Talk:Colgate University

Maroon News Date

The paper was founded in 1868, per this page and this page. Any change should cite a source at least as credible and authoritative as these. Cheeser1 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Colgate's colors are maroon and gray. HelloAnnyong 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever put that on the website is flat-out wrong. Colgate has never used gray as a primary color - when gray has been used, it has been as trim on the uniforms. We have been maroon and white since at least the 1920's. See "Roar From The Valley", a history of Colgate Football from 1890-1990. Any review of the school's yearbooks from the last 80 years will also confirm this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FCGibbons (talk • contribs)

Do not edit other entries. And the proof is at Colgate's official site; how much more proof do you need? HelloAnnyong 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I edited your entry, which was an accident. However, as I said and noted my sources, the website is wrong. I am the second member of my family to attend Colgate in the last half-century, and neither of us, nor anyone else we communicated with, recall that gray was ever a university color. If it has been changed, no one was told.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FCGibbons (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but HelloAnnyong is right. Content in Wikipedia articles is meant to be sourced properly. Colgate's official website is an appropriate, credible source. Anecdotal evidence like "I recall..." and "my friends remember..." doesn't meet any reasonable standard of credibility, nor does compelling us to go read a yearbook. If you and a group of other alumni have an issue with what the university states as its official colors, that's an issue for you to take up with the university, not with Wikipedia content that cites the most credible, reliable, and qualified source for this information: the university itself. If the university states that its official colors are maroon and gray, they are maroon and gray. -- 149.43.x.x 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See here http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1.aspx?tabid=493&pgID=1010— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.218.7 (talk)

Heh, thanks. Guess I missed the chance to revert that before.. HelloAnnyong 10:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the website, which could concievebly be prepared and/or maintained by one person with limited or no access to research materials, trumps about a century and a half of recorded history in books and other materials based upon first-hand observation? At best, let's agree to disagree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.89.150 (talk • contribs)

Read 149.43.x.x's comment above. Colgate's website is an official source, so it trumps all. HelloAnnyong 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey all, didn't know there was an actual debate going on about this. Notwithstanding Colgate's new flashy website, I think the colors are properly maroon and white. Otherwise, the article is inconsistent with itself, talking about how gray was added in the 1970s. Just because Colgate's new website declares that the colors are maroon and gray does not make it an objective reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.228.20 (talk • contribs) 05:47, November 4, 2007

Find verifiable information from a reliable source, and then we can have a discussion. Until then, Colgate's site trumps all. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To echo the previous comment, you should realize that you say "I think the colors are..." and then make a statement about "objective reality" - what you think is called original research, and is not necessarily objective or reality. Unless what you think can be verified in a reliable source, it's better to stick with what we have, which is properly sourced. --Cheeser1 07:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very strange, but this reference shows the school colors as maroon and white. Maybe someone notified them of the error and they fixed it? Either way, I've changed the text of the page to reflect that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Can anyone provide credible sources for how many lawsuits are actually pending, and what their status is? As best as I can find, there were three lawsuits, of which the Phi Delta Theta one was thrown out, and the other two - DKE and Beta Theta Pi - are still pending. [1] [2] So why does the article say four? 149.43.126.9 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to this google cache of a forum post, there are actually two DKE-related lawsuits: an anti-trust complaint (by DKE alumni?) and a discriminatory housing complaint by DKE undergrads. If correct, these lawsuits would make four. Additionally, the poster claims that the Phi Delt lawsuit is under appeal. Anyone have a more reliable source? -- Touchstone

Note that changes have been made to reflect that one of the lawsuits was dismissed recently. 149.43.x.x 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

News of the dismissal is here. --HelloAnnyong 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another revision as well. See here. 149.43.x.x 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of SA4C and NPOV

Some things need to be addressed here.

First, this article is about Colgate, not SA4C. SA4C is unaffiliated with Colgate, and as such, a link to its website in the External Links is inappropriate.

As to a section about the Greek controversy, I think it's all well and good to have it there, since it is an issue that is important to some. If it is to be included, though, it should have both points of view. Removing the supporters' viewpoint is unfair and violates Wiki's NPOV

Response to above:

SA4C has asked Wikipedia to give us an opinion on being included on the Colgate site under external links. Here is there comment:

"I have re-added the link, which seem a valid addition to the article." Lisa Carter, Wikipedia information team

Therefore, stop deleting the sa4c.com link on the Colgate University page. The discussion about Greek Life is biased enough as it is, without your heavy hand trying to stifle all comment. - Christine Burtt, sa4c Executive Director sa4c@sa4c.com

There are two links in the article already; a third is quite unnecessary.

