Talk:University of Heidelberg/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Undid some changes

First of all, thanks to anyone helping to improve this article. However, I have a point of criticism concerning the latest changes: |- Since the placings "45-60" and "58-66" look relatively modest at the first glance, mentioning the fact that Heidelberg ranks ahead of two Ivies in all jiao tong tables, and at least ahead of one in all thes tables is neither irrelevant nor unobjective. The Ivies are commonly regarded as the peak of excellence, and that Heidelberg outranks some of them should count for something. They want to be benchmarks, they obviously are perceived as benchmarks, so why not benchmarking with them? The statement is verifiable by the citations given, and was also stressed in some official ranking statements of the university's management. One could also list lots of other brand name universities. For instance Georgetown, Rice, William & Mary, KCL, St. Andrews, Durham, Sciences Po, Sorbonne etc, and for the subject area rankings even more of such. But as it is just ment to give a taste, and it is not very friendly to name certain colleges in this context, we should stick with the previous wording, naming only a group of colleges. That these rankings themselves may not always be objective is already mentioned in the section. However, if they have a methodological bias, it is certainly not to the disadvantage of universities in the anglosphere.

BTW: Some other colleges DO name the universities they are ranked ahead of. See Bowdoin, Notre Dame etc.

Fred Plotz 14:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Style

I am surprised about the style of this text, that is supposed to form an Encyclopaedia entry.

Kindly ask yourself: if you were handed some advertizing pamphlet, and read it, and then this text here, esp. the opening lines, how would they differ in style (w.o.w.s: would they...) ?!

147.142.186.54 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Lady,
if you would please be so kind and compare this article with those of other major universities, especially in the US, then you will probably find no remarkable differences in style. Everything stated in this article is true and verifiable. But if you have some facts in mind in order to relativize this article and make it more encyclopedic from your point of view, feel free to add them. Meanwhile, I removed some all too bloomy formulations, and added something about decline and obscurity to the opening section. By the way, when I started editing this article, it was not as long as this talk page now is. Since you're obviously contributing from the university's network, kindly ask yourself: Why didn't I do it myself in a way that seems apposite to me?! So long! Fred Plotz (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, reconsidered your objection and changed the opening section. Think it is more balanced now. Regards 88.66.52.255 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People associated with the university

The list of people seems somewhat unstructured and I wonder whether one could make it more clear. I especially think a chronological layout, e.g. according to the centuries the people lived, would add a lot. However, I am not sure if this is in everyone's interest and/or if there is a Wikipedia standard for this. Please share your comments. 84.168.101.54 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to structure the text (no list, but prose according to wiki standards) into broad subject areas, even within the respective paragraph: In Arts and social sciences, I mentioned the social scientists (Max Weber, Hannah Arendt etc) first, then the philosophers, then the other arts. Within those broad subject areas, there roughly is a chronological order as I tried partially to indicate the relations between the persons mentioned in order to make the text..uhm..a little more interesting. In the medicine and science section, the nobel laureates are listed strictly chronological within their fields, and in the politics section you will also find a chronological order within the fields (1.historical figures, 1.1 historical politicians, 1.2 historical business men 2.contemporary people; in 2. I listed them following their perceived notability as they all are still alive). In the poetry section, there ought to be a roughly chronological order as well, but I didn't pay too much attention here. Rizal and Iqbal are mentioned separately since they were obviously more than literates, and initially I considered listing them in the politics section. Well, that's my idea of the structure, but if you have a plan on improving it, just tell me. Anyway, a purely chronological list without paying attention to the person's fields seems not to be a better way from my point of view, and I have no idea about how to make prose out of a chronological list, which is inevitable if we want a GA rating one day. BTW: don't you think fiction is a part of pop culture? I know, this heading is common, but it seems to me too huge for that tiny paragraph, so would you mind if I change it back? 88.67.250.193 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I thougt of something similar to the history section, not a chronological list. The current text is good. But maybe it can be improved by adding some sub-categories like "Middle Ages", "19th and early 20th century", "Nazi era", "today", etc. As far as I understand it, fiction is not a subset of pop culture. Although some fiction is pop culture, not all fiction is pop culture. There may not be fiction that is not pop culture in the current paragraph, but maybe somebody adds something (fiction that is not pop culture) in the future and then the heading is already correct. :) But this is not really important to me, so change it if you want to. 84.168.101.54 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, principally I wouldn't mind doing it this way, but my point is, this is no history section, and if you want to write a meaningful text in the shape of the history section, you will presumably have to mention the roles of the people in that age. Furthermore, most people mentioned lived in the 19th and early 20th century, and we have no people of the Dark Ages and no Nazis here(no, I don't want Goebbels here, we're not proud of him). One could do it in the way you suggested, but then we will have to expand the section and, believe me, this means lots of research. The German list of people kind of sucks as they don't even have the guys I found out (such unimportant fellas as the Kings of Greece and Thailand ;)), and on the other hand you must pay attention to international notability. Concluding, I basically did the best I could and I don't know how to make it much better without making editing this page a full time job. Try your luck, I'm curious what comes out. Other topic: what do you think about the style comment below? Does this article appear like an advertisement? 88.66.15.226 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"Other topic: what do you think about the style comment below?" Yes, it sometimes does sound like an advertisement. It is remarkable that there seem to exist no negative facts about the university. Especially the admission paragraph sounds dubious.84.168.91.45 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? There are lots of negative facts in the history section, and I just found out the acceptance rates and changed the admission section (yes, it admittedly was kinda nebulous as it was lacking facts and figures untill today). And, well, negative facts such as crowded lecture halls in the freshman and sophomore classes, professors who rather do research or attend advisory boards than being available for their students may be true, but firstly can you source that, and second did you read that somewhere else? 88.66.20.165 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Hey pal, nice work so far, but I think theology actually belongs to the broad field of "Arts and Humanities" and as math is actually a philosophical discipline (logic, if you recieve a doctorate in math, it will be a Dr. phil.), just the same. So how about merging the paragraphs to the Arts and social sciences and name the section Arts, Humanities and social sciences? 88.66.55.254 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

