get why "seeing blue" is a compelling argument against providing such links, especially since a huge percentage of "substantial" WP articles do exaclty what I'm talking about (and not just the ones that haven't been edited in years; I've used the most recent featured articles to illustrate the same point). - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For Dcljr's information (in case you didn't know): The University of Houston is a state institution, and the University of Houston System is an agency in the executive branch of the state of Texas. UH and UH System are not institutions/agencies of the city of Houston. As such, there is no "context" in linking Houston in the lede section to distract readers. People come to this article to read about UH and possibly other university-related articles, not a broad article on a geographical area. If someone wanted to read about Houston, he or she would have found the article prior to landing on an article about UH. –RJN (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It is risky to try to determine the exact reason "people come to" an article, since there are many different ways of doing so (from a keyword/title search; from other articles via links in running text, lists, or infoboxes; from categories; etc.), and many different ways to use the information that will be found there (especially in such a large article as this one). It follows that there is not a single type of linking style that will suit everyone's needs. Surely, though, a more "liberal" linking style would tend to suit more people's needs, right? Regarding the first part of your comment, using a fact about UH and the UH System that most people will not know when coming to the article, as a justification for limiting links out of the article (in particular, the lead), is, well, I would say, "problematic". - dcljr (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the "mainstream" view of wikilinking on Wikipedia to is haphazardly link (highlight) at least one word in each sentence. I disagree with the "mainstream" mentality of haphazardly wikilinking (highlighting) a word or item every sentence, or every other sentence. I only wikilink something that will add value to the article that the person came here for. Someone who comes here to read is interested in finding out more about the University of Houston. He or she would not come on this article to find more information about golf, basketball, football, public university, Texas, pharmacy, law, optometry, etc. –RJN (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if you look at the best examples of our articles (FAs), I think you will find a higher level of linking than you are allowing for in this article (even considering lead sections in particular). - dcljr (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that if links really were made "at random" in running text, that would be distracting. But that's not at all what we're talking about. The kind of linking I'm especially pushing for (i.e., more in line with my 2nd and 3rd wikification attempts) is so widespread in WP that I can't believe anyone having seen even a small handful of WP articles would not understand that links are simply there if you need them (as opposed to some kind of "siren song" enticing people to follow them). And while people might not come here looking for more info about those other things, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't want to leave here looking for more info about them. - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You cited WP:LEAD#Contextual links, "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that define the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."

The University of Houston is a state research university, and is the flagship institution of the University of Houston System.

