Talk:University of San Francisco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Daily Beast Rankings

Really? Has anyone actually looked at the source of this information? The list of "least rigorous" starts with the most selective 200 universities out of 2,000 accredited institutions, then uses rankings from College Prowler. The Daily Beast is not in any way a legitimate "ranking" source and would seem to be included by someone more out of malice than a desire to share valuable, objective information. As for the "most crime rattled" ranking, also provided courtesy of The Daily Beast, this is almost entirely driven by two homicides that occurred in 2008 as part of a drug deal gone wrong, somewhere vaguely in the vicinity of campus, and involving no students or faculty. Really? I've deleted this reference and would happily have further dialogue with anyone who thinks it has any legitimacy.

I agree with the poster that the Daily Beast rankings is not completely objective, but neither are many other rankings. Does Wikipedia only include rankings that are objective. Of course not. In fact, if you search for "Daily Beast rankings" on Wikipedia, you will find numerous instances entries. If you search for schools on the lists of the least rigorous or most dangerous rankings as well. Therefore, while the Daily Beast might not be completely objective, neither are other rankings and those of the Daily Beast are all over Wikipedia. I think we should either delete all Daily Beast rankings are allow them all.98.210.143.32 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you don't log in and edit from a registered user account, but merely with a captured IP address and and that you also don't bother to actually describe the nature of your edit. This "ranking" is so obviously inflammatory and non-representative of the University that I can only conclude that you're motivated by some undisclosed animus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpresearch (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Debate about Jesuit Heritage

The user: Usfcastudent and I have a disagreement about whether or not USF should be described as as Jesuit school in the lead portion of the article. Since the two of us can't agree about this, I think we should solicit other people's opinions. I outline my argument below.--Mitamarine (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a jerk with this reversion war. If the people who keep reverting it would come to the talk page and discuss the issue, it would be a lot easier to settle. I gather from the comments that the people doing the reverting are under the impression that the school was historically Jesuit, but is not now. My understanding is that the school is currently a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Every other institution that is a members cites its connection with the the Jesuits (or the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits official name) in its opening paragraph. If you feel this analysis is inaccurate, PLEASE respond here. I am very reasonable and opening to listening to why I have come to my conclusion in error.--Mitamarine (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


The reference to being a Jesuit university is a standard practice for Jesuit universities in the United States. Just look at the entries for Gonzaga University, Georgetown University, Boston College, Santa Clara University, Loyola University Chicago, Loyola Marymount University. Furthermore if you go to the USF website they self identify as Jesuit Education right below the name University of San Francisco Main Page --Mitamarine (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone is uncomfortable with the Jesuit label on the school, then it needs to be debated here. I think it is important to have that noted. In my mind why it should be noted

1)The school has a Jesuit President 2) A Jesuit community lives on campus and teaches there 3) Founded as a Jesuit school --Mitamarine (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What Mitamarine said. I don't understand why this should be at all controversial. I know or have met a fair number of people who have attended Jesuit schools (not USF, but Boston College, John Carroll, Scranton, Creighton, Loyola Chicago, Fordham, and others), and pretty much the first thing they say to explain their school to someone unfamiliar with it is that it's a Jesuit school. It's a basic piece of identifying information, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to include it. john k (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the second paragraph on USF's about page says, "USF is committed to becoming internationally recognized as a premier Jesuit Catholic, urban university with a global perspective that educates leaders who will fashion a more humane and just world." If they call themselves Jesuit right up front, I can't imagine why we should be shy about it. john k (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Okay, two requests. First, can we please stop removing the disputed label, when this issue is clearly still disputed. Second, can we please discuss on the discussion page what the consensus is for section on the Jesuits? I am going to add the disputed tag back in right now. I will hold off in changing the page itself til we have discussed how it should look. The information that is added is cut and paste from the Boston College and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities pages. I think the Boston College description of the Jesuits is good. I think the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities information is out of place here. Finally if we are using Boston College as a model for the University of San Francisco page, we should note that BC makes reference to being a Jesuit school in its opening paragraph. It is the last sentence of the opening paragraph and I quote, "Boston College is one of the oldest Jesuit, Catholic universities in the United States and is home to one of the largest Jesuit communities in the world." What do people think about these changes?--Mitamarine (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. It's a Jesuit university, what's the big deal? Ameriquedialectics 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


As one of the most culturally diverse universities in the world (with a vast majority of the students that are not Jesuits), USF is a school that is inclusive to all students and should be represented this way on their Wikipedia page. The university is focused on providing high quality education and social responsibility in San Francisco and the opening paragraph should represent the ideals in an inclusive manner. The Society of Jesus has historically not been open to gays, Jews, or people of different cultures and so introducing the university as a Society of Jesus school is not good for our schools reputation, nor is it appropriate for the opening paragraph. Opening paragraphs should represent the overall message, and there are more important messages at a private university than it's religious affiliation.

