Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Please remove formatting from native names

{{editprotected}} Could someone with appropriate skills please remove the bold and italic formatting from the native_name field? This makes Han characters much more difficult to read, which affects thousands of universities in East Asia. I suspect the same applies to some other scripts as well - the code automatically applies English formatting conventions to non-English languages, which is a recipe for disaster. --Matt's talk 14:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Format problem

Motto in           Let there be light
English:

One expects to see the translated motto after the colon. But the above is how it comes out. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Athletic director?

I was just wondering why there isn't an athletic director section for this infobox? Many ADs across the country are notable in their own rights (e.g. Terry Driscoll, the AD of the College of William & Mary). Since athletic directors are such an important part of college athletics, I feel that they should be included. Thoughts? -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems completely unnecessary. It would expand an already-too-long template with something that is uniquely American and give it undue weight. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It's fine in the {{Infobox college athletics}} template, but I don't see a need for it in the main universities template. Esrever (klaT) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Doc page of template:infobox university

Is it okay if I add the {{Organization infoboxes}} to the doc section of this template? I'll put it under the See also section and it looks like this:

The goal is to help people find the right template, instead of, for example, using the university infobox when institute would be better. Jonverve (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio school district

This infobox is used for school districts in Ohio. Sample list below:

Ohio articles with Infobox University

It would be helpful to convert them to another infobox. -- User:Docu

It appears they were all created by a single user using a copy and paste approach. I would leave a note on his talk, but it seems he came here to create these articles, and then left the project. I'm a bit tied up right now, so if anyone else wants to tackle this, there is {{Infobox School District}}. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Geocoding. Adding an automated geographic map location

Why don't we add the |latd= |latm= |lats= syntax, which is the Geo microformat,which additionally makes the coordinates (latitude & longitude) parsable, so that they can be, say, looked up on a map. Logik 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistant Principal and head labels/heads

Please add Assistant Principal (Assistant Principal (university)) as a head label as many UK universities with Principles have the role of Assistant Principal and please add the ability to add more head labels/heads. Thanks. --Chromenano (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text support

{{editprotected}}

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually-impaired readers, this template should support alt text for its image, as per WP:ALT. Please install this sandbox change. I've checked this out with the test case and have documented it. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin name

{{editprotected}} [[Latin]]: ''{{{latin_name}}}'' should be replaced with {{lang-la}} template, i.e. {{lang-la|{{{latin_name}}}}}. --Apalsola t • c 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Style / code updates

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox for a general code overhaul which significantly simplifies the code and tweaks the metrics to fit with the {{infobox}} base class. Minimal output changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Re-enabling as I've fixed some bugs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 18:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the recent edits has broken something, at University of Otago the logo no longer appears. XLerate (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing " |image_size = " parameter from the article fixed it - appears the template no longer handles this parameter correctly if supplied but empty. XLerate (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Based in infobox

{{editprotected}}

I have refactored the infobox to call the metatemplate {{infobox}}. Please sync from sandbox version, very small visual changes (related to padding). Also fix the above comment of |image_size= problem. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Seems to be working good. — RockMFR 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding "university" to the Infobox university

In Sri Lanka we use normally "university" rather than "campus".. so can we add the type "university".. the use is same as "campus" Darshana.jayasinghe (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding a wave of logo removals and the issue of their exclusion/inclusion in this infobox is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. Perhaps the discussion is better to be moved here? CrazyPaco (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the large number of US & Canadian university articles adding an athletics logo to their infobox already, and the value that such an image might have for identifying the universities because of the prominent public branding with these logos, does it make sense to include an optional "popular" or "sports" logo field in order to standardize such logo inclusion? See examples at Harvard University and University of Toronto. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change of Former names to Former name(s):

What if a university has had only one former name? NThomas (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy on images in the infobox (a sockpuppet story)

I just ran across a change to an article on my watchlist that puzzled me. Hammersoft (talk · contribs) replaced the logo/image arrangement I and several other editors worked out a couple years ago for the University of California, Santa Cruz, article (which used both the more well-known unofficial university logo and the official seal) with another arrangement which did away with the unofficial logo.