The opening sentence of this article, as noted above, meets the "guidelines" (suggestions) you had cited. The wikilinking of the University of Houston System links to a "broader topic that defines the article's topic and places it into the context where it is notable." Also, the "guidelines" said should provide, not a must. Again, these guidelines are to guide editors—they are not policies that are forced upon and policed. Guidelines are just suggestions. You should stop reading too much into these guidelines (suggestions) as if they are policies that articles must follow.–RJN (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The opening sentence now has that link, yes. Before your recent rewrite, it was in the second sentence. This is hardly a vast improvement. For the record, I prefer the original wording. Why you needed to rewrite it in this way eludes me, unless you were specifically trying to avoid linking to Houston in the opening sentences. (It's hard not to interpret it this way, seeing as how you made the change a mere 75 minutes after my Oct 16th post to your talk page [which, BTW, I acknowledge should not have said "comply" in the second to last sentence—that was too strong a word, I realized later—I just never got back to change the wording]. If that really was a good-faith attempt to address my concerns, all I can say is, it wasn't successful.) So now, not only is this lead's linking different from almost every other university article, the actual text is very different, as well. (Not that it has to be the same, but why make it different?) I'm sure you won't be at all surprised to learn that I don't see this as an improvement.... (Oh, and BTW, the MOS and its subpages are a little more than merely "suggestions". As I implied in my 2nd comment on your talk page, there are reasons to not follow guidelines, but they really should be compelling reasons, especially when someone disagrees with you. I don't yet see your argument as compelling. Apparently, neither does anyone else who's commented here. So far.) - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you be patient with me in the future, instead of complaining about me on Wikipedia's project pages and other users' talk pages in hopes of developing an alliance to side with your views. I don't appreciate the way you have handled this situation, such as when you notified people on a Wikipedia's project talk page to "watch" this article and its discussion. What did you want them to watch the article and/or discussion for? This disagreement is between you and I, and you could have brought it to the article's talk page. I would have been very receptive had you posted on the article's talk page in the first place, instead of complaining on other talk pages and directing them to my talk page.–RJN (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Patient? Like waiting for 6 weeks for you to discuss the issue anywhere except in edit summaries? (Note: repeatedly reverting a user's edits with the only explanation being given in edit summaries is seen by some people as a bit rude. I won't bother mentioning any guidelines or policies in this context....) I and others repeatedly pointed you to the discussion we were having at Wikipedia talk:LINK. I even tried to explain to you why I was discussing it there. The "other users" you're alluding to (AFAICT) are the users that were talking about the issue at that WP talk page. So don't try to make it sound like I was just running around trying to rally random people to a cause. I've been trying to get people (not least, you) to discuss the real issues that this disagreement has raised: how much linking should we have, to what kinds of things, where (i.e., in the lead or not, first mention or not), and based on what general principles. If you couldn't be bothered to elucidate your views on the matter, that's not my problem. Furthermore, when I resumed discussing it on your talk page, after nearly a month of getting no further comments from you (and no encouraging changes at the UH article), you still didn't reply directly to me. I didn't want this to become a "personal" thing—I didn't at the beginning, and I still don't want to now, if I can help it—but if you think I have behaved badly in this matter, I would have to say, "Right back at ya." From my perspective, any problems between us at this point were only helped along by your refusal to engage in any real discussion on the matter (forget about consensus building...). My second and third attempts at wikifying the lead are clear evidence that I was trying to come to a compromise. I'm not sure what you can point to that shows you trying to do the same. (And please don't say that you don't have to seek a compromise...) As for your "watch" remark, I believe you're confusing my post to the UH Project's talk page with my post to WPT:LINK. The latter comment was intended to discourage people who had already engaged in a long discussion over at WPT:LINK from coming over here to rehash exactly the same arguments before anyone else (including you) had a chance to even start discussing my comment. I knew they would weigh in eventually, of course; I just wanted other people to have their say first. (Notice how I waited for a week before following up here myself?) The former comment, at the UH Project, simply pointed people to this page with a very brief (and "non-inflammatory", I might add) summary of my concerns; I posted it there because I feared that no one except you and the WPT:LINK folks would comment here, and I wanted a larger cross-section of views from people actually interested in this article in particular (regardless of whether they agreed with me or not). BTW, you will note that only one other person (other than you, I, and some discussants from WPT:LINK) has actually commented here. I take that to mean that my aforementioned "fear" was actually well founded. - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ever read entries in professional encyclopedias on CDs back in the 1990s and early 2000s? If you remember, these professional encyclopedias only have links within articles that are related to the topic. They didn't have links to individual words that might be ambiguous to readers, or links to articles not related to the topic in question. With that said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Having an article with sea of blue wikilinks is very unprofessional. In addition, sea of blue links are very distracting to the eyes of readers. –RJN (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIR, I looked at some articles in the encyclopedia component of Microsoft Bookshelf for Windows 95 at around the time you're talking about. Does that count? I didn't use it very much, maybe because it just wasn't "much fun" (too few links? :-P). In any case, I don't need to have seen them. I've seen WP, and what it can be. I've seen your level of linking, and I disagree with it. If some other encyclopedias linked the way you do, I disagree with them, too. Has this pushed the issue any closer to consensus? No. I would say that being "professional looking" is a fine goal, but not at the expense of other concerns like "usability" or even "convenience". (As I've said several times before [see links in my original comment above], not having a link where you "expect" one to be is frustrating.) - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you change your mentality about haphazardly wikilinking (highlighting) items you deem important that need to stand out. It's perfectly fine to read a few sentences without seeing a blue link. This is not the mid-2000s anymore when wikilinking was encouraged to the point where editors were linking at least a word in a each sentence. Only wikify items that are pertinent to the topic of the article. This article is not underlinked, but is linked to certain pertinent articles that would add value to the readers. None of the items you had wikified provide any value to the readers who are first introduced to an overview of this article. If anything, they are merely distractions and not friendly to the eyes of readers! –RJN (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(I will respond to this particular reply later, when I have more time. I do want to get to specifics about my proposed links... - dcljr (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

