Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Higher education and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:HED WT:UNI

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Higher education Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WikiProject Higher education
This box: view talk edit
Main pages
Main project	talk
Participants
Participants category	talk
Project category	talk
Infobox	talk
Manual of style
Article guideline	talk
Templates
Higher education stubs	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
Collaboration of the Month (inactive)	talk
Outreach (inactive)	talk
Articles
List of articles	talk
Accomplishments
Articles for Deletion
Archive
Clean-up List
Popular pages
Task Forces
Student Affairs	talk
Statistics
Higher education pages by quality Quality Total FA 43 FL 55 FM 17 A 1 GA 221 B 1,072 C 3,790 Start 16,717 Stub 15,800 List 1,670 Category 27,747 Disambig 130 File 5,284 Project 48 Template 1,943 NA 1,927 Assessed 76,465 Unassessed 2,338 Total 78,803 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 197,204 Ω = 5.24
Things To Do
Work on articles that need cleanup. Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles. Place {{WikiProject Higher education}} on every related talk page. Combat boosterism wherever it appears Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.

Can some other editors please take a look at the recent editing history at Wesley College (Delaware)? I am concerned that two (?) single-purpose editors are edit-warring to insert blatantly POV material. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can some other editors please take a look at the requested move discussion I have started a at Talk:Redeemer University College#Requested move 16 November 2021, which follows two unsuccessful RM attempts and a reverted cut and paste move by a university employee. The article has been tagged since for content that is written like an advertisement and relying excessively on sources associated with the subject. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: Are there (sometimes?) differences between "faculty" and "academic staff", in particular with respect to what extent these terms include researchers? PhD candidates, are they students or can they count as faculty / academic staff? What is included in the NCES faculty numbers?

Long version: Hi all, Hi @Sdkb and Urselius:, could you please help me with the meaning of "faculty" and "academic staff"? Here, let us neglect the use of "faculty" for a division of a university as described in Faculty (division). Then the fact that the page Faculty redirects via Faculty (academic staff) to Academic personnel seems to indicate that faculty is the same as academic staff, also Wiktionary [1] defines (in Noun - 1.) faculty= academic staff (with the remark "chiefly US"). My question relates to the reseachers at the universities. From my point of view (which is a German and natural science one), reseachers - professors as well as PhD candidates if they get a fixed salary - typically belong to the academic staff. According to some sources, including dict.leo faculty is essentially the teaching/instructional staff - plus some of the adminstration like deans who might not be actively teaching. Also the usage part in the Wiktionary entry [2] mentiones "teaching staff ... are preferred in British English" and the translation part, "scholarly staff at colleges or universities" seem to indicate that faculty mainly includes the teachers (professors/instructors/lecturers), but not the research staff.?? In a typical German university department, there is one or a few professors, there might be some lecturers (Privatdozent or Akademischer Rat), and many academics doing their PhD. Although many PhD have to do some contribution to the teaching part, e.g. by being instructors for practical courses, this is typically just a minor fraction of their work. Therefore, many PhDs count as academic staff, but not as teaching staff (≈ faculty??), and there might be a considerable difference between the numbers. How about universities in your countries, e.g. in England and the US? Do PhD candidates get a salary at all? To what extent do researchers (PhD candidates, others like postdocs) belong to the academic staff and/or to the faculty? When I edit the German Wikipedia, should I use faculty numbers as given College Navigator of the National Center for Education Statistics NCES and academic staff numbers as given by the HESA as numbers of teaching staff ("Dozenten") or as academic staff ("wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter")? Does it make sense to distinguish here? Pseudoneu Anondeux Zweitnamensmann (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Faculty' as a collective term for academic or teaching staff at a higher education institution is really not used in the UK. The position in regard to who constitutes 'academic staff' is rather complex. At one time, prior to about 25 years ago, academic staff had much better employment contracts than other staff. They could only be dismissed for extreme misconduct. However, this has changed and academic staff now tend to have contracts much like those of other university employees. Academic staff were once expected to both teach and conduct research. Today, research 'high flyers' might expect to do much less teaching than their more pedestrian counterparts, and academics with research-only positions are becoming more common. Also academics who perhaps have not been successful in attracting research grant money, might find themselves moved into a teaching-only role. Academic staff, are those who are either 'principal investigators', who lead research groups, or academic teachers, or have a mixture of the two roles. Full or part-time teaching assistants, who usually have fixed-term or 'zero hours' contracts, are not usually considered to be academic staff. Staff, such as librarians and senior technical specialists, who provide scientific services supporting research, are often termed 'academic-related staff'. Sometimes these are lumped in with technicians, administrators and clerical staff as 'professional support staff'. Most researchers, including post-docs are on fixed-term contracts and are classified as 'research-only staff'. PhD students are just post-graduate students, but can also function as part-time 'demonstrators' and teaching assisstants, which they are paid for, but they are not regarded as being staff in any real sense. Urselius (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, and thank you for your sentence "Academic staff ... both teach and conduct research", reminding me of the Humboldtian model of higher education. Of course, this is still very influential, also in Germany, but on the other hand, there is also a trend to have some kind of "teaching only" and "research only" staff. So your description of the developments also fits to those in Germany.