de: Liste berühmter Persönlichkeiten der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg sorts people by the faculty they studied under. That makes more sense than the current organization for sure, and would avoid any of us having to pick a classification system. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I just see the problem that the number of faculties changed from 4 to 5 to 16 to 12, so I will see what I can do in the next few days. Do you think this article is unduly advertising-style, and if so, where? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I tried to restructure the section by faculties but it doesn't work due to a couple of reasons. I'm going to re-add theology to the humanities section as it is a field of humanities by definition. The affiliation of mathematics is controversial so it is justifiably an independent section. 88.67.253.191 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"...and as math is actually a philosophical discipline (logic, if you recieve a doctorate in math, it will be a Dr. phil.)..." Well, you also get a DPhil or PhD (Philosophiæ Doctor) in Mechanical Engineering and you wouldn't consider this a philosophical discipline, would you? The DPhil/PhD is just a relic from older times when any subject outside medicine, law and theology was considered philosophy. Anyway, I also think a classification by current faculties would not work for that reason. However, the current heading "humanities and social science" does not seem to make sense either. Isn't social science considered part of humanities? So why don't we just keep the archaic classification of theology, law, medicine, philosophy *G* 84.168.99.2 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was talking in German degree terms. For Engineering you get a Dr.-Ing, for natural sciences a Dr. rer. nat., and so on (albeit most recently some faculties decided to offer the opportunity to choose whether to be awarded a classical German doctorate, or an anglosaxon-style PhD). The German doctoral classification indicates the affiliation of a discipline with a broad field. Pure math was, and is according to the predominant belief, a branch of philosophy; however in the last few decades some German universities, especially the technical universities started to a ward a Dr. rer nat. even for pure math. According to the Wiki article, Humanities consist of classics, history, languages and literature, law, performing arts, philosophy, religion, and visual arts. Sociology, political sciences, economy, and business are social sciences by definition and definitely not humanities in the modern classification. The archaic structure is not the worst way. It's to some degree historically justifiable to count the social sciences (and math, of course) towards philosophy, but what are you going to do with natural sciences? And how about the politicians and literates? E.g. Rizal was a med student here, do you want to list him in that section? I'd suggest to delete the sub-headings completely to avoid further controversy on that point. 88.66.23.76 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, just deleted the sub-headings. It's not so bad. Now we have smooth junctions starting with pure social scientists, coming to social scientists who are also considered philosophers like Arendt and Jaspers, to pure philosophers, to theologians, to law scholars, to fine arts, (all uncontroversial humanities), to math which is either a field of humanities or natural sciences, to those field which are natural sciences for sure (regarding the human body as a part of nature), ending with social life in the broader sense. 88.66.23.76 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. 84.168.99.2 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we have reached agreement so far. By the way, this is about the style Dartmouth College managed the section and they are FA, so it was most likely the best decision. Now again: which sections or sentences do you consider as undue boosterism? I honestly need to know as I am going to nominate the article for GA review in the next weeks, so advertising style must disappear if there is some, but I just can't see. Please read, compare with Dartmouth College and Georgetown University, which both have the highest possible rating, and give a detailed opinion. I would also request a native speaker, such as the lady Laura Scudder, to check wording and grammar. Thanks a lot in advance. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can proofread the article. Just be warned that I'm editing a very limited amount right now, so I can't make any promises on when I can do it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's very kind of you. There's no need to hurry, but when you do it you must pay attention to punctuation as it is very different from German (you might know) and still is a mystery to me. If you find some academic boosterism you can change it. Fred Plotz (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Iconoclasm"?

