Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 4

Rocky Mountain Field Station

I've added a section for this facility, but wonder more generally why there isn't a separate section for facilities which are not part of the campus proper but related to the teaching mission. Included in such a page or set of linked pages or categories would be, for example: Rocky Mountain, Peach Mountain, the Arb, Matthei (sp?) and all of the other facilities that relate to botany and sustainable development. Such an addition would be a worthy one and lend structure to the article.

Someone put in a stub for the pharmacy school, and I've fleshed it out a bit with some cobbled together material. It would be interesting to see some of the other undocumented schools added. I also continue to believe that the LS&A page is a pretty weak specimen given the size, headcount and nominal importance of the undergraduate division.

Pfizer Campus Acquisition

Should a section be added to the history page for this significant expansion of the campus? In general, should a breakout page be created that focuses solely on the university's research stature, rankings, publications, budget... ? 74.66.233.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Template Seal Images

The FairuseBot has removed the school seal from many of the schools/divisions of the university. Might someone determine if the removal is legitimate, and if so, what steps should be taken to restore the image to those pages? I am asking rather than doing because I'm not familiar with the required process. 74.66.233.244 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

LS&A Page

The largest academic unit should not have the smallest entry (though much of that entry is found on the history page). Might contributors be found to flesh that page out, or should some material be pulled off of the history page and moved to the LS&A page. In either/any event, it would seem that that page needs significant augmentation. 66.65.129.119 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

USERBOX!!!!

This person is a Michigan Wolverine. Go Blue!		What the hell are you waiting for? If they won't delete all the userboxes, we'll give them hells of userboxes! __earth (Talk) 13:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Have you thought of switching to decaf? :) —rodii 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Now there's one for UM fans as well, which I am not. I just like making templates. Lovelac7 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Michigan Wolverine fan.

UM Medical Campus

I was a bit too hasty in removal the following passage (due to formatting problems and POV). Hence, I have placed the passage here to be cleaned up before it is inserted back into the article. Also, let's all try to keep this article featured (several others have actually used the UM article as a guide in improving their respective university articles to featured status). Pentawing^Talk 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Immediately north of the Central Campus, across Huron St., lies the U-M medical campus, home to much of the activity of the University of Michigan Health System. Here, the Medical School's researchers and their trainees perform advanced laboratory and clinical research in such facilities as the Biomedical Science Research Building and the Medical Science Research Building complex. Also here, medical students prepare for their careers in the Medical Science I and II complex and the Taubman Medical Library. Meanwhile, patients receive advanced care from Medical School faculty and residents, and from U-M nurses and staff, at the facilities operated by the U-M Hospitals & Health Centers unit of the Health System. These include University Hospital, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, the Women's Hospital Birth Center, the Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Cardiovascular Center, and the A. Alfred Taubman Health Care Center, home to numerous outpatient clinics.

The Cardiovascular Center, scheduled to open in June 2007, stands on the former site of "Old Main" Hospital, designed by Albert Kahn. At its opening in 1925, it was the largest university hospital in America, a half a million gross square feet. It was used until 1986, when University Hospital opened.

A replacement for the children's and women's hospitals is now being built on East Medical Center drive, on the former site of a parking lot. It will open in 2011.

At the center of the medical campus is the Towsley Center, where thousands of physicians and other health care providers from around the region come each year for continuing medical education classes. The Med Inn building provides hotel-style accommodations for families of critically ill patients. The North Ingalls Building, formerly home to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital until its purchase by U-M in 1977, houses administrative offices.

Many of the medical campus buildings are linked by indoor walkways, and a garden-filled courtyard lies at the heart of the square formed by Mott Hospital, University Hospital, the Med Inn and the Towsley Center. Several parking garages serve patients, faculty, staff and visitors; valet parking is also available at several locations. The landing pads for the Survival Flight air ambulances are built into the cliff side above the Huron River, and connected to the Emergency Department via an underground tunnel.

Just across the Huron River from the medical campus is the Kellogg Eye Center, which is being expanded in a new building that will also house the Brehm Center for Type I Diabetes. Less than a mile east on Fuller Road is the VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, a full-service inpatient, outpatient and long-term care facility staffed by many physicians who hold positions on the U-M Medical School faculty.