I've added a section on the USF page entitled 'Jesuit Tradition.' Please feel free to share your views on religion in this section or the history section. I hope that this can allow for people who are not affiliated with the school, such as MitaMarine and John Kenney, to stop posting religious views on this school's opening paragraph. USFCAStudent (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You do understand that Jesuits are a religious order and that use of the term here refers to the religious orientation of the faculty, right? "The University of San Francisco will be internationally recognized as a premier Jesuit Catholic, urban University," and "The core mission of the University is to promote learning in the Jesuit Catholic tradition" are written into the school's mission statement. Faculty don't get hired unless they have "an understanding of and commitment to support the mission of the University." [1]. WP is not a soapbox for political advocacy against Jesuits or your own university, sorry. Ameriquedialectics 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The University of San Francisco was founded by Jesuits, is headed by a Jesuit priest as president, has a Jesuit motto and is a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Most likely, as in the case of other Jesuit colleges and universities, the Society of Jesus owns all or part of the real estate of the University, although this point is not made clear. Seems to be a clear case of ... walks like a duck, looks like duck and is therefore ...a Jesuit University --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this... I love this: The Society of Jesus has historically not been open to gays. Hilarious. Better POV pushing, please. More generally, the idea that identifying the school as Jesuit would damage its reputation is absurd. The Jesuits have excellent reputations as educators, and, with a few exceptions, all of the US's elite Catholic schools are Jesuit. I would suspect that USF's status as a Jesuit school is one of its principle draws as a school (and I'd further guess that a pretty solid majority of its student body comes from Catholic backgrounds, and often from Catholic secondary schools). The school itself advertises its Jesuit connection pretty strongly, so obviously they disagree with USFCAStudent on whether it's useful or not. And, speaking generally, when one is reading about a private university, virtually the first basic piece of information to help someone classify it is to lay out whether it is Catholic, secular/non-denominational, or associated with some Protestant group. If one were trying to explain to someone previously unfamiliar with the schools the difference between BC and BU, for instance, I think one would surely say "BC is the Catholic/Jesuit one, BU is secular." I'm glad the USFCAStudent has backed off from this nonsense, but it was really totally ridiculous that we were ever having such an argument. john k (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Mascot Name

Don is Spanish for Boss or Chief. In Italian also, think the Godfather Don Corleone. --Mitamarine (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC) USF's mascot is the Don. What is a Don? The link under Miscellany doesn't help very much. SenorAnderson 06:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind [2]. SenorAnderson 17:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Removed Incorrect's additions. Incorrect was referring to the incorrect school.--Annoyedgrunt 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect is so embarrassed, he has removed his incorrect comments about USF.Incorrect 07:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rozelle on SI.jpg