Hey JimmeyTimmey, having pictures is nice, having many pictures is nicer, but this scenic accumulation in the structure section is definitely too much, as the columns are optimized (div/2) for firefox and it is really too crowded. I'm going to delete one or two (the ugly ones, Karlsruhe and ARI). And do you really think all this classroom pics are necessary? One is ok, but not so many. We must keep the balance, it can't be that there are more pics than text. I took these three below out. P.S.: The pic of the New University looks great, where did you get it from? Oh, and I can see me in that lecture hall pic I left in, guess who I am.

Students in the library
Students in the library

. 88.66.32.114 (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it did not look too crowded on my machine but if did on yours... So I understand that you took some pictures out again but how did you decide here? (1.) You said you deleted the ugly ones. But why should there only be nice pictures? I thought this article is not supposed to have any advertisment characteristics, so what is the reason of showing only nice things? (2.) I do think some classrooms pictures are necessary because, as I understand it, images in Wikipedia are to give an additional impression to the text. And currently most images only give an impression about the architecture which is only one of many aspects of the university. Maybe the most important aspect of the university - the art of teaching and learning - is currently not well represented in pictures. The New University and all other pictures were taken from http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/bildarchiv.html JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you use firefox? The MS-explorer does not show the two columns. I didn't find one notable university article with more than one classroom pic. I'm an assertor of best practice copying, so I guess we should not pursue the special Heidelberg Way here. Moreover, as an encyclopedic article, there should be an emphasis on the text, and it should not be too heavy on the pics which is discouraged by most peer rewievers here. I want GA status, so I'd suggest to follow the suggestions the rewievers made when assessing other articles. I deleted Karlsruhe simply because it is not in Heidelberg and hardly any student will ever see it, so it is not representative. Furthermore, the Karlsruhe Research Center recently merged with the TU Karlsruhe, so I'm not sure if we still share departments and faculty with them. I'll let it in the list as long as I don't hear anything contrary, but a pic is displaced anyway. I deleted ARI simply because the pic was of very bad quality, not because the ARI building is ugly, it is not. I'm still waiting for your detailed opinion on advertising style. The new structure is good. By the way, did you ask the press office for copyright allowance? The lady there gave me the permission to upload the original pics as own work, not to make unlimited self-service. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellence University

Hi Göttingen, I've mentioned the Excellence Initiative twice, in the history section and in the reputation section; in addition there is the Excellence University template down below. Once it was in the introdoction as well, but we found it was misplaced as it is not SOOO important, and referring to it thrice is sufficient, I guess. So I'm going to delete the paragraph in the intro. Fred Plotz (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

