Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

List of universities in London

I would be grateful for any help with the List of universities in London. There has been some discussion about this but so far not much has happenend. The problem is about the fact that foreign universities have been removed as people think they may not be genuine and also the list is incomplete as it only inlcudes institutions and not organisations which award degrees from other bodies. Let me give you an example Richmondshould be on the list as it can legally award US and UK degrees. Regents Collegeshould be in it as with the exception of the American degrees the rest are awarde by British Universities. there is also a problem that people feel American Intercontinental University should be excluded I see no reason as it has not been stripped of it's degree awarding powers. We also have an idea for 2 lists. Study abroad programmes in London Professional training in London to include things like CIMA. There has been a discussion in the relevant talk page but nothing much is happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulha (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest answer is to take the article name literally: if it's a list of universities in London, it should list all brick and mortar universities in London. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said it does not solve the problem of foreign univerisites and univeristy sector colleges unless someone wants to start a new article? Going back to what I said we need 2 new articles and maybe third is in order for university sector colleges. To sum up this is my position. List of universities in London should include all British and foreign universities based in London as well as all university sector colleges. There should be another post for study abroad programmes in London and also another one for professional training in London to include things like CIMA, AAT and other things. Maybe the titile should be changed to List of Universities and Higher Education Colleges in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulha (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn how to sign your talk page posts. Use four tildes (~). Don't think you're reinventing the wheel here. Look at how other articles have done things. Just off the top of my head, I found List of colleges and universities in New York City, List of colleges and universities in metropolitan Boston, List of universities in Italy, List of colleges and universities in Philadelphia. I would suggest not to make it more complicated than it needs to be. If a foreign university has a study abroad program in London, they do not qualify as a "university in London". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The other problem on the London list is that it also uses UK newspaper rankings to list the universities, rather than a simple list as on virtually every other such page. What are people's thoughts on this? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


incentive

  • If you help the wikiproject University of Florida we will give a Barnstar
Is this barnstar really "official" from the University of Florida? --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure UF's university publications department didn't authorize this barnstar... but enough with technicality. Since we're trying to get people to genuinely add content into Wikipedia, wouldn't adding an "incentive" like a barnstar pull people away from honest contributions? (Did I mention the existing WP:UNI's barnstar?) Haha... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with giving a little to get people motivated. We have a HUGE gap of information missing on the academics & athletics for this Flagship University. I have now added the Alumni, Individual Colleges, and Academic Programs to the overall project (now up to 574 total articles). Also the University of California has their own incentive Barnstar as well. Jccort (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with barnstars. But I'm still concerned about the "official" part. I would definitely advise against that "technicality". College publications offices do consider these things a big deal. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

DOUBLE INCENTIVE!

The University of Florida Barnstar
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the University of Florida.


The Florida Gators Barnstar
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators.
  • Not to be nip-picky... but I'd call these awards (which has a more prestigious connotation to it) than a prize, which sounds like it can be bought.  :-) Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We discussed this as a group, and have decided to be kinda stingy in awarding the Barnstars. Jccort (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I will give a barnstar --the first I've ever given-- for anyone who can reduce those 574 articles down to half the number. It shouldn't be hard--you've been putting the project tag on people who just got their degree there & have no other connection with the place. Removing them, how many articles are there really? DGG (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make it right... it just means lots of Wikiprojects have the same problem. I agree with DGG, at least in principle. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal

I'm thinking of starting a new WikiProject just for students' unions. I'm wondering if anyone else would be interested in participating? I'm discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Student Affairs. GreenJoe 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The main Universities WikiProject just doesn't seem active enough to maintain all these offshoots. Can't we focus on making this project stronger? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it might be helpful to note that people view the main university articles far more than the articles on their student unions/governments. For example, Arizona State University was viewed 21,370 times in February, but Associated Students of Arizona State University was viewed only 242 times that same month. That's a ratio of 88:1. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been looking at a lot of these student union/associated students of X/student government articles, and in general, I don't think any of them have enough notability to have their own article. They don't even have enough reliable sources. Pretty much 99% of the material is a list of former presidents or detailing the minutiae of who proposed what constitutional amendment. I really think these organizations need to be merged into the main articles. --RedShiftPA (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, lots of people seem very keen on keeping these articles separate, and seem to think Wikipedia is supposed to be the host of their student government's website. I disagree. I anyone else agrees with me and would like to help me, here are some articles that I am working on. --RedShiftPA (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed and glad I'm not the only one who thinks we don't need those. Any of those standalones should probably just be AfDed. They have no notability and, as you noted, this is not a personal web hosting service. At best, it needs a one-two sentence mention in the main article. Unfortunately, from my experience, the students/alumni of a school tend to band together and create far too many "schoolcruft" articles similar to those. :( Collectonian (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could anyone that has a view on this one way or another please go and make that view known here? That's where this discussion should be held, as that is where the future of the WikiProject is decided. Cheers! TalkIslander 09:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Student unions/student governments definitely are not inherently notable. Lots of them have been deleted in AFDs: (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11); some have been merged from AFD:(1,2); some have resulted in no consensus: (1,2); some have been kept:(1,2). There's no way to make such a broad statement regarding consensus for student governments. They should have to pass WP:ORG, just like other organizations.--SevernSevern (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well you should voice your opinions on the issue on the WikiProject proposal page. This was really supposed to be a pure "notice" to WP:UNI users that this WikiProject was being made and RfCed there kind of (in an informal way). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that User:Save_the_humans deleted the discussion that was occurring on the proposal thread for this wikiproject. [1]. I don't think the discussion was archived anywhere (I looked). Just thought someone should be made known of that. --SevernSevern (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I went ahead and reposted the previous comments. That's odd that they were deleted.—Noetic Sage 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with most of these. Many are now up for deletion. The only one that hasn't been touched yet is University of Kent Students' Union.—Noetic Sage 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New daily updated to-do list

Hey all! I have "contracted" a bot to do some great things for us. Thanks to SatyrTN, his bot SatyrBot is creating a daily To do list that includes all of our articles that need cleanup, to be wikified, etc. Check out the full list there or the random short list. Enjoy!—Noetic Sage 20:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Changes

Peer Review has undergone changes recently. They now have a handful of core topics into which all articles fit. If someone wants a peer review for an article they first determine which topic the article falls into. They then list the article in that topic. They can then look at a list of editors in that topic field who would be willing to be contacted to provide help. Universities fall under the Society and Social Sciences section. If you are interested in signing up to be contacted to provide peer reviews for university articles you would need to add your name to the list here. Check it out. KnightLago (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Harvard transfer admissions

Can some folks please swing by the Harvard University article to examine how we're handling the institution's recent announcement that they're not accepting any transfer students this year or next? Another editor and I do not agree on how it's being handled and we'd appreciate input from others. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Wesleyan University

I am the primary editor of the IWU article. It has been getting repeatedly vandalized by users without usernames in the past week. Please help by identifying the vandals and blocking them ASAP. Thanks.

Manutdglory (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • WikiProject Universities is not a place to report vandalism. While vandalism is taking place, you are encouraged to report vandals to administrators (WP:AIV). Please redirect your requests there. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page. KnightLago (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

