Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education: Difference between revisions

WikiProject Higher education
Main pages
Main project	talk
Participants
Participants category	talk
Project category	talk
Infobox	talk
Manual of style
Article guideline	talk
Templates
Higher education stubs	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
Collaboration of the Month (inactive)	talk
Outreach (inactive)	talk
Articles
List of articles	talk
Accomplishments
Articles for Deletion
Archive
Clean-up List
Popular pages
Task Forces
Student Affairs	talk
Statistics
Higher education pages by quality Quality Total FA 45 FL 58 FM 17 A 1 GA 224 B 1,193 C 4,085 Start 16,921 Stub 15,881 List 1,713 Category 28,207 Disambig 130 File 5,251 Project 48 Template 1,945 NA 2,027 Assessed 77,746 Unassessed 2,215 Total 79,961 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 200,253 Ω = 5.22
Things To Do
Work on articles that need cleanup. Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles. Place {{WikiProject Higher education}} on every related talk page. Combat boosterism wherever it appears Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.

Requested move 18 January 2020: follow up

• Emailed received (as a participant of the council) - have no comment on the above outcome or request. - here as a request was made to unsure data and categorization is not lost for bots. Is the intent to move project banners and categories to the new title? If so ping me I can help.--Moxy 🍁 15:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: thanks for the offer, I will ping some editors for clarification. Is there a checklist for how to move a project, I fear there probably isn't. TSventon (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kudpung, PPEMES, Bhockey10, Tedder, ElKevbo, ClemRutter, Sdkb, Steven (Editor), Steel1943, Randomeditor1000, Shadowssettle, and Robminchin: The RM has now closed and WP:Universities has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education However I don't think the discussion reached a conclusion on the scope of the new project and whether WP:Schools can be adjusted to match. I would suggest

• "universities and colleges" should be changed to "universities and colleges of higher education" on the project page to minimise the amount of rebadging needed, unless there is consensus and volunteers for a bigger exercise are available.
• WP Schools should be adjusted to include colleges of further education but not colleges of higher education.
• I will ask User:Moxy to move project banners and categories to the new title, unless anyone says they intend to object to the discussion closure.

Any alternative suggestions? TSventon (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The terminology seems even more confusing, but if the bots are happy with it, and the division line is now being set between ISCED#4 and ISCED#5 we committed editors will carry on as before. ClemRutter (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC) (edited) ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest "universities, other institutes of higher education, and related topics". "Colleges of higher education" refers (at least in the UK context) to a specific sort of college (basically the British equivalent of the US Community College). Also, I think the scope of the project includes related topics such as degrees (and other HE qualifications), not just educational institutions. Robminchin (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. @BrownHairedGirl: Your work with categories is always appreciated! Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education → Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education – Noun. Accepted convention in most WikiProject titles I have come across. Wikipedia titles aren't usually carried out as Big American Commercial Advertisment Notifications. PPEMES (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural note. While this discussion is underway, the project's title remains unstable. There is no point in renaming all the project's assessment categories while the final name is uncertain, so I have reverted the good faith edits by Timrollpickering to Template:WikiProject Higher Education, in which the category names were correctly updated to "Higher Education".

This is purely an interim measure to avoid multiple renamings, without prejudice to the final outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• pinging Tbhotch, who had raised this at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAP. BD2412 T 19:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support and close. This is such a tiny, hopefully non-controversial change that I wish it'd just be carried out directly so we can get to focusing on more important things. Sdkb (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer: If this move is carried out, the project's assessment categories will all need to be renamed. There are dozens of them, and the task is a bit complex. If it isn't done systematically, then Special:WantedCategories gets flooded with thousands of pages.
  I did most of the heavy listing for the rename from "WikiProject Universities" to "WikiProject Higher Education", and would be happy to do it again if you ping me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC opened asking if University of Pittsburgh should be described as "public" or "state-related"

I've opened an RfC asking if University of Pittsburgh should be described as "public" or "state-related" in the article's Talk page. Please participate! ElKevbo (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Armorial of British Universities

I began this project last summer but it lapsed after a while. I would much appreciate anyone else wishing to take it on. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks interesting, although I'm not sure how much time I would have. Where did you get the "matriculated" date from, it doesn't seem to always agree with the known dates of the grants? Robminchin (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming they are mostly from

• The book of public arms : a complete encyclopædia of all royal, territorial, municipal, corporate, official, and impersonal arms by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies. [[1]]

as those I have checked do match. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention or discuss coronavirus-related closures in institution articles?