Let me remind you again that these "guidelines" (suggestions) that you have been citing/trying to change are merely suggestions! You should not read too much into it. I am aware of these "guidelines" (suggestions) for editing, but I don't take them word for word as policies to enforce on articles or to police on other editors. I refer to the "guidelines" and—most importantly—use common sense when editing and formatting articles. These guidelines are generic suggestions for guiding editors, they are not policies! (The punchline: Stop citing them as a way to force articles and/or editors to comply! Each article is unique in its own form, and will not fit with all generic guidelines.) –RJN (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, guidelines are exactly that, not rules set in stone. But unless we have some reference to what they say, we are left with the whims and caprice of individual editors, which they can try to justify or rationalise at great length if they wish, including via unsupported assertions about what will supposedly "distract" or alternatively "add value" for readers (as a whole, without differentiation between them). However, the idea that you should not, for example, link Houston - or even mention it in the first sentence - in an article about a University in Houston will, I am fairly sure, be an odd one to most readers and editors. This article was deemed a "good" article with a lot of these links. People who contribute a lot to an individual article are valued and may make genuine and extensive improvements to it but they can also slightly fall into the trap of assuming ownership of pages - which, you will note, refers to a policy, not simply a guideline ... N-HH talk/edits 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A long speech for a "very busy" student "with an exam coming up". Bureaucratically speaking, WP:GUIDES says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though ...". So if your expertise on professional linking standards really outweighs everyone in the "mainstream", then why don't you come to the Manual of Style after your exam, so we can all learn from you? Art LaPella (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a "good article" article that I think is "underlinked" in the lede section, even for my standards: Tropical Storm Aletta (1982). This article was recently reviewed and awared "good article" status. I would have linked tropical storm and tropical depression so that readers who are unfamiliar would find more information about them. For the record, I have not edited the article. Just wanted to throw an example to inform that I am not the only person being selective about wikilinking, especially in the lede section. Some might say that the article on Tropical Storm Aletta is not "following guidelines." Citing that the UH article was deemed "good" with overlinking does not have merit. Wikipedia has matured, and we have moved on from linking (or highlighting) items in each sentence that are not related to the topic in question. –RJN (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all find examples of "good" articles that show one thing or the other - I was talking about this article, and the fact that it was agreed with a clear opening sentence and links that you have now changed. No, that does not prove anything definitively, and, of course, it is fine to alter any part of a good or even featured article, but it does count for something. Beyond that, you now have several people contesting what you have done, and no one supporting you. Finally, from your last sentence, can I conclude that your opinion is that "Houston" is not related as a topic to "University of Houston"? Really? As I say, even those who veer more to delinking that I would prefer - let alone the vast majority of other editors and readers - would, I suspect, want and expect, in an article such as this, an early and accessible link to the page covering the city where the university is located. No one is asking for links to obviously unrelated or irrelevant terms and topics or disputing broader principles about linking. That is not what we are discussing here. N-HH talk/edits 18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant the lede section should only include links to subarticles where readers will find more detailed information pertaining to the University of Houston. I believe the link to the Houston article in the infobox is adequate. –RJN (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It apears that every major university article within Wikipedia has the city and state linked within the lead section, many have the country. I would think that readers are expecting the link. Note that every WikiProject University featured article includes the city link [1]. I'm fairly certain that if the UH article was being reviewed for FA status, the reviewers would request that the location city be linked in the lead. I recommend that the links to city and state be restored in the lead for article consistency. Postoak (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The page had a link when it passed GA. One editor took it out, reordered the sentence and has since posted walls of text on the talk page about it. Four editors have since come by to contest or query that action. I spy consensus and veto/ownership issues. One holdout "belief" that the lead should only contain links to "subarticles" about the university or that the infobox link is enough is, er, not enough I'm afraid. I am restoring the link, as well as links to Texas, and clarifying that this is a US university. Obvious perhaps, but clarity helps. N-HH talk/edits 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to Texas was not there, so there was no need to restore it! I had "reordered" the sentence so it would flow better and provide the context that UH is the flagship institution of the University of Houston System. (This is more important and provides much more value to the opening sentence!) So what if the link was there when the article passed GA? This argument has no merit. This article was granted GA before overlinking was discouraged! You have completely taken this discussion out of contexts with your recent edits and objections! –RJN (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And now you're going to edit war everything back, one step at a time? And do you here mean the royal "we"? As noted, consensus is entirely and utterly against you. You have been shown enough tolerance and time over these admittedly fairly minor points. Some more specific points for your consideration -

