Talk:Cornell University/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonanza of Awesome Cornell Pics
Maybe we can use this website for pictures, after all it does say for the "general public", thus releasing all the pictures to the use of the general public. These pictures are awesome!! --Cornell010 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.asergeev.com/php/searchph/search.php?test=&keywords=cornell&mode=&year1=1996&month1=1&day1=1&year2=2006&month2=12&day2=31&lum=&hue=&order=AUTO
- They can be used!!Look at this quote from the website: "For better exchange of information, Sergeev's files are allowed for copying, modifying, and distribution for any purpose." Nice--Cornell010 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Make sure you upload the high-resolution ones. -Mercuryboard 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The whole snippet from that website is: "For better exchange of information, Sergeev's files are allowed for copying, modifying, and distribution for any purpose. Pictures are expected to be used according to commonly accepted rules and regulations." I don't really know what he means by this, except he obviously asks that some kinds of "rules and regulations" are used here. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much clocktower?
It seems like nearly every image features the clocktower and/or Uris Library. There's a lot more on campus, can we make the page a little more diverse? -Mercuryboard 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to change it up. How's it now? By the way, does anyone have a good picture of the Weill Center? Otherwise, we will need to find one. --Cornell010 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. Also, the campus seems shrouded in woods from many of these photos.--Xtreambar 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, we have nothing else. Let's just fix the article (i.e. text) first, and then we can search for a greater variety of pictures.--Cornell010 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Disambig
Obviously, Cornell redirects to Cornell University. This is how it should be. But do we really need to say "you've been redirected!" when most people would be at their correct destination anyway? Why not just this:
- For the unaffiliated liberal arts college in Mount Vernon, Iowa, see Cornell College. For other uses, see Cornell (disambiguation).
-Mercuryboard 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hotel School Rankings
I'd like to say the Hotel School is tops but I can't find any sources to support it. I know there are quotations out there but that's not really solid enough evidence; I'd rather have a ranking. Anybody know of anything? -Mercuryboard 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please, let's not go overboard with rankings. Just say that in 1979 Conrad Hilton called it the greatest hotel school in the world, copying the citation from Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, and let that stand until someone finds something better. Don't say it's tops, just say Hilton said it was tops. If anyone thinks Hilton was joking, or didn't know what he was talking about, or that between 1979 and now it might have been overtaken by the Rosen College of Hospitality Management of the University of Central Florida, let them think that. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The rankings section is getting much too long. In my opinion, we should keep rankings of specific colleges, fields or departments on more appropriate, more specific pages. This article used to be quite a bit more restrained when it came to the pissing contest that is the college rankings. The rankings are useful; people are interested in them. Indeed, some people coming to this page will come to this page looking for information about how Cornell ranks. If they want such specific information on the Hotel School, they should look for it at the Hotel School's article. By presenting only those rankings in which Cornell is near the top, we're not providing a neutral view. It's certainly fair to point out things that are unique or unusual about Cornell, but I don't think we acheive this vary well by using rankings. btm talk 06:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Amen, brother. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's pretty relevant, considering that a lot of people who wish to look up Cornell want to also find out about its rankings. By making these rankings more accessible, we are simply making the page more user friendly.--Cornell010 17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Amen, brother. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's getting too long. The prose could probably be condensed, but I don't think the content itself is too broad. As Cornell010 said, a lot of people are going to look at the article and expect to see rankings. If you can find some other rankings that promote npov, go for it. It is also possible that Cornell is ranked more often than some other universities, so there is more content. See FAs Michigan State University and University of Michigan for some ideas on where we might want to go from here. -Mercuryboard 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Rankings about Cornell are relevant here, but rankings about the Hotel School and other fields are not particularly relevant on this page. There are much more effective ways of pointing out particular strengths of Cornell — what are the major contributions that Cornell has made in particular fields, what have its alumni gone on to do in particular fields, etc., etc. Cornell makes contributions in as broad an array of fields as just about any other university you care to choose. As alluded to by Dpbsmith, using quotes from respected sources is not only a more effective way of demonstrating Cornell's particular strengths, but also a more neutral way (if just in appearance).