In looking at some templates like Kennesaw State Navbox and other articles, I am noticing many redlinks that link to articles which probably will not satisfy general notability guidelines. WP:REDLINKS says that "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." I am noticing many articles are automatically being created for academic colleges within universities simply because it's common practice (despite most of these articles not satisfying WP:N). I imagine many of these come from redlinks that are part of a complete list - even if every part of the list doesn't deserve its own article. This is also prevalent for lists of students' unions. And as our recent deletions have demonstrated, not every SU is notable. I propose that we begin looking through some of these lists and templates and removing these redlinks for potential articles which would not be notable. Templates especially should not have redlinks (as that is somewhat tacky, in my opinion). What does everyone think?—Noetic Sage 04:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with it as long as the redlinks are proposed to be deleted for at least 48 hours before they are actually deleted in case an editor is working on an article (and we the "outsiders" delete potentially n.n. article red-links). Two days should be suffice to mount a clear declaration of intentions. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Which ones in are you questioning in particular? --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
On this template in particular I'm concerned about the redlinks for Bobbie Bailey and Family Performance Center, Scrappy (mascot), and Siegel Institute. There are many similar templates and lists.—Noetic Sage 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Flagship" problem at BYU

We're having trouble at the BYU page with whether or not to call it a "flagship university". I understand this is a common problem and would ask editors from the project to help us sort this out. The discussion is at the bottom of this section. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. I hope that helps give clarity to the discussion a little.—Noetic Sage 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Still having problems... Wrad (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have sent a single-issue 3RR warning notice on his talk page as well as responding to his statements on the article's talk page. User:Wrad, I would set up MiszaBot to archive old topics so we don't have to sift through all those old topics to get to the new stuff. I'd also recommend that you start a new section altogether and move relevant existing comments down to new section for good reference. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that. Also, the issue seems to be spreading. See recent edits at Flagship university. Wrad (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Endowment vs. Capital Campaign

Quick heads up: I've seen several articles edited over the past few days by editors (often anonymous) who do not know or care about the difference between an institution's endowment and its ongoing capital campaign. Please remember that these are two completely different things and that monies raised during a campaign may not be applied to an institution's endowment (although typically some portion is). And please keep an eye out for changes to endowments to make sure they're accurate and reflective of the cited source(s). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also an issue with US News "creative accounting" of endowments for the University of California, discussed rather extensively here:Talk:University_of_California,_Davis#Endowment. More people (i.e. the "Great Unwashed") put great value in US News due to their brand recognition and are willing to trust them over primary source documents provided by the UC Office of the Treasurer. It hasn't happened yet, but if they organize they could easily overwhelm consensus on these matters. Ameriquedialectics 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-English university article names

As I am going through and assessing our unassessed articles, I'm seeing a large number of universities that are named using their non-English titles. As the naming conventions are somewhat confusing since many of these articles have little English coverage, I'm posting here to see what everyone thinks we should do about this. Some of these articles include: Universiteit Twente, Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară, Universidad Austral de Chile, Université Catholique de l'Ouest, and Universiti Kuala Lumpur. I've checked some of their English-language websites and they do not change the actual name of the university. Thoughts?—Noetic Sage 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be some subjectivity involved in what to do with each one but, except in cases where an institution is clearly better-known in the English-speaking world by its native name (e.g., the École Normale Supérieure, etc.), I think we should strongly prefer English versions of the names. Our guide is going to be be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which calls for the use of the predominant English name as established by verifiable sources, or if there's no established usage, to default to the native name. However, for names that fall under the "no established usage" caveat, but some or all of the components of which translate straightforwardly into English, we should use an English translation as the primary article title.
Try this as an acid-test thought experiment. Ignore for a moment the native institutional names that, presumably, a reasonably-savvy English speaker could easily grok because they are in Latin script and use at least some words that are derived from the same linguistic sources as our equivalent English words. With Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară, it's relatively easy to figure out you're dealing with a university that has some sort of focus on agriculture and veterinary medicine, even if "Ştiinţe" doesn't immediately suggest itself as "science." Try 河北体育学院 (the article for which is conveniently located at Hebei Physical Educational Institute) or Аму́рский госуда́рственный университе́т (Amur State University) though. --Dynaflow babble 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe (Chinese) 河北体育学院 is supposed to be translated into Hebei Physical Education Institute, (not "Educational"). But that's just me. Hebei (河北) Physical Education (体育) Institute (学院)... it's quite straight forward. I'm not sure why it was translated that way. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I did some digging around and found their website. It turns out their established English name is the Hebei Institute of Physical Education. I moved the article accordingly and expanded it a little while I was there. --Dynaflow babble 10:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Another case of University of X and X University naming wonders. Well, the problem was "physical educational", so the new name's fine.  :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cornell University