Look User:JimmeyTimmey, I appreciate what you're doing but please stop wikifying names which have no wiki article, and if you find that sources are needed, then please google them yourself instead of inserting ((fact)) templates. I deleted these two sentences: "During the following 400 years, the university underwent times of great change. Often different political, social and religious forces implied both progress and regress for its development." I would also request you only to make changes where they are absolutely necessary, that is, if there are spelling or punctuation mistakes. We need some weeks of stability for this article before a GA nomination is possible. Thank you and kind regards Fred Plotz (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred, you do not own this article, so stop telling other people what to do. Wikifying new terms is not bad style but a valid means of inducing the creation of an article. Similarly, the [citation needed]-template points to a lack of sources and thus adds value to the article. Ask yourself, why do you think templates exist in the first place? Finally, stability will automatically occur once the article reached an acceptable quality level; stability should not be an end in itself but a symptom of consensus. 84.168.70.131 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not own this article but as I wrote 5/6 of it, spending lots of my sparetime, I have a genuine interest in its fate. All I asked you to do was to search for sources if you find they are needed instead of burdening the work on other people, that is, in case of doubt on me. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure noone will be induced to write an article on Jakob Wimpheling or the German Humanistic School just because they are red in this article, it's just spoiling it. I always intend to reach consensus, and I think I've already shown that clearly, but that usually requires discussion. Therefore, I would like to invite you for further discussion on this page (not in the edit summaries) before making significant changes or inserting templates. I agree, the people section needs complete revision, but if we don't do it, noone will (as for copyedit tag). So what do you think should we do for getting it improved? 88.67.235.177 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, not I am burdening the work of looking for sources on others, you do by writing stuff with doubtful sources. I was just pointing to that. And if you do not want to correct it or look for sources because you think it is too much work, then just don't - you do not have to! And neither do I. However, please let others have the chance to notice a doubtful statement by not condemning the use of the [citation needed]-template. And what is so bad about red links? Surely, linking the German Humanistic School will not automatically lead to the creation of an article, but the chance is even lower if it is not linked. It is definately not "spoiling" the article. On the contrary, it adds value to Wikipedia and shows that the article is more than a marketing brochure where everything that doesn't look so good is left out (anyway, does blue really look better than red?). Concerning discussions, I think it is sometimes useful but not always. If there is an edit you do not like, feel free to revert or change it. Otherwise I will assume there is no need for discussion. Discussing everything only impedes the process. And why do you think noone will join to work on the article? I think the template in the peoples section is like the red links and the fact-template... just because you do not like them for aesthetical reasons (?) is not a reason not to insert them. I feel the style and expression is not so good in this section and it does not read as well as e.g. the history section. 84.168.87.90 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I plan to concentrate on the List of University of Heidelberg people. Maybe you want to see the discussion there and share you comments about a new layout. Thanks. 84.168.87.90 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think any of the sources in this article are doubtful, second, I don't write "stuff", and I think you've understood me well. However, I don't want any argument nor an aggressive tone here. As already mentioned, I appreciate your help in making this one a good article, so I think we should concentrate on constructive discussion on the subject instead of pointing fingers on each other. My impression that noone will join is a result of the time passed, as noone except for the both of us has made any major edit yet, except for spell-fixes. The style of the people section is definately below the standard of the rest of the article, so something must happen. I personally think that now that we have a list, the section has become obsolete in greater parts. Therefore, I'd suggest to try to implemet those information you find indispensable in the history section and simply state in the people section that we have so and so many Nobel Laureates, Heads of State and so on. This is the way most American universities handle the section as it is obviously too hard to write an appealing text on people. Furthermore, the separation of people mentioned in the history section and in the people section does't seem to be adequate anymore. 88.64.183.59 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my aggressive tone. As I said, I am going to work on the List of University of Heidelberg people. With the additional information there, the people section on this page will become obsolete. But you may as well delete it now if you wish. 84.168.117.16 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German University vs. German speaking University

Heidelberg is the oldest German University in Germany, but historically the University of Prague was the first "German University." Is it possible to put this in the article somewhere? I'm not really sure if it would fit somewhere. Weeddude (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the University of Heidelberg is the oldest university in Germany and, after Prague and Vienna, the third oldest in the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe this could be added to the introduction. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] research and endowment section / Misc.

Hello again! After skiing and consequential hospitalisation I'm finally happy to be back.

1. According to an interview with Prof Eitel, the annual budget (including both medical and non-medical) is appox € 500 M ($ 790 M) >http://www.rnz.de/zusammenrnm/00_20080407090100_Vorstoss_in_die_internationale_Dimension.html< How comes that contradiction to the desastis statistics? And which figure to include? Anyway, going to distinguish between medical and non-medical.

2. What should we write in that research section? I already considered opening such a section, writing about the most notable or controversial research achievements made at Heidelberg, but discarded it due to a lack of sources.

