Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox university. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In my experience, there seems to be quite a lot of colleges and universities that use the term 'chair', rather than 'chairman' or 'chairperson' for their boards. The usual consensus is to use the same title which an institution uses, so I'd like to propose adding the variant 'chair' as an option for institutions that use this title. – Handoto (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

|chairperson= is what you need. It is already documented as the generic form. See chairperson, where it is explained briefly that "chair" is a shortened synonym of "chairperson". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that 'chair' and 'chairperson' can be distinct titles, similar to how many companies use different titles like 'chairman' or 'chair(man) of the board'. They can all technically be shortened to 'chair', and if the general consensus is to match titles used, I don't think forcing chairperson on institutions that use the term chair is preferable. – Handoto (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with making |chair= an alias of |chairperson= that produces a different label. We already have |chairman= doing that, so this is just another to add. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Chair is used almost exclusively in Britain in my experience (the full title normally being Chair of Council), e.g. Committee of University Chairs. Robminchin (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I don't take any issue with the aspects of my recent edits that you reverted with the exception of the {{Start date and age}} template being used for |established= over {{Start date}}. A quick colloquy with CirrusSearch informs us that currently {{Start date}} is used on 2,511 pages that have this infobox, while {{Start date and age}} is used on 4,808, nearly twice as many. I see that representing the best gauge we have for overall community sentiment among editors to post-secondary educational institution articles, and absent any serious objection in the next few days, I'd like your consent to reinstate that part of my edit.

Furthermore, I think that the employment of the other optional parameters I had given in the TemplateData example (|p=yes and |br=yes) represent a potential middle ground between those who feel the age calculation is "clutter" and those who don't. By including a line break between the two values they each become more distinct to the scanning eye, and placing the age calculation within parentheses rather than bare following a semicolon further denotes its inclusion as a point of convenience rather than another datum of equal significance. What say you, and anyone else reading this? —  ℛogueScholar  ₨🗩  05:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueScholar, thanks for opening the discussion and providing those stats. This question has been raised before here and here. At the latter discussion, I was persuaded by MB not to add age in the FA I was working on, particularly given that it would've brought that field from one line to two. From that discussion I see a very weak consensus for the status quo documentation recommending just start date, but I'm curious to hear more from others. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Those stats don't include articles that just have a raw date without any template, which would of course not have age either. The ones with a template are less than a third of the 24k articles using this template, although many likely don't give any date at all. MB 06:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Per this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Urology,_University_of_Virginia&diff=next&oldid=1058446881 Should chairwoman be a separate row as chairman and chairperson are, or should all three parameters (chairman, chairperson, chairwoman (and maybe chair(?)) feed into one row?Naraht (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there's probably some discussion about this somewhere in the archives here or at WT:HED. My view is that, because someone's gender does not have anything meaningful to do with their job, MOS:GNL asks that we avoid unnecessarily calling it out and instead use gender-neutral language to the extent possible. The only reason not to completely deprecate the "Chairman" label is that some organizations may have it defined as the formal title in their bylaws, and editors may want to use it in the article even if a woman holds the role. But if we're given discretion, I would always prefer "chairperson" or just "chair". In that framework, I don't think there are any situations where we'd use "chairwoman". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sdkb. I don't see any reason to draw attention to the person's gender which is irrelevant to their position as chair. --Muhandes (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer a situation that has Chairman and Chairwoman treated equivalently, the current doesn't, do we have a better way?Naraht (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, I believe the logo should be ordered before the seal. Take for example this university: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_Urbana-Champaign The logo is at the very bottom, while the seal, which has not been used in years and I am pretty sure is actually discontinued (as it is the University of Illinois system now, not just UIUC) is being afforded priority. This results in the logo of the university (which includes the full name, which is helpful), that is the public facing representation of the university, being situated at the very bottom of the infobox. Every modern university uses their logo vastly more than their seal, if they even have one. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermuto (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fermuto: You're welcome to your opinion - in fact, I share it - but you are not welcome to edit war to enforce it. Please revert your edit to the status quo while this discussion is taking place. ElKevbo (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, it looks like the editor just tossed out my edit comment. However, it the "image" field DOES allow the university logo per the template page, so I see no problem with the edit. My bad if I came off as edit warring, but I believe it falls under the format. Fermuto (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to request the inclusion of a skyline image parameter in this template. The purpose of the infobox photo is to confirm to a user is at the correct page. A seal or logo doesn't do much to fulfil this guideline. Instead, a skyline image of the campus could prove vital. I think that the logo and skyline image could work in tandem. I think that the logo/seal would work best first, and the skyline would be second. Please share your thoughts on this idea. Sea Cow (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am very skeptical that many colleges and universities have such recognizable skylines that this information would be useful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's more about the opportunity. The current system doesn't work well for the fundamental idea behind infobox images. If there's a photo out there, and a editor believes that it can accurately depict the skyline of a college, what's the harm? As a counter of your point, a lot of campuses have a well known central building, that could be recognizable. Notre Dame - Touchdown jesus library, University of Texas at Austin - UT Tower, University of Missouri - Jesse Hall/Columns, Harvard - Memorial Hall. The list goes on and on. If it's a small dinky university that isn't very recognizable, than the parameter doesn't have to be used. It's more about providing opprotunity. Sea Cow (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Is it possible to develop this infobox to be compatible with wikidata? 2A01:CB18:570:8300:2493:C0F:5FE4:E24A (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP! It's something @Mike Peel and I have explored, but it'll take some work to get there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox university has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As discussed above, I'm requesting the addition of the alias |chair=, as a variant of |chairperson=, similar to the |chairman= alias. – Handoto (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please first make your changes in the sandbox (Template:Infobox university/sandbox), validate the change, then reactivate the edit request when ready. If this is just a discussion asking someone else to do the work, they can reactivate the request when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox university has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reactivating the edit request after sandbox addition and validation of the alias |chair=, as a variant of |chairperson=, similar to the |chairman= alias based on the now-archived discussion of inclusion. – Handoto (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Handoto: You did not sync the sandbox before editing it. Nevertheless, this is quite a straightforward edit so I redid it in the sandbox and applied it.  Done --Muhandes (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox university has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've published updates to the sandbox to alter the links for the superintendent and principal fields. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox university has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:Pages using infobox university with the sports parameter has been emptied so {{{athletics}}} and {{{sports}}} are no longer being used and should be removed from the template all together. These changes have been reflected in the sandbox. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan721: The changes have been made on an unsynched sandbox. Please redo them on a synched one, test them properly in the testcase page, and set |answered=no to reactivate the request. --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason the |sports= parameter was not removed? --Muhandes (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be gone now. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Took a look: looks OK to edit now. TPU (Jun 1) checking shows no usage hits, and anyway they would be categorised neatly. -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Apologies for making this separate as I am a Wikipedia elementary haha.