I wandered by Cornell University to clean up some vandalism today and was disturbed by how the article seems to have been largely neglected for many months. It's one of our older featured articles and it would be a shame if it were delisted. :( Can some kind souls help clean it up? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything specific strike you, or has it just been eroded by passing boosters & vandals and our own shifting norms? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Inexperienced editors, boosters, vandals, etc. It's still a really good article but material has been added slapdash without regard for referencing, style, or tone. It just needs a bit of TLC and a firm editorial hand to shake off or improve the newer additions. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Youniversity.tv

Can someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? I've dealt with these edits in the past so a fresh perspective would be appreciated. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for spamming. KnightLago (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Buffalo Museum of Science needs some serious help. It's a research and educational institution, but since there is no "Wikiproject:Museums" I don't know where to go. The article reads like a brochure or press release...maybe a visitor's guide. There's so much to do I feel a little overwhelmed tackling it myself. Please assist. Thanks. TeamZissou (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Associated Students of the University of California

Some fellows keep adding Senate and Executive Composition material to the Associated Students of the University of California article. I'm pretty sure that stuff like that does not qualify for wikipedia. I removed it, explained why, and re-removed it when they re-added it. Anyone care to take a look at it?--SevernSevern (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the one-sentence article gives no other clue as to how ASUC works or even what it does, the contributor may have considered his or her addition to be a justifiable improvement. Can anyone more familiar with Cal's internal politics (and perhaps with ready access to all the archives at Bancroft) add some substance to that article? Surely a 120 year old organization has done enough in its time to merit more than one sentence and an infobox. Also consider cross-posting this at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. --Dynaflow babble 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rajshahi University

Rajshahi University has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Student numbers at UK universities

I'm in the process of updating the infobox stats for students in British universities, using the statistics helpfully published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. This is very useful, as it means that we don't have to rely on UK universities accurately publishing their own figures, and the figures we do get are (a) sourced from HESA from the institutions themselves, (b) arrived at using a uniform methodology, and (c) made available on a single speadsheet, for free, as a service to the British government and us.

There's hasn't been much resistance to the use of these figures (although they are occasionally disputed by editors who know how many students there are at a given university, and consider that HESA is just wrong). I tend to revet these politely. An anon editing the Oxford University article here has a separate point, which is that HESA supplies several figures for student numbers. The figure that we have been using derives from Table 0a, which lists all students, of whatever status, enrolled at an institution. The alternative, Table 0b, gives a full-time equivalent (FTE) number.

