Talk:University of Rochester/Archives/2013

To Do List

Well I've done what I can do help improve this article, including a bunch of major reorganizations, new sections, pictures, etc. However, this article is still lacking in some areas, especially the History section. I'm not especially well versed on the university's history and I'm not exactly patient enough to sift through the 39 chapter compiled history of the university, which can be found here [1], to produce a nice encyclopedic section. If anyone is more knowledgeable (and preferrably has a ready list of good sources to cite from), PLEASE expand this section. Oh and any photographers with pictures they are willing to contribute? UR is pretty...some of it anyway:-P. We should try to show it off some. That's all for now, thanks! -Cquan 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can help with the history...you just need to give me a little bit of time since Spring Quarter just started and I don't know how bad operations management is going to be! Capricorn74 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey whoever wrote under 'overhaul' is right the passage about the Scrote needs to go back up. Rochester is a great university and the myth of the Scrote is a huge part of that for current students. Save the Scrote! I think Nick Sorosky is the guy to contact, he's the one that was in the campus times article, I think he's a sophomore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.197.45 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The section this "myth" was inserted in is called "traditions," not random myths. Also, searches of the UR, SA and campustimes web spaces turned up nothing about it. Where's this article? Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OVERHAUL

ok i just redid A LOT of stuff in the article...hopefully for the better. i really think this should look like a more comprehensive article instead of just a list of figures from the web site, so if anyone else wants to help, PLEASE DO. i've done my best to make a structure that i think should work, so please help fill in the sparse areas.Cquan 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey someone removed the Scrote article that was up! I really liked that one, is it to recent to be up yet or what, I know it doesn't seems like important news to alumni but we students love talking about the Scrote. Send an email to whoever posted that passage and have them put it back up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.197.45 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ENDOWMENT

The most recent endowment figures are 1.4 billion, here is the link

http://www.rochester.edu/giving/endowment/

editing it with new 2007 figure of 1.77 billion taken from fiscal year 2007 results (http://www.rochester.edu/endowment/) Jamesofur (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Campus Setting

We SHOULD be listing both urban and suburban since the eastman school, which is part of UR is in the city, and since the river campus is more suburban.

A recent edit changed the schools surroundings to "URBAN", since the campus is "in the city". Since UR's facilities are a bit spread out, let me clarify:

• The Eastman School of Music campus is definitely URBAN: it's in the middle of downtown Rochester.
• The River Campus, Laser Lab, and Med Center/Strong Hospital--a combination which accounts for the vast majority of the school--are all suburban.
• Memorial Art Gallery is closer to downtown, but I'd still probably call it suburban.

Perhaps we should consider listing both URBAN and SUBURBAN with a footnote? -- Ventura 22:23, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC) Officially, the campus is designated as residential urban / suburban. --Brendotroy 21:29, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

---

The campus is URBAN try search for SUBURBAN in wikipedia outside city limit not where there are no tall building.It is in the city

actually the suburban article includes areas on the outer periphery of a city. the river campus is less than a mile from henrietta, which is definitely a suburb of rochester. the density of housing and buildings, another factor for distinguishing urban from suburban, is much less around the river campus than it is in the "urban" downtown. the river campus itself is definitely suburban in character since most of the campus isn't permeated with city streets.

Famous Alumni

Here is a good resource for famous alumni: famous alumni. Will add some that are there, but not on the page, as I get a chance. --Brendotroy 16:16, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Joel Seligman

Um, I think that link needs to be changed... --Briangotts 28 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)

the questionable page is gone now and replaced with a good biographical page. User:Cquan

...most of which was plagiarized directly from other websites, so is a copyright violation. I've removed it. Please don't do that. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)

alright, should be better now.User:Cquan

info box

I'm not sure how to fix it, but someone should fix the info. box because it doesnt have the president' name lsited and has provost as a category but does not have provost CHarles Phelps listed.

A useless comment

As a student here I find it necessary to point out that although the official translation is "always better," and nobody on campus bothers to dispute this, "better things" is a more accurate translation of the motto..... Hmm, that is all. ozy` talk 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not really correct. Meliora is the comparative degree of bonus, which means "good". The literal translation of meliora is, therefor, "better". As Latin scholars know, there is a great deal of liberty which can be taken in translating the Latin language. Therefor, "better things" is not more "accurate" than "always better".

Us News and World Report

Should we mention that UofR is 32 on US news and world report What section should it be in? --DrewWiki 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Meloria whatever people feel it means is not meant to be snobby but a drive to yourself to always be better as in a humbling trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.84.112 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"UR" versus "U of R"

Someone has edited the article to suggest that the school is informally called "UR." Someone else had edited the article to say "URochester." I work for the University and have lived in the city for more than 25 years, and I've only heard folks call it the U of R. Unless I'm completely wrong, we should change this back. Anson2995 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience as an alumnus, I've seen/heard it referred to as both UR, U of R, University of Rochester, but never URochester. Leuko 02:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an alum as well (the editor in question who changed it back to UR) and I've never heard URochester by anyone or anything related to the university...only UR, U of R or even more informal stuff (the ROC, etc...). The school uses the UR thing very liberally for all sorts of things (example is the annoying and ubiquitous UR slogan campaigns they have for everything). Verbally, U of R is pretty common, if not more common than UR, but in type I've seen UR as the more prevalent abbreviation, examples: UR Research, UR SEAS, UR Here, the student handbook. The only example I can find on google of the university using "URochester" is the page title of the mechanical engineering website: [2]. In light of all of this, I think UR is the best choice for the abbreviation since it's shorter, easier, less awkward and very widely used. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think UR and U of R are equally valid. You hear "URochester" only from incoming freshman that haven't spent more than a weekend on campus. Students tend to come from all over, so using UR or U of R is ambiguous in their home area, and using "university of rochester" sounds pretentious. URochester seems a nice middle ground - too bad it sounds silly. once the students get to rochester, it immediately disappears. I dont think UR and U of R should be a versus thing, both are used equally and I would consider putting both of them there. You hear UR a little more from students, U of R a little more from the community. Goingtoalaska 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As a current student I would totally agree with Goingtoalaska UR is much more student used and U of R is used by students but more used by the local community and some staff. Jamesofur (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban V Suburban