I have no issue using whatever source. The points both brought up seem. This was started due to the discrepancy found in UC endowments, and as the consensus seems to be to use NACUBO for that, I am satisfied. Ideally I would think a standardized source would provide a more balanced view of organizations, though.

However, for schools like Northwestern and Notre Dame (where the endowment differs between sources) what should we use? Should we revert them back to their university-affiliated pages? 2607:FEA8:740:6400:A2F0:8311:FCB5:6EEA (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A few editors are insisting that the NACUBO-TIAA Study of Endowments is the only source that can be used to include the endowment of an institution in this infobox (presumably only for the U.S. and Canadian institutions that are included in that survey). This has been discussed several times at WT:UNI but not here. Those discussions have not been conclusive with different editors offering different opinions with no definitive RfC or clear consensus. (Disclosure: I participated in several of those discussions.)

I object to the replacement of clear and up-to-date institutional sources in favor of the outdated, less comprehensive NACUBO source in the endowment parameter of individual institutions e.g., here and here. There is no consensus to do so. And there is no policy requiring that we do so.

The institutional sources are not independent sources but we are not forbidden from using dependent sources. Further, many of the institution-written sources are not, as some editors have claimed, primary sources; primary sources for this information would be detailed financial data about these investments (e.g., financial ledgers, tax documents, audit reports), not institutional webpages or news articles summarizing or announcing aggregate endowment information. Even if they were primary sources, they clearly meet all of the requirements for use in articles:

1. They have been reputably published 2. Editors are not engaged in interpretation. 3. They are only being used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. 4. They are not being analyzes, evaluates, interpreted, or synthesized. 5. We are not basing the entire article on them or "basing large passages on them."

