Jump to content

Talk:College of William & Mary: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|search=yes|archive_age=60|archive_units=days|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{Article history
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1=FAC
Line 9: Line 9:
}}
}}
{{Copied |from=Nu Kappa Epsilon,|to=The College of William & Mary|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_College_of_William_%26_Mary&oldid=459778415}}
{{Copied |from=Nu Kappa Epsilon,|to=The College of William & Mary|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_College_of_William_%26_Mary&oldid=459778415}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject Universities|class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Higher education}}
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=top}}}}
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(60d)
| algo=old(60d)
| archive=Talk:College of William & Mary/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:College of William & Mary/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=3
| counter=4
| maxarchivesize=100K
| maxarchivesize=100K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=2
| minthreadsleft=3
| minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
}}
{{old move|date=11 April 2024|destination=College of William and Mary|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1219638003#Requested move 11 April 2024}}
__TOC__
__TOC__


== Alumni section ==
== Promotional Content ==

We have overloaded the alumni image gallery, including duplication of previously pictured alumni. Barring opposition, I will remove these duplicates. We have no need to present more than six images there; we have a separate article to provide a detailed illustrated list. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], the current version already has more than six images, with unknowns (Thao Nguyen) rather than influential cultural figures like Jon Stewart or actors like Glenn Close. Viewed as a reader landing at Alumni, the chosen set of images misinforms, creating the impression that John Tyler is more significant than Thomas Jefferson or James Comey more than John Marshall (who is listed as "graduated" and incongruously pictured with Faculty, though Marshall did not graduate nor teach at William & Mary). Similarly, James Monroe is claimed as an "alumnus" (though he just studied for a short time, which could be better clarified in "Alumni"), but is pictured in Revolution & Transition, in which he was not a significant actor. (Aside from the sloppy and cluttered editing.) [[Special:Contributions/71.241.244.220|71.241.244.220]] ([[User talk:71.241.244.220|talk]]) 21:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
::As has been noted in the past, TJ and Marshall appear in the article with images already (thereby emphasizing their outsized importance). If we did the list strictly by who are the most {{tq|influential}}, I doubt Stewart would break the top 10. The list is inherently subjective, and the current selection was chosen to reflect a variety of times, places, and disciplines. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
:::As noted above, their inclusion elsewhere is misleading and misrepresentative of alumni. As presented, W&M is represented by 7 persons involved in government or military, and one largely unknown musician -- it is clearly '''not''' diverse in time, place, or discipline (though my edit improved that weakness). The alumni represented will clearly be chosen for fame or influence, or we could simply include a random recent graduate. Subjective or not, Jon Stewart has won 22 Emmys and 2 Grammys, markers of success within his field; Glenn Close has won 3 Tonys, 3 Emmys, and been nominated 8 times for an Oscar, markers of success within her field. [[Special:Contributions/71.241.244.220|71.241.244.220]] ([[User talk:71.241.244.220|talk]]) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
::::After reviewing the [[Wikipedia:Good Articles|GA]] university articles, I think the current alumni section is simply out of step with Wikipedia's higher standards. I'll be creating a primarily prose alumni section that will incorporate increased details regarding some of the quasi-alumni (George Washington an especially relevant example). The folks you mention will likely be included, but the image section may be further reduced or expanded to reflect the size of prose. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


Removal of Promotional Content in accordance to Wikipedia Policy outlined in [[Talk:George Mason University#Removal of Notable faculty and alumni]]. [[Special:Contributions/129.174.255.57|129.174.255.57]] ([[User talk:129.174.255.57|talk]]) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
==Institutional rankings==
{{ping|Drevolt}} Since you reference [[WP:HIGHERED REP]] indirectly in your edit summaries (if it takes more than one edit summary, please just use the talk page), I figured I should engage with it here: that's a localized consensus that runs contrary to standard Wikipedia policy. However, if you want to continue modifying articles in education to remove content like you did on this article, please be sure to specifically reference the [[WP:HIGHERED REP]] RfC instead of essays or unspecific references to a prior consensus. Thanks for digging and finding what you did, though; even if I don't find the RfC compelling, it's good to know where you are coming from on it and it furthers the discussion very helpfully. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 06:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