About four miles northeast of the main medical campus, an East Medical Campus has been built in recent years. It is home to three buildings: the East Ann Arbor Health and Geriatrics Center, home to outpatient primary care offices and the Turner Geriatrics Clinic; the Rachel Upjohn Building, home to the nation's only comprehensive Depression Center and most of the U-M's outpatient psychiatry care; and the Ambulatory Surgery and Medical Procedures Center, where outpatients can receive invasive and non-invasive diagnostic tests and minor surgical care. Across the road, U-M leases extensive space in the Domino's Farms complex for outpatient care offices in cardiology, plastic surgery, sports medicine and allergy, as well as space for research and administration.

In addition to these facilities, the U-M Health System operates satellite health centers in several parts of Ann Arbor and in surrounding towns, including Brighton, Canton, Chelsea, Dexter, Howell, Livonia, Saline and Ypsilanti.

Question

That building by the law quad, was it modeled after King's College, Cambridge? __earth ^(Talk) 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to that. From what I read I think this is a new design. Yet I remember being told when I arrived on campus thirty years ago that this was a duplication of a 700 year old building at Oxford. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Nick Beeson 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

I would like to add an external link to the old Michiganensian yearbooks available online. The Michiganensian has been published yearly at the University for over a century.

bigoted vandalism

A recent bit of vandalism by a one-time Wikipedia editor is an instance of just the sort of idiotic bigotry whose existence has been denied here on this talk page. Michael Hardy 02:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the University of Michigan article is vandalized frequently, can you be more specific in regards to the case of vandalism you are referring to? Also reference to specific denials of the existence of "idiotic bigotry" made on this talk page may be helpful in this discussion. --Terryfoster 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry---I forgot to mention: I meant vandalism done to the U of M disambiguation page. Michael Hardy 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how vandalism on the U of M disambig page is relevant to the University of Michigan article and move to have this discussion removed as it is off topic. --Terryfoster 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant here because it is on this talk page that the existence of that sort of bigotry has been vociferously denied. Michael Hardy 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain specifically how this discussion is relevant to the improvement of the University of Michigan Wikipedia article? If not, please remove this discussion as it is off topic. --Terryfoster 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I continue to believe that the fact that the University of Michigan is not the only university to be called the "U of M" should be given more prominence here in THIS article. The incident of vandalism that I mentioned here is further evidence to support that position. Among the various universities using the abbreviation "U of M" in an official way, the one that does so most extensively is the University of Minnesota. But people at the University of Minnesota are not given to habitually denying that the University of Michigan can also be known by that abbreviation. People from the University of Michigan often deny that any other university can reasonably be called that, and their way of doing so often amounts to stupid and even dishonest bigotry. The existence of that form of bigotry has been denied on this page. One person made a point of being offended by the accusation. This is another instance of it. Michael Hardy 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So I understand your argument to be that a statement explaining the University of Michigan is not the only university called "U of M" should be be placed in a more prominent location in the article. I believe the consensus from the last time this was discussed was that your suggestions for how it should be placed in a more prominent location was either non-standard or it cluttered the opening of the article. Can you provide any new suggestions for discussion on how your requested change to the article can be accomplished? --Terryfoster 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure why just making U of M into a clickable link would add clutter. But it's conventional in Wikipedia articles to have disambiguation notices, with links to disambiguation pages, indented and italicized, placed above the article. Such a notice could say:

For other universities called "U of M", see U of M.

Michael Hardy 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Discussion 17 August 2007

I believe it is quite clear that the University of Michigan football program leads the NCAA I-A division in all time wins and all time winning percentage along with a winning record against ND. The citation in the article is out of date, but if you refer to Michigan's all time record, Michigan's record against ND, and Notre Dame's all time record, I believe it may clear up any confusion regarding who may hold the record currently. Once the NCAA publishes their 2007 record book, this citation can be updated.

John Philip Sousa has also been quoted as saying The Victors was the greatest ever written which cannot be disputed as it is cited. The article also doesn't assert that the The Victors is the greatest ever written, just that Sousa declared it so.

Finally, ESPN has published a top ten list of the greatest rivalries. They named the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry as the number one rivalry. I would agree that how it is worded in the article is somewhat suspect: "UM has fierce rivalries with many teams, including Michigan State and Notre Dame; however, its football rivalry with Ohio State is strongly considered to be the fiercest in all of college athletics, and has been referred to by ESPN as the greatest rivalry in American sports." Maybe we could change this sentence to the following: "UM has fierce rivalries with many teams, including Michigan State, Notre Dame, and Ohio State which was referred to by ESPN as the greatest rivalry in American sports." This gets rid of the weasel words and the unverifiable statement related to the fierceness of the rivalry.

