Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Code cleanup

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox to fix the location code when neither {{{location}}} nor {{{city}}} are provided, to allow for {{{name}}} to be omitted if it matches the page title and to generally clean the code up. Should be no change to output save for bug fixes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Report any anomalies immediately to my talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Patron saint

Can we add Patron saint data and label for this Infobox template?
Patron saint data is applicable if an institution of higher education is a Catholic university. --Anyoflores (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Does each Catholic-affiliated university have a patron saint? For example, I have never heard in passing who the patron saint of the University of Notre Dame is, although I am not an expert on the matter. Also, who is recognized as the normative authority who makes such a patron-saint designation: the bishop whose see surrounds that university geographically? I would say that such a field would need to be highly restricted to patron saints declared through very official & citeable channels (e.g., bishop, board of regents, abbot), not some, say, student prayer group that meets on Wednesday nights. —optikos (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Too university specific. By far the majority of universities do not have a patron saint. I believe there is a blank line anyway where this could be added manually. KnightLago (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alma mater

Could we add a line for each school's alma mater? The school's song is hard to fit into the article, as it is an extremely minor point. Not worth of an entire paragraph, yet a significant part of the institution's culture, the infobox would be a perfect place for it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, optikos, that is what I intended--the title of the song.
Now would either of the kind editors who oppose my idea please show me some examples where this information has been successfully well-integrated into the article? I'm sure that it's possible, but in the places I've seen it, it is usually simply a one-sentence paragraph, which is poor writing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I only really watch the MTSU and UTK articles, so no-go on that. However, my suggestion would be to merge all of the sports audience interaction elements, such as alma mater, fight song, mascot, etc, into a single paragraph. No clue what to title it, but oh well. ¡Remember!, Infoboxes should only summarise information that is already presented in the article, and nominally should never include unique information. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes should only summarise information that is already presented in the article. I didn't know that this was the rule. It certainly is not adhered to. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I would add a sentence or two in the athletics section. KnightLago (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I would not find that an appropriate solution. Alma maters are by no means only affiliated with sports. At many schools with fight songs, alma maters never are played at games, but are reserved for ceremonies and the like. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Budget

How about adding a Budget line, similar to Template:Infobox Organization? That would be particularly useful for organizations like the Ludwig von Mises Institute that straddle the line between think tank and university. Tisane (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Motto language

Could somebody add a parameter to include the language of the motto? I'm working on an article (Union College (New York) where the motto language is French, but there is nothing noting that in the infobox. Please respond at my talk if there is a possibility of changing this. Thanks. upstateNYer 02:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Seals

Please join the discussion at WT:UNI regarding the current practice requiring the use of official seals as the topmost image in this infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Student Union President?

Or any sort of space to include an elected leader of the student body? Sirrontail (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Not notable. At least one reason is that s/he changes at least every 4 years and probably more often. Someone truly "notable" would not be a transient. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Student and Staff numbers are just as transient yet we include them. The person may not be notable, but the position itself is. Take Vice-Chancellors for example, a lot of Universities have non-notable VCs, yet because the position as head of the university is notable we keep the space. Same for SU Presidents - the position of head of the student body is an important role, even if the person themselves isn't important. Sirrontail (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I agree with Student7 that student leaders are rarely notable. It's not so much that they're transient (although at American institutions these positions usually turn over at least once a year, making them very transient when compared to full-time administrators) as they're simply not notable, in part because they're only students. I think it just opens up the door too broadly. Why, for example, would we include student government leaders and not faculty senate leaders (especially in cases, like in Florida, where those two persons are members of the board of trustees)? We have to draw the line somewhere and I'm comfortable with us drawing it here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with ElKevbo and Student7. Student leaders are not only not inherently notable, I'd argue that they're almost never notable. Esrever (klaT) 05:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Street Address?

I suggest that we add a Street Address to the template to complete the City and State information so we can have a full mailing address. Any better ideas, or contrary proposals? J3gum (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An infobox is supposed to provide quick reference to key pieces of information contained in the encyclopedia article. It's not intended to function as a directory (and, indeed, Wikipedia is not a directory). A mailing address is not that kind of key information. If people need mailing addresses, they can click on the website links in the articles. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Per Orlady. KnightLago (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that street address is not useful encyclopedia-type info. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see utterly no reason to link any of the head words (right column), or "US$". It is a breach of the MoS to link dictionary words, e.g., "visitor", "faculty", "students", "religion", "staff", etc. MOSNUM says not to use "US", anyway, since this is the default dollar currency unless there is doubt in the context. Tony (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad. Some of the words should be unlinked but some of them shouldn't since they are unique to education or complex topics (e.g. Endowment, Chancellor, faculty). ElKevbo (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I think should definitely be delinked: English language (piped "English"), religion (piped "religious affiliation"), students, and website. A few other things:
  • I can see the case for delinking staff and faculty, but at the same time, faculty at least is piped to a university-specific article. Faculty is less forgivable, but some readers might be confused between staff and faculty (not too likely though).
  • "Sports" should be pipelinked to College athletics.
  • Linking "US$" is not within the control of this template, but I agree we should not be encouraging that practice in the documentation. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict ...