:Just a lot of vandalism. If you choose to have others regard your attempts as [[WP:AGF|in good faith]], you should take some time to read the [[WP:MOS|manual of style]] and [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] [[User:Tedickey|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]]: Just approaching this from an objective point of view, it is clearly misleading to describe a university as "among the best public universities in the United States" in "institutional rankings" on the basis of being ranked #13 in U.S. News. Please take a look at the pages for the universities in the top 10 public universities; most do not include a comparable statement. You're free to state its rankings in all four major publications in the lead, but the wording you're trying to force is a textbook example of [[MOS:WEASEL]]. I'd also like to point out that the [[WP:ONUS]] is on you to demonstrate that it ''doesn't'' violate [[WP:ASF]], meaning that it should stay removed from the page until there's a talk page consensus that it doesn't. I'm happy to listen to your side here on the talk page, but digging in your heels and saying that you don't like the consensus is not grounds for restoring disputed content. I'm therefore removing it again, pending discussion of the above objection. --[[User:Drevolt|Drevolt]] ([[User talk:Drevolt|talk]]) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Drevolt}} My point is that there's a leading policy that suggests we ''should'' keep the content. However, you have given sufficient reasoning through your last edit summary and the above comment for me to trust your judgement, even if I disagree and would appreciate the opportunity to re-review this issue on a broader level elsewhere. Consider this me saying I am good with you again removing the content. Thank you for your willingness to discuss and clarity in discussion. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 22:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Pbritti}} Thank you, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this reasonably. Which policy did you have in mind? We don't have to get into this if you'd prefer not to, but I'm totally open to hearing you out if you want to keep discussing it. Either way, if another RfC comes up on this point in the near future, I'll be sure to ping you in it so that you can contribute to the discussion. --[[User:Drevolt|Drevolt]] ([[User talk:Drevolt|talk]]) 22:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh, it's ok, {{re|Drevolt}} thanks for asking! [[WP:RS]] and its subsidiary standards for exclusions were among them, but I'd prefer discussing it more if/when there's a general RFC on this type of stuff. In the meantime, let me know if you want help standardizing according to the reasons you've laid out; I'd rather more people know this is what most editors involved in this sector of the project consider standard than have only some articles meeting this standard. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 23:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}Inviting {{u|Roaringwikifan}} to this conversation; I would have preferred the passage not be reinserted but I would like to open the floor to continued discussion. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