(The University of California Annual Financial Report does appear to be an exception; it does require analysis and interpretation so I think it's worthy of a separate discussion. Until that discussion is held, I think it's reasonable to not use it as a source for this parameter of this infobox in the articles about the University of California institutions.)

We should not pretend that the NACUBO data are significantly better solely because they're "independently" produced. The information is gathered from surveys of institutions. Whether it's from the NACUBO tables or the institution's website, the source of the information is the same. (The primary benefit of the NACUBO data, in my opinion, is that they are attempting to impose common definitions and a common timeframe on the respondents; we still don't have any guarantee that the respondents follow those directions.)

Since policy does not forbid us from using these sources, it's up to editors to come to a consensus about which of these conflicting sources should be used. It makes sense to me that we standardize on using the NACUBO data for an article like List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment that is explicitly comparing the endowments of multiple institutions - it is most helpful for readers if we ensure that the comparison is being made as accurately as possible and the NACUBO data helps us do that. In individual articles, however, we are not making these comparisons so we should be using the most up-to-date, accurate information that is available.

At the moment, there is no consensus that we only use NACUBO data in the endowment parameter of this article. Nor is there policy that requires us to that source or policy that forbids the use institution-published sources. ElKevbo (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d prefer using an independent source, but I don’t think it should be a hard rule. One benefit of NACUBO is that it is standardized across American and Canadian institutions and that it’s always reporters at the end of financial year, while self-published sources might be published at different times, which means that comparisons can be apples to oranges. That said, I am not against using other sources in some cases. For example, the University of California system is bit unusual since each institutions has several different endowment pools, part in the institution itself and part in the UC system as a whole (one has to be careful tho - several current edits seemed to ascribed to a few of the UC campuses endowments managed and owned by the UC system). Eccekevin (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to insist that editors use outdated information when more current information is available from a reliable source? I can support that approach in an article where comparisons are being made but not across multiple, different articles. And certainly not when there is no existing consensus supporting that decision, no documentation in the template, and no relevant policy or guideline.

The inconsistent inclusion or exclusion of system and foundation data in the NACUBO tables is worrying and a clear sign that the information is not as infallible as some editors seem to believe. But we also need to be careful to not use complex primary sources that require interpretation and analysis to try to figure that out on our own. That's what appears to be happening with the University of California articles (e.g., Berkeley, UCLA). In those specific instances, the cited source appears to be complex and deriving the total endowment available to each institution appears to require synthesis that is inappropriate for our use of [ttps://www.ucop.edu/investment-office/investment-reports/annual-reports/annual-endowment-report-2021.pdf that primary source]. (Note that some other articles that have been edited as part of this dispute do use primary sources such as MIT but in those instances no synthesis or analysis is necessary as they clearly and simply state the value of the entire endowment before going into further details.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(This inconsistency in the data is not a snipe at NACUBO, by the way; endowments, like many other parts of college and university finances, are deceptively complex and very difficult to capture in consistent ways across institutions. There are scholars who dedicate their lives to trying to do that work. ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC))

I don’t disagree, nor did I insist we use NACUBO. I simply expressed a preference for independent sources vs dependent sources. I think it should be on a case to case basis given the complexity of the topic. Eccekevin (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to try to do a small improvement in template to read the coordinates from Wikidata if it's not possible to display them (since for example the coordinates= parameter is empty). Would it be nice? I'm inclined to adopt {{WikidataCoord}}. Thank you for your thoughts --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

See {{Infobox telescope}} for an well-tested way to retrieve coordinates. Remember that reliable sources are required for infobox values pulled from Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox university has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following parameters to the template: - add "CEO" and "Executive Director" after the existing "Dean" parameter - add "Funds Raised to Date" after the existing "Endowment" parameter 2600:8807:5705:CC00:CD31:11F2:AE64:E0C1 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! You can use the "head_label" parameter to add a CEO or executive director. Keep in mind that we really only want the top one or two people at a university — any more is too much information to fit well in the infobox. Regarding "funds raised to date", I don't think that's needed in the infobox. Just put it in the organization or history section of the body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that (a) the "head" and "head_label" parameters may be appropriate for this situation and (b) "funds raised to date" is not a helpful, appropriate parameter for this infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)