Image:Rozelle on SI.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

class project

Questions about the class project? Please contact user:davidms (responsible for the class) or user:phoebe (helping). Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Is the class project why the article tripled in length, with some material that's barely relevant? Do students in this project think that the menu at the cafeteria is encyclopedic information? Or that we need to duplicate here material found in other articles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the cafeteria food: Why shouldn't it be considered encyclopedic information? If I were a prospective student I would certainly find a section on the menu very relevant! Armariano (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Prospective students may want to know all kinds of information that isn't encyclopedic. Are the mattresses lumpy? Do the professors grade hard or easy? Etc. Prospective employees may have yet other concerns: what is the pension like? Prospective vendors might want to know the school's credit rating. And so on. While those are all legitimate concerns for those individuals, they are beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. For a list of what we don't include, see WP:NOT. More narrowly, information shouldn't be included that isn't verifiable from reliable sources. Is it likely that any reliable source says that the cafeteria sometimes serves tamales? Well, if there's been a restaurant review of the cafeteria there might be. But if not then it's just someone's original research. The material that I was asserting is not relevant was a long section on the surrounding area. WP has dozens of articles on the surrounding area, but this article is just about USF itself. Besides the minimal amount of information to indicate where the school is located all of that information is better suited to those other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Will. please keep in mind WP:Notability and WP:NOT, and try to follow the recommended structure for university articles detailed here: Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure. For an idea of what wikipedia considers good or great articles about universities, check out any of the articles on this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Accomplishments. Ameriquedialectics 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is not only for potential employers, but students as well. Arguably more important for students. Who attends the schools? Students. Whose parents will be paying for those students to attend the school? Students. Whose decision on what school they will go to will change their whole life’s? Students. Students need to know about the school before they decide to go there. Not just what rank the school is or the history, but what is happening now. Along with what will be happening when they get there, what it's like, what to expect. They need as much information as possible before making this decision. In terms of relevance, it’s all relevant. In terms of the style and what should or shouldn't be in an Encyclopedia, an Encyclopedia should provide as much information as it possibly can. ·:· Lacourk ·:·08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. We must practice editorial discretion as to what belongs and doesn't belong, some of which is determined by long-standing and widespread consensus. This is an encyclopedia article, not an admissions brochure or exhaustive novel. --ElKevbo (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A college or university's Wikipedia article never will be, nor ever ought to be, the definitive word on a university. If you are using Wikipedia as the primary source to inform a major decision like what college to attend instead of consulting the myriad of other material available - well, woe be unto you! Our primary purpose is to write a free encyclopedia article providing and overview and summary of a school's providing an overview of a college's notable history, organization, academics, research, activities, and people - exactly what WP:UNIGUIDE states - not an exhaustive cataloging or reproduction of content that is already available elsewhere but hosted here because Wikipedia gets more traffic.
Also, the temptation that has percolated through in both the vandalism to my user page and other comments that this is your article and I or any other unaffiliated editor have no right to edit it. This thought must be absolutely banished from your mind. If you fail to recognize the implications this territorialism would have on collaboration of this nature, you fail to understand the reason why Wikipedia exists or "works" - the success of Wikipedia depends entirely upon the willingness of other editors who may have little or even no personal familiarity with the subject being willing to volunteer their time and expertise.
Finally, I strongly encourage new editors to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Accomplishments to see examples of what this article should and should not look like. Obviously every school is different and our policies must permit enough leeway for schools to emphasize what is most notable about them but these high-quality articles also reflect a general consensus on what content should and should not be in the article. If USF looks and reads substantially different from those other articles, expect it to be "mercilessly" edited until it approximates what is found in the other articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, I think we are to believe the dining is the most notable aspect of USF given the amount of content devoted to it! Madcoverboy (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
no one is trying to create a brochure. you said facts, those are facts. I don't know what you consider informational but everything on that page is informational. It's called creativity. Everyone has their own definition of what is and is not important. Wikipedia was created so that people could manipulate, add to, and correct entrie. You are fighting for this structure. Structure? Everything identical? what's the point of that? We are adding information to this page that is legitimate, fact based, verifiable, notable, for the most part a NPOV, and as for what is being claimed as original research there is none. Yes there are articles created by USF students, but no students used their own work. We know the rules. We are exhibiting our wanting to create a page that gives facts about every aspect of USF. That's what an Encyclopedia is for. Giving information on everything it can about a subject. To this comment: "not an exhaustive cataloging or reproduction of content that is already available elsewhere but hosted here because Wikipedia gets more traffic."? Any given article on Wikipedia has information that is available else where. That's where people get the information. remember? Elsewhere. Another source. So I hope that you can respect other people’s creativity working to create a page that is based on facts and represents all that a school has and is. 138.202.144.31 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Lacourk
I would encourage you to review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of every fact that exists nor a collection of every truth ever uttered. This is the reason for our oft-debated notability policy; some information simply isn't notable or important enough to include. "Structure? Everything identical? what's the point of that?" The point is to aspire to write an encyclopedia where a reader could be assured that the article on City College of San Francisco is treated and written no differently than the article for Harvard University. To do this requires rules and policies borne of years of open debate and consensus formation about what should and shouldn't be in articles. I do not want to admonish yours or any other new editor's enthusiasm for contributing and the article as it stands is substantially improved from before. However, if you wish you create a page that gives facts about every aspect of USF, you'd likely be better off starting a stand-alone "USFapedia" where you wouldn't have to be constrained by all our rules and policies. I do not mean that as though to show you the door, but rather to emphasize that you face a Sisyphusian task in overturning a huge body of precedent and consensus to the contrary. Believe me, I haven't always made myself the most popular editor with some of the relatively mundane changes to consensus I tried to realize among the community of college/university article editors. To the point of including and integrating information from elsewhere, that is exactly the goal. However, the article is sourced entirely from USF websites which calls into question the reliability, verifiability, and notability of many passages. If, despite the whole orgy of information that is now available, no one has bothered to write about that aspect of USF besides USF, how can that information be corroborated, independently verified, or reproduced? Ultimately, if someone really wants to find out about the dining options, fraternity mission statements, semester abroad options, etc. they'd be much better off looking at the official USF page on that topic. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are they gone? Ameriquedialectics 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably. It was a rushed end-of-term project (again, not my idea!) which probably didn't help with the excess material at the end. Thanks for helping. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish we had gotten some more pictures of the campus rather than the interior of dining and residence halls out of this. That's usually the best part about having editors collocated with the article's subject matter. I'll stop putting up template tags hoping someone fixes them and give the article a thorough scrub down in the course of the next few weeks. Can I go back to being a cantankerous and disaffected Wikipedian again? :) Madcoverboy (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you stopped, lol. Although if their parents are paying over 33K in annual tuition for them to edit wikipedia articles, i suppose they must feel entitled to write about the cafeteria food. Ameriquedialectics 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Amerique, I think that's a little unfair -- they did get assigned to work on the USF page without a lot of guidance, so they ended up writing mostly what they knew about. And as I recall from being a student, cafeteria food is a large and notable part of the undergraduate experience :P Madcover: I wish they'd gotten more photos as well; I did not have time to cover uploading to commons, though, and the new autoconfirm restrictions mean they can't upload direct to en:wp with a new account so I couldn't show them here, either -- so probably not as many of them thought about adding photos as might have otherwise, which is too bad. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To Do

