User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Beal College Now Beal University

Hi. Some months ago I made several edits to the Beal College page and you told me to stop. The current page needs further edits as they have changed the name of the school to Beal University. If you could make those edits it would be appreciated.

https://beal.edu/

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/education/beal-college-gets-a-name-change/97-a5719d9c-9870-4e42-ab21-780e8dbdf059

Thanks a ton! Will.rosenberger (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

MSJC STEM Honors Society

Hi, ElKevbo..

I would appreciate it if my post on a new STEM Honors society can be highlighted within Mt San Jacinto College's Wikipedia page as it is an important part of the college's STEM culture on campus.

Here are some links to check out about the national organization itself:

https://www.nstem.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juHYDfYtB8Q

I can fix up some of the parts. I see that you added that it is "way too detailed and there is no reason to highlight this one student organization," I can make it shorter. No problem, just don't mess with the page again, please!

Thanks again, MTiwari12 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)MTiwari12MTiwari12 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

University of New Haven

Please excuse the ignorance on how to reply - I'm not sure I've ever received a message from a moderator, before. (I also posted this on my Talk page - wasn't sure which was correct.) I do work at University of New Haven, and, have added the citation you suggested to my User page re: being paid by the University (although not necessarily for edits; they're just part of my larger job).

The edits I'm attempting to make to the University of New Haven page are all factual and I have/am providing references, most of which are updates to the previous reference links cited on Wikipedia. If the edits or citations should be made in another way, can you help me to understand how we should go about this? Or, is my paid citation on my page (just added) sufficient? Thanks, Matt MMcCulloughatnewhavendotedu (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wentworth revert

Hi ElKevbo, I noticed that you reverted Wentworth Institute of Technology to your previous edit. This also reverted the text I removed from the article that I deemed promotional and/or non-notable. Was the reversion of my edits unintentional, or are you concerned about the information I removed? Do you want me to wait until the situation is a little calmer before making edits to the article again? Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely unintentional. Sorry about that! I'll fix it up. ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't want to edit an article if it was going to be reverted. I'll take another look at it later. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Desegregation: Mercer University

Mercer was the first private University in the South to voluntarily desegregate. I do not believe that there is any scholarly debate on this point. Two examples (specific to GA): The University of Georgia desegregated beforehand; it was by court mandate. Emory University voluntarily desegrated; it occurred after Mercer. This seems an important note for Wikipedia to make, not only about Mercer but about the history of desegregation in the South. However, when I made this suggestion--backed by multiple scholarly footnotes-- you removed the claim. Why? Do you think it is not true? Or, if true, do you oppose it being included? Is there, perhaps, a different way in which you would like the fact to be phrased? Please share your thoughts. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A409:AC00:A8F8:B519:C18B:4F50 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert at USAFA and USNA

Hey, would you be able to help me understand why you reverted me at USNA and USAFA? I was trying to condense the alternate name sections, since "Navy" only refers to the athletic program (not the Academy as a whole), "the Academy" is very vague, and "Air Force Academy" is implied in the name itself and does not add anything to the lead, etc. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about "Navy" only being used in an athletic context and even if that were the case it's still so common that it merits inclusion in the lede; there are many other articles where there is similar usage of a nickname.

I'll revert my edits to the AFA article; those are good arguments (which would have been helpfully expressed in an edit summary). ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I've been trying to get better about using edit summaries - I'll take this as a reminder to try to use them more. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from ManuelLopezz

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at ManuelLopezz's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ManuelLopezz ^talk 20:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help

References

Moxy- 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Florida Board of Governors

I reverted your deletion of the membership list. Listing the names is not unnecessary detail. It is the only concise summary of the backgrounds of membership of this important decision-making body. Will Hanley (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

University of the Pacific (UOP)

Hello, I am new to talking on Wikipedia, so I hope this is the right place to post this. You inquired about my connection to UOP, and I wanted to let you know that I am a student and I work for them as well. Cleaning up the Wikipedia pages are a project I have taken on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCUOP66 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Wesleyan University

Thanks Kevin. As an example, your own University does not use IPEDS on their Wikipedia listing because IPEDS isn't all inclusive. They have drop-off dates that don't take into account online, weekend and adult programs. The figures you reference are only traditional and fall only. University of Delaware, Goldey-Beacom College, Delaware State University, and Delaware Tech also do not reference IPEDS figures but use their own -- for the same reason.