== Requested move 11 April 2024 ==
:Thanks for inviting me @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], I appreciate the kind outreach. I can see that both of you have thoroughly discussed this question so I hope to be concise and squeeze as much as I can into one reply. I do believe "It has been ranked by major [[College and university rankings in the United States|institutional rankings]] among the best public universities in the United States" is an appropiate line to keep.
:- In terms of wiki consensus and standardization, many institutions that have similiar or lower national rankings than W&M include this line without any issue (e.g., [[University of Georgia]], [[Ohio State University]]) which makes the case for it being a norm. This line is uniquely different from T-10 universities in Wiki, these institutions have lines that typically include "prestigious", "elite", or "worldwide" (e.g., [[Harvard University|Harvard]], [[Yale University|Yale]]). On the other hand, the line for W&M is rather acute in its scope, "public" (denotation among type of schools), "in the United States" (only nationwide). It does not include the same key words as T-10 institutions' descriptions. Therefore, I argue the revised line does not contribute to wikipuffery or [[WP:BOOSTER]].
:- In terms of ranking, W&M is T-50 national, T-20 public, and T-10 for undergrad teaching by USNews. USNews also places W&M in their "most selective" category for admissions (A category W&M shares with many undeniably prestegious universities, including Harvard. See "selectivity" category by USNews for both institutions: [https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/william-and-mary-3705/applying#:~:text=William%20%26%20Mary%20admissions%20is%20most,quarter%20scored%20below%20these%20ranges. W&M] and [https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/harvard-university-2155/applying#:~:text=Harvard%20University%20admissions%20is%20most,score%20of%2033%20and%2036. Harvard]). Alongside current rankings, W&M has historically consistent high rankings (including previous higher rankings).
:Notwithstanding historical considerations that bolster the pro- argument, I believe it is fair to use the revised line that W&M is one of the best public universities available within the US based on this information. [[User:Roaringwikifan|Roaringwikifan]] ([[User talk:Roaringwikifan|talk]]) 04:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
::Sounds like a lot of [[WP:OR|original research and synthesis]] to me. If this information is [[WP:DUE|really something that should be included in the lede]], surely you can find some good, independent sources that explicitly support it. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Part of the issue is that I can find many sources that describe W&M as a "Public Ivy" (even though I'm generally in agreement that this is a deprecated description if originating in news or ranking sources). However, I would like to offer these two sources: [https://richmond.com/news/local/education/virginia-tech-uva-move-up-in-u-s-news-world-report-ranking-of-best-colleges/article_cb532e25-b85e-5eb2-9061-883db9d864be.html] & [https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/report-uva-is-3rd-best-public-university-william-mary-drops/article_2394aca6-3387-11ed-b0bf-ef82afeff89a.amp.html]. Both are independent and reliable, but they also demonstrate one of the more fundamental struggles with this sort of thing: rankings change. I lean towards including the material in the leads, but also acknowledge that it's a balancing act to avoid puffery. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 17:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Well said @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]]. I agree it is fair to include the revised line in the lead as is, but I also acknowledge it does remain a balancing act to avoid puffery. W&M has ranked as a T-10 public university in the past and has numerous references as a "public ivy". In the future, an editor may potentially compile a comprehensive list into a drop-drown footnote to argue its "prestige" within the United States ([[Harvard University|Harvard's]] page is a great example). Until then, we should likely keep the revised line since it is specific enough in scope and, I believe, it does add to a reader's reference on the university. It'll be important moving forward to remain vigilent to avoid [[WP:BOOSTER]]. [[User:Roaringwikifan|Roaringwikifan]] ([[User talk:Roaringwikifan|talk]]) 20:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Let's set aside the "public ivy" issue for the moment. What criteria are you proposing for the inclusion of this kind of language in the lede? Top 10 ranking? In which rankings? How many times? Why just the top 10 - why not the top 12, 15, or 20? If the university drops to number 11, do we remove the line immediately? Do we wait several years to see if it gets back into the top 10?
:::::I object to Wikipedia editors making all of those decisions - it's a plethora of [[WP:OR|original research and synthesis]]. It's much better and much more clear to rely on what is explicitly said in independent, reliable sources. This not only keeps clearly in the realm of Wikipedia policy and practice, including [[WP:DUE]] which is really important for the lede of an article, it also clearly avoids puffery and bias (which is a real problem with college and university articles). And this is not an obscure area where we have to rely on obscure sources - there are a tremendous number of high quality, scholarly sources. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 20:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] I appreciate your last revision to the lede. I think this is likely the most appropiate option since it captures from a NPOV what we have all been discussing, which is its status as a "public ivy." The revised line is specific as to avoid puff/boosting. Nice. My only question: does the the research classification line need to be in the lede? I would remove it and place it elsewhere. It appears research classification is not included in the lede for most universities that I've browsed since it doesn't convey significant information for the masses. Thanks! [[User:Roaringwikifan|Roaringwikifan]] ([[User talk:Roaringwikifan|talk]]) 05:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== boosterism, puff, WP:UNDUE ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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: '''no consensus.''' After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the move as proposed at this time. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 18:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @[[User:Pbritti|‎Pbritti]], you reverted my good faith edits. The sentences that need sourcing or deletion are as follows:
----
*"a spirited mass meeting protesting infringement of the sacred principles" is not necessary as quote.
*Pls delete "reverend" according to MOS.
*The fire in Jefferson Hall, with no casualties, is not that important for an encyclopedia.
*_done_ "William & Mary is making efforts to grant more financial aid to applicants (and has a new plan" is boosterism. It is unsourced, too.
*_done_ ''Tribe Attaché'' - the student news blog has no sourcing. And is this important for an encyclopedia? We call that boosterism.
*Explaining that the Student Council "consists of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches" is UNDUE. Not that unusual.
*Ever read an advertisement for a resort? "Also, the beaches of the [[Delmarva Peninsula]] are just a few hours away via the [[Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel]]." Boosterism.
*UNDUE detail here: Black Student Organizations, Campus Ministry, Hillel, and so on. These are obvious.
*here is some boosterism: "At W&M, the Honor System stands as one of the college's most important traditions"
*As for the lede, the list of alumni is overwhelming and undue detail, especially in the lede. The business about George Washington's surveyor's license shouldn't come here, since he was in absentia, got the diploma in the mail. That is covered later on in the article, which is the appropriate place for it.
[[User:Melchior2006|Melchior2006]] ([[User talk:Melchior2006|talk]]) 07:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::These removals are largely unnecessary. For example, "reverend" is necessary to distinguish the clergyman from the Virginian founding father of the same name. Similarly, details on prominent alumni involved in the revolution go directly to the college's role in history and are often the first things mentioned in academic references to the school. Not every detail that provides context is "boosterism". I stand by my reversal of your mass removal and caution you against doing likewise on other articles. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::noted the two changes @[[User:Pbritti|‎Pbritti]] made. --[[User:Melchior2006|Melchior2006]] ([[User talk:Melchior2006|talk]]) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