It seems to me that due to the differences between universities in the UK and in Germany, it is hard to translate the term "academic staff" correctly. "Akademisches Personal", "Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter" = "scientific personnel" and "Dozenten" = "academic teacher" are quite close to "academic staff", but both do not fit perfectly: PhD candidates are not considered as academic staff in the UK as you describe above, but they often belong to it in Germany. Since there are these "research only" positions, teaching and academic staff is not the same. Pseudoneu Anondeux Zweitnamensmann (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We recently deprecated "administrative staff" because of ambiguity concerns and replaced it with "total staff". I don't think we'd want to do the same for faculty, because for many institutions in the U.S. and some other countries it has a pretty well-defined meaning. But if you're working on pages for countries where its meaning is not well-defined, you have two main options. The first is to choose whichever definition you think will be most helpful to readers, and then to include an explanatory footnote or similar to make your editorial decision clear to readers. The second is to just leave it out and use total staff instead. That would be a perfectly reasonable choice—the existence of a parameter doesn't mean it's mandatory to use it all the time. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers we use for UK universities come from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which defines academic staff as:

Academic contract staff are defined as professionals holding a contract for planning, directing and undertaking academic teaching and research within HE providers. Examples of such contracts include those for vice-chancellors, medical practitioners, dentists, veterinarians and other health care professionals who undertake lecturing or research activities.

It subdivides these for some purposes into "teaching only", "research only", "teaching and research" and "neither teaching not research", but these subdivisions aren't important for our purposes.[3] Robminchin (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to clarify this issue! Pseudoneu Anondeux Zweitnamensmann (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US Department of Education has the definitions they use online.

Faculty: Persons identified by the institution as such and typically those whose initial assignments are made for the purpose of conducting instruction, research or public service as a principal activity (or activities). They may hold academic rank titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer or the equivalent of any of those academic ranks. Faculty may also include the chancellor/president, provost, vice provosts, deans, directors or the equivalent, as well as associate deans, assistant deans and executive officers of academic departments (chairpersons, heads or the equivalent) if their principal activity is instruction combined with research and/or public service. The designation as "faculty" is separate from the activities to which they may be currently assigned. For example, a newly appointed president of an institution may also be appointed as a faculty member. Graduate, instruction, and research assistants are not included in this category.

Instructional staff: An occupational category that is comprised of staff who are either: 1) Primarily Instruction or 2) Instruction combined with research and/or public service. The intent of the Instructional Staff category is to include all individuals whose primary occupation includes instruction at the institution.