-
- Yet, I do think that presenting specific and complete information about the major rankings for Cornell as an institution is completely fair for this article; this way, people who are looking for rankings will get the information they want. Of course, this means that if Cornell falls 5 spots in ranking X, ranking X doesn't suddenly disappear from the page. So, I don't dispute Cornell010's argument that rankings are relevant. The point I am trying to make is that most people are generally not coming here to look for rankings in AEP or architecture, etc. For the few people who do want to know that stuff: (a) I think they should be looking for it on a different page anyway, and (b) an encyclopedia article should be a concise summary of a topic, it shouldn't include such marginally relevant, potentially skewed information, anyway.
-
- MSU's ranking section isn't particularly good. IMO, it reeks of bias. UM's is better: it doesn't "bury the reader in facts" trying to make a point about its prestige. There are three rankings in total and the only ranking about a specific field is one where UM has ranked number 1 for over 10 years in a row. We're not seeing an example of something where UM is among the leaders, but an example where UM is the clear leader. Even so, I don't think it could be argued that this ranking is necessary for a complete, FA-level article. btm talk 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I cut it down and organized it. Now we have three short paragraphs on rankings: university, notable graduate programs, and notable undergraduate programs. As it stands, I don't really see any problems with it. It's fairly concise, npov, cited well, and organized. -Mercuryboard 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Johnson School of Managment
I just wanted to bring out that we also need to really work on this school's page, it's atrocious.--Cornell010 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Main Article Links
Do we really need all these links to main articles. Almost 70% of them are short, and the same information is covered here on this article. For example, we do not need the main article for Qatar campus, it's pointless.--Cornell010 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good call. Merged Qatar. -Mercuryboard 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Research section
There has already been some discussion on how this section should look (look in archive 2 under Cornell Safety Car). I believe there was some agreement among several editors that the research section should be more of a broad overview, with one line mentions of various things like the Cornell Safety Car, Mars rovers, etc., with links to the main articles on this stuff. I think one problem with this approach is that it relies on editors having this great overview of all of Cornell's research. It seems a tremendous task, which I think explains the lack of expansion.
As another proposal, let me suggest that it is not so bad to have these little subsections. I think there's always going to be a lack of energy in creating them, so there's little danger of getting overloaded. We can always snip and tighten things up if things get too long. We should just make sure to give a nice cross-section of research so as to avoid giving a narrow view; right now, we have computers/internet, space exploration, particle accelerators, car safety. Some stuff from biology/medicine would be good here, maybe veterinary stuff. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I added it back because I'd rather see a quick summary with examples than just a quick summary. Still, it's not right. Looking at the style of the alumni section could help here. Lots of Wikilinked examples, following a broad summary of research expenditures, undergraduate research opportunities, some statistics on research output, etc. Until that gets done, what we have isn't terrible. I just don't know enough about research at Cornell to do it right. -Mercuryboard 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
West Campus
given that so many of the individual dorm articles seem to be one line repetitive stubs, I created a new article for West Campus at Cornell West Campus. It would seem to be more logical to organize all of the information about the West Campus intiative in one article instead of in each residential college's article, but that might just be me. The article is still a rough draft. The hyperlinks for Cook and Becker in the article are currently pointing to external links, as I'm not sure if they should just point to stubs or not, feel free to change those to inter-wiki links if you feel that it is more appropriate.--Moki80 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is good. You might be best off just copying all the information out of the residential college stubs and The Gothic Halls and consolidating it on the West Campus page. From there, we ought to expand each of the sections. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
City Haters?
I found a link to a Newsweek listing of "25 Hot Schools"--Cornell the "best school for city-haters." :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626574/site/newsweek/
Adds some support for being "well regarded for scenic beauty," if anyone wants to incorporate it?
- I don't think this is particularly truthful or relevent. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
North Campus
Should we merge the North Campus stubs as we have with West Campus? We could always branch off with {{mainarticle}} for Risley Hall. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. We should do it.--Cornell010 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Get to work. Cornell North Campus -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 04:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright, I did some work. However, a lot to still needs to be done.--Cornell010 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Can we add North Campus to the Cornell box at the bottom of the page.--Cornell010 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I already posted this to the template:cornell discussion page, sorry to repeat it, but maybe we should remove the residences section from the template, as with the assimilation of the dorm stubs, the only things left in that section would be North, West and Sage. --Moki80 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Need to work on articles about various colleges
We need to really work on the articles about the various colleges. I've tried to work on them, however, I don't really know much about them, and so we all need to get together and work on them.--Cornell010 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Solution for Weill Med College Picture
Alright, if anyone knows anyone in NYC then tell them to take a nice pleasant walk by the Weill Medical center and snap some digital photographs. I would have tried mine, but they're in Florida. BTW, did anyone see the collegeconfidential posting about weill, it seems the word is spreading, perhaps now we will finally succeed at obtaining a Weill photograph!!!--Cornell010 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I saw that, who posted it? -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Modeling picture layout after University of Michigan
They have this continuous layout approach which looks really good, maybe we should try it.--Cornell010 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please elaborate before we change anything. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 05:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- For example, in each section the first picture is on the right, however, if there is a second picture in the same section then it is on the left, and so on. Therefore, this keeps the layout constant, and makes the page more appealing.--Cornell010 05:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Give me a few minutes to play around with this so we don't have edit conflicts. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 05:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I tried, and this is what I came up with. What resolution and browser are you on? I'm on 1280x1024 and tried IE and Firefox and this is the only thing that looked decent. We can't go with that pattern completely because the images would overlap and push each other in strange ways. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I use internet explorer, however, the format looks a lot better now. Good Job!--Cornell010 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- For example, in each section the first picture is on the right, however, if there is a second picture in the same section then it is on the left, and so on. Therefore, this keeps the layout constant, and makes the page more appealing.--Cornell010 05:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Some pictures
- I am still hoping for a better picture of weill, this one looks kind of grainy.--Cornell010 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Two citations left
In the article we have two unsourced facts. Search for 'citation' in the article to find them. The statements are:
- Today, the [Cornell University] press is one of the country's largest university presses.
- [The Student Assembly Finance Commission is] a student-run organization that gives nearly $1,000,000 per year to clubs and organizations.
Not only are they unsourced, but they're vague. We need to find a list of the country's largest university presses, or something that states exactly where Cornell fits. We also need to find the annual SAFC budget, or how much they give out. We are so close to FA, let's just get these last issues ironed out. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now we just need to find a clear source that says Cornell is one of the largest university publishers, or at least that it's a major one. Or we can just delete that sentence. Discuss it here. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cornell010 found an article that cited this source. It's similar to what we need but it's too specific. This is a ranking of presses by quality in the field of political science. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The SAFC gets $75 of the Student Activity Fee per undergraduate, per the SA website (which, according to our numbers, works out to $1,021,875 per year); the SAFC page of that site states they fund "over 350 student organizations a year," in case you want to throw a figure in there. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk, former SAFC Commissioner, 06:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- Excellent, I did not know about that site. What is the current Student Activities fee, in total? I want to talk a little about Student Assembly and how they fund student life, and then mention the $1 million for student organizations in particular. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Are we ready to be featured?
Discuss.--Cornell010 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can anything more be said about university history? It seems a bit 1860-1870's heavy. Well, not necessarilly "heavy", but lacking in everything else. Take a look at the UMich article. Many congratulations to all of the great work in the past few weeks. I am certain that we are good enough for a GA status, so I am going to nominate CU again for that.--Xtreambar 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, but nearly. See the todo at the top of this page, which I update often. Good work on Athletics, now find some sources for those facts. this will have a lot of them. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just submitted to FAC. Stand by to fix any objections... there's not much more we can do to this article without some fresh criticism (or FA promotion!). -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
GA
I recently passed this article. I could tell that a lot of work had gone into the article's development and it closely follows the most important wikipedia guidelines. While I was slightly concerned with this article’s use of boosterism, I did not see this as a fatal flaw. There are significant obvious attempts to maintain a NPOV and avoid uncorroborated phrases of praise. It is definitely no worse than FA University of Michigan. In regard to boosterism, my biggest concern is the "Do not bury the reader in facts" portion. After reading this LENGTHY article as well as some linked articles, I can assure you that my brain did not successfully soak up all the information. I acknowledge, however, that most readers won't read these in their entirety and thus can soak more up. However, it might be helpful to create new articles and shorten some of the sections. Additionally, there may be some other minor issues, but the major issue (that can be easily remedied) to me was the flow of the article. The ordering of the sections seems illogical to me, particularly the alumni section. After reading about academics, as a reader, I expect to learn about the other aspects of Cornell life besides academics (i.e. research and student life). Talking about graduates before finishing up on what students and faculty do while at the university seems premature. Personally, I’d put the alumni section after research. In general, this article is well-written, follows a NPOV in the vast majority of cases, has properly tagged and helpful images, and is verifiable. Thus, a good article indeed! --Bluedog423 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I moved the alumni section down to the end. However, I disagree with the arguement that the article is too long. Cornell's history is very rich, and if anything were left out it would only detract from the article. I agree with Mercuryboard in that we can still add some history, however, I feel that this article has truly become awesome, and that it's qualified for featured status!--Cornell010 04:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that deleting things from this article would detract from it as a whole (and would be a loss for wikipedia). I was merely saying that reading all of it for the first time was overwhelming (but I guess learning everything important about Cornell should be overwhelming!). Yet, I take back my "create new articles" comment because, as I look back, there are several sections that have their own main article. I don't see a clear cut case where another one should be made. If the research section, however, continues to expand, I'd expect that be next, although it doesn't merit its own article in its current state. --Bluedog423 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yea, the research section's growth should be slowed.--Cornell010 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Add this information to the history section
On April 19, 1969, during a parents' weekend, over eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall. The takeover was precipitated by increasing racial tension at the university and the students' frustration with the administration's lack of support for a black studies program. On April 20, the takeover ended, with Cornell ceding to the Afro-American Society's demands. The students emerged making a black-power salute and with guns in hand (the guns had been brought into Willard Straight Hall after the initial takeover). James A. Perkins, president of Cornell during the events, would resign soon after the crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.67.6.11 (talk • contribs).
-
- Alright we've added this to the history section, however, we need to make the history section flow a bit more.--134.67.6.11 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone get to work on the Alumni section
- See also: /alumni sandbox
- See also: University of Michigan#Notable people and alumni
- What sort of references ought we use? I know the people to whom these accomplishments refer. --Xtreambar 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, I was kind of wondering about that also. Mercuryboard, any answers?--Cornell010 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest finding existing lists of notable alumni (from other non-Wiki websites) which include these people, and use that as a single reference for all of these statements. In terms of prose, we need to clarify vague statements such as "contributed to." If there is any doubt as to which person we are mentioning, add the Cornellian's full wiki-linked name. This might clutter the prose a bit, so we need to watch out and split long sentences too. I like the section's style, and the changes we need to make are not very substantial. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would something like this be the prefered direction? Or perhaps footnotes--Xtreambar 01:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest finding existing lists of notable alumni (from other non-Wiki websites) which include these people, and use that as a single reference for all of these statements. In terms of prose, we need to clarify vague statements such as "contributed to." If there is any doubt as to which person we are mentioning, add the Cornellian's full wiki-linked name. This might clutter the prose a bit, so we need to watch out and split long sentences too. I like the section's style, and the changes we need to make are not very substantial. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, I was kind of wondering about that also. Mercuryboard, any answers?--Cornell010 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Additionally, Cornellians are noted for their accomplishments in a variety of fields. Though no Cornellian has been an American president, they have been the heads of state for Iran (Jamshid Amuzegar '1945, Ph.D. '1951), the Republic of China(Lee Teng-hui Ph.D. '1968), and Cuba (Mario García Menocal '1888). Also in government have been numerous Cabinet members (e.g. Janet Reno '1960) and Congressmen, and one Supreme Court justice(Ruth Bader Ginsburg '1954).
-
-
-
This might take a few days and a few editors. Rather than making intermediate steps public on Cornell University, or duplicating work that somebody else may be doing, let's all work on /alumni sandbox until it's ready to go public. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Idea for more negative attributes
How about if we mention how Cornell is known for giving out little financial aid, this might be a rumor, but it's worth a try. Also, we could talk about how people have complained about Cornell's rank being in the teens instead of in the top ten for USNWRs.--134.67.6.11 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Both of these may just be negative POV (not toward neutral POV). The first is no good unless we find a source, and the second is clear enough in Rankings. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess then there really isn't that much. Maybe, the University of Michigan just has a lot of bad things (lol).--134.67.6.11 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Given the reputation that Ivy League schools have for strong need-based financial aid and also my own personal experience, it's difficult for me to take such a rumor seriously. Yes, I heard some complaints as an undergrad... however, the only people I knew that would complain about "poor financial aid" were those who were demonstrably not in serious need. I can see that in the case of multiple children it could be a burden...but paying for college is a burden a great deal of many parents face, with much more limited resources (even with lower tuition) than many of those whose children go to Cornell. I was quite often surprised at the number of people who got financial aid even though they were quite well-off, so I believe the multiple children thing (or similar factors) were taken into account in those cases. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's a university, not a fascist government. It exists to do good, and is good at what it does. We've hit every major negative point, and almost anything else would be extraneous. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I concur. Also, I think that we have pretty much exhausted our efforts to obtain any new information. This article is as close to done as it can get. The only problem I can think of is the article's length, other than that I think we are done.--User:Cornell010 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for the introduction
I think we should scrap the last line, it's already established that it is a "private research university", thus we don't need the money figures.--User:Cornell010 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are a lot of research universities, Cornell makes a particularly big deal about its research, so we should note it. We have an entire top-level section devoted to it. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, but maybe we could mention the library system, or athletics; it just seems that we could include other things. Maybe by tommorow I'll get an example together (oh wait..maybe by this morning).--User:Cornell010 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- As a side note, I think the alumni section is perfectly fine. In my opinion it's better than that of the Univ. of Michigan, and the pictures do not crowd the writing, they add to it, especially that of Toni Morrison’s.--Cornell010 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, but maybe we could mention the library system, or athletics; it just seems that we could include other things. Maybe by tommorow I'll get an example together (oh wait..maybe by this morning).--User:Cornell010 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What Now?
Are we ready?--User:Cornell010 17:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ready for what? What are you talking about? We still have a pending FAC. Take a few days off. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- lol, I just want to get this over with.--Cornell010 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nitpicking
- In the "Activities" subsection of the "Student Life" section, it is stated that there are 886 registered student organizations. For what date is that number valid? It seems to be a number that changes over time and should be either generalized ("nearly 900") or the date for which the number is valid given AND the source cited (which appears to already have been done).
- The first sentence in the "Research" section sounds empty and relatively meaningless: "Research is an integral fixture of Cornell University." What does that mean??? It seems to be something that should not be stated but proven through other statements, facts, and figures. You've already done a great job at that so I would recommend removing the sentence altogether as it doesn't add anything (and, in my mind, detracts from the section).
- I don't like the organization (or lack thereof) in the Alumni section. The vast number of wikilinks make it difficult to follow the large blocks of text. Has there been any consideration or discussion of dividing the section into subsections? The paragraphs are already divided into theme-based subsections; all that would be necessary would be adding the subsection labels.
--ElKevbo 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well done. I addressed the first two and I'm reluctant to change the third because it makes the section look too segregated, for lack of a better word. It is also a summary, so anybody looking for more definition may see the highly categorized main article. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge from History
It's been proposed that the history article be merged into this main article. It would make the article (which will be an FA in a few days) far too long, and violates WP:SUMMARY. See also History of Michigan State University. Oppose. —mercuryboardtalk 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose merger, as it would make the article too long. Also, being days away from FA is not the time to start doing major organ transplant to this article. JDoorjam Talk 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. If anything, the History of Cornell article needs to be expanded. --Xtreambar 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Titles of contract colleges
The titles of the 4 contract colleges begin with "New York State" and do not mention Cornell University. Not only are their affiliations with Cornell far more important than their affiliations with New York State, but none of the official college websites use the New York State designation in their names. The university website lists the colleges alongside their endowed peers, with an asterisk denoting the New York-supported ones. Google searches indicate that generally, NYS is not mentioned in the college names. I say we should change the page names, i.e. New York State College of Human Ecology -> Cornell University College of Human Ecology, and mention additional affiliations (such as with NYS) on the college pages. —mercuryboardtalk 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
New Motto
On the cornell website the motto is simply "any person .... any study"cornell010 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. Just... no. —mercuryboardtalk 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The main webpage has that caption below a picture of the seal, but I don't believe they've actually changed the motto (not to mention the seal obviously remains the same). If you look around the rest of the website, the "old" motto is still pretty frequent. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Featured Article of the Day
I'm requesting that we ask that Cornell be the Featured Article of the Day on Friday, September 8, so that the Sun can run a little blurb about it and Cornell students can take a gander at our handiwork. I know, it's a ways off, but for both Wikipedia and for getting interested eyes to come and help improve the article, I think it's better to wait until school is in session. I've appended the request for Featured Article of the Day status to reflect this. JDoorjam Talk 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea, but why that date? —mercuryboardtalk 13:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's the Friday after the first full week of classes, so everybody's back on campus, and because it's a Friday, if the Sun runs something about it, it's in the paper Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (hm, though by that logic, perhaps it should be on Thursday, so they can report on it Friday?). JDoorjam Talk 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can write to the Sun and let them know what day it will be on the main page. —mercuryboardtalk 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, that's a good idea. I was originally thinking about an earlier date, but September 8 seems to be much more effective.--Cornell010 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can write to the Sun and let them know what day it will be on the main page. —mercuryboardtalk 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's the Friday after the first full week of classes, so everybody's back on campus, and because it's a Friday, if the Sun runs something about it, it's in the paper Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (hm, though by that logic, perhaps it should be on Thursday, so they can report on it Friday?). JDoorjam Talk 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Add a section on future developments
I think that a section on future developments would add a great deal to the page. However, we could just relegate it to the separate sections of each college. What are your thoughts?Cornell010 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Outline some ideas here for discussion before adding something like that. To the individual colleges is more relevent, unless it's a huge deal or is a university-wide thing. —mercuryboardtalk 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
SA Resolution
(taken from my userpage) Hello- I am extemely offended by the insinuation that my edits to the Cornell wikipedia page were in any way biased. If anything, I was extremely purturbed to come accross the entry that I have been trying to edit as it originally was. If you are going to talk about that Resolution by the Student Assembly (which I don't find necessary as it has nothing to do with Cornell's history, or the Student Assembly's current or future initatives), then at least qualify it as what it was-- a very unique piece of legislation that PASSED with FLYING COLORS and set a tremendous precedent for other student governments across the country. I don't see what it has to do with the SA's money management, and don't recall that coming up at all during the last few months. As such, please respect my edit, as it is not misrepresenting the resolution of university whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.25.15 (talk • contribs).
- Sorry to be a tad cynical here, but I'm not clear that this "highly controversial" resolution is really that article-worthy, wording 1 or wording 2. Is there a non-student, non-Ithaca paper that picked this up and ran with it as a story? And even if there were, did Iran or The U.S. State Department care? JDoorjam Talk 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I added it when FA nom editors complained about the lack of negatives about Cornell. I figured this was a decent enough controversy to add. —mercuryboardtalk 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree - it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy if the best (only?) source we can find is the student newspaper. --ElKevbo 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- 67.87.25.15, no offense was intended. However, speaking as someone who was pretty active with the SA back in the day, the fact that a non-binding sense-of-the-body resolution from a student government sets a precedent for the passage of other non-binding sense-of-the-body resolutions from other student governments contributes little to an understanding of Cornell. If you want to go there, the nuclear freeze resolution (1982?) was probably more prominent, the gay living center resolution (and subsequent veto, ca. 1993) more controversial, ande the NYPIRG fight (ca. 1998) more bitter and with a lot of real money at stake. And this all pales compared to the days of the University Senate, which had real power over the administration. -choster 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Bad link style
I just made some minor edits to clean up the linking on the Student Activities section. It's probably not perfect, but you should definitely decide what should be linked in context and not. For example, in a sentence like "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf" you don't want to end up with "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf." Please see good links for more information. Elliott C. Bäck 07:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Graduates vs. Alumni
The way the current section "alumni" is written, it seems intended to focus entirely on graduates. Recently, someone removed Huey Lewis because he did not graduate, although he would technically be an alumnus. Perhaps this section is only meant to include graduates in which case the section heading should be changed to "graduates". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, according to the MW dictionary, an alumnus is "A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." No diploma means you're a dropout, not an alumnus. Elliott C. Bäck 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- A former student without a diploma is still an alumnus by that and Cornell's definition. —mercuryboardtalk 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you are reading the entry correctly; I would agree with Mercuryboard's reading. For instance, Merriam-Webster online says: "a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university"[1]. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I would add Huey Lewis back but... while he is an alum, I'm not sure if he is a "Cornellian". I believe "Cornellian" refers only to graduates, although I may be mistaken. That's one reason I thought the section heading of "graduates" may be more appropriate. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Endowment?
Is this figure correct?--Cornell010 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you questioning the validity of the source cited or do you believe there was a mistake in how the source was interpreted or...? --ElKevbo 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The latter option, and I was wondering if a new figure had come out as UPenn's has recently been adjusted to $5.1 billion. Also, I have never seen anyother place except for wikipedia state that Cornell's endowment is $4.171 billion, everyone else maintains that Cornell's endowment is $3.3+ billion.--Cornell010 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- $3.2 billion in 2004, $3.8 billion in 2005, the most recent figure is $4.171, see this source and the one cited in the article. —mercuryboardtalk 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, is the $4.171 billion just Long Term Invesments (LTIP), or is it a conglomoration of the entire endowment? Does Cornell have any short term investments that are not counted as part of the LTIP value?--Cornell010 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The LTIP Market Value is the endowment. See page 10. —mercuryboardtalk 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- When are they going to update their endowment?--Cornell010 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quarterly reports... I don't know... —mercuryboardtalk 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, now I'm confused. Pages 2, 5, and 6 of the source we've been using say that the endowment's total net worth is $4.8B. Then later on it says the value is $4.171B. What gives?
- I'm a CS major, this stuff is out of my domain. I just recruited my Wharton Finance major friend to take a look. —mercuryboardtalk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the absence of the advice of a financial expert, it appears that we can either (a) stick with the current figure and cite the NACUBO document as the source or (b) increase the figure to 4.8 billion dollars as that appears to be the value of the long term investments at the end of the most recently reported quarter. I would prefer option a as it the more conservative option as the NACUBO document is unequivocal in asserting the value of the endowment. Further, use of that figure also allows for a enhanced ability to compare institutions to one another (assuming other Wikipedia articles use this document or one from the same time period as their reference). I can't state with confidence that what we refer to as the "endowment" is the same as what the Cornell document refers to as the "Long Term Investment Portfolio." The only thing that really confuses me in all of this is why the NACUBO document only reports the endowments of less than 800 institutions. --ElKevbo 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those numbers are self-reported anyway. We would be best to find a more recent figure. There's some more here. The endowment section explains the discrepency between the Investment Portfolio and the actual Endowment. —mercuryboardtalk 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, we should email someone at Cornell and ask them.--Cornell010 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I found this Cornell news article and it confirms that Cornell's endowment is above $4 billion, but it does not specify the exact amount. http://www.news.cornell.edu/pressoffice1/Jan06/Fehrs_resign.html
- Maybe, we should email someone at Cornell and ask them.--Cornell010 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a CS major, this stuff is out of my domain. I just recruited my Wharton Finance major friend to take a look. —mercuryboardtalk 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, now I'm confused. Pages 2, 5, and 6 of the source we've been using say that the endowment's total net worth is $4.8B. Then later on it says the value is $4.171B. What gives?
- Quarterly reports... I don't know... —mercuryboardtalk 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- When are they going to update their endowment?--Cornell010 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The LTIP Market Value is the endowment. See page 10. —mercuryboardtalk 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, is the $4.171 billion just Long Term Invesments (LTIP), or is it a conglomoration of the entire endowment? Does Cornell have any short term investments that are not counted as part of the LTIP value?--Cornell010 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- $3.2 billion in 2004, $3.8 billion in 2005, the most recent figure is $4.171, see this source and the one cited in the article. —mercuryboardtalk 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The latter option, and I was wondering if a new figure had come out as UPenn's has recently been adjusted to $5.1 billion. Also, I have never seen anyother place except for wikipedia state that Cornell's endowment is $4.171 billion, everyone else maintains that Cornell's endowment is $3.3+ billion.--Cornell010 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is something to look at: >[2]
Big help needed
- I just made a ton of edits to improve List of Cornell University people. Please help... just adopt a section and ensure the information is complete and organized well. All you need to do is open the alumnus wikilink in a new tab/window, run a quick search for 'cornell' and fill in whatever's missing from the list. Alumni need majors, colleges, years, and degrees... whatever details you can find about their specific connection to Cornell. Professors need titles, chairs, and what years they were at Cornell. Reduce the number of links in the "Known for" column to only very relevent contextual links. All this stuff is very easy to find, on Wikipedia itself, so grab a section and get on it. —mercuryboardtalk 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow. Good Job.--Cornell010 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes
I think we have the finest presence of any university on Wikipedia. —mercuryboardtalk 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)