For my part, I prefer the status quo, which more closely mirrors the number of actual people engaged with an institution. In its favour, an FTE number would be closer to the numbers most often reported by universities in their prospectuses and "Facts and Figures" webpages. On the other hand, it would distort the figures for universities which serve more part-time, professional and distance learners (and the FTE figure for the Open University is largely meaningless). I have reverted the anon at University of Oxford, but I open the issue for discusion here: should we switch to using FTE numbers for the whole of the UK? — mholland (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are several things that you can do in terms of backing up those enrollment numbers. First would be inserting a footnote after the HESA enrollment number which directs then to the spreadsheet. Now, if an editor has a question regarding the number, you can refer to the already established footnote in the "Reference" section. If an editor then says Oxford's enrollment number is different, then the determining factor would be the "Updated On" or "Revision Date" date. If Oxford's enrollment number was updated after HESA's spreadsheet came out, technically, as an encyclopedia, we'd take the most updated figure as the standard, but I do agree that HESA is a more neutral source than to rely on the university's website. Does this help provide some insight or has this caused more questions?  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not use both? Whatever you do, make sure to specify what it is you've done. In practice, we (higher ed administrators and researchers) bounce back and forth between headcount and FTE-equivalent depending on the context and the specific use. So you always need to specify what that "enrollment" number means. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'd *love* if we started doing this for US institutions and using IPEDS data instead of haphazard websites, admissions brochures, and other random sources that destroy any ability to compare institutions. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why not... If you can gather a couple more people to split a list of universities, I don't see why we couldn't do this... (I'd say make a bot... but I have no clue as to how to code one to do something like this...:D) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I too support using both FTE and head counts. --Bduke (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be comfortable using both, and will gladly do the work myself. for the 200 or so UK articles covered, this would involve putting both figures in each field available in {{Infobox university}}, perhaps separated by a line break for clarity. If there is consensus for this to be used more widely, it would be much easier to add extra fields to the infobox template. I don't know how this would sit with the goal of slimming down that template: it's been condemned for bloat in the past, but really this sort of data (numerical, comparable) is what infoboxes are for. Thoughts? — mholland (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to split off a separate template for American institutions so we can (a) incorporate IPEDS data and (b) add Carnegie Classification info. But that discussion belongs on the template's Talk page and I'll drop a note here if I ever get far enough along to make a concrete proposal. It probably won't happen soon as I've got quite a bit on my plate right now. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are the numbers you are talking about? KnightLago (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are from the HESA website (Full, FTE), and are displayed in article infoboxes, e.g. here. Occasionally, other figures from the same spreadsheet is used in the article text, to point up a greater/lesser number in international students, etc. — mholland (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there an American version of this that anyone knows about? KnightLago (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). If you're looking up a single institution, it might be easiest to use this tool. You can use some of the other tools on the website if you're looking at multiple institutions; I've used the Dataset Cutting Tool several times to extract data for analysis. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I really like the idea of our project "endorsing" specific data sources for enrollment numbers, classification, etc. I know the Video Games Project does this and we could create a list of sources that our articles are suggested to use in certain areas. This would increase standardization and give editors a place to start for crucial information. What do you guys think?—Noetic Sage 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the direction in which I am moving with my proto-suggestion to create a separate American template. I doubt there will many sources that will be applicable to institutions in multiple countries. But the general idea - this information should come from this reliable, trusted, neutral, and accessible source - seems to be a good one. The only drawback I see immediately is that the info in these sources may be a bit out-of-date when compared to the data available directly from institutions or other sources. But I'm completely okay with that as the data shouldn't be very out-of-date (likely last year's data instead of this year's). --ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

UK University Rankings

I suggested a little while back on the University of Manchester page that we devote a section to ranking positions, consensus was against but then again Manchester doesn't always do so great in University rankings. What's the general consensus on this at the moment, do we include them or not? It looks like many other articles do include a rankings table that follows more or less the same format. Whatever happens I feel it ought at least be done evenly across all UK university articles. Billsmith453 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

problem is that every college likes a ranking list that places it highly, and the various people publishing them cooperate by breaking everything down in different ways, to accommodate them all. "One of the top 5 medium size private 4-year colleges with a music faculty in southeastern US" to take an invented but probably actual example. The US NAS is supposed to be doing a list of graduate school rankings, but they've postponed it another 2 or 3 years. I forget whether this is the 2nd or the 3rd postponement. I also follow a little the debate over the criteria for the UK RAE, which change every time they do it. DGG (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
found a better example by chance at Tufts University: "In the Princeton Review's 2006 Best 361 Colleges, Tufts was named #7 in a list of the 20 schools in the country where students are happiest, and #17 in a list of the 20 schools in the country with the best food. " DGG (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The rankings used generally for UK universities don't fall prey to that particular problem, I'd still like to know whether we include them or not. It seems silly to do different things for different unis. Billsmith453 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)