There are other definitions that may be relevant to your question if you look in the glossary linked above. ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may be interested in reading and participating in the recent nomination of Higher education accreditation for deletion. ElKevbo (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you to everyone who participated. ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Bolding in non-lead infoboxes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Green (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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like many of the FAs associated with this project have been pushed through a review recently. Is this just confirmation bias, weird timing, or what? ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo, I suspect it's because WP:URFA/2020 is getting to them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree that many of these articles, particularly those that were promoted many years ago when the standards were different and have not been well maintained, need to be reviewed and likely delisted, but it's disheartening to see it happening to so many articles so quickly. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. It's important to have FAs to use as models for the project. If there are some that are mostly good but just have a few flaws, it may be worth it to try to save them, but most of the ones so far have at least one big issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over content in Oklahoma Christian University‎. Additional input from other editors would be appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no information about the research output of the universities in the Infobox? For example, the number of peer-reviewed publications.

There is no systematic information even in the text except for major scientific achievements.

Nowadays, the ranking and reputation of universities rely on their research output. It will be very helpful if we have quantitative measures about the research output of universities (preferably in the Infobox).MojoDiJi (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Carnegie classification takes research into account, and that's often at least in the lead. To go in the infobox, the measures would have to be both important and representative of an institution's level of research. I think we could certainly do more in the body beyond just listing major research accomplishments. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every ranking system puts a significant weight on research. Take a look at College and university rankings, the term "research" has appeared 91 times, and the term "publications" (referring to the number of publications of faculty members) has appeared 11 times. In most ranking systems, the number of publications of each university is directly considered as a key factor, though some ranking systems use specific publications (e.g., in specific journals as My2Vice mentioned. You may argue the number of publications does not represent the institution's level of research. Similarly, the number of students as mentioned in the Infobox does not represent education. So much the worse, the definition of the number of students varies from source to source: part-time vs full-time, undergraduate vs graduate, graduate minus doctoral vs doctoral only.MojoDiJi (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a neutral measure of research output exists. If it does, I haven't seen it in discussions on bibliometrics within academia yet. So while it would be nice to have something like this in the infobox, it's not really feasible. Robminchin (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not easy to measure the research output, but the number of publications is a fairly standard measure, though there is an attempt to add more factors such as the impact of publications. However, many universities report their number of research publications as a measure of their research strength. It is much easier to measure the research output rather than education excellence.MojoDiJi (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of publications is a commonly understandable measure, as many resources use this raw measure (e.g., profiles of individual researchers on Google Scholar and other platforms). However, I suggest something to cover the quality as well as quantity, such as the number of publications in reputable journals. Something like Nature Index, but more scientific, as Nature Index has a commercial weight attached to it by covering a specific journal. In any case, research input should be definitely covered, as the battle of research is raging on in higher education.My2Vice (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot have both quality and quantity in a single measure. We have to report two different measures side by side. The Nature Index will favor a specific range of universities who regularly publish in Nature.MojoDiJi (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors cannot be in the business of creating metrics or rankings on their own. We can report what others have written - if they're reliable sources and are presented with appropriate weight - if there is a consensus to do so. So if someone believes this information should be included in articles, they need to (a) find where it has already been compiled and published and (b) propose or pilot a way to add it to articles in a way that works for most editors.