I would also like to point out that by bringing up SA4C so enthusiastically, you are opening yourself up to information about your group being published on Wikipedia. I can venture a guess that this would result in a NPOV examination of your group, something you may not find favorable. 149.43.x.x 15:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is absolutely inappropriate for you to continue to remove the disclaimer that SA4C is not associated with the University. It should be clear that this was part of the compromise you are touting as cause for inclusion of the link at all. 149.43.x.x 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The external links section is for any external links that are relevant to the subject. That includes links to critics and to critical sites. It is not an "official" listing of webpages related to the subject. The only external links in the body of the article should be references to show the source of an assertion that needs backing up. Of course, there should be no confusion as to whether it is an affiliated site or not, but that's easy to ensure. I strongly suggest that both sides make better use of this talk page rather than reverting. And keep it polite please folks, you may be in dispute elsewhere, but let's not bring that into Wikipedia. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. Lisa Carter)

I agree that sa4c has a place in the external links page. However, I have replaced the suffix "Not University Affiliated" with "a group which opposes the Greek Reorganization, not affiliated with the university." This label accurately describes the groups status and primary purpose as expressed by their website. Furthermore, it is in keeping with Wikipedia practice to label external links to wholly or partially critical groups as such, e.g. the ACLU, Book of Mormon, Greyhound racing, Paul Crouch, etc.). HelloAnnyong argues that the label is redundant because sa4c's opposition is discussed in the "Greek Reorganization" section, but by this argument, the link itself is also redundant.

The SA4C link must be maintained on the main page, in the interest of NPOV. This issue has been brought up before, to the point where admins have been involved, and they ruled on it. HelloAnnyong 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption

I edited the picture caption, which incorrectly labeled the photo as being taken at the end of summer. The changing leaf colors are clearly indicative of fall at Colgate. Also, with respect to the source discussion about the photo, it is from the Colgate homepage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.124.195 (talk)

Actually, Summer technically runs until September 21, and the leaves definitely start changing before then. But I agree that it is more of a "Fall" shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.2 (talk)

Black student enrollment

This edit is an interesting one. I'm pretty sure it violates OR; certainly there are a lot of unsourced references in there. I looked around, and it doesn't seem like many other university pages have content on minority issues, so it seems weird that this page would. Based on that, I think the edits should be factored into the text in some form, but otherwise removed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Greek" vs "fraternities"

For anyone who hasn't been to an US college, "Greek" organization means an organization for people from Greece. If you want this section to be comprehensible, please use "Greek-letter society" (with wikilink) or "fraternity/sorority" as appropriate. --Alvestrand 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (I'm Norwegian).

Fine, but "Fraternities" is inaccurate because the issue dealt with both fraternities and sororities. Also, it doesn't get capitalized. I'll fix it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this makes sense - it's called "Greek life" explicitly, (e.g. "Director of Greek-Letter Operations" and this). It is not incomprehensible, as far as I know, and it does get capitalized. --Cheeser1 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just explicitly stating the topic. If you Wiki for "Greek life," it redirects to "fraternities and sororities." I looked around, and other articles either say "Greek-letter" (here) or just "fraternities and sororities" (here), though the latter points to an article that uses "Greek organizations." I have no problem with the change, as it's a little bit clearer. And "fraternity" isn't a proper noun, so it doesn't need to be capitalized. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

True. It's not going to really matter which we say. I just figured the language used in real life, in this specific case, would be most appropriate (it seems to favor "Greek"). Wikipedia is not monolithic - the terms we use can vary from article to article, according to context. I also believe it would be analogous to writing "people" instead of "men and women" - it simplifies the language involved by avoiding unnecessary dual terms. --Cheeser1 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that "Greek" is an appropriate term here - it is "damn English" and can't be removed on the basis that the word "Greek" has some other meaning. That was, of course, the original justification of the move, and I don't think that's valid. --Cheeser1 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

reunion

In case there was any question, the comments about the reunion appear to have been removed. I'd just say that this makes sense because (1) all colleges have reunions - it hardly merits particular mention in this context and (2) it wasn't presented in a very neutral or factual manner. In case there were questions about that. (Note that I did not remove this myself, I'm just making a little note here.) --Cheeser1 07:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Transportation / Greyhound