Like many other institutions, colleges and universities in multiple countries are being temporarily closed or otherwise impacted by the coronavirus. Broadly speaking, does this merit any mention in articles of institutions or do we consider this to be run-of-the-mill news that we typically don't include in articles? Of course, we'll deal differently with institutions that are uniquely impacted but it's worth seeing if we would like or should have a common beginning point for those discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. No need to mention. Sdkb (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Sdkb on this – unless it turns out to have long-term implications for the institution then it's not something to mention. Robminchin (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this being an instance of WP:NOTNEWS. Too many articles will be spammed with news that is not necessarily about the uni itself. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, Robminchin, and GreaterPonce665: Just a quick note that I think this may be untenable and undesirable given the scale of the crisis and its impact on institutions. I'm seeing a few recent edits to articles that do a good job of succinctly mentioning this as part of the institution's history and I'm not inclined to revert or remove those edits (alrough others are certainly free to make their own decisions). ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo and Robminchin: So, considering this from a WP:RECENTISM standpoint, I know that in 1969, many colleges shut down part way through the spring semester because the Vietnam protests became so intense it was untenable to continue. How much space should we devote to that? My answer would be one sentence in the history section for a FA-length university page. This seems like a comparable impact that ought to be afforded comparable weight. That's my stance in an idealized world in which consensuses made at this WikiProject automatically get applied to all pages under this project's scope. In the actual world, I don't think it's worth fighting a losing battle to keep the mentions that short. I'd say let's only patrol the most egregious WP:WEIGHT issues, and once this has blown over, then go around hacking everything back down to size. Thanks for all your efforts maintaining the pages during this time. Sdkb (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Some institutions have received coverage in national-level media for their responses, which (particularly for institutions that aren't normally mentioned) does indicate that their response is probably noteworthy. There's certainly no need to end up in edit wars now – possibly in the future some of the edits could be trimmed back when we have a better perspective on this (or we might be saying that this really was an epoch-defining event that should be mentioned everywhere). Robminchin (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There certainly will need to be an improvement in balance, possibly by mentioning similar earlier events. For example, UNC's president and his successor both died in the 1918 flu pandemic[2] but this isn't currently mentioned. Robminchin (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Filthy tabs and all that

I ran into "Filthy tabs", a redirect to the University of Cambridge. Whilst "Tab" is a not-unheard-of name for Cantabrigians, prepending "filthy" is a clearly ridiculous insult, and there is already a link at Tab for disambiguation.

I am bringing this up here because similar pages exist (Fenland polytechnic, Cowley polytechnic) which may be considered under the same light, although they're arguably justified since they aren't vulgar insults, as per say, and might help someone who runs into the term. If these are find, then should Strand Polytechnic link the UCL–King's Rivalry? How far do we take it the other way, should all insults published be redirected? Also, has anyone noticed similar redirects to other universities?

On a related note, there are many less than helpful redirects, such as Mit ranks, Stanfurd, or (until recently) College of London for UCL. Is there any reason to keep some of these around, I get that Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is not a search engine, so do these really need to exist? This also goes for some of the capitalisations, are the many redirects of the form University Of Virginia or cambridge university necessary, seeing as the term should always be capitalised correctly, and cambridge university could be referring to any cambridge university uncapitalised. There's no argument based on intra-site searching, the search bar finds all capitalisations, and there's no argument based on "people might use it" as they probably, and if the really should it should be piped anyway, right? Shadowssettle_(talk) 12:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Attempt to speedy delete clearly silly redirects, and redirect "weird accusations" to the controversy not the article. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of those seem like fine candidates for deletion, but uncapitalized Cambridge University seems very reasonable to keep around. I don't participate at RfD much, though. I'd gather up a bunch of redirects and take them there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement over the inclusion of an image in San Francisco State University

Can someone else please take a look at the recent edit history of San Francisco State University and its Talk page? Two editors - one of whom is me - are disagreeing about whether a specific image should be included in the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute over Imperial College Business School

Hi, there is currently a neutrality dispute over Imperial College Business School (talk) over the neutrality of the content in the article, as well as a few other style points. It would be really helpful if you could join the discussion after checking the page history. Thanks! Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Boosterism, a wider conversation