Editor4editor (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IPEDS does include online students. But the broader point of "if you have a source with more accurate or better information please cite it" stands. Removing a well understood and commonly used data source without replacing it with something "better" is not helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Brandman University Edit

Hello! I'm new in the wikipedia world. BU is rebranding to University Massachusetts soon and I'm wondering if you can make the edit for this upcoming big news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennybanh016 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jennybanh016: Can you please provide some sources for this change? Sources independent of the institution are usually best. ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Brandman University Rebrand

Good morning ElKevbo,

JennyBanH06 who was communicating with you regarding this but she is unable to post. I am new to Wikipedia as well, and would like to provide you with some sources for the partnership between Brandman University and the University of Massachusetts. The partnership will include a rebrand and name change.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/17/umass-onlines-grand-plan-partnership-brandman https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/university-of-massachusetts-scaling-up-online-learning-partners-with-californias-brandman-university-on-adult-education.html https://www.highereddive.com/news/umass-partners-with-brandman-to-expand-online/580047/ https://www.umb.edu/news/detail/umass_to_expand_online_educational_opportunities_for_adults_through_strategic_partnership_between_umass_online_and_brandman_university https://www.brandman.edu/about-brandman/umassglobalfaqs https://www.brandman.edu/news-and-events/news/chapman-university-announces-strategic-partnership-between--umass-online-and-brandman-university

The name has not officially changed until the launch. I am not an employee of either institution but do have a working relationship with them. ShanYoung.Writer (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@ShanYoung.Writer: What will the new name be and when it will the change be effective? ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo,

Following is the information I was given by the institution in public affairs and other offices. Can you update the profile with where we are in the process now? In transition. You can use the below links to do that: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/17/umass-onlines-grand-plan-partnership-brandman https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/university-of-massachusetts-scaling-up-online-learning-partners-with-californias-brandman-university-on-adult-education.html https://www.highereddive.com/news/umass-partners-with-brandman-to-expand-online/580047/ https://www.umb.edu/news/detail/umass_to_expand_online_educational_opportunities_for_adults_through_strategic_partnership_between_umass_online_and_brandman_university https://www.brandman.edu/about-brandman/umassglobalfaqs https://www.brandman.edu/news-and-events/news/chapman-university-announces-strategic-partnership-between--umass-online-and-brandman-university

We anticipate a decision on the final name from the Department of Education(DOE) by mid 2021. Pending approval, we will officially change the name from Brandman University to University of Massachusetts Global. At that time, the University of Massachusetts Global will have new board members, new brand colors, etc. We can provide that information when the strategic partnership is official if you would be willing to update it at that time.

Currently: There are many outdated references listed. Are you open to changing those as well if we provide the updated links?

For example:

Fact Book: https://www.brandman.edu/-/media/documents/marketingresourcedocuments/bu_fact-book_2020.pdf?la=en&hash=45DE85B0AE191A8E82789F5C926DA087D4DE30DB

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions. ShanYoung.Writer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Agnes Scott College - Adding Graduate Programs

Hi, I would like to add Agnes Scott's graduate programs to the Wikipedia page. Please see sources for the graduate programs: Agnes Scott Graduate Programs. Can the changes I make not be reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:C700:23E0:38B3:C3A9:A8:F37 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've already written at the Help desk, I recommend reviewing our advice for college and university articles. In general, we don't include listings of every academic program, just a broad overview of the academic offerings of an institution. (WP:NOTCATALOG is the broader, project-wide policy that I think is most applicable.)

You should also review our policies related to paid editing and conflicts of interest. It's usually not a good idea to edit your employer's article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Education Dynamics

ElKevbo, any chance you could weigh in on Education Dynamics and whether is is worthy of any article? I respect your objectivity on this issue, either way you decide.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

West Chester Academic Affiliations

I see your point on some of the affiliations, but not all. The Keystone Library Network is exclusive to only a few colleges in Pennsylvania, therefore it should be included on the page. Also, institutions like Penn State University have the AAU in their affiliations. Football3434 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the library network to make a firm argument against its inclusion so I'm fine if you want to restore it. But the other affiliations are not exclusive and don't tell readers anything substantive. (AAU is very exclusive and tells readers a lot about the fewer than 100 research universities who are members.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Berkeley College

Hello,

We communicated a few months ago regarding updates to the Berkeley College Wikipedia page. I submitted a request for edits on the talk page last week. I was hoping you can assist with making these updates.