[3] I do not understand how this can be called a "factoid" - If a bus company operates directly from the university, surely the students use this bus service as transportation. This would be a notable feature of the university, and not just "travel guide" material. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've got to agree with Cheeser on this one. It just seems very out of place on the page. It'd probably be better for another wiki like Wikitravel. If you take a glance at other school pages, like Cornell University and Texas A&M University - both of which were FA - you don't see anything like that on there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As they do not have on-site transportation facilities like Colgate has... - I'll add that if the university officially provides shuttles to airports, that would work too. Students at universities often travel between their hometowns and the universities, so of course transportation sections make sense. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of that, this book (featured on Google Books) judged the university on the basis of the transportation: http://books.google.com/books?id=rBp1qrnjGl8C&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=%22Colgate+University%22+Greyhound&source=web&ots=kLnhjiM1Cx&sig=FZpJqpSmF6pyMx50lT07xh-jxU8 - Of course a section about transportation is not written like this, but transportation is a consideration by students, so a section about transportation would work. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the strange thing is that Greyhound would not let me book an itinerary through the "Colgate Univ" station - I'd have to see exactly what is going on with it. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the other schools do have on-site transportation. For example, Cornell has a Short Line bus that stops there; that page actually has links to a number of different schools, such as State University of New York at Binghamton and Alfred University, neither of which have a transportation section.

I certainly don't think that transportation needs its own main section, as that's putting a lot of weight on what is only one sentence. Perhaps we could shuffle it somewhere into Campus life, but even then, I think it's a bit excessive. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The A&M page has a transportation section - that is in the "Campus" sub-page: Campus_of_Texas_A&M_University#Transportation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WTM, you seem to be misinformed. Greyhound does not "operate out of" the university. It has a local short-run affiliate that has one bus route that passes by the school. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that seems to be the case - I must have been confused in that Greyhound labeled the place as a "station" and did not specify any further details - The "short-run affiliate" appears on this page: http://www.greyhound.com/home/TicketCenter/locations.asp?state=ny - The "Colgate Univ" page does not explain about the "local short-run affiliate": http://www.greyhound.com/home/TicketCenter/terminal.asp?city=152218
• I figured I was misinformed when I found I couldn't get a ticket (I wasn't planning on buying one - I was testing the res. system) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colgate Seal.gif

Image:Colgate Seal.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ColgateRaiders.jpg

Image:ColgateRaiders.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark van Eeghen

First off, there is no such person as Mark van Eeghan. There is a Mark van Eeghen, and he's listed on the List of Colgate University people. Is there any particular reason why he should be mentioned on the Colgate page itself? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good-faith contributions should not be reverted offhand, especially using things like "undo" and other automated processes. That is why I attempted to salvage the good-faith contribution (despite the spelling error persisting). I was not really going to bother to defend the inclusion of this contribution, beyond the procedural no biting/reverting newcomers and their good-faith contributions, but of the figures listed under "Sports," van Eeghen has two Superbowls and (relevant to his education) membership in the International Scholar-Athlete Hall of Fame (incorrectly referred to as the "Rhode Island SAHoF" due to its being located in RI). Worth mention here? I'm not sure. Worth reverting offhand as if vandalism (refer to WP:REVERT)? No. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Split Colgate Raiders?

I'm not sure it's warranted. With all due respect, I don't know that the athletic program warrants an article. For a sort of contrary example, see Florida Gators - that article exists, but then again, Florida has a much wider berth of coverage, just look at {{University of Florida}}. If there's alot more to add, and room for encyclopedic expansion, then I'm all for it, but the section as-is fits into the article just fine. Also, normally when tagged, isn't the person proposing the change supposed to start the discussion and explain their rationale? Without that, it makes it hard for us to discuss. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this seems to be more of a driveby tagging. I'm opposed to this split, only because the section is sort of stagnant. I'd think that a split would only be needed if the section became much larger. There aren't any notability guidelines on sports teams. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I left the tagger a message here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm the tagger. Normally, if I see an athletics section of a reasonable length, I tend to tag it without giving it a second thought. However, given what I've seen here, I can see the points for not splitting it. It really doesn't matter that much to me if it gets split or not. If someone wants to remove the tag, be my guest.  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

class of 2012 statistics

why did someone delete the other statistics for the class of 2012? it was all cited and accurate. there was no point in deleting it but ok.

Dlong08 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can Colgate College redirect here?

it might be helpful for some . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's accurate. Something like that would get deleted under WP:CSD#R3 for being a somewhat implausible redirect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledgments

Take a look at Category:FA-Class Universities articles. That's a list of university articles that have been promoted to featured status, the highest possible award for an article. You'll see that other university articles don't compare the schools to other ones in terms of ranking. We're not here to say "Colgate is better than x and less than y," we're just supposed to talk about the school. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(redacted comment)

This article isn't a how-to or a guide or anything like that. If someone wants to go and get that information for themselves, then they can. We provide a source, so all they have to do is click on a link to see where Colgate is on the rankings. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(redacted comment)