I felt I should start a discussion to hopefully end the edit war that does nothing but lower the quality of the Wikipedia. Terryfoster 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Book Digitization Project

Please consider if the page on the Michigan digitization project can be included on this page. DutchTreat 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence of History section is completely wrong

(Also at Talk:History of the University of Michigan, where I have already modified the article to remove these claims.)

I believe the opening sentence of this section is factually incorrect:

The University of Michigan was established in 1817 by the Michigan Territory legislature in Detroit, on 1,920 acres (7.76 km²) ceded through the Treaty of Fort Meigs by the Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi peoples.

Per the Michigan Territory article, Michigan did not have a territorial legislature until 1824. Prior to that, it was administered by a governor and judges appointed by the president. The establishment of the Catholepistemiad was enacted by Acting Governor Woodbridge and Judges Woodward and Griffin, not a legislature. Source: Hinsdale, Burke A. (1906), Demmon, Isaac (ed.), History of the University of Michigan, University of Michigan, p. 10

In the Treaty of Fort Meigs, Native Americans (at the urging of Father Gabriel Richard) did cede 1,920 acres to the "college at Detroit" (the Catholepistemiad), but the university was not actually built on those lands. The treaty was signed five days after the cornerstone of the university's building in Detroit was laid. In fact, it appears that the actual land was not selected until much later, when Governor Cass commissioned two men to pick it out in 1821; legal right to the lands wasn't granted until 1824. The lands were sold. Source: McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1891), Adams, Herbert B. (ed.), History of Higher Education in Michigan, Contributions to American Educational History, Government Printing Office, p. 20

Can anyone provide a citation that backs up either of the claims in the article as written? If not, this sentence should be completely reworked. -Sarcasmboy 05:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a subsection to History of the University of Michigan that discusses the land grant. I think it is well enough sourced that this erroneous sentence can be removed from this article without fear of controversy, so I will. -Sarcasmboy 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for "first major university to admit women"

Can someone provide a source for the second half of this claim?

Women were first admitted in 1870, making UM the first major university to do so (and the third college overall, after Oberlin College in 1833 and Lawrence University in 1847)

The University of Iowa and Coeducation articles both suggest that Iowa admitted women as early as 1855, and that there were a number of other schools other than Oberlin and Lawrence that admitted women before 1870 (including Northwestern, Indiana, Michigan State, and UW-Madison). Those articles do not cite any sources, either, so hopefully someone can cite something definitive and update all the articles to reflect it. -Sarcasmboy 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

should we semi-protect?

Over the past few weeks I've been helping (along with a few others) to remove vandalism from this article. Over that time period, there have been only one or two normal, productive edits to the page. Almost all of the vandalism has been from unregistered users. Despite the fact that vandalism isn't appearing at an alarming rate, is the sheer proportion of it to useful edits enough to warrant semi-protection? It would save several people a lot of time. —Ed Cormany 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any historical context to know if this is an unusually high rate of vandalism, but perhaps temporarily semi-protecting it would help slow it down. My assumption is that it's mostly related to football season and will fade once the season ends, or (more optimistically) Michigan starts winning again and it becomes less entertaining for people to talk about Appalachian State or Oregon. Maybe semi-protect it for a couple weeks and see if it helps? -Sarcasmboy 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP is this way if anyone wants to request semi-protection. I would guess that the level of vandalism is such that some admins may semi-protect and some may not; the level of anonymous vandalism is substantial but it may not qualify as enough to warrant protection for some admins. --ElKevbo 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a request for semi-protection at WP:RFP. We'll see what the verdict is. —Ed Cormany 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fulbright and Rhodes Scholars

There is a passage that has recently been marked for citation:

The university consistently leads the nation in the number of Fulbright Scholars and has matriculated 25 Rhodes Scholars.