Thank you! CDonaldson1931 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Replies

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at OneMoreByte's talk page.
Message added 76.119.40.77 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Education Reform

I am working on Education Reform page for a school project. I noticed that the current lead section is lacking citations on every sentence. I am working to improve this. You reverted my changes stating "there is no need for 2 lead sections" i agree. can you take a look at my sandbox draft and my proposed lead section? and maybe offer me some suggestions on how to incorporate the two. :) thank you . User:Lcwest/Education reform Lead Section

also..i worked out the 20th century + timeline of reform legislation ... i'd like to add the information. what do you think?Lcwest (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lcwest: It looks pretty good! A few comments:

• We generally don't want to have many or any citations in the lede of an article. That is because the lede is generally a summary of what is discussed in more detail in the body of the article and that's typically where we place all of the individual citations. It's not an ironclad rule, however, and there are certainly times we need citations in the lede. But I find it's often best to write the lede with material that is broad and clearly supported in more detail in the body.
• I almost always think it's best to have the very first sentence of an article written with a clear definition of the subject and that almost always involves a straight forward formulation of "<Subject> is <concise definition>." The lede in your draft opens by telling us what education reform does but it doesn't tell what it is.
• The second and third paragraphs in your draft lede are very U.S.-centric. They would work well in a section of the article about the U.S. but they don't seem to work well in an article about this topic in an encyclopedia with an international audience. An alternative, of course, is to propose that the article be moved to "Education reform in the United States" and that would resolve this issue (but raise the new issue of "Why isn't there an article about this topic in a broader sense?"). The current article is certainly long enough to support a spin-off article focused on the U.S. but you'd need to also move and incorporate much of the U.S.-focused material in the current article, too.
• I worry about the timeline because it only cites one source of middling quality and the timeline doesn't even adhere to that one source. Without additional citations and adherence to those sources, it looks like you've done some of your own research and that is not something we support in Wikipedia. I'm sure that you're very knowledgeable and that you've written that in good faith but we insist on material in articles being drawn from reliable sources to ensure that our articles are high quality.
• You and your colleagues should also bear in mind that much of what you're writing only applies to the k-12 sector; you haven't written much about higher or continuing education. That's not necessarily a problem and I'm not suggesting that you need to expand the scope of your work. But you might want to look into clarifying your scope in the labels of your sections so that readers understand your scope.

Best of luck! ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:ElKevbo

hi. when you have time, will you check out the contributions i made to the live page: Education Reform.

thank you Lcwest (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo

Hi. So I was looking to add the missing citation forthe existing section "Classical Times". But, I dont know which content came first: Wiki or https://www.k12academics.com/education-reform/history . It is a verbatim copy, but i dont know who copied who. Is there a way to tell which came first? If the k12academics did then i found the missing link. (no pun intended) or i found plagarism. Thank you for your help with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_reform: Classical times Plato believed that children would never learn unless they wanted to learn. In The Republic, he said, " ... compulsory learning never sticks in the mind." An educational debate in the time of the Roman Empire arose after Christianity had achieved broad acceptance. The question concerned the educational value of pre-Christian classical thought: "Given that the body of knowledge of the pre-Christian Romans was heathen in origin, was it safe to teach it to Christian children?"[citation needed]"

https://www.k12academics.com/education-reform/history :"The History of Education Reform Classical times

Plato believed that children would never learn unless they wanted to learn. In The Republic, he said "...compulsory learning never sticks in the mind."

One of the most important educational debates in the time of the Roman Empire arose after Christianity had achieved broad acceptance. The question concerned the educational value of pre-Christian classical thought: given that the body of knowledge of the pre-Christian Romans was heathen in origin, was it safe to teach it to Christian children?

In general, works of history, science, philosophy and literary art were preserved. Works on magic and non christian religions were not preserved. For example, Euclid's books on Geometry were widely used. Aristotle's works in logic, politics, law and natural science were used. Plato's Socratic debates and Aristophanes' plays included questions of philosophy, morality and ethics, and were preserved despite their occasional moral ambiguity. The writings of Herodotus and Plutarch were considered acceptable for teaching history.