For U.S. institutions, I don't know offhand of a single metric or publication that describes total research output and has large scale acceptance in the academy. Many articles already include some of the disparate sources that provide a partial summary or some kind of proxy e.g., total external research funding received in specific time span, some of the international rankings that attempt to quantify research output and quality. As mentioned above, the Basic Carnegie Classification does this to some degree as research is included in the algorithm for classifying institutions, at least for universities, and that has widespread acceptance although it's a very, very coarse classification that few people actually understand except in the very broadest sense. So I sympathize with the desire to include this information but I don't think it's feasible, especially in any manner that is comparable across national borders. ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I suggest creating metrics or rankings? I just suggested including commonly understandable numbers such as the number of publications and citations for the sake of comparison. There is no shortage of sources for the number of publications and citations. Every publication database can aggregate the results based on the affiliation. As a matter of fact, this is one of few credible data about universities. You can check the validity of the results with another database. There are also open-source datasets of publications and citations. What is your source for the number of students, staff, endowment, etc. (all in the Infobox)? The university report. Can you double-check it with another source? No! You simply report what the university claims.MojoDiJi (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are publicly available data. Editors can decide on choosing a database as the main reference. There is no weight, these are absolute numbers. We do not create a metric here, just reporting what is commonly known to everyone.MojoDiJi (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this isn't feasible. To address one specific point made, number of publications (particularly in the form of papers, which is what is normally measured, and even then varies depending on the definitions and methodology adopted) is not the same thing as research output. The guidelines for the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021,[4] for example, state that "In addition to printed academic work, research outputs may include, but are not limited to: new materials, devices, images, artefacts, products and buildings; confidential or technical reports; intellectual property, whether in patents or other forms; performances, exhibits or events; and work published in non-print media." (Paragraph 217; a longer listing of the various categories of research output is given in Annex K). We have no way of balancing journal articles, edited books, compositions, artefacts, etc. in a way that isn't original research – which is why the idea of using bibliometrics for this sort of thing has been abandoned by the REF in favour of expert panels. Robminchin (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When applying for a faculty position, your application will not be even taken seriously without a strong record of publications (in scholarly journals), at least in 80% of disciplines. The same happens when applying for a research grant. The guideline you mentioned simply try to support other forms of research output, but still, journal publications are the dominant research out (books in a narrow range of disciplines). Instead of relying on the numbers, the REF classification of research excellence is based on the review of selective publications nominated by the universities (which I believed is just a fancy bureaucracy). Still, the judgement is based on the journal publications by a large margin. How do the universities select their representative publications? Most likely, the highly cited publications in famous journals. The output of REF reviews of higher education institutions directly correlates with the number of publications in famous journals and citations. Have you ever seen a small university beating Oxbridge in any research review? There's no magic, is it the science of statistics.MojoDiJi (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors here that assessing research output of a university would tend to be WP:OR, and I understand the suggestion made here by MojoDiJi to be explicitly WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose a reference source for all the metrics I suggested while people can cross-check with other databases. The point is that these data exist. Imagine Wikipedia decides to include these metrics, and use the university as the source (like other metrics in the Infobox). Isn't it better to use a third-party source for all universities? MojoDiJi (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to summarize my suggestion, as it is somewhat misunderstood. I say when you check the Infobox of a university in Wikipedia, you can quickly find its education size by the number of students; you can quickly get the education level by the ratio of graduate/undergraduate students. You can get a glimpse of history by the year of establishment, an overview of fundraising by the amount of endowments. However, you get absolutely no information on how much the university is research-intensive. I suggest three numbers: (1) the number of publications, (2) the number of publications in prestigious journals, and (3) the number of citations.MojoDiJi (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer possible criticism. These numbers should reflect a general overview of the research output of a university, not an absolute representation. No metric does. The sale of a music album does not represent its art, even the box office does not represent the success of a movie. The same rule applies to almost any metric provided in the infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. When you see a university that has 100 publications and the other 100,000; you can quickly guess which one is research active. It is statistically unlikely that the former has published 100 cutting edge research in Nature, and the latter 100,000 papers in fake journals. The number of citations is evidently a measure of how the reset of the community used the research. There are many discussions about manipulating bibliometrics, but it occurs at the author level, not the institution level. It is very unlikely that a university systematically plans to do so.MojoDiJi (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a question of a credible source. These numbers are publicly available through various databases and cross-checked. I can extract the numbers for a typical university and add them to the corresponding Wikipedia article, but it does not help. These numbers are meaningful only for the sake of comparison. They are useful if you add them to all research institutions/universities throughout Wikipedia.MojoDiJi (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these three numbers are interesting for most users of Wikipedia. Nature Index is a fraction of the second number I suggested. Not only does its Wikipedia page report the sort of ranking I highlighted, but also there is a dedicated website for this commercial index, which is quite common (as can be judged by the Alexa ranking). Therefore, the question is not if we need these three numbers, but where should be the main reference for it.MojoDiJi (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always great when Wikipedians argue against what is in documents produced by experts based on their own beliefs. It makes it explicit that what they are proposing is WP:OR. There is no reliable metric for research output, so this proposal is a non-starter – the addition of bad statistics that are likely to be misunderstood does not improve the encyclopedia. Robminchin (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I guess that reporting Nature Index isn't actually WP:OR, but I'm not convinced that it is WP:DUE. (It is a proprietary number from a publisher, which may for example tend to emphasize numbers from that publisher.) We sometimes add some similar indices to articles on academic journals, but the numbers that are worth including are better established and less proprietary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no reliable metric for research output", can you name a reliable metric for education? The amount of endowments of Harvard University as mentioned on its infobox is 10 times of Berkeley or Oxford. What does this metric represent? Are they "good statistics", causing no misunderstanding? The latter institutions are state-funded and their windfall fundings are not categorized as endowments. The statistics report facts through numbers. It is not the decision of an encyclopedia to judge what they represent or do not. An encyclopedia can only decide if a number is important or not (not if it represents this or that). If you wish to oppose my suggestion, the correct way is to claim the number of papers/citations is not important and nobody count them. I believe the three numbers I proposed are among the best metrics in the whole Wikipedia, because they are absolute numbers. People can easily verify them, as opposed to other metrics such as the number of students, which are reported by the university (and universities have different methods for counting students). Your attitude is not uncommon; you oppose anything new while defending what already exists. Sooner or later, Wikipedia will report the three numbers I proposed, because there is a general demand for them. That day, you will defend the number of papers/citations as established metrics while opposing new ideas.MojoDiJi (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I would like to invite any editors here to show their support for and potentially join the new WikiProject: Purdue University. It hasn't technically been made yet, and I only proposed it just a few minutes ago, but I'm trying to start out strong. The Project would aim to improve existing Purdue University-related articles and create new ones. As it is still in the proposal process, you can show your support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Purdue University. Thanks!! Invinciblewalnut (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Invinciblewalnut! I'm glad you're looking to improve Purdue, and if you have questions or want support resources, the folks here can help you out. I would not recommend trying to create a WikiProject, though. Individual schools, even larger ones, are just too niche topics to support a WikiProject, and the WikiProject system as a whole has been consolidating rather than expanding.