[[:College of William & Mary]] → {{no redirect|College of William and Mary}} – In the formal documents of the college, "College of William and Mary" is the way how the institute addresses itself. This is the usage in the institute's documents, including the [https://www.wm.edu/sites/facultyassembly/constitutionandbylaws/ Constitution of the Faculty Assembly of the College of William and Mary] and the [https://www.wm.edu/sites/studentassembly/_documents/student-assembly-constitution-updated-march-12-2019.pdf Constitution of the Student Assembly of the College of William and Mary]. [[User:Cfls|Cfls]] ([[User talk:Cfls|talk]]) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:Natg 19|Natg 19]] ([[User talk:Natg 19|talk]]) 23:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
== User Pbritti: Conflict of Interest, NPOV ==
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME|COMMONNAME]]. The ampersand appears in reporting, promotional material, and academic contexts. Of note, the ampersand constitutes one of the symbols used by the school. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


:'''Comment''', how the school officially writes its name is irrelevent. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources call it. Can you provide news articles that use "and" instead of "&"? [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 19:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
{{connected contributor}} @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] is a recent alum of W&M, which may be part of the problem. [[User:Melchior2006|Melchior2006]] ([[User talk:Melchior2006|talk]]) 15:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::Yes: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/us/virginia-legacy-admissions-public-colleges-universities.html ''New York Times''], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/virginia-legacy-college-admissions.html ''New York Times''], [https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-jeffersons-education-and-educated-in-tyranny-review-the-dream-of-a-better-society-11569596940 ''Wall Street Journal''], [https://www.wsj.com/articles/wait-listed-at-colleges-of-your-dreams-some-offer-semester-abroad-as-way-in-11628942401 ''Wall Street Journal''], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/09/virginia-college-legacy-preferences/ ''Washington Post''], [https://www.dailypress.com/2024/04/09/tribe-squads-excel-at-colonial-relays/ ''Daily Press'']. I can do more but I think this makes the point. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Melchior2006}} Given that my authorship on the article currently stands at 8.3%, I've {{Diff2|1112331888|consistently edited}} to remove PUFFERY in this article, and have substantial impartial creations and expansions in this subject area, I'm going to offer you a little bit to reconsider this very UNCIVIL response to being told that a drive-by content removal was mostly unfounded. Heck, I even went and implemented a few of your suggested removals because I agreed. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Maybe both titles should be mentioned, with the ampersand-less version appearing as the title.
::Thank you for implementing the changes. It would have been good to note that on the talk page, but I can add that now. I don't find it uncivil to point out that you are a recent alum of W&M. It's just a fact you note on your own user talk page, and it's important to consider. Pax! --[[User:Melchior2006|Melchior2006]] ([[User talk:Melchior2006|talk]]) 15:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:23emr|23emr]] ([[User_talk:23emr|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/23emr|contributions]]) [[User:23emr|23emr]] ([[User_talk:23emr|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/23emr|contributions]]) 20:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia|WikiProject Virginia]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education|WikiProject Higher education]] have been notified of this discussion. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' per nom. Ampersands are usually best avoided. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
**{{re|Necrothesp}} Per [[MOS:AMP]], that's not true given this is a proper noun. Additionally, the only rationale provided is that documents by organizations affiliated with the institution (not the institution itself, as is mistakenly said) use "and" instead of the ampersand. Reliable sources appear to prefer usage of the ampersand. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 14:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
***In the university's [https://www.wm.edu/about/history/#:~:text=The%20College%20of%20William%20and%20Mary%20in%20Virginia History and Tradition page], it says that {{xt|On February 8, 1693, King William III and Queen Mary II of England signed the charter for a "perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences" to be established in the Virginia Colony as "The College of William and Mary in Virginia."}} The name "College of William and Mary" is also used by the university's various offices, such as listing its [https://www.wm.edu/offices/iae/accreditation/ accreditation] and [https://catalog.wm.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=2189#:~:text=The-,College%20of%20William%20and%20Mary,-confers%20in%20course Requirements for Degrees]. While "William & Mary" seems to be the brand name for marketing and campus cohesion purposes, the "College of William and Mary" name seems to be the use in official documents for record and bylaws. Thank you. [[User:Cfls|Cfls]] ([[User talk:Cfls|talk]]) 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
****Well, you may notice the original charter refers to it as the "Colledge", so that's not the strongest case. Again, independent, reliable sources like the ''New York Times'' and ''Wall Street Journal'' indicate the COMMONNAME use is with the ampersand (as noted in the general coverage of papers of record and local sources above). [https://www.britannica.com/topic/College-of-William-Mary ''Britannica''] uses "College of William & Mary", as does the [https://www.chea.org/college-william-mary Center for Higher Education Accreditation]. Further, in every public release from W&M (through their [https://news.wm.edu/ W&M News] arm), they use "William & Mary". For what it's worth, I was in Williamsburg over the weekend, and all the public road signage uses the ampersand. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not only do we not allow subjects to control or dictate the contents of articles, including titles, it's difficult to believe that the subject's "official" name uses the word "and" when its webpage so prominently and consistently uses an ampersand as does its [https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=all&pg=1&id=231624 official name filed with the U.S. Department of Education]. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 18:13, 17 July 2024

