Talk:York University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Education in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Transit 2 ? 3 External Links 4 Changes 5 From York PR... 6 Remove POV check 7 Constant Declining Reputation 8 Weasel words 9 External links 9.1 Oh, seriously 9.2 Noted Students 10 Academics 11 Third Largest 12 Alumni includes Osgoode? 13 "Yeowomen" is not a real word 14 Pond Road 15 Pov 16 Size of campus 17 Number of Students 18 York Commons

[edit] Transit

I don't see the point in listing the buses that stop at York, especially since right now it's woefully incomplete. York University's web page has a list of buses that serve the Keele campus, so perhaps one should just give an external link to that and make no attempt to copy all the info in the article?

• I agree. If no objections are posted here soon, I will remove that section. Peachy1 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

How big is York's faculty of Arts? someone from U of T's Arts and Science faculty wants to know... ;) Krupo 04:02, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

(I removed the comment I've written here because of its exaggeration). Wikipedia can check the IP and see that it was me. I'm sorry. What I expressed here was merely an opinion, not a fact.

I agree with the above comment. This page was obviously made by a staff at York trying to solicit new students. Someone needs to add in the various scandals at York such as the land deal, the Argo's stadium, the protestor police clashes, etc.

^ definitely! Not to mention its prominent aberration from standard campus cleanliness and verdure.

[edit] External Links

Changes have been made to the external links. Lets just leave the link for Yorku.ca only please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yorkuniversity (talk • contribs).

Well said. Ardenn 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I have made some changes that take into account some of the concerns. The article I think is still positive, but the most boastful text was edited or removed. A short section mentions the controversies, while trying to maintain neutrality. I think it could still use some work. Spmarshall42

• Does anyone have any good suggestions for more categories to include this article under? It seems it requires more then what is currently included in the article. Vipor_Smooth

[edit] From York PR...

York University is the leading interdisciplinary research and teaching university in Canada. York offers a modern, academic experience at the undergraduate and graduate level in Toronto, Canada’s most international city. The third largest university in the country, York is host to a dynamic academic community of 50,000 students and 7,000 faculty and staff, as well as 180,000 alumni worldwide. York’s 10 faculties and 21 research centres conduct ambitious, groundbreaking research that is interdisciplinary, cutting across traditional academic boundaries. This distinctive and collaborative approach is preparing students for the future and bringing fresh insights and solutions to real-world challenges. York University is an autonomous, not-for-profit corporation. JTBurman

autonomous ...yes non-for-profit....??!!!!!!!!!!for god's sake be realistic JTBurman.

[edit] Remove POV check

I believe that the article could still use some style clean-up but it is not POV. I suggest removing the tag. Any objections? DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

• I have no objections. Spmarshall42 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constant Declining Reputation

I removed the statement "Despite all this, York suffers from a constant declining reputation in the sciences amongst other known Universities. ". York's reputation in the Sciences has only been increasing in recent years, and they have excellent research and faculty. Peachy1 03:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it is true. York University is made fun of all the time. Among university students, York is known for giving out easy marks. Whether if it is true or not, it doesn't matter much. That's how other university students view York. Science program in York is quite laughable. Even Nippissing guys make fun of the science program in York. Engineering program? I don't even want to start on that. stampit

Despite the common belief that york is the easy way to go, I have been proved wrong. As a former mechanical engineering student of UofT and current Space Engineering student of York,I can tell you that the engineering program at york is taken very seriously, as they are determined to compete with the other well established univerisities in the field. In fact in some cases in order to prove this quality, they have raised the standards so high that I almost wished I had switched to Aerospace engineering at UofT and stayed there (despite loosing a year).

[edit] Weasel words

"The Faculty of Fine Arts also enjoys an excellent reputation, offering programmes such as ethnomusicology and a degree in cultural criticism referred to as "cultural studies"; York's joint Bachelor of Design programme with Sheridan College is the first and largest such joint programme in the province of Ontario. York's Faculty of Education (also known as the "Toronto School of Liberal Education") is distinguished by the unusual amount of teaching experience that students acquire. The prestigious Osgoode Hall Law School is Canada's largest and among its oldest, having moved from a downtown location to the York campus in 1969 following the requirement that every law school affiliate with a university." Ardenn 04:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• And? If you have that big a problem, remove the "excellent reputation" part of it, otherwise it seems fine... certainly no reason to tag the article. pm_shef 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I have a question. How come related links such as Schulich and Osgoode Law school are always removed? Does the person who watches this page not go to York? I do, and let me tell you, they are vital parts of the school, so I think they should be put back. Anyone else agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.18.226 (talk • contribs).