I've gone through and spun off some content into daughter articles (Residence halls at the University of San Francisco and List of University of San Francisco people) as well as condensing and removing some content that was non-notable, unverifiable, or peacockish. I likewise introduced some standard descriptive information and templates and standardized the general format to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE. The amount of turnover and development on the page is exciting and potentially powerful if it's properly directed. Here's a to-do list of things that could be added to compliment the tags I added to the top of the article:

I hope this helps! (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who offered suggestions, guidance, and edits! Although it was kind of a rocky start, many of us are using these suggestions to improve the article's content and credibility. We really appreciate all the help from those already familiar with Wikipedia. For some working on this class project, this is the first interaction with Wikipedia. Madcoverboy- thank you for your commitment to the integrity of the article and for creating a daughter article for Residence Life.

Make a template

Someone could also make a navigation template for USF-related articles. Here is one I adapted for Rice University that could be used as an example.

  1. Copy and paste the content from Template:Rice University to Template:USFCA - do not save yet!
  2. Change the colors and remove the Rice-related information
  3. Go to [[Category:University of San Francisco]] and put those articles into the template. Make sure to retain the formatting spaces.
  4. Save the changes you have made
  5. Add {{USFCA}} to the bottom of all the articles in [[Category:University of San Francisco]]

Now you have yourself a nice fancy-looking template box! Madcoverboy (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Class project part deux?

Can someone explain the sudden influx of new users making edits? Is this a class project that was not announced on WP:SUP? If so, please inform the instructor to seek out an editor on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination to help provide some guidance and support. Otherwise you'll get cranky Wikipedians like me shouting at the kids to stay off the lawn. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

At least the residence and dining hall sections will be getting more attention. Those areas always need more work! Ameriquedialectics 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't even fret about the campus dining section. I've got it under control ;) But yeah, we're all part of another class that's doing a USF wikipedia revamp. Jonnyhech (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this project is to redo the USF page so it reads more accurately like a wikipedia college article. In class, we engage in lengthy conversations (and sometimes debates) about what should or should not be added or subtracted from the current article. We are also learning how to efficiently use wikipedia and become more net-literate. Don't worry your pretty little heads. We know what we're doing. However, if you do have any suggestions, constructive criticism is always welcome. Stevie leigh (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions.
  1. You should strive to replicate the style and content of articles at Wikipedia:FA#Education, not your rival institutions' Wikipedia articles.
  2. This is an encyclopedia article, so emphasize history, campus, and academic information rather than often non-notable student activities, dorm life, crazy pranks, etc.
  3. Don't duplicate the USF website. The university archives and LexisNexis should be your first stops. Most importantly, seek out and incorporate reliable, third party sources like peer-reviewed journal articles, published books, major newspapers, etc.
  4. Keep the academic boosterism under control. This is an encyclopedia article emphasizing neutrality, not a recruitment website.
  5. Review WP:REFB and the manual of style.
Good luck. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the good suggestions by Madcoverboy, learning the use of edit summaries will also help the students become better Wikipedia editors. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also ask that you please consider your tone and word selection a bit more carefully. Phrases such as "[d]on't worry your pretty little heads" and "[w]e know what we're doing" can come across as a bit arrogant or condescending if read in the right (wrong) way. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. My intention was not to come across as arrogant or condescending. Instead, I wanted to stress the fact that this class is completely different from the last class that edited the project; in fact, this class is about digital media. Obviously, we don't know everything about wikipedia, but we aren't blindly strolling along this page. Next time I will be more considerate of how I come across in the wiki community. 138.202.47.144 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