Why is "endowment" unique to education?
This is the first time I've heard of the idea that uniqueness to a field makes an item suitable for linking. Where is the guideline for that?
Faculty is a common term. If one doesn't speak speak English, a dictionary is required. Please see the pillar on "WP is not a dictionary".
"Chancellor" is the closest to being acceptable as a link, but it is still questionable. Does "headmaster" or "principal" need to be linked in a box on schools? Readers are expected to know the language.
"Linking "US$" is not within the control of this template"—huh? What do you mean?
Why should "Sports" be piped (deceptively) to any particular sport?
Why would a reader be confused by staff and faculty given the information that comes after each term? Can you provide an example of where there might be ambiguity? Tony (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree that infoboxes make many possibly useful links bad targets because of the WP:EGG potential. When I say "Linking 'US$' is not within the control of this template", I mean that "US$" is linked in the infoboxes in the article, not in this infobox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that endowment is necessarily unique to higher ed but it's a complex topic that is misunderstood by most people. But I won't pitch a fit if there is a firm consensus to delink it.
Faculty is a common term but it means completely different things in the US as compared to the rest of the world. For US institutions, faculty refers to the individual instructors. For nearly everyone else, faculty refers to the academic departments. I don't think I'm explaining it well but there is a significant difference and it doesn't always mean what you think it means.
Chancellor is an uncommon term in the US and I think that it sometimes means something different for US institutions. Specifically, I think that on some US campuses the chancellor is a hands-on, regular administrator much like presidents at other institutions. That contrasts sharply with the English practice of the chancellor being a symbolic and honorary position with few substantive responsibilities and little authority.
I don't care much if sports is linked but I think the suggestion to link it to College athletics is a good idea.
If we had an article about the history of secular and religious institutions then that might be a good target for religion. But I agree that it's not informative to just link it to religion. And I agree that website doesn't need to be linked. I am ambivalent about most of the other links. ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure the thought was finished above. "Staff" could mean electricians, janitors; not necessarily teaching staff. BTW most public universities in the US include non-teaching positions in "staff." Not sure what private ones do. Student7 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, most or all U.S. institutions include non-teaching employees in staff counts. That, in fact, is the very definition of "staff." ElKevbo (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I ask again, who, after seeing these terms at issue and the information inserted to satisfy them by editors of specific articles, would ever divert to the target article? If you think readers take the opportunity to click on words that are pretty clear in the context, I'm afraid you're mistaken. In fact, it is very hard to get readers to click on anything. The reason I'm raising the formulaic "link everything" pattern slavishly applied in this template is that when the odd high-value term occurs, it's drowned out by a sea of blue. Dilution. Wikilinking works best when applied selectively. Tony (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Faculty/staff

Following on from this discussion, which never seems to have been acted upon, can we phase out the use of the "Faculty" and "Staff" fields in favour of "Academic staff" and "Administrative staff" respectively? --Kwekubo (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting it right now. Evenfiel (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"academic_staff" and "administrative_staff" no work

Recently, the documentation was changed to use parameters |academic_staff= and |administrative_staff= instead of |faculty= and |staff=. Unfortunately, the new parameter names do not work. You can see this in the example on the doc page. Peeking inside the template code, this appears to be because there is nothing in there to make them work. Er ... HairyWombat 01:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably because an admin needs to do something on that page. I've asked two of them, but to no avail so far. Evenfiel (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's submit an edit request. Maybe that will stir up some interest. {{edit protected}} Will an administrator please deploy the version in the sandbox. (Consensus on Talk page above.) Note that, for compatibility, the old parameter names still work. HairyWombat 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I think the link for academic staff needs to be changed now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. No, the current link is good; the text of the article section pointed to discusses both US and non-US usage. (See the discussion here.) HairyWombat 17:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Academician Template?