3. These verbal injuries of unimut against ruprecht are not important enough to be mentioned here from my point of view. Going to delete that.

Regards Fred Plotz (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1: I really don't know. Accounting is strange...
2: I am not sure if there is a lack of sources. One could for example talk about recent or current research that is somehow interesting. The university webpages give plenty of information on this. Anyway, I think the section should not become another history section but rather concentrate on contemporary issues.
3: How do you judge what is important? It surely cannot be unimportant because it does not sound nice. However, I see no other difference than this to the more positive MLP statement in the text. If you think the unimut statement is not important, why is the MLP statement important then? Should we not always get the different opinions into the article? Apart from that, the unimut would otherwise not be mentioned at all and it also seems noteworthy to show its relationship to ruprecht and other "mainstream" media etc. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there can be included a critical voice, that's not the point. (I see you like to be a critical voice at the EBS article, and I enjoy that) I just found unimuts way of criticising kind of annoying. We can write like "...the left-wing student newspaper unimut critisized the ruprecht often for being superficial, conformed, and exceedingly layout-oriented" without without directly quoting the tasteless verbal offenses. Not mentioning the unimut was not intentional, I honestly thougt it was out of operation, but i just learned it is an online newspaper now. However, the sentence about MLP is about an award, that's unquestionable more notable anyway.

As far as the research section is concerned, I have no idea what to write and how to lay-out that. Of course, there is plenty information on every single page of our 102 institutes, but thats fucking mouldbreaking. Alone the institute I work with has 5 research focuses and some 50 current research projects. So we can only include what's really notable, and, once again, I have no idea how to decide what's notable enough. That's what I meant pointing on lacking sources: There is no article/source summing the research activities up somehow. If we'd find a dozend fellas, we could start articles about the faculties and include the research focuses of the respective associated institutes there, but I guess that's too much for the two of us, as there's still a list that needs to be edited. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of listing the DFG-funded projects and the two clusters of excellence? If there is a noteworthy individual research project, it could still be added, of course. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, basically; I just searched the dfg page and got 224 hits for Heidelberg institutions receiving dfg funds. Many of these institutions have more than one funded project. Still a little too much, eh?! Have a look: http://www.dfg.de/dfg_im_profil/zahlen_und_fakten/projekte_und_programme/index.html 88.66.27.129 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the 4 PPs. Should we really list the dfg projects at other universities our guys participate in? It's not that I don't want to mention other universities, but the section is getting a bit too long from my pov.88.67.246.196 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the projects at other universities and I used German abbreviations like SFB, SPP, and FOR because I think these are also the official abbreviations of the DFG in English. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Cooperation

"It has further specific agreements with 17 partner universities, among which are the University of Montpellier, Hebrew University, Kyoto University, Tsinghua University, Cornell University and the University of Cambridge. Additionally, the university has student exchange programs with 23 universities in 17 countries world-wide, and it participates in 7 European exchange programs, such as ERASMUS."

Which is right: 17 or 23 universities for student exchange? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

23 universities for student exchange; the recently added Cornell- Heidelberg fellowship is for PhD students and researchers, but as cornell is already included in the 23 exchange programs, I just deleted it. Fred Plotz (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Suddenly, there are much more exchange programs on the university's page. I'll look after it. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, renewed the section. "...among which are Cornell University, Duke University, Harvard University, Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Paris, Tsinghua University, and Yale University". Too much blustering? What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting fact. Could you specify which University of Paris you mean? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact the whole University of Paris system except for I,II, and VII. 88.64.189.25 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I changed some pictures. Please let me know if you disagree. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I liked that statue of Rupert. Maybe you can replace the St. Peter by the latter. BTW: If you want those pics to remain in the article you must upload them anew and release them under GFDL, otherwise they will be deleted. The copyright policy of the UKL database gives you the permission to do so. 88.67.247.245 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I added Rupert again, but I would also like to keep St. Peter. I therefore moved some pictures. What do you think? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind I would like to delete the reference to vienna and prague. It's ok to mention that it was the 3rd university foundation in the HRE and 23rd in the world, but I feel it is not necessary to name them in the very first paragraph. 88.67.247.245 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks nice. I added GFDL licencing to the new pics description. 88.67.248.131 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Um...I'd like to move the old assembly hall pic to where St Peter currently is. It doesn't fit in the rankings section, and I really don't like the St Peter pic - solely for aesthetical reasons. Would you mind? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just did so. If you want to keep St Peter in any case you can undo it. Fred Plotz (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting ready for review?