1. The link to Texas was also part of this discussion.

   The link to Texas was not part of this discussion. The only time the link to Texas was ever brought up was by Postoak. We need to stop the obsession with linking city, state. Linking Houston is enough, but the link to Texas is not warranted because it is two-level above from the topic domain! The infobox provides quick information which has a link to the Houston article, and this is adequate enough for the infobox. The link to Houston is more appropriate and "relevant" in this section of the article. In addition to the "campus" section, the link to the Houston article is present in the infobox--two places linking the Houston article is more than adequate. I call this a compromise! –RJN (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Without a link to Carnegie Foundation, those unfamiliar with that body will have no sense of what this accreditation/description might mean.

   The lede section provides an overview of the article, and information in the lede are repeated later in the article. The link to Carnegie Foundation is linked in the "Ranking" section of the article where it is most appropriate, or "relevant"! The link of Carnegie Foundation in the "Ranking" section is a compromise, even though we were only discussing a link to Houston. Let's not bombard readers in the lede section during the brief overview of the article! –RJN (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3. The sentence that I reformulated - "it is Texas's third-largest university of nearly 40,000 students" - makes no sense, since it suggests that, out of Texas's universities with that number of students, it is the third largest.
4. Saying it is a US university does not mean that it is a federal institution, it just means it's a university in the US. Information that is worth imparting fairly early on, one would have thought.

   ..."a U.S. state university" or a "US university" implies that UH is a national university. In the US, there are national universities (UH is a state institution). I normally don't do this, but other US articles on university don't call state universities "U.S. state university" or "US university". This implies that UH is a university of the US (a national university), instead of a state-level university. We do things a bit differently here in the US. –RJN (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Very gracious of you to "agree" to put a link in the infobox, but everyone else doesn't have to ask your permission and get your approval to make an edit that goes beyond what you might happen to prefer.

   I call it a compromise with Dcljr for linking Houston in the infobox and in the "campus" section of the article. Dcljr wanted Houston linked in both the lede and infobox. Having Houston linked in the "campus" section and Carnegie Foundation linked in the "ranking" section mean that I have compromised with you. –RJN (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why editing here, even to make the smallest changes, is such a waste of time when you come up against the stubborn lone warrior for the Right Way To Do Things (aka "My Way", even if everyone else disagrees with me). N-HH talk/edits 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have compromised with you and Dcljr by putting links to Houston and various other items you deem "relevant." (Yes, I put my punctuation inside the quotation mark because that is the American way to do it!) You, on the other hand, have not been compromising with me and just placing links wherever you feel is "relevant." Instead, you have introduced more linking than what this dicussion was originally about! You have completely taken this discussion out of context with your recent edits and objections! I would suggest you stick to the original disussion of the "No link to Houston?" posted by Dcljr. –RJN (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can't be bothered to go into a threaded point-by-point refutation, but will respond as follows: there has been no real compromise on anything - even if we were to assume that compromise is what should be happening between one person who "believes" one thing, and persists in restating their position over and over again, and everyone else who disagrees with them. It is both allowed and common practice - even preferred under FA practice - to link in both the lead and subsequently in the main body. Your simply saying "I don't think we should, here" is getting very dull. To the extent that there has been compromise, it is to a wording and form that you have unilaterally deemed to be such and which barely deviates from your initial position (hence, technically, not a compromise at all).