I have found a source for Rhodes Scholars stating only 24 Rhodes Scholars (though I recall there was another Rhodes Scholar after 2000 that makes 25, but I can't find a source for that). Furthermore, there is so far no sources for the assertion concerning Fulbright Scholars. If someone can find a source for both assertions, I would greatly appreciate it. Pentawing^Talk 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Rhodes Scholars, I am talking about a source outside Wikipedia, as the fact can be disputed (relying strictly on Wikipedia as a source, unless that article points to an outside source, I find does not cut it anymore). Pentawing^Talk 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It took me almost 20 seconds to internally search UM's web page and find the 25th name for the Rhodes list. I've saved you that 20 seconds by including the material in the cite in the main article, even though you have capriciously removed my edit without doing any fact checking and cost me more than that 20 seconds. Don't be so pious. You are not the gold standard. Before removing an edit placed by an editor that has made thousands of correct edits to this article and affiliated articles, do your own search and don't waste my time. 66.65.129.119 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response: What I meant is a source that explicitly says that there are 25 Rhodes Scholars from UM. I checked the UM website, and the only articles I found that explicitly mentions a number (or listing), said 24 Rhodes Scholars instead of 25. Nevertheless, I figured out a way to word the citation so that there is an explanation for 25 Rhodes Scholars, even though none of the sources explicitly mentions it. The same has been done with the passage concerning the Fulbright Scholars assertion. Pentawing^Talk 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Someone has recently added the following passage under the section Controversies:

• In 2003 the University was the center of a controversy when it hosted the national conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, a group accused of endorsing terrorisim targeting civilian populations.

• in 2007 the university's publishing arm, University of Michigan Press became the center of controversy over the distribution of a book widely described as anti-Semitic.

Aside from the fact that it is in list form (which is discouraged as it only invites others to add various items to the point where the list becomes unwieldy. The material should be better incorporated into other sections) and uncited, I am unsure if these events are even notable in themselves (particularly the first point, since the Palestine Solidarity Movement article clearly states that the event was held at other universities, and surely an equal amount of controversy has erupted at the other universities as well). Thoughts? Pentawing^Talk 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, the Palestine Soliditary Movement information should not be included, and the other needs a reference. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge (The Victors) fight song article into the main University of Michigan Article

I think that The Victors should be merged into this article as it's of questionable notability itself. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Many universities have separate pages for their fight songs. PGPirate 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Then those should be merged too, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is notable. For instance, the NYT mentioned it. __earth ^(Talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've never heard of it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Hail to the Victors!" C'mon. It's well-known. Personally, I'm not really sure where I fall on this, but I'd lean towards Oppose. Enigma ^msg! 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Victors is quite notable and is frequently referenced on nationally broadcast sporting events. For an easily measurable example, a google search for "The Victors" +michigan yields over 100,000 hits. TheMile (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - as a song The Victors is notable without even being placed into the category of Fight Songs. It was named in Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Fight_songs as an example of a notable fight song. The article itself has a ref from the New York Times. Group29 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Template:Big Ten fight songs is one of many places that refer to the song and other Big Ten songs directly. The sports articles use a template similar to Template:NCAAFootballSchool where the fight song has its own link. Group29 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek Life

Anyone else think there should be a section for Greek Life @ UM? We have what, three or four different councils, and Greek Life makes up a notable chunk of the social scene. Any reasons not to write one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.163.193 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I rearranged the passages so that all mention of Greek life is in its own paragraph. However, currently the amount of material is sparse. This could be fixed by adding more material, though the material must be cited when possible. Pentawing^Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Suggestions

1. There should be some mention in the article of the Hopwood Awards, a widely recognized program for U of M writing students, founded by Avery Hopwood in 1905. Past winners include Arthur Miller (who won prizes with two original plays, neither of which, I belive, have ever been produced) and Betty Smith. The main character of Smith's classic novel, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn," also ends up at the University of Michigan.

• I added a link to the award within the UM template at the bottom of the article. Pentawing^Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The Institute for Social Research may be the best known U of M institution after its football team. It is quoted almost daily on various TV news shows. 68.116.40.228 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just add a mention under the research section, though I did find an article of another "Institute for Social Research" in Germany (hence any mention should not be linked unless an article of the institute is created). Pentawing^Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3. If he finishes off his performance, does anyone else besides me believe that Michael Phelps should have his own "section" on the page? He'll arguably be the most notable alumni of the University not named Gerald Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.138.250.7 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• A link to the Phelps article is sufficient, an entire section is overkill. The reason is that if one alumni gets a section, what's not to say others should get a section? This in itself will easily mar the article entirely (the article should focus on the university as a whole, not on any particular person associated with the university). Pentawing^Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

I moved the following passage here as I can not find any specific reference mentioning the poll in question. Any help is appreciated:

a recent poll shows that most students consider student activity fees to be taxation without representation on the board

Pentawing^Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This article is in need of MoS cleanup and citation (in particular in the alumni section