I guess we've got a pretty good and comprehensive article right now. Do you have any major improvements in mind yet? If not so, I'd suggest to leave the article alone for a while and to concentrate on the list again. As soon as we've completed it, i'd suggest to submit the article for peer review. After having successfully passed GA, we'll see what we can do additionally for getting it featured. What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite good, probably the best German university article in the English Wikipedia. Of course, there will always be something to add or to improve. But I do not plan to change anything about the article in the near future, or rather I can promise not to do so. I may however also not have much time to work on the list during the next weeks. Is it really neceessary to complete the list for GA? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it is definitely the best German university article (which is no less than adequate for the best German university, is it? :)). I don't know if it's really necessary to complete the list for GA, but since the people section is very tiny, the list is a complementary part of the article, somehow. So I don't want to nominate it before it is complete. I'll care for it in the next weeks, but if you find the time, I'd highly appreciate your support, of course. Fred Plotz (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life

Why did you take out all the images in this section? I added again the collegium musicum and the academic fencing. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With the gallery, there were too much pics from my pov, and those pics are no very encyclopedic, anyway. But we can keep these two if you want to. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about the university's Karzer?

Karzer is a kind of detention room/ prison that was used until the world war. It is not mentioned in the article, is there a reason for that ? click here for a set of photos (@flickr) 89.1.72.27 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason. But where would you add it? Maybe a separate article? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there is already an article about Karzer with references to Heidelberg. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think it's necessary to mention the Karzer; that's a typical subject for a trivia section, which is discouraged by wiki. However, we can put the Karzer-wikilink in the See also section. Fred Plotz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could start a "touristic sights" section sometime. But certainly not in the next few weeks. Fred Plotz (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

Could we include a section about the rectorate, senate, council, administration, etc.? (see also http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/einrichtungen/organe/). I would do it myself but I do not know how they are organized and what their roles are. Maybe a organization chart would be nice, too. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should do so, but I surely know nothing more about than you do. That's the main reason that I didn't write such a section yet. I don't have much time these days, but we set it on our to-do list. Maybe you can also look round a little, as I want to finish the list before starting something new that requires some research. Btw: are those rooftops on the new pic really better than the nice postcard perspective we had before? I don't think so. Fred Plotz (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shows more of Heidelberg so I thought it was better. I agree it would not make a nice postcard, but it is more informative, which I think should be prior to anything else in an encyclopedia. I notice we often have some disagreement about pictures. Is there any way to solve this once and for all? Perhaps a gallery at the end of the article for disputed pictures? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No pal, that's not necessary. I tend to be complaisant most times. I just want to stress that I don't want more pics in the article than there are now. We should really avoid making a picture gallery out of this article. I consider deleting the noted research centers section. Chiefly because I guess that there are too much lists at the moment. I've learnt from reading reviews that people here don't like lists. Out of sheer curiosity: What are you going to do with the faculty stubs? Are you planning to fill these empty sections sometime or is it just meant to encourage people to contribute? Fred Plotz (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a plan for the faculty articles. I will work on them from time to time but others are welcome to contribute as well of course. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I like the new Governance section. Good work! Oh and yes, we should do something about those ugly lists in the organization section (graduate schools + research centers). Should we just delete them? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers :) I think we must keep at least the faculties and associated institutes, but we should make prose out of the lists. I already tried to do so with the faculties but didn't save it as it ended up to be a mere enumeration, which doesn't look nice as well. So I'll have to think about what to write here. Maybe we could combine both sections somehow....we'll see. The grad schools and institutes can disapear anyway, but you should merge the Center for Astronomy and ARI with the faculty article before. The HCA, which doesn't seem to be attached to a specific faculty, can be put in the Research section as a further example of the new interdisciplinary approach. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: I've learned from a QS "oldest universities ranking" that Heidelberg is actually not the 23rd oldest university but No 27. However, I feel this information is not valuable enough to mention it in the introduction. What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merged ARI and ZAH with the faculty and deleted the grad school and institutes lists Fred Plotz (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)