Anyway, yes, the link to Houston - which we still do not have in the lead - was the springboard for this, but other linking points, including Texas, have been raised, here and previously. The title of a thread does not limit the issues under debate. In any event, you simply reverted every single thing I did, rather than engage with each one. And when it comes to English language, you are flat wrong - saying "US university" or "Texas university" is a fairly open description, and is not limited to meaning it is a US federal university or a Texas state-run university; it can equally suggest that it is a university in one or other of those geographic areas. Finally, a sentence that, as noted, says "Texas's third-largest university of nearly 40,000 students" - which you reverted in your staged but blind revert - is still nonsense. But hey, you know best. All yours. I know I keep pointing you to it, but you have read WP:OWN though, haven't you? You do realise that this is a collaborative venture, not your personal website, right? N-HH talk/edits 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have linked Houston in the lede section of the article, even though I disagree with it. –RJN (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I guess you changed your mind, huh? I've replaced the link. I can see that I'm going to have to open an RFC about this.... - dcljr (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rfc: Should lead section text link to Houston article?

The following discussion is an archived RFC discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was Link, and the discussion was closed per WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the University of Houston article link to Houston in the text of the lead section (i.e., is a link in the infobox at the top of the article not sufficient)? dcljr (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. Please see section immediately above for additional context. (Note: Although this has been discussed here before, I don't think it has received a broad enough cross-section of views. I'm hoping more people will weigh in who have not discussed this particular issue previously.) - dcljr (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it should be linked in the lead! I don't even understand why this is such a big deal or why they question has even been asked as this is incredibly common and probably even a best practice. ElKevbo (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The question has been asked because the one user who keeps removing the link appears to be alone in thinking that it should not be there. Frankly, I wanted to see if anyone else would take his position on this issue. - dcljr (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be linked in the lead. I looked at several other universities: it is common practice. I think a link to the physical environment is useful and to be recommended. jmcw (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Link: Ofcourse it should be linked. That's what links are for. The reader would get help navigating to know more about that place. It is being done every where not only in universities but also in all other articles. Can you tell what the other editor's rationale is? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Link Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of an RFC. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

• Khan, Sam. "UH takes a step toward its stadium." Houston Chronicle. January 9, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tier one stuff

There are a number of references to UH as being a "Tier one" university, and I'm not sure of the validity of the claim. Tier one is already considered to be a vague assertion with variable attributes. The source of this claim is the Carnegie rating, which is definitely important, but other standards for attributing Tier One status include (unsurprisingly) US News Rankings, something that UH is severely lacking in. This factoid of Tier one status is being promoted everywhere with a kind of circular logic that never actually defines Tier one status, or does so only by looking at the metrics that UH performs well in (Carnegie and Research funding) while ignoring others (USNews ranking.)

There are sources out there that do not agree with this assesment, such as http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/higher-education/texplainer-whats-a-tier-one-university/ which describes UT, A&M, and Rice as the only clear tier one universities.

I think that it would be a good idea to clean up that statement. UH should be proud of the Carnegie ranking, but the Tier one status is more than questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.240 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts. First, the Carnegie Classifications are not rankings; they are a way of classifying institutions using several different metrics (enrollment, degree offerings, etc.). The original classifications had unfortunate language that implied that they were a ranking system but terms like "Research I" have been deprecated for decades. Second, the idea that universities are Tier X institutions seem to be perpetuated and documented primarily by ranking systems, particularly the US News & World Report rankings. If that is the source of this claim then that should be clearly stated and referenced. Otherwise, whatever evidence is being used to substantiate this claim should be made clear or the claim should be removed. ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, no link to Houston in lead

Well, looky there. The lead section has somehow reverted back to having only the links that User:RJN wants there. This despite the fact that every other person who has commented here has said the lead should to link to Houston. Funny, that... - dcljr (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RJN: I'm reverting you; please come to this page to discuss. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you NOT READ the paragraph in its entirety? I have cut and paste below the paragraph for you to read carefully.