I remembered that the usage guidelines for the image_name field at the time we originally revamped the article's infobox called for a "university-related image, preferably the official seal or logo," which left the door open for slightly unorthodox arrangements like ours where the situation called for it. However, checking the guidelines today to see if Hammersoft was working off a changed policy I hadn't been aware of, I noticed that the wording for that field had been changed to "the university's official or ceremonial seal, shield or coat of arms that is used for high profile ceremonial events such as convocation, for degree certificates, and official transcripts." I did not remember any consensus being reached for such a change, and indeed remembered that the last time I remember it being discussed (Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 2#Usage: images and photos), the consensus seemed to be to leave the usage of the image field somewhat more open-ended.

Searching for the source of the change, I at length found that Tolivero (talk · contribs) "updated the descriptions" in June of last year, acting on no consensus that I could find. The problem with this change, aside from the apparent lack of consensus, is that Tolivero was the sock puppet of an indef-blocked user whose downfall was partially due to his or her abuses of image policy. I move that Tolivero's changes to the infobox field descriptions be reverted to their prior wordings unless a proper consensus can be obtained for keeping his or her "revisions." --Dynaflow babble 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I made the change. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Alongside your reversion of the image_name description, I've also returned the description for logo to what it was before Tolivero changed it. --Dynaflow babble 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuition

unproductive soapboxing which isn't going to result in any change to the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Other than the fact that schools don't like to talk about this much, is there any reason why tuition was omitted? Student7 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be tough with a university, where there are numerous undergraduate and graduate programs, each with different tuition prices.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so tough that it isn't routinely done elsewhere like US News, and nearly all non-Wikipedia references. It seems almost pov to deliberately omit it when all other unbiased sources are including it. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Because of WP:NOT and WP:NOPRICES. I disagree with Student7 -- I think most institutions of higher education are more than happy to talk about their tuition, room, and board costs. We just don't plaster them all over Wikipedia because it's the best way to avoid price comparisons, and you'd rarely if ever find prices in an encyclopedia. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is edited mainly by young men who either haven't had to think about money and/or hate to, money figures are often missing, nevermind a "policy" which forbids it! Cities, states, and colleges are frequently, even usually, missing money without which they cannot operate. This is somewhat different than selling a widget for 10 cents! One of the main problems with college today is not just the current expense, but the rate of expansion of cost. States are subsidizing increasing amounts reluctantly. Have you been reading about California? (And please, don't lecture me about WP:OR! I'm not talking about drawing a conclusion for our gentle readers!)
Colleges should have a figure because none of the rest of the statistics mean anything without that figure to compare. If Harvard cost $50,000 and Local State College cost $6,000, a reader would not hold the same expectations for both. It might explain, for example, why Harvard has 40 Nobel prize winners, and Local SC has had none. It is now a Major Missing Statistic.
Also missing is the subsidy by the state, usually about 80% for state schools. This is a major black hole as well.
It is amazing how a tuition which changes once a year can't be updated. I work on many place articles and editors try to change population statistics at least every month, whether they should be or not!
While we're at it, total budget for the year ought to be here as well.
Young people: the world does not function without money! Not even Chavez, Castro, or any other person has been able to do without it. You can figure out a way to do away with it when you take over the world. But right now it is a major part of nearly any organization. Without money, the organization usually dies.
US News and World Report, and all other WP:RELY sources recognize this. It is long past time Wikipedia did! Student7 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Where to begin...? First, please don't assume that all of the editors here are "young men." Some of us are not quite so young. Further, some of us are scholars editing in our area of expertise. Second, I'm not convinced that tuition is the universal comparison metric you think it is given the extensive use of discounting at private institutions and the ubiquity of financial aid. That you think it is - and that you think that state institutions today are subsidized "usually about 80%" - betrays a bit of naivete on your part. That's compounded by your citation of USN&WR's use of tuition when its reliance on input measures is one of its most serious criticisms.
You've made your point so let's see what others think. I'm not particularly convinced as I know that it's awfully hard to know how much any student will pay out-of-pocket to attend a given institution given the complex system of tuition, fees, discounts, and financial aid that it the world of a modern bursar. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right about subsidies. Partly because of the recession, partly due to inordinate increases in college costs, subsidies in some, if not all states have dropped from 80% recently. Students scream when they are hit for nearly the full increase, instead of the usual subsidized tiny portion of it. Another major occurrence happening at each university that Wikipedia is ignoring. The Elephant in the living room, as it were. Burying our heads in the sand won't help! Student7 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Have a WP:SOAP to go with your WP:NOT and WP:NOPRICES. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To make it even plainer than what Chris has stated, we are trying to be an encyclopedia. Can you picture Britannica or anyone else adding tuition prices? In my opinion, its bad enough that some editors strive so hard to keep university presidents and deans and the like updated. Trying to keep up with the ever-fluctuating tuition rates is way beyond what we should be covering. Wikipedia is *not* a source of breaking or up-to-the-minute news; leave the reaction to rising prices to a more appropriate venue like Wikinews. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the idea of tuition in info boxes frightens and appears to threaten university gurus. Nevertheless, this is not talking the price of widgets here. We talk important money in other areas almost all the time: government, produce, medical. Yes, finding a better price on ipods is not what we are supposed to do. But this is fundamental to universities as is the bottom line for Apple. Not sure why everyone is so frightened of it here. Are you all associated with university management? Perhaps you shouldn't be editing these articles. A general study did show, maybe for one state, hard to tell, that perhaps 35% of tuition in public schools paid by student, rest not just by government, but by "other". here. Lots of sites and information of course, in many WP:RELY sources. And all guides have these tuitions. Only the people answering here are intimidated by the truth. Other scholarly researchers are not. Student7 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we're going to be swayed to adopt your requested course of action by insults... --ElKevbo (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
And a bit of friendly advice: If you're interested in understanding state support of higher education, Don Heller's chapter (Chapter 1) of this book edited by Doug Priest and Ed St. John is a good introduction. It's a dense chapter but it's a complicated subject with a lot of moving parts. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thanks for the reference. If I use it in Wikipedia, won't it get WP:CENSORed? There seems to be strong WP:BIAS to documenting anything to do with costs and tuition. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for your local news outlet, or perhaps union publication. You also seem to have misplaced your manners. I'm closing this; please feel free to continue to rant about such subjects as university fees and why The Man won't let you use Wikipedia to highlight the injustice on some other venue, such as a personal blog. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Gee. I've never been censored this way before! Not even in the Venzuelan articles by Chavez flunkies! Wow! Actually they are easier to get along with if more transparent. But not less numerous.  :)