Looking at Purdue's article, it's in pretty decent shape compared to many other institutions. I'd recommend slimming down the notable alumni section and adding more references, particularly to secondary sources. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our first new featured article for an existing educational institution since 2010 just passed FAC! Per the instruction to raise new additions to the showcase article roster here before adding them, I'd like to formally propose that we add it. There's only one other article currently listed for the United States, Georgetown University, which is a very different type of institution (large university vs. small liberal arts college), so I think the case for the addition is pretty clear. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I added it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Higher education § IPEDS data import. This will be helpful for when we improve our infobox to integrate with Wikidata. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in compiling bios of leaders in medical education. I posted a bio about a month ago I am hoping to get some feedback on soon. I apologize if this is the wrong place to request this. If so, please let me know a better place to request such feedback. Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ara_Tekian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mededbios (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mededbios, I made some very quick fixes, but the main thing you need to do to get the draft accepted is demonstrate notability, via either the general notability guideline or the academics guideline. Any source from an institution with which Tekian is affiliated does not count toward that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mededbios, generally it is a good idea to check notability first to save your own time and the reviewer's. If you can establish notability under GNG or NPROF, then you can help the reviewer and potentially speed up the review by adding a section on notabilityb to the article talk page. An essay called WP:THREE suggests quoting your three strongest sources so the reviewer doesn't need to search for them. You could also read Help:Referencing_for_beginners and fill in your references with the RefToolbar to make it easier for the reviewer to assess them. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute at University of Massachusetts Amherst about whether honorary degree recipients can be included in the article as "alumni." Additional input from other editors would be welcome. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may be of interest to this project: see Academic ranking sites (AcademicInfluence.com, EduRank.org, OneClass.com) at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC going on on whether the names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses at Caltech, should be capitalized. The question is whether these names are proper nouns, and whether the ~80% of sources capitalizing them is a "substantial majority". Your comments and !votes are appreciated. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]