Former featured article candidateCollege of William & Mary is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted

Promotional Content

[edit]

Removal of Promotional Content in accordance to Wikipedia Policy outlined in Talk:George Mason University#Removal of Notable faculty and alumni. 129.174.255.57 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a lot of vandalism. If you choose to have others regard your attempts as in good faith, you should take some time to read the manual of style and lead section TEDickey (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2024

[edit]
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: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the move as proposed at this time. BD2412 T 18:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


College of William & MaryCollege of William and Mary – In the formal documents of the college, "College of William and Mary" is the way how the institute addresses itself. This is the usage in the institute's documents, including the Constitution of the Faculty Assembly of the College of William and Mary and the Constitution of the Student Assembly of the College of William and Mary. Cfls (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how the school officially writes its name is irrelevent. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources call it. Can you provide news articles that use "and" instead of "&"? Esolo5002 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: New York Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Daily Press. I can do more but I think this makes the point. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe both titles should be mentioned, with the ampersand-less version appearing as the title.
23emr (talk | contributions) 23emr (talk | contributions) 20:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Virginia and WikiProject Higher education have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Ampersands are usually best avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: Per MOS:AMP, that's not true given this is a proper noun. Additionally, the only rationale provided is that documents by organizations affiliated with the institution (not the institution itself, as is mistakenly said) use "and" instead of the ampersand. Reliable sources appear to prefer usage of the ampersand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the university's History and Tradition page, it says that On February 8, 1693, King William III and Queen Mary II of England signed the charter for a "perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences" to be established in the Virginia Colony as "The College of William and Mary in Virginia." The name "College of William and Mary" is also used by the university's various offices, such as listing its accreditation and Requirements for Degrees. While "William & Mary" seems to be the brand name for marketing and campus cohesion purposes, the "College of William and Mary" name seems to be the use in official documents for record and bylaws. Thank you. Cfls (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you may notice the original charter refers to it as the "Colledge", so that's not the strongest case. Again, independent, reliable sources like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal indicate the COMMONNAME use is with the ampersand (as noted in the general coverage of papers of record and local sources above). Britannica uses "College of William & Mary", as does the Center for Higher Education Accreditation. Further, in every public release from W&M (through their W&M News arm), they use "William & Mary". For what it's worth, I was in Williamsburg over the weekend, and all the public road signage uses the ampersand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not only do we not allow subjects to control or dictate the contents of articles, including titles, it's difficult to believe that the subject's "official" name uses the word "and" when its webpage so prominently and consistently uses an ampersand as does its official name filed with the U.S. Department of Education. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.