Hi, as per WP:BOOSTERISM and WP:UNIGUIDE academic boosterism shouldn't be anywhere on WP:HED articles. However, it seems to have become the norm, with Yale, Harvard, Cantab, and Oxon articles all starting with a prestige statement. This issue has become noticeably endemic on business school articles. The links guides and essays already cover the reasons to avoid this kind of language, but given the current situation I was wondering two things:

• This should be gotten rid of, right? If the answer is no, then what about Princeton, UCL etc. which are highly ranked where these kinds of claims aren't present, in the opening paragraph at least. If not also consider Trinity College Dublin, which mentions this kind of thing a lot in the intro, but ranks quite lowly. If we are to take rankings and prestige separately, can't anyone and everyone claim prestige, shouldn't this just be got rid of?
• This problem has become quite endemic and it might be helpful to have a special project page or section dedicated to instances of it and removing it, so editors don't have issues when trying to handle it against conflicting editors. I'd be more than happy to help with anyone fighting POV issues on articles across the project, for example, however I feel this problem is going to keep returning unless there is a concerted effort.

Thanks Shadowssettle_(talk) 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think noting the academic reputation of places like Harvard is perfectly appropriate (and, in Harvard's case, the consensus language was achieved after a great deal of debate). Quoting WP:SUBJECTIVE, which is part of the NPOV policy page (unlike WP:BOOSTERISM, which is just an essay): it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers. Describing Harvard as one of the most prestigious universities in the world is little different than noting that Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. That said, where I definitely agree with you is that not everywhere is a Harvard/Wellesley/Oxford/Julliard/Pomona/MIT/insert-your-top-of-its-class-pick, and it's important to keep unsubstantiated claims of reputation out where they're not supported by reliable sources. I wish it were as easy as just instituting a blanket "no mention of reputation" policy, but for places like the above examples, doing so is not only permitted but required to provide readers with the essential basic facts about the subject of the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you shadowsettle. I think boosterism is rampant on the HED articles, and has become the norm. Yes, it does seem like most business school articles have boosterism across almost all of them. The question is, how do you address it? It would seem necessary to address it on most of the notable articles. Yet, it is hard to do so, particularly when editors are proud of their school. I tried to establish a more npov on some schools wiki's, and have had some resistance from proud students. The other alternative is to allow wiki universities to have some boosterism as the norm, and only remove egregious violations? It seems that is a better idea than trying to remove every example of boosterism as it is more feasible. For example, you were noting it is the norm on most business school wiki sites where it has become an endemic. So do you remove it from all the business school wiki university sites? Or do you accept some norms that there will be some boosterism on them all? I think there should be some kind of standards, so what is allowed on some sites is allowed on others, or what is not allowed on some sites, should not be allowed on others. For example, the boosterism article mentions not to use vague terms of praise including prestige. Yet, some editors are very articulate and convinving to allow it on some pages, for example harvard's page, but other wiki sites that want to use the word prestige on their page too and are not allowed, even if they are prestigious schools too. So I think the most eggregious examples should be fixed for sure, and what is allowed on some wiki sites should be allowed on others generally, or what is not allowed on sites, should not be allowed on others. It does not need to be universal, but there should be some standards for sure so it is more consistent what is allowed and what is not.  Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb is right: There are a few institutions that are genuinely notable for their extraordinary reputation and it's important that we include that information just as we include any other information that is extraordinary in the lede. What is unclear is exactly how we draw the line between the articles that must include this information in the lede and those that should not. The compromise that we stumbled our way to in the lede of Harvard University was one that relied not on individual rankings or Wikipedia editors' interpretation or aggregation of rankings but one that relied on multiple independent, tertiary, and high quality sources that explicitly describe the institution as being especially reputable and held in high regard. If we can get a project-wide consensus to follow that model - which would explicitly not allow individual rankings or aggregations of rankings - then I think that might be a workable solution. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The first thing to note is I think everyone so far can agree that things should be more consistent, so I think it's sensible we come up with some kind of consensus here and apply that as far as reasonable to make sure that there's not the current disparity between "equally reputable" university articles

@ElKevbo and Sdkb: I can see how there are merits to saying somewhere has a noteworthy reputation. However, I still don't think that's something Wikipedia articles should be getting involved with. Firstly, as WP:BOOSTERISM explains: "Allow the facts to speak for themselves and let the reader decide", why can't it just be left to the rankings, alumni/ae etc. to talk about it. Now whilst a good reputation could be a fact, is a relatively subjective one. And this importantly means anyone can claim it. All it takes is for editors to find the word leading or prestigious in its Forbes review or on Times. Faced with comments that "that's a regional statement" it will move elsewhere; such as to the Atlantic and do a bit of interpretation; it isn't hard to find an independent local paper that will call the local university prestigious in some regard. What will end up happening is any leeway on this will be used to to make any and every university article talk about being prestigious.