Modern Reforms

Education reforms in modern times arose first against neo-classical education, known in America as "humanistic" education, which resembled in many respects classical education. Motives for parting with classical methods were diverse, and included economic factors, differences in the aims of education—normalizing immigrants and the poor as opposed to training the upper and middle classes, and differences in educational philosophy.

Reforms of Classical Education

Western classical education as taught from the 8th to the 19th century has weaknesses that inspired reformers.

Classical education is most concerned with answering the "who, what, when, where" and "how" questions that concern a majority of students. Unless carefully taught, group instruction naturally neglects the theoretical "why" and "which" questions that strongly concern a minority of students.

Young children with short attention spans often enjoy repetition, but only if the subject is changed every few minutes. Skilled, compassionate primary classical teachers (always a rare breed, now nearly nonexistent) have always changed subjects continually and rapidly. Unskilled, or unkind classical teachers have drilled the joy of learning right out of young heads. ()

Some people can regurgitate words and yet never understand what they mean in the real world. This was terribly common among classically educated scholars.

Classical education in this period also deprecated local languages and cultures in favor of ancient languages (greek and Latin) and their cultures. This produced odd social effects in which an intellectual class might be more loyal to ancient cultures and institutions than to their native vernacular languages and their actual governing authorities. Lcwest (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lcwest: That's a good question that might be difficult to answer. You can certainly look through the history of the article to figure out when the material was first added, who added it, and if they left any useful information in their edit summary or what they originally added to the article.

It seems like there are two basic possibilities. The first possibility is that the information was first added to the article and then that webpage copied it. That would still leave us in the position of having unsourced information in this article and that's not a good place to be. The second possibility is that the information was copied from that webpage and added to this article. If that's the case, it would be easy to add a citation to this article but I would then raise the question of whether that webpage is a reliable source and one we should be relying on in the first place. I haven't looked very hard but what I've seen on that website does not give me a lot of confidence that it's a reliable source that should be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, an IP keep edit warring on List of universities by number of billionaire alumni. Is there any way to stop this IP from editing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:E00B:5C0C:9531:E576:F548:5E79 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There have been a lot of edits by different unregistered editors (or the same editors using different IP addresses) with few edit summaries and no discussion in Talk so honestly it's difficult for me to know what edits are vandalism and which ones aren't. Or even what vandalism is being alleged. ElKevbo (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response! There are contradiction between the numbers he provided and the data from the source. For instance, in the 2nd section for "Global top 20 universities by number of ultra high net worth alumni per Wealth-X 2019", he deliberately deleted New York University and University of Southern California from the list (please see p.7 of the reference source). He did so with all three sections and edited them with unsourced data.

Updated, I just checked his contributions and it seems like he was doing the same thing on Eric Schmidt, Cher Wang, Walter A. Haas and Jared Goff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b011:e00b:5c0c:9531:e576:f548:5e79 (talk • contribs) 14:42, April 20, 2021 (UTC)

If you can make a very clear and concise argument that this is undeniably vandalism - you'll definitely to include diffs and multiple unambiguous examples - then you could request an administrator take action at WP:AIV; that noticeboard is specifically for requesting administrative action to prevent vandalism by specific editors. ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Puffy? Northeastern University

Hello ELKevbo, I just finished reading Northeastern University's page and it struck me as kinda puffy. When you get a minute you might take a look. I would do some editing myself but I would rather defer to your experience. Wrrsimone (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's way too long and overly detailed but not egregiously POV. Feel free to raise specific issues in Talk or make appropriate edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dartmouth College Featured article review

I have nominated Dartmouth College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing down Academic affiliations

Hello EIKevbo, I notice you edited down the list of academic affiliations at NJIT. I tried going to the reference you included with no luck. Assuming all your deletions are consistent with your reference, I was wondering if you have a program of doing the same for other schools, e.g. Northeastern, MIT, etc., etc. Or is this a one-off? Wrrsimone (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to do this for every institution that includes those organizations in their infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you tried very hard because virtually every school I check, e.g Georgia Tech, MIT, BU seems to have escaped your efforts.Wrrsimone (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? What exactly in those articles is still present? ElKevbo (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