I am weighing in at the request of HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs). I can see both sides of the issue. Most or all FA university articles do mention the rankings from places like Princeton Review and US News and World Report. In fact, when I helped get Texas Tech University promoted to FA status, one concern was that the article was lacking in this area so we had to add more. In so doing, we also mentioned fellow universities to establish a context, "The 2008 Shanghai Jiao Tong Rankings placed Texas Tech University at 302 worldwide, which tied it with fellow Big 12 schools, Oklahoma and Kansas State, among others". I agree with mentioning other schools that are tied at that ranking. I also see no harm in mentioning schools that are ahead in the rankings, especially if the school in the article is in the second or third spot. I do not, however, think that schools lower in the rankings should be included. Doing that would be tantamount to boosterism and puffery (i.e. "this school is better than [fill in the blank]). →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. The sentence in question here was "Colgate was ranked as the 18th finest liberal arts college in the nation by US News and World Report, scoring an 82 out of 100, in comparison to National Universities such as Georgetown (74) and Brown (84)." So would you remove the entire part of the comparison phrase, or just the inclusion of Georgetown? I'd support just removing it outright, so maybe to stay as neutral as possible.

There's another line under Admissions, "According to Newsweek, Colgate competes most commonly with Cornell, Dartmouth, Middlebury, and Georgetown for students." It's from the new Ivies article, and it really just calls those "Overlap schools"; see the article. What are your thoughts on that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support removing the entire comparison since it really does not serve a good purpose. If Colgate was tied with either of those universities, I could see including the name. If Colgate ranked second behind Georgetown, I could see that, but including 74 and 84 does not really provide a context for 82. A featured article should strive to include everything that is necessary and cut out everything that is not. For the "overlap schools", I am not sure it is necessary but I would be more likely to support its inclusion since the source is specific about what an overlap school is and what those schools are for Colgate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(redacted comment)

I really do not think a context is necessary. A reader who wants to delve into it can look at the source and see where other schools rank. I think many will be content to translate it "Colgate is one of the top 100 schools" in the US News report. Has anyone left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities? I would really like some of those editors to weigh in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree with you on the context. Second, I just opened a thread on the project's talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(redacted comment)

Yes, those lists are for people like you to guide you along the process. But Wikipedia isn't a guide or a manual. This article are to report on a college and nothing else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to an identical message left there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues at hand

• Should a Wikipedia article on a college or university include statistics particular to the interests of readers making decisions about college and university admissions?

Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook or collection of statistics. Wikipedia isn't a college guide, and if you're making admissions decisions primarily based on Wikipedia articles, then I would strongly encourage you to speak with a guidance counselor. Certainly some statistics serve an important function to describe and compare universities (size of student body, faculty, campus, academic programs, annual tuition, sports teams, etc.), but it is expressly not our purpose to tailor content to the benefit (or detriment) any narrow constituency. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as per the very well-formulated reasons Madcoverboy has mentioned. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Should a Wikipedia article on a college or university include comparisons or performance relative to other universities?

Oppose Per WP:COATRACK, articles about Topic A shouldn't actually be about Topic B. If you want to write about Topic B, go edit that article - but not to write about Topic A! Don't tell the reader what to think, if they want to know how well Smith or Rice are ranked in comparison, they can go to their articles or buy the magazine. In this case, I see absolutely no reason to "contexualize" the 18th ranking or mention the US News total score (which is likewise unusual among university articles) but to ameliorate the perceived "low" or non-"Top 10" status which is, frankly put, boosterism. As I suspect you're discovering, rankings don't mean a whole lot because there are lots of really good colleges and universities out there. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not as per Madcoverboy. The last thing we need is more bias. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for all of the above reasons. However, the one school that surely is in no need of that kind of reference, Oxford, gets it on its Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford Stwiso (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits and reverts April 28, 2010

I made a few edits today. Before I was finished, and while I was in the Article working on it, somebody reverted some of my stuff. I did not take this personally, but it made it difficult for me to continue working on the article, because I had to keep checking for what was still there and what was not. I am not exactly fluent in wiki-edit language, so I thought it best for all concerned to start all over again. I deleted all my edits from today and (I hope) none of what I did today is in the Article. If I have the time down the road, I will come back to this Article to see whether I might have any meaningful contributions. This is not a criticism of Wikipedia; even Google (see Wave) cannot figure out how to prevent chaos when multiple collaborators simultaneously edit the same text, only to find themselves talking over each other. And .... for future consideration by all contributors, I'd like to point out that the word count tally shows that 22% of the text discusses athletics (there is no doubt that this should be one of the points of focus), while just 6% of the text discusses academics. Speaking as an alum, this is not the balance that the school had when I was there. Stwiso (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see what happened: you edited a bunch, an anon IP came through and made some edits, someone else reverted those, and then you kept editing. The end result is that basically nothing is different on the page. Before you continue editing, I would remind you that this page shouldn't overly glorify or extol the school; to do so would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. Further, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, so you can't use it as a reference to say that a film was shot somewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)