The wording that is left after some compromise would be a clear breaking of the WP:MOS's WP:PEACOCK guideline, so I don't see how it can be done in a non-peacock-y way.

Also note the some articles need it, and "well use WP:COMMONSENSE" arguments don't work, because this means different things to different people. Coming from the UK there was a noticeable absence in Sdkb's list of Cantab Toronto etc., and I would argue that Wellesley, Pomona and the like have next to zero international reputation, and Julliard may only have one within its subject, so would have to clarify that it's domestic/subject specific, which opens up the terms to far more articles. Should University of the Highlands and Islands be "the most prestigious university in the Highlands" (it's the only one)? Should University of Glasgow be the one of the most prestigious in Scotland, does that count as a country if we're limiting the regions to a national level? I feel like any leeway on prestige risks ignoring the foundations of What Wikipedia is: an attempt to be a neutral source of knowledge, that presents the facts not a viewpoint.

I would say that if something is really a noteworthy as any article will claim, the reader will know that, as that what noteworthiness means (unless of course this is expanded to a regional level, but if its not on an international level what's the point).

@Mikecurry1: I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a problem, however I disagree that (a) it's unfixable (b) we shouldn't try.

• Imagine if every country's "proud" citizens wrote that their country was prestigious. Now I imagine you could agree that the USA has some prestige, maybe the UK? Now someone from Russia edits it. They say Russia is prestigeous. Are they wrong? Probably not. Okay, then Monaco edits it, they have some claim to prestige. Where does it end, and what's the point of having it. Obviously, this would be reverted, so why shouldn't it be here.
• Now take an article on some form of mumbo-jumbo, whatever you find most ridiculous (anti-vax, homeopathy, herbal medicine, science, whatever viewpoint you're coming from, I'm not trying to offend anyone here), you will find constant attempts to undermine the NPOV and basis in reliable facts. Should they stop too just because some impassioned editors won't give up? Again, I, the editors of such pages, and I hope you too, would say no.