NJIT is a member of the Association of Public and Land-grant universities (APLU), as is Georgia Tech. And while you purged NJIT's link to this organization, Georgia Tech's remains. I am not familiar with the other Georgia Tech affiliations so I don't know if they "merit" listing or not. I'm not the expert here; according to you, you are. Also, in looking at Boston University "academic" affiliations, I see they are associated with AICUM, NAICU, and IAMSCU, the last of which is the International_Association_of_Methodist-related_Schools,_Colleges,_and_Universities. Do all of these affiliations really meet the criteria you say applies? Lastly, going back to NJIT, the Council for Higher Education in Newark (CHEN) IS an academic association, albeit not well-known and not well-healed. So I can't help wondering if the purging you advocate is as much about the relative visibility and (perceived) status of the schools you examine, as opposed to the nature of their affiliations. Wrrsimone (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not just a good idea, it's a guideline. If you really think my "purging" is targeted at particular kinds of colleges and universities then you're welcome to examine my contributions to substantiate your claim. You're not going to find what you're looking for and I'd appreciate an apology when you're ready to offer one. ElKevbo (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I started out with "good faith" but lost it when a very skimpy search turned up APLU at Georgia Tech - which I noticed, you fixed. I offer you a weak apology. If I can't reach the reference you cited earlier, I will upgrade my apology, assuming my reading of the reference comes close to yours. (I really don't understand how "The International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities" passes muster while the "Council for Higher Education in Newark" doesn't.) Also, given CHEN's exclusion I expect that similar "local clusters of schools", e.g "Colleges of Worcester Consortium" (COWC) - see WPI - will be similarly treated. Lastly, while I haven't looked at enough schools to establish this statistically, the more I look, the more it seems the list of Academic affiliations associated with well-known Private colleges outnumbers their Public counterparts on average. So, is this yet another reflection of the great Private ($$$$$) ("Hedge Funds with Classrooms" (not my quote)) vs Public ($) divide? Wrrsimone (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing the Council for Higher Education in Newark was a mistake; feel free to add it back. I don't know enough about the Colleges of Worcester Consortium, the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities, or most other local, regional, or focused groups to be comfortable removing them right now. If you are knowledgeable enough to know that those organizations or others don't pass muster, please feel free to remove them, too.

You really need to reevaluate your approach to asking questions and interacting with editors. Accusing someone who has made a mistake or simply not finished doing something of having a nefarious plot is not productive. And quite frankly it's not acceptable.

I'm happy to answer questions, engage in discussion, and collaborate. I won't entertain conspiracy theories and bad-faith accusations. If that is all you have then please stop communicating with me. ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have more than that. But for now why don't you go your way and I'll go mine. Wrrsimone (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Invite to the UT WikiProject

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of Texas at Austin articles and thought you might want to become a member of the UT Austin WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve UT Austin-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to featured article status. Hope you'll join us. Hook 'em Horns!

ScreamOfTheNight (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cdman882

I need your help: now Cdman882 is going after me on my talk page. I tried to just remove the idiotic back and forth, and even tried to post on his talk page, but he continues to post on my talk page, revert my deletion of the article, etc. Is there anything that can be done with this?

"Educational spending per degree completion"

Hi ElKevbo! As I was revamping the academics section at Pomona College (the last section before I submit it for GAN), I came across this paragraph: Pomona spent an average of $300,095 in educational spending per degree completion as of 2013, ranking it the highest among all peer liberal arts colleges for educational spending per capita and in the top 25 of all four-year private non-profit colleges and universities. For comparison, the average California four-year private non-profit spent $125,902, and the average among all four-year private non-profits in the US was $101,725. The dead link tag is mine; I was unfortunately unable to find any archived record of the Chronicle article whatsoever. But it seem like a useful metric, so I didn't want to just delete it, either. Trying to find that figure anywhere else has led me almost completely to dead ends, though; the closest I've gotten is doing an IPEDS search through this tool, which spit out numbers like 39,903 for "Instruction expenses per FTE (FASB) - (19)". I know you have a lot of knowledge in this area, so any chance you'd be able to point me to a different place with this data or similarly usable data on educational expenditures? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question but I don't think I can be very helpful in answering it as I don't do any significant work with financial data. I don't know if this is a derived variable in IPEDS but I imagine that you could calculate it yourself with IPEDS data (with all of the limitations of IPEDS data, of course).

I do start to worry when editors have to really dig for information; it makes me wonder if the information should be included in an encyclopedia article. Although some calculations are trivial and acceptable, it's pretty easy to cross into original research if you do your own calculations.