as Jonnyhech and Stevie leigh have noted, the members of Digital Media Production - 12 students, 1 prof - are working on improving the wikipedia entry to USF. For the last two weeks, we have been researching (offline in Gleeson Library and online), meeting with librarians, and having discussions about various sections of the current wikipedia page for USF. For the next few weeks, we will slowly be editing and adding to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmsilver (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the other editors who have given our Digital Media Production class a little input on what works and what doesn’t work on Wikipedia. Your suggestions will definitely be taken into consideration. I would like to point out that we are not students who are attempting to market the University. We are students who are genuinely concerned with the University of San Francisco Wikipedia page because some sections clearly require more attention. For instance, many sections need citations from resources other than our college brochures. Other sections, such as the ROTC section need to be slimmed down. Information regarding the credit and GPA requirements for the Army and Navy are unnecessary. Including such facts seems as if the page is marketing the program. We are carefully choosing to include only historical facts, for much information on the University’s page is better used in a catalog and brochure for the University. I also had the opportunity to meet with Jimmy Wales and asked him a few questions in regards to bettering the Wikipedia page. I have shared his ideas with the class and we will be sure to keep both his and other editor’s suggestions in mind. We as a class would appreciate other editors who keep an open mind in regards to our work. We are students who are using archive and library materials. There need not be “shouting at the kids to stay off the lawn.”Haulani7 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you all very much have your heads on straight and there is certainly much to be improved on the article. The comment re: "shouting at the kids to stay off the lawn" arises from repeated experiences with underinformed instructors assigning students to edit the university webpage. The ensuing trainwreck of "PI BETA GAMMA is the most respected fraternity on campus", "The StupidPuns are an award-winning acapella group. Here is a list of their members and upcoming concerts.", etc. is almost assured which is then left to regular editors to then revert/cleanup. This pushback is then followed by new editors being upset that their contributions are rejected, and then a couple of rounds of accusations and revert wars. By the time class ends, despite all the sound and fury, very little has substantively changed or improved on the article. I am optimistic that this will not be the case this time and I will be happy to provide any advice or guidance. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Question: What do you guys think about the athletic facilities sub-section? Do you think it should be moved from the Campus section to a sub-section of athletics, or keep it how it is now? --Rpkerr (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much information for any section of the main article. Consider splitting off overly detailed content on the physical plant to University of San Francisco campus per Wikipedia:Summary style. Ameriquedialectics 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

I have reverted twice, and will now revert a third time, edits where the ranking of USF is compared to their unranked rivals. Please review WP:BOOSTER. Trying to make your school look better than your competitors is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Let the ranking stand without the comparison. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. Now people will think we are probably socks;( Ameriquedialectics 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that Amerique. And for the students working on the project, I'm glad you are trying things and hopefully you are learning when your edits are changed or reverted. I am trying to specifically include Wikipedia policies/guidelines where appropriate to help you understand why your edit was not quite appropriate. But please, do not add the exact same wording to an article after it has already been reverted twice. Read the edit summaries to help you understand why they were reverted. Good luck with the project, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to take the heat off of us a tad, I'm pretty sure the guy messing with the rankings is part of our class. I don't think anyone was assigned that, and we were all required to make accounts for the project, so there would've been an account tied to the edits if it was from us. I think. Jonnyhech (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er... whoops. I meant ISN'T part of our class. Isn't. This is what happens when you try to do anything productive at 3 AM. Jonnyhech (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the rankings template to replace it with prose. I know we are not supposed to use lists of data, but this was a template that is part of the university portal and shouldn't be removed.--Mitamarine 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Things the USF article needs:

  • citations to resources about the university's history
  • a summary of notable people associated with the university
  • a summary of academic programs offered at the school (academic colleges, any graduate degrees offered?, etc)
  • a few more photos of campus; photos of the Koret center?