I wonder if there's any template for academicians/professors etc.? (Acawelt (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

There is {{Infobox scientist}} which might be appropriate. There are lists at Category:People infobox templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes. The general template {{Infobox person}} is always appropriate. HairyWombat 18:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Those heading links: they are STILL there ...?

So "Visitor" links to "visitor". One of the pillars of WP says "WP is not a dictionary".

"Endowment" links to "financial endowment". Is that a useful target? Will anyone click on it?

"Religious affiliation" sounds like a gobbledy way of saying "Religion". But why is it linked?

And so on. Tony (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are lots of useless links, but the link to "Financial endowment" seems important to me. I've clicked on it. Evenfiel (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that common terms should not be linked to, "Visitor" and "Financial endowment" are very specific terms that many folks may not be familiar with (I certainly was not aware of that use of "Visitor", for example. Unless the links are for very generic terms (which violates WP:NOT), I see no problem with leaving the others in. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in lots of links. Just because there are lots does not discourage a reader from clicking on the one that they are interested in following. The key, I would suggest, is that the links be appropriate. For example, "Staff" currently links to the article section Employment#Employee. This doesn't make sense to me because that article section is not particularly related to university administrative staff. (That link will go away when the sandbox version is deployed.) HairyWombat 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
English#English_language, Religious affiliation#Religion, Sports#Sport and Website#Website are clearly unnecessary. Evenfiel (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. While these links are banal, they are also benign. To link from the label "Website" to the article Website is faultless. I agree that very few people will click on it, but its presence does not interfere with people clicking on other more interesting links. HairyWombat 04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Linking banal items is sometimes useful, when the target article helps more than a tiny tiny proportion of readers to understand the topic. How does the article "Website" help the reader who has just arrived at a university article (on this website, so they presumably know what a website is) to understand the topic at issue? How does the article on the English language help a reader to understand an article on a university? Presumably the reader reads enough English to know what the language is. We may as well link every single word, including "the", if we are to create navigational blue flying carpets with such little selectivity. The problem of overlinking is that low-value links dilute the appearance and our selectivity of high-value links. Wikilinking is an extremely valuable tool, so why encourage readers to disregard it by plastering it everywhere. Good website practice (see some of the online news sites) is to be much more selective, so readers really will notice that we think an item might aid their understanding of the current topic. It's all in our style guides, anyway. Tony (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tony1. "English and "Website" are particularly poor examples of linking as they do nothing to deepen the understanding of the topic. If readers are that desperate to find out about "English" from a university infobox then they should be able to find the WP search box.  HWV258.  04:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Student is also quite superfluous. Evenfiel (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've delinked English, Religion, Student, Sport and Website. There are still plenty of linked terms, but those seem more useful. Evenfiel (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Active date range, wrong dash

The template uses an m-dash between the established and closed dates (ex: Active 1818—1919). Wikipedia guideline WP:MOSNUM indicates that dates should be separated by an n-dash, which is a bit shorter. Since the page is locked, I cannot change it. Could someone please make this change. Truthanado (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this in the sandbox version. Deployment requires an administrator and, as this is a minor change, I suggest this wait for a more substantial change. HairyWombat 23:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Income / Turnover / Revenue and Staff question

I can't understand why we only list endowment in the infobox. While endowment might be specially important in the US, in some countries many universities don't have any market investments and are totally maintained by the government. Shouldn't we then add a field for Income / Turnover / Revenue?

Here is an example. Yale university has an endowment of $22.6 billion, but its operating budget is $2.31 billion. University of Edinburgh has an endowment of only £165 million ($257.7 million), but its turnover - which I believe is the same thing as operating budget - is £587.6 million ($917.9 million). The University of São Paulo has no endowment, but it's supported by the state of São Paulo and has an operating budget of R$2,8989 billion ($1,688 billion). In other words, comparing endowments from different countries seems quite pointless. It would be better to have both fields.