And normally, they will continue to discuss and allow discussion. They "merely" erase referenced material in the article! (So I'm used to WP:CENSORship, just not of this variety.  :) Student7 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not made less serious by adding smiley faces to them. Continue to insult other editors and your comments will be removed entirely. This is not your personal soapbox to rail on the subjects of tuition fees, Wikipedia process or other editors. Consider this a warning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that tuition and financial aid is an appropriate topic for discussion in the body of the articles, rather than the infoboxes. First, because it is misleading to discuss tuition without also discussing financial aid, and second because most intitutitions have different tuition levels for different courses of study, e.g., undergraduate programs vs graduate or professional programs. Such discussion is consistent with WP:NOPRICES Racepacket (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk WP:NOPRICES. Here's is what the paragraph says (emphasis mine):
"Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."
For starters, the insertion of "tuition" does not approach a sales catalog since the tuition stands alone with other important information.
",,,unless they can be sourced." That is important. And they can be to Barrons, US News, etc. etc., all WP:RELY sources. No information is inserted in other reliable references without tuition.
"Street prices" - understandable omission. We are not talking "street prices" here. Yes, those would be trivia.
"Price guide" - Wouldn't be one. Just information given one school at a time. Readers would have to go elsewhere to compare prices, per se. Refers to "competing products". All schools pride themselves on offering a "unique product". "Harvard" is pricey but offers a different product that "State Colleg of Midville". One cannot say clearly that it would be "better" to go to Midville than Harvard just by looking at the infoboxes tuition!
It is important information, nonetheless. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And of course fees for different types of students vary wildly - there can different fees for students taking a first qualification at that level as opposed to those taking a second qualification at the same level as one they already have (google "equivalent or lower qualifications" for the issues about this), for home students as opposed to international students, for part time students where the fees are often different a simple proportion of the full time fee based on time, for distance learners compared to onsite learners, for higher doctorates (some have no fees at all, others charge basics for admin) and so forth as well as the undergraduate/postgraduate/vocational fees. There are also programmes where you sign up and pay for the individual modules separately, which can again make it difficult to produce a single overall feel.
Then there's umpteen package variations relating to what services are and aren't included - e.g. there are some residential institutions with bed & board or access included in the standard tuition fee but others where you pay separately or even get the facility privately. The whole thing gets ever more complicated when the payments for some elements are deferred until later (e.g. undergraduate tuition fees in the United Kingdom) and others have to be paid at the start (e.g. the old student services fees in Australia). The whole thing is way too messy for infoboxes. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what I want to highlight there. It's just way too much for an infobox to handle. It might be appropriate in prose, but the complexities cannot be boiled down to a simple number with the label "Tuition".-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not computing tuitions. That would be WP:OR. We are copying from WP:RELY sources including: US News & World Report online, Barrons - hardcopy only. Sorry. But one tuition per school, and others that weren't online. Even saw one for the UK. Didn't notice if it was online or not. Sorry. Everyone reliable seems to be able to do it. Why is there a problem copying from a reliable source? Why is there any discussion whatsoever about "computing" tuitions? Who said anything about WP:OR? I don't remember doing that! Student7 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The News & World link is for something called "Tuition and Fees" which says to me that it includes other costs that are expected, particularly accommodation, but I can't easily find a link that explains how that figure is derived. And maybe things are different in the US, but there is a lot of variation in UK institutions depending on the levels - for instance here are the undergraduate fees for Brunel (all are for one year of study unless otherwise stated):
Standard home student rate (a maximum set by law) for a first bachelor's degree full time: £3,290
International fees for the same: £9,200 for most subjects, £11,100 for Engineering & Design, Communications & Media Studies, Psychology, Computing & Info Systems courses, Sport Sciences
Home students part time: £2,468 (but only for the first four years, after which it is free)
"Thick sandwich" i.e. full-time placements in the third year only: £822
"Thin sandwich" i.e. part-time placements in the second & third year alongside teaching: £2,056 (per annum)
MEng: £3,290
Foundation courses: £1,645
Professional health courses - these are often higher fees but frequently the NHS provides bursaries so the upfront fee doesn't tell the full story:
Physiotherapy or Occupational Therapy BSc full-time: £8,545, part-time: £6,921
Specialist Community Public Health Nursing (SCPHN) BSc full-time: £8,094, part-time: pro-rata
Everyone doing an Equivalent or Lesser Qualification: Island fees, see [1]
And undergraduate fees are usually much easier to summarise than postgraduate fees (where I've seen taught courses range from £3,000 to £28,000). All of these are just the tuition fee, with other costs covered separately and a strong tradition in the UK of not everything coming from the university - e.g. very few students doing more than one year spend their entire time in university rented accommodation; more and more students are living at the parental home etc...
Because full-time home first graduate degree fees are capped by law in UK universities and all the institutions charge the maximum allowed, hardly anybody here bothers trying to compute an average fee and instead tables will focus on the individual case at hand or (more usually) ignore it completely. Look for instance at The Times's league tables [2] or the Complete University Guide's [3] or the Guardian's [4]. For international marketing the focus will again be on the individual fee for the course at hand not some notional institution wide average that is meaningless information. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the infobox can contain tuition that would not be used in some countries. Many parameters are not used. But they need to be there in order to be used where appropriate. Student7 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

proposal: add optional fields for incorporated and chartered

in addition to founded/established field with consensus that this is typically earliest date, many universities also have historically important chartered and/or incorporated dates, with either of these perhaps even the more official date (vs 'historical'/'earliest' establishment date); and again, optional and scalar, so why not? Jaydlewis (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • One reason why not would be: confusion. If all of these subtle variations were to be added, then the infobox needs to make each of these labels a link to definitions that clearly and normatively delineate their differences. I suspect that all of this variation would document such subtleties as chartered on paper versus opened their doors to the first students. Then there is the case of mergers of colleges and universities, with some need to reveal the history of each of the ancestral institutions. —optikos (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_university/Archive_5&oldid=1125716790"