They already have their own articles, why do they also need links? Ardenn 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of people use wikipedia, for quick info, and what do they do most often? The scroll down to related links. Most people are in a rush to get info and don't really bother reading the whole article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.18.226 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Ardenn 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit war with you, I'll simply dispute it. One link != links. Ardenn 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, I've seen you turn "link" to "links" on many articles without interfering before, but enough is enough. If the person who first put the section up used links, then links should stand. There is no consensus, so what makes you think your preference should prevail? You're far too free with these factual accuracy warnings. Not only is it a minor issue, but there are actually not any facts in dispute (it's just a preference we're talking about here). Also, since there is likely not going to be a ruling on an official Wikipedia preference here, the ugly warning would stay up indefinitely were it not for someone, like me, taking it down. -- OsgoodeLawyer 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, obviously I meant you turn "links" to "link". -- OsgoodeLawyer 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and it should be correct factually/spelling/gramatically. Ardenn 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some might argue that not only is always using "links" consistent (another worthy goal of an encyclopedia), but it is actually perfectly gramatically correct, as it is referring to the name of a section where links may be placed. Whether there are one or more is irrelevant. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• So let's add a second link and we can change it back to "links." does that work? pm_shef 20:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A relevant second link would work. Ardenn 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that would be the wimpy way out. Clearly, if there is no policy on one use over the other, and there is obviously a good split between those who are on one side versus those on the other, then someone has to stand down, and it should be those who want the use other than the one that was originally there. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I simply see it as a compromise so we don't have to argue over it forever. I think it's a reasonable compromise, or are you not willing to work with your fellow editors? Ardenn 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course I'm willing to work with my fellow editors. The problem, however, is that there really are no facts in dispute (so the warning is itself incorrect), and without a solution to the issue in sight it would stay on the page forever. If such a warning goes up here, should it not go up on every page where one person wants "-ise" while another wants "-ize"? -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
          • So, no, it's not a reasonable compromise, if it is to be a fixture. It's a blight on the article that should only go up if there is a reasonable expectation of the factual accuracy dispute being resolved. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not the point of the template. WP:POINT. Ardenn 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I'm doing rolling my eyes at the complete absurdity of this argument. I've added a second link and removed the dispute template. I'm 100% on Osgoodelawyers side on this dispute, Ardenn, you seem to be blowing a totally unimportant issue way out of proportion. Furthermore, the title "External Links" refers to the section, a section for links to pages outside of Wiki, it does not actively describe the contents, but rather describes the intent of the section. Either way, problem solved. pm_shef 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI — policy on the "link" vs. "links" dispute is here. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, seriously

The passage Mike refers to is Some editors use the header External link if there is only one link, but others use External links in all cases. There is currently no consensus on the preferred style.

Please read it in conjunction with this general policy on disputes over style issues from Wikipedia:Manual of Style: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

(rolling my eyes) Bishonen | talk 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

• Seriously folks, who cares? Is it really an issue, at all? - pm_shef 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noted Students

I removed the "noted students" section, which formerly contained exactly one name, that of Daniel Freeman-Maloy. The reasons for the removal are: (1) there was only one student in the section. Thus, it was not a useful way of listing noted students. (2) Daniel Freeman-Maloy is relevant in that he has raised controversy about York. Thus, he is mentioned in the "controversy" section. He is not notable in other ways: he has not had a brilliant career, he has not made a great discovery, etc. He is not really "notable" as a student in the way that, say, students who were well-known actors or who had won Rhodes scholarships or anything else would be.

[edit] Academics

I'm not bold enough to make the changes myself (I'm kind of biased), however... "The Schulich School of Business, which figures in a number of MBA rankings, offers an International Business Administration program 'which is the first of its kind in Canada'" (emphasis mine). I have an issue with this statement, but as the York website also makes this claim, it is difficult to refute. A York student even reminded me recently that their program was modeled after the Bachelor of International Business program at Carleton (which I am currently taking, hence I'm biased), which is approximately 11 years old. -- Dunro 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. AnotherBDA 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Largest

I noticed someone had changed "second largest" to "third largest". Which school has more students than York, other than U of T? Chartreuse green 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Université de Montréal

Thanks! I had no idea U de M was that big. Chartreuse green 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni includes Osgoode?

I wonder if it is really fair to include pre-affiliation (and even pre founding of York) graduates of Osgoode Law School as alumni of York. I have made a small change to reflect my concerns. Feel free to solve the problem in your own way. (At the moment, it is mostly a problem of dates - people who would have been very old men at the time of York's foundation, as mentioned in the introduction, are listed as alumni; it may be acceptable to include pre-affiliation Osgoode, but I think you need to make it clear.) Nitangae

I agree that this should be made clear. I moved this comment to a line after the title rather than in the title itself. It would be nice if someone noted to which graduates this applies; I don't know which ones they are. Chartreuse green 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Yeowomen" is not a real word

"Popular sentiment ran against the name scheme however, as many students noted that a "yeowoman" was fictitious, neither a real word nor possessed of any historical merit. After extensive internal study a polling a name change was proposed which came to fruition in 2003. York's "Yeomen" and "Yeowomen" were no more, and in their place the "Lions" emerged."

Amazingly, I used to hear a lot of UofT students say to me and to one another that "Yeoman" is not a word (e.g. "duh! What's a Yeoman?"). In one such conversation, I also had an argument with them about the existence of the word "matriculation". I argued that it existed; they argued that it did not. "Matriculation" is obviouly something that was made up by dumb York students. The name 'Lions' did not "emerge". This "extensive internal study" was done by a PR agency, as part of a larger rebranding effort. This discussion should reflect this

If you know enough about the topic to improve the discussion, then be bold and go for it! Chartreuse green 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pond Road

Nowhere does the article mention the different residences, just colleges. Should Pond Road Residence not be somewhere there? It's the biggest rez on campus, and the most popular/difficult to get into (or so they say). Chewbacca1010 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pov

There are many instances of promotion in the article. Please cite. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of campus

This article claims that York has the largest campus of any Canadian university, which I don't believe is true. According to Wikipedia itself, York has a campus of 263 hectares, while UBC has a campus of 402 hectares. Can someone explain this discrepancy?

As I understood it, York was the third largest in all of Canada, second to UBC and U of T. Chewbacca1010 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Students

Last year I heard there were about 75,000 students at York. This year I heard, from a professor, that there are about 67,000. Does anyone have an accurate, up to date count?

[edit] York Commons

Says "A roadway circulating the park and the buildings serves soley for use by TTC and GO buses." This is not entirely true, as the signs say (I'm not 100% sure of each word, but I am of the meaning) 'service vehicles only'. Mostly it's used by TTC and GO, but I see taxies, armoured cars, security, and a few other service vehicles around there.