The University of Houston (UH) is not a multi-campus university; it does not have a "main campus" or any branch campus. The University of Houston–Clear Lake (UHCL), the University of Houston–Downtown (UHD), and the University of Houston–Victoria (UHV) are separate universities; they are not branch campuses of UH.

When these wikilinks to UHCL, UHD, and UHV are placed in this paragraph under the "Campus" section of the UH article, they might appear to readers at a quick glance (since they are highlighted in blue) that these are campuses of UH; however, UHCL, UHD, and UHV are not campuses of UH (they are separate and distinct degree-granting universities)! I have explained my removal of these links under the "Campus" section of this (UH) article. The links to University of Houston System (UHS) are provided throughout this article, which UHCL, UHD, and UHV fall under. UHCL, UHD, and UHV are not part of UH, but they are part of UHS. UHS and UH are not the same thing; however, UH is part of UHS. Placing wikilinks to these universities that are not campuses of UH under the "Campus" section would cause confusion that UHCL, UHD, and UHV are campuses of UH, which they are not. In the UHS article, the links to these three separate and distinct universities are linked appropriately. Linking these three in this article, especially under the "Campus" section, is not appropriate. –RJN (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to shout. I was just writing on your talk page since your edit summary indicated you would not engage on this one but happened to notice this just before posting. Here's what I had:

Hi, thanks for giving your reason for deleting blue links. I'm going ask you to please revert yourself, since the blue links do not, in fact, "make it appear from a quick glance that UHCL, UHD, and UHV are campuses of UH." The text very plainly says they are not.

I added the blue links because I wanted to see those articles; I believe other readers might also enjoy the convenience of links instead of having to look up the separate articles. Links are an integral part of the Wikipedia system that helps readers navigate with ease to learn more. No more confusion will come from these links than from the ones to pikas and hares at Rabbit.

Those 3 campus are presently not blue-linked at all. Please remedy that. Thanks, and cheers! Yopienso (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You just referred "those 3 campus" in your response above. Again, they are not campuses of UH; they are stand-alone universities. UHCL, UHD, and UHV confer their own degrees; they are not part of UH. –RJN (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So I did--also said "3 campus," singular; obviously I got distracted and made a mistake. Please pardon. I meant, of course, none of those 3 universities has a blue link on the page. Please remedy that. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Gotta say, though, that every university is/has a campus! Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, RJN. Please tell me what this means: "One level above and one level below related wikilinking are preferred. These 3 links are neither one above, or one below; they are links to articles unrelated to UH." I can make no sense of it.

It would be good of you to engage on this page for discussion and to leave the edit summaries for summarizing rather than defending your edits.

Please respond to my example at Rabbit or to this more pertinent example:

In 1931, the rest of the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station was transferred to the college, and the Alaska Territorial Legislature changed the name in 1935 to the University of Alaska. As the university began to expand throughout the state, the Fairbanks campus became known as the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1975; the two other primary UA institutions are the University of Alaska Anchorage and the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau.

These are the main stand-alone universities within the University of Alaska system. Note they are all blue-linked without fear the reader will mistake UAA or UAS for satellite campuses of UAF.

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the three links in question under the "Institutional structure" section of the article. There should only be ONE instance of wikilinking these 3 items, and they are best wikilinked under this section of the article. There is no need to wikilink an item more than once, other than in the lead section. I call this a compromise. –RJN (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compromise. :-) Please check a typo that left out the word "Lake". Yopienso (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Founding date

Does anyone have a source for the alleged founding date, March something, 1927? It was March 7 but anonymously changed (without explanation) to March 8. The cited references do not give a date (one of them is even a bad link). ubiquity (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

March 7 is correct, here is a ref. [2]Postoak (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is UH Sugar Land a "branch campus" or not?

There seems to be a contradiction in the article. In the "Other campuses" section, the following is stated:
"The University of Houston Sugar Land is a multi-institution teaching center in Sugar Land that is a branch campus of the university."
Only a few lines further down, in the "Institutional structure" section, it reads:
"UH is not a multi-campus university; it does not have a "main campus" or any branch campus."

I tried editing the "Institutional structure" section some months ago to eliminate the disparity, but my edit was reverted. 173.173.120.49 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)