(I am also unsure if this is a "good" metric. Much of our attention in the last decade or two has been on students who don't complete their degrees (e.g., those students hold a very disproportional amount of student debt) and I don't know what to make of a calculation that explicitly excludes those students.)

There are a few projects that might have these data or something comparable. Maybe the Delta Project has something...? There is also the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (coincidentally hosted at current institution but I don't know how much data they make publicly available (my sense is that it's largely used by institutions for internal benchmarking and decision-making). ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too concerned about WP:DUE as it seems like reasonable information to include, but the WP:OR thought did cross my mind. WP:CALC allows for some basic summation, and I managed to get some data out of IPEDS, but I'm not sure which of "Instruction expenses per FTE", "Research expenses per FTE", "Public service expenses per FTE", "Academic support expenses per FTE", "Student service expenses per FTE", "Institutional support expenses per FTE", and "All other core expenses per FTE" count as educational expenditures. The Delta Cost project's relevant link is dead; from the achived link, they seemed to have some definition derived from the IPEDS data, but the actual data is gone so I can't tell precisely what it was. The Delaware site seems to require a login. Unless anything I just said clicks, I think it's probably time to concede defeat and just take out the paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Drexel U In Popular Culture

Rather than revert and pose the question in edit notes, posing here: Why is "substantive impact on the university...?" the question to ask about an In Pop Culture section? Danceclassedits (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's in an encyclopedia article, not a collection of trivial mentions in popular culture. ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your answer doesn't give a good rationale for deleting the material. My question was sincere and I would've liked more than a circular answer for why skit that involves Drexel on a high profile/important show *isn't* something that is relevant within a section that purports to include information about instances of Drexel's appearance in popular culture. You are stating your objection as self-evident or objective, I don't think it is. For example, why would you say DRexel on SNL is more trivial than "n 2006 Drexel served as the location for ABC Family's reality show "Back on Campus"."Danceclassedits (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That article has to summarize the entire history, organization, funding and resources, accomplishments, and challenges of a complex organization that is 130 years old. We cannot do that and include every time the university is mentioned in a television show. We certainly should not include information that isn't supported by reliable sources; without good, independent sources that assert that this information is important, all we have is a Wikipedia editor's opinion that this is important. Moreover, it's unclear what it is that readers are supposed to learn about the university from this material.

Our advice for articles about colleges and universities says this about these kind of sections:

If there are numerous reliable sources that discuss the institution's influence on popular culture then it may be appropriate to have a brief section describing that influence and offering well-known, pertinent examples. Such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of instances where the college or university is mentioned (in movies, books, television shows, etc.) nor should the section offer examples and discussion selected only by Wikipedia editors.

You're probably right about the triviality of the ABC Family show (and perhaps other things in that section). Feel free to remove it. And feel free to open a discussion in the article's Talk page if you want to try to get opinions from other editors! ElKevbo (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your response here, will try to do that later.Danceclassedits (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Accreditation parameter to Template:Infobox university

Thanks for the new parameter! However, I think the text of the parameter title in the infobox should have a link to the Educational accreditation article so people understand what "Accreditation" means. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll make the request. ElKevbo (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Also, if you could, maybe extend the parameter to the Infobox law school template. I tried the free label parameter to the University of Massachusetts School of Law article and it did not work. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I'm not familiar enough with law schools, especially outside of the U.S., to be comfortable making this request. Feel free to open a discussion in the template's Talk page; it might be helpful to look at the Template:Infobox university Talk page to see what I had to do to make this happen for that template. ElKevbo (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical rule or matter of faith? lol

While it may be a proper noun to English teachers, the churches of Christ have theology built around the lower case "c" in church of Christ. It may seem silly to non-members, but insisting that the "C" be capitalized is repugnant to many of them. In particular, the Churches of Christ (non-institutional) may get very upset about the capital C, but there are probably relatively few wiki-editors among them. It's a simple grammatical rule to most of us, but to them it's a very important part of their identity - although probably less so today than a generation or two ago. I don't care one way or another, but a lot of their members do, especially the older ones, so no doubt if you keep capitalizing their Churches they'll keep lower-casing them regularly. Here's a couple of links [1], [2], it's a somewhat difficult search topic, but doubtless you can find numerous books they've written on the subject. Cheers! Jacona (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradford9. I find comments from other editors seems to help admins move on cases a bit more swiftly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)