@Everyone, what this all boils down to: Why should uni articles be given a free pass on WP:PUFFERY? Things people might want to say can easily be said in other ways, and any opening in a submarine hatch lets a lot of water flow in very fast. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To address your specific examples, no, of course University of the Highlands and Islands shouldn't say that it's the most prestigious university in the Highlands if it's the only one; it should say that it's the only one. And if the University of Glasgow is widely considered the premier university in Scotland, I'd be fine with its article saying so. (Note the "widely considered", as it's a key phrase — we're talking about reputation, not dictating prestige directly.) As someone unfamiliar with Scottish higher education, that's probably the number one thing I'm wondering when I go to that page, and I shouldn't have to dig or read between the lines to figure it out (see WP:SPADE). More generally, I'm fine with mentions of reputation being put in context of the domain under consideration. Julliard's article says It is widely regarded as one of the world's leading drama, music and dance schools, with some of the most prestigious arts programs, which sounds good to me, and I'd have no problem with e.g. CalTech saying that it's widely considered the premier technology-focused research university on the U.S. West Coast. Are there valid concerns about a slippery slope? Yes, of course. But that's true with tons of different aspects of Wikipedia. We should do what we always do — stick to what reliable sources say, and use extra scrutiny/higher standards in areas like this one where WP:NPOV issues are a high risk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, and others are prestigious and are regarded as highly prestigious by neutral coverage. I agree lesser known schools should not be fill with self-promotion, however saying Yale is prestigious is stating a verifiable and very important fact.--Hippeus (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'll thank you to stop mentioning Yale in the same breath as Harvard. EEng 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Harvard Yale Harvard Yale Harvard Yale, but seriously, no need to bring school rivalries here Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You may expect a visit from the Trileteral Commission. EEng 15:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little lost there (is this some Yale Alum thing related to the Trilateral Commission). By the way, do you have any thoughts on the matter at hand, academic boosterism? (apart from that Yale should be allowed and Harvard shouldn't?) Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hippeus: Where does that fact end though? If Yale is and Harvard is, then Princeton should probably be. If all those are, probably Penn. Okay, now editors from Cornell and Dartmouth have sources to claim theirs as well, so the Ivy League. Okay, if Dartmouth, a liberal arts college is, then probably Amherst and Wesleyan. Where is the line drawn? Just saying you find some of these prestigious (and I would agree) doesn't mean the article should say it. If you read through WP:BOOSTERISM and WP:PUFFERY, it's much better to state the facts: alumni (presidents etc.), rankings, then go into some vague notion of prestige. I am still waiting on someone to respond on the underlying point of what prestige should mean. Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If graduates receive significantly higher wages than run-of-the-mill schools, then it is a hard metric for prestigious. It does need to end at some point, but to omit that Yale/Harvard/Oxford are highly prestigious is to omit one of the most defining aspects of these institutions.--Hippeus (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of the ones you mention don't necessarily earn the highest in the country, with Havering College having a specifically highly earning course in the UK, despite having no reputation (it's an industry-associated course so is an anomaly). Also, these change year on year, and often other institutions outrank those institutions. It might be a start to a way of doing it, but I would disagree that their prestige is their defining characteristic, rather their impact of society, which may be an alternative? Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Shadowssettle: Yes, i agree. That was the problem I was trying to bring up is the grey line, such as if Harvard is using it then soon other colleges will want to use it, Amherst, Wellsley, etc. I think there was this problem with editors arguing about using the word prestigous on UC Berkeley's site. Some editors wanted to use that word prestigous, and apparently an editor thought it was unneeded as boosterism. I personally did not want to enter that argument of whether prestigious should or should not be used on UC Berkeley's wiki page or not because harvard is able to use it. For me I would think rankings are better than words like prestigious as a standard. Whteher rankings are used or not, I think generally some kind of boosterism standards should be in place. For what is used on one school, should be allowed for others, or what is not allowed on one school site, should not be allowed on others. I did not mean to say that it's boosterism is unfixable and we shouldn't try, as I do not believe that. Rather I was trying to say the most feasabile path is to fix eggregious points, as there are so much resistance from editors and to create standards across what is allowed and is not, so it can be more universally applied. What some people may consider boosterism (ie using prestigious on Wellsley or Amherst's site, many others do not). Fix the grey line issue. I agree with what Elkablo said too, universities should be allowed to put what is notably reputable or extraordinary about the school including in the lead, for example stanford is notable for entrepreneurship, without considering this boosterism. Perhaps, we may want to discuss boosterism standards that could be used across schools?Mikecurry1 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikecurry1: I generally agree with your points, the grey line issue is the one of the leading problems, and I'd like to break these points down into two parts:

• Mentioning that actual underlying point and facts is a better solution "Harvard has 8 US presidents who have graduated from the university", "Stanford has been the birthplace for many of the world's leading technology companies" (or something along the lines of entrepreneurialism as you said) might be a better way that cuts down on the direct WP:PUFFERY. The point that has been made by others that "the reputation must be there and it's a disservice not to mention it" could find some common ground with this, as again just saying that it should be there clearly ignores the points in WP:BOOSTERISM without addressing them.
• Any consensus formed here should be reflected in the guidelines and advice on the subject. You're entirely right that there is needs to be a standard used across schools. There is currently quite some disparity across articles, and its important that whatever consensus is reached here it is reflected and applied consistently (I brought up points about specific universities earlier). Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• All the American universities are too recent to be considered prestigious. In the English-speaking world, only two universities can really lay claim to such an appellation, and one would hope that neither would feel it needful (and the merits of some of their constituent colleges and courses are debatable anyway). Seriously though, we try to remove prestigious, illustrious, innovative, renowned, award-winning, exceptional and such words from other articles, so why do we need them for universities? Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Totally agree with all that.^{except that tarned Oxbridge elitism!} However, right now it seems to endemic, even on the two universities you said didn't need it, hence the need for some consensus here on some form; especially as there's disagreement among the editors here. If you know any other project-uninvolved editors who have been involved with WP:PUFFERY you might want to get them involved (you're ancient compared to most of the editors here apart from User:ElKevbo, a compliment not an insult), I feel like this was the whole reason WP:BOOSTER was made, and it's strong message has slowly decayed over time Shadowssettle_(talk) 20:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)