Things the article does not need:

  • any more rankings statistics, of any sort (athletic, admission, the student body, etc)
  • information about the recycling program, student initiatives, or any other sort of short-lived initiative
  • information about student clubs
  • information about admissions
  • anything about San Francisco that isn't about the campus itself
  • stuff about ROTC

Remember -- this is an encyclopedia article, not an informative brochure for prospective students or a current look at student life. Here are some guidelines for a good university article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BOOSTER: "There are many useful and reliable web resources published by an institution and other sources that can be incorporated into college and university: visit the website for the archives to expand the information on its history, campus, and traditions, use the fact book or common data set to include more information on the student body and faculty, incorporate information from university reports, faculty handbooks, or course catalogs to describe the administrative organization, academic programs, and research centers, review the Alumni Association website to include additional notable alumni, search news archives for historical coverage of the university, and so on. In the United States, organizations like the National Science Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Chronicle of Higher Education, and National Center for Education Statistics collect and publish authoritative information about colleges and universities." Madcoverboy (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm editing the section about clubs and organizations. My plan is to take out all extended discussion about particular clubs and replace it with a well organized list of what organizations really exist on campus (like student government, social groups, social justice groups, religious groups, political groups, etc). No in depth explanation, groups listed together under their genre. Do you think that's appropriate? I think at least mentioning student activities is crucial because it's such a fundamental part of a university. Melstrikesback (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the WP guideline on embedded lists: Wikipedia:Embedded list. Prose is generally preferred, although you could start up a separate article using the Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists format for student clubs. Ameriquedialectics 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there already is a list here [3]. No point in recreating that, I don't think. Ameriquedialectics 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dissident awards

The article should maybe describe what is the University of San Francisco's overall standing with Church authorities in the USCCB. There are reports that the university was giving an award to a bishop known for his public dissent from the norms set forth in the Church's magisterium. [4] ADM (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Next class project: make it into an FA

FA (or GA) has a lotof guidelines. Why not run those processes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

USF Endowment Figure

I keep having to change the USF Endowment to the correct figure. US News and World Report are the predominate source for rankings and they have USF's endowment at 216 million, not the 100 million figure it keeps getting changed to. See here: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/san-francisco-ca/university-san-francisco-1325 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.240.42 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, NACUBO is a better source than US News. If you look at the NACUBO data, you will see that US News is a year behind and showing June 2008 numbers rather than NACUBO's June 2009 numbers. NACUBO, the National Association of College and University Business Officers, receives the values from the universities each year. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the NACUBO pdf and for some schools it does not take into account other types of grants. The NACUBO and USNews Report are not always aligned (see UCSD). For consistency, we should stay with US News, which is widely respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.240.42 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, USN&WR is not widely respected. Relying on an unreliable commercial ranking instead of a specialist source for information is not good practice. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on that one. I understand they are commercial rankings, but US News is the standard that most people look to, like it or not. For the sake of compromise, let's inform the readers of both estimates. Let them decide which source is more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.240.42 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering US News is showing 2008 figures and NACUBO has 2009 figures, showing both would be inappropriate. Another option would be to show $155.7 million as of May 31, 2009 (see page 17 of their audited financials), although secondary sources are generally preferred. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Colleges hold many different types of funds: true endowment (with the college restricted from spending the principle), life income trust funds with earnings paid to donors until they die, "rainy day" funds which are the built up surpluses from past years, etc. NACUBO has devoted considerable effort to standardize definitions, and its survey represents comparable figures from the various colleges. USNews reports based on a survey form which does not use a detailed definition of endowment. Hence, schools are tempted to pick the highest figure to get a more impressive listing. The NACUBO survey goes to the college's business office for a response, and I suspect that USNews frequently gets its response from the school's public relations office. Although USNews is now joining the College Board and Petersons in a common data set (CDS) initiative, it is not clear that the 2008 figure complies with even CDS standards. For these reasons, I believe NACUBO is more accurate and reliable. Racepacket (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has limited information regarding sports, specifically current sports, and their respective sports rankings.The citations listed are good but there are only few in comparison the amount of information provided. The section regarding the buildings and their history seems unnecessarily long compared to sections with more important aspects of the college. The headings and subheadings are clear and arranged. More pictures could be added to emphasis how the university appears. The sources cited are legitimate and the article provides a neutral view throughout.Sstrayer23 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_San_Francisco/Archive_1&oldid=1170890227"