All of a city is Urban suburbs are area with an independent gov. none exist in the 19th ward their own site says The "19th Ward - Urban by Choice" URBAN N8Riley 16:19, 26 Aug 2007 (UTC)

seal vs. logo

Given that the university has pretty specific rules for the use of its logos (see here for what I mean), I'm not sure that the use of the seal is fair use. With statements like The new graphic identity system is the primary graphic tool for identifying the University of Rochester I think the official logo is the only "legal" image one could use here. Thus, I've replaced the seal. Esrever 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Housing

does anyone know/ know where to find the amount of people each of the dorms can hold? I was able to find the information for some of the dorms on UR's website, but it would be nice to have the information for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.91.217 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Campus Hierarchy

In regards to the modification of the "Campuses" section of this article:

There seems to be some confusion over wether each campus of the University should have its own subcategory and respective link in the contents box. I agree with past edits which do not give each campus a subcategory for the following reasons:

A. While it is important to list each campus, the differentiation between campuses isn't noteworthy enough to deserve a link. Clicking on "South Campus" leads to a two sentence description. That's for a reason- South Campus isn't a very significant portion of the university. True, URMC and Eastman are, but they each have their own individual articles- a sentence or two of description and the necessary link are enough to fill their respective spaces under "Campuses". B. Similar university pages, such as those of Northwestern University and Carnegie Mellon, do not have subcategories for each of their multiple campuses. C. It has been my understanding that the less clutter on Wikipedia articles, the better. The less subcategories an article has, the less lines are used in the Contents Box, making the article appear to be significantly less random. Only certain sets of information regarded as notably different and important may be given their own subcategory.

Simply put, each campus does not need a subcategory because the average reader isn't looking for a quick way to the two-sentence descriptions of the UR campuses. Subcategory links are there for quick reference to important information, nothing less.

Conchuir (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted for now, can undo if you want. The problem I see is that the River Campus section is 4 paragraphs and frankly looks odd without the subheader. Also, both the URMC and Eastman sections could stand a little expansion (see the Wash U page for example). If the River Campus section can be split off into another article (which I don't think it should be), then the subheaders are unnecessary (in fact, one super paragraph would do it and then just link to each campus under it). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just a test idea. I've split the campuses section into "River Campus" and "Other Campuses" in the TOC hierarchy. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Students' Association Officers

I agree with Cquan that the SA officers' names should be removed; is there any compelling reason to keep them in? This does not appear to be common practice on other university pages nor do the officers meet the notability guidelines as individuals. Blckadder8 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to place my reasoning in one place for discussion: 1) the officers are not notable per WP:NOTE, 2) the mention of non-notables within other articles is allowable, but generally not a good idea if it's done just to "mention", 3) there is no constructive addition of information associated with it (i.e., nothing suggesting that some important event or other information for the article is associated with these individuals), 4) student government positions are highly transient as elections are every year, subject to graduation, generally wield no authority of note, and 5) this stinks of personal promotion (not to say that this alone is enough, but the IP of the editor in question is from UR and this is a highly focused edit). -Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing your rationale, I have to agree with the removal of the officers. I am an underclassman at the University involved with the student government, and thought that it would be informative to include the names of the leaders. How would retooling the section to sound more like Washington University in St. Louis' - one of UR's primary peer institutions for comparative purposes - description of its student government? The link is referenced here. Addressing your claim of lacking authority, you wield an argument that is described at best as being tenuous, especially at this particular institution. Not to start an argument - and noting that my opinion is biased, as is yours - the level of access and consultation given to the student representatives is a notable facet of the University's administration's approach to student affairs. To generalize is often to err, and in this case, one has been made in the aforementioned categorization. I look forward to hearing thoughts on the idea of slightly modifying the entry!

-Infowalker (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I like the WashU article set for the most part and the rework would probably be good for that section. Also, an appropriate external link to the SA page would be fine rather than putting in the officer names that could change once a year. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Experiments on Humans and Animals

• this should be mentioned some where...

U of R has a history of experimenting on humans and animals. While the human experiments happened in the past, the animal experiments continue today. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sheeples.htm "The prestigious upstate New York college in particular had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project to study the health effects of the new "special materials" such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride which were being used in making the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organisation, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).

The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies, code-named "Program F", were started during the war and continued up until the early 1950s. They were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed at Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment-in a Pulitzer Prize&endash;winning account by Eileen Welsome-led to a 1995 US presidential investigation and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.2.116 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New photos

I recently visited the university and took over 70+ photos and uploaded them. They are all grouped in the category "University of Rochester" so they should be easy to find here. Please consider using them to improve this article if you see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Having dual athletic conference affiliation membership

I believe that the University of Rochester is the only institution so far to hold dual athletic conference affiliation membership of any division level of any affiliated athletic organization. In this case, the Yellow Jackets are full members of both the Liberty League and the University Athletic Association. jlog3000 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There ought to be some explanation of this. How does it work? john k (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

John K., just like you, I'm having that same thought as well. But all I can know of is that the university has the answers, maybe from their Athletics Department. jlog3000 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)