Another suggestion is to change "staff" to "academic staff". While in the US it's clear that faculty means "academic staff", in other countries there is a differentiation between "academic staff" and "professional staff". Here is an example. Changing "staff" to "academic staff" would make things much clearer. Evenfiel (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the protestations of some of our fellow editors, this infobox is indeed very US-centric. The ultimate answer is that we should develop more country-specific infoboxes.
But I'm not entirely convinced that the two issues you've brought up are terribly divisive or controversial. You're right that some institutions don't have endowments and that's just the way it is so I'm not sure what, if anything, we can do about it. It might be interesting to also include operating budgets but that's a separate issue altogether.
And I'm not clear on what you're getting at in your discussion of "staff." We distinguish between academic and professional staff in the US, too. Changing "staff" to "academic staff" doesn't clarify anything, it completely changes the meaning of the infobox parameter. ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would argue against this. An example of a country-specific infobox is {{Infobox Indian Institute of Technology}}. This was forked off from {{Infobox university}} way back in 2006. Since then, {{Infobox university}} has been completely re-written, and {{Infobox Indian Institute of Technology}} has not benefitted from these improvements. I would actually like to see {{Infobox Indian Institute of Technology}} deleted, and {{Infobox university}} used instead. (To make things even more confusing, {{Infobox Indian Institute of Technology}} has itself recently been forked off into {{Infobox Army Institute of Technology}}.) From the point of view of maintenance, a few standard templates are better than a collection of many specific ones. HairyWombat 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not an example of a country-specific template; it's an example of a (multi-campus) institution-specific example. I get your point but that's a poor example. I'm not enough of an expert on non-U.S. institutions to know if we could create a few templates that would cover most institutions (are commonwealth countries similar enough? Western European institutions?). ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So why not just include operating budget? What would be the problem? Let's face it, endowment is just important in the US, Canada and a few other foreign institutions. Including operating budget would be the best way to make this infobox less US-centric.
As for staff issue, just look at the description of the infobox parameter:
faculty
Number of faculty members. Use for North American universities and locations where the term "faculty" carries this meaning. Otherwise, use staff.
staff
Number of teaching staff. Use in place of faculty for universities outside North America or locations which use that term.
Both "faculty" and "staff" are synonyms for "teaching staff". As I pointed out in one example, the University of Edinburgh counts "staff" as professional and academic staff. Other universities do the same. Changing "staff" to "academic staff" won't modify any meaning, but merely clarify it. We could also add "professional staff" (or "supporting staff").
Btw, even featured articles have problems concerning the parameter "staff" and "faculty". Look at University of California, Riverside and Michigan State University. Both of them use the parameters "faculty" and "staff", but what they really want to use is "faculty" and "professional (supporting) staff". I hope this clarifies my point.Evenfiel (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding generally agreed parameters shouldn't be a problem, right? The counties/schools that don't need them, just drop them.
I like to see faculty distinguished more clearly from staff. IMO staff needs another adjective. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So, is there a reason to not include income / operating budget? Evenfiel (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally that the parameter |endowment= is US-centric (more correctly, of use only for private institutions), but see two reasons not to include an |income= parameter. First, I don't see it as having any particular utility. Do prospective students care what the income is? Second, I don't see any great move to include this information. If it was really useful, it would already be included into articles using the |free_label=/|free= parameter pair. (If this statement is incorrect then please say so.) HairyWombat 00:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If endowment is an important parameter for US universities, why income / operating budget wouldn't be in countries where universities don't have endowment or do not depend entirely on it? Income plays the same role as endowment in countries where endowment isn't important. As I've mentioned above, in Brazil public universities - which are by far the most important ones - don't have endowment, only income. As for your second point, you are most definitely incorrect. I wanted to add it for a long time. I've seen articles that have income listed as endowment just because non-US editors don't know the difference between the two or have no idea on how to add an income parameter. Evenfiel (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just want to correct the statement above that endowments are "of use only for private institutions [in the U.S.]." That's not at all true; endowments play very important roles in public institutions in the U.S., too. ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I obviously did not express myself clearly enough. I did not mean that endowments are unimportant for public universities. I meant that the size of the endowment is unimportant information for a public university. For example, if you were a prospective student, the size of the endowment to a private university might affect your decision on whether to apply there. However, with a public university, the size of the endowment is unlikely to affect your decision. HairyWombat 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If endowment is unlikely to affect your decision if you intend to apply for public universities, income is, hence that's why I think it's an important parameter. Evenfiel (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No, this logic is flawed. If I was applying to a public university, income would not affect my decision at all. HairyWombat 01:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why not. If endowment affects your decision to chose a private university, why income would not affect your decision to chose public one? Just like endowment, income would give us a way to compare public universities regarding their financial situation. Evenfiel (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Because for all U.S. institutions - public and private - endowments are assumed to speak to the long-term viability of the institution and yearly income doesn't. Income doesn't even seem like a viable way of "compar[ing] public institution regarding their financial situation." ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Still, institutions from many countries don't have endowment, so the only way to compare financial situations would be through income. Even in countries where there is endowment, they can't be compared to US universities. This is taken from the University of Cambridge article: Comparisons between Cambridge's endowment and those of other top US universities are, however, inaccurate because being a state-funded public university, Cambridge receives a major portion of its income through education and research grants from the British Government. In 2006, it was reported that approximately one third of Cambridge’s income comes from UK government funding for teaching and research, with another third coming from other research grants. Endowment income contributes around 6%. Having only endowment and not income is extremely US-centric. There is no reason to keep it that way. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is very U.S.-centric. I think the answer is to spin out other templates instead of continuing to add to this one over and over and over until it becomes so cumbersome, watered down, and difficult to understand that it ceases to be a useful mechanism for organizing articles. It's a huge challenge to make one that just fits the U.S. and trying to make the same template work for every country in the world is ridiculous. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the addition of one parameter calls for a whole new template. As said below, these parameter aren't mandatory. Evenfiel (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The continued accretion of parameters over time is the concern, particularly since many of them only make sense in some contexts. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In the last few years we didn't see a continued accretion of parameters, but a continued removal. Just compare the current template with the one from October 2008. Evenfiel (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
1) I thought these parameters were optional. Some of the comments above seem to suggest that the use of these parameters is mandatory.
2) This is not a "guide" to prospective students. It is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to include all vital information about the higher institution, one of which most certainly is money. They cannot run without money to some degree. How this affects the students attending there is no concern of ours unless it is separately brought up. i.e. the large endowment of Harvard allows the university to lower tuition or increase aid or increase the reimbursement of professors, all of which are significant and most likely in reliable sources. Student7 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
So, I gather that you wouldn't mind the "income" parameter, right? Evenfiel (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to not be clear. I would prefer "budget" and "endowment" as new parameters. "Income" doesn't mean anything in my country by itself. It is just a separate item in the balance sheet (budget). Student7 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Evenfiel (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Can someone provide some good examples of "income" being used to compare, classify, or describe institutions? I'm leery that this may be OR on a grand scale if Wikipedians are deciding - for themselves and everyone else - that this is a characteristic so important that it needs to be included in the template we use in so many articles. (Yes, I know it's optional, but that doesn't negate my point at all.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples? There are thousands of them. Just look at pretty much any institutions in Latin America or Europe, where endowment plays little to not role. Evenfiel (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, can you please provide some good examples of "income" being used to compare, classify, or describe institutions? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In Germany, Heidelberg_University, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. In France, École Polytechnique and HEC Paris. In UK, University of Cambridge, University of Edinburgh. In Brazil, University of São Paulo, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho and Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Evenfiel (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I looked only at the two UK universities (as I have lived in the UK). The article University of Cambridge does not state the income of the university, and only compares its finances on the basis of endowment. The article University of Edinburgh does not even mention the word income, and does not discuss finances. HairyWombat 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Can you please provide some examples not from Wikipedia of "income" being used to compare, classify, or describe institutions? ElKevbo (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
We're in a catch-22 situation here. Budget is not mentioned because there is no place to mention it in the infobox. I won't be able to provide examples in the English wikipedia, because here the discussion is biased towards endowment. On the other hand, if you look at the articles from those universities in the Portuguese, French and German Wikipedias, budget is mentioned! Here are the links: German Wikipedia (Jahresetat = budget) Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. French Wikipedia (Budget and dotation (endowment)) École polytechnique (France) and École des hautes études commerciales de Paris. Portuguese Wikipedia (Orçamento anual = Budget) Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho and Universidade de São Paulo.
Here is a French article comparing all engineering schools in France. In that article, budget is used to compare the universities just like endowment is used in the US. Here is another article. Evenfiel (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't read French, German, or Portuguese. Can you please help me understand if those publications are respected e.g. mainstream, peer-reviewed, written by experts? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
They are just mainstream sites that provide info about superior education for students. One of them is attached to the French newspaper Le Parisien. Anyway, doesn't the fact that the German, French and Portuguese Wikipedias use budget - and usually without any reference to endowment - in their university infobox indicates that budget holds an importance in other countries? The Spanish Wikipedia also uses it, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Evenfiel (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think if ElKevbo's suggestion to have country (or region) specific infoboxes makes a lot of sense. If we adopt that, some of these problems go away. "Income" means nothing to an American institution beyond a line item in a Budget someplace. Budget is important, however.
Can the US and Canada share infoboxes? Or with anyone else? Student7 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sense in splitting the infobox just because of one new parameter, "budget". What exactly is the problem in having one parameter in the infobox that doesn't fit with American and Canadian universities? We don't need to have "income". Evenfiel (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree on both: "Income" is an meaningless parameter in an infobox. Glad to hear that we can continue to have one infobox. Student7 (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll add budget then. Evenfiel (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_university/Archive_6&oldid=1141951120"