Talk:Duke University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duke University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Duke University appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2006.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Duke University is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Talk archive 1 August 2005-July 2006 Talk archive 2 August 2006-November 2006

Contents 1 The Name 2 broken/vandalised 3 Protect Request 4 Co-educational? 5 More Vandalism 6 FAotD edits and picture layout

[edit] The Name

There is no information where the name Duke comes from? Washington Duke? James Buchanan Duke? --Rlbberlin 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A vandal deleted the whole history section, how/why it was named should be in there if I'm not mistaken. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] broken/vandalised

Wow, somebody should fix this and I dont know how.

The most popular activity of Duke students is certainly NOT rape, but I can't figure out how to edit that line out

• It has been fixed.

[edit] Protect Request

Please protect this page from being vandalized again.

• I think being unprotected despite repeat vandalism sort of comes with the territory when an article is featured on the front page Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOPRO. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see NOPRO's Talk Page if you would like to weigh in on whether FAotD should at least be semi-protected. DukeEGR93 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Co-educational?

Eh? Isn't this a bit an odd thing to specify in the first line? Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree and deleted that word way back when it was up for Featured Status. My rationale was that it was obvious and somebody pointed me to Wikipedia:State_the_obvious#State_the_obvious. Even if we are supposed to "state the obvious," I don't know if it's significant enough to state in the first sentence. In the three other American University FA's (Cornell University, University of Michigan, and Michigan State University), only one (Univ of Michigan) has "coeducational" in the first line. So, I think either is fine, it's just a matter of preference.-Bluedog423^Talk 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fix the bug!

[edit] More Vandalism

I hopefully corrected some additional vandalism: someone added the phrase "Singapore is a dictatorship". Yay.

Joe V. 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAotD edits and picture layout

After about 150 edits, here are the changes: changes. Excluding the two added refs (one by User:DukeEgr93 and one by me) and picture layout changes, there is a whopping total of 6 minor edits (2 misspellings, addition of "Latin for" for the motto, wikilink to William Preston Few and a short phrase following it, addition of the ranking of the physician assistant program in "notes," and a new wikilink to The Chronicle).

Anyways, I was wondering what others thought of the picture layout changes. Here is how they used to be: old layout. Specifically, look at these sections to compare the old and new: Undergraduate, Rankings, Libraries and Museums, and Football. The new version places the photos under the headings of the sections, which makes sense since they belong under those headings. However, it causes the heading to be on the left with no text beneath it, which I personally think looks bad. With the photo beside the section (the old way), it is still obvious which section the photo belongs to (there is really no difference), but the placement of the heading is above the text instead of above the photo. Thoughts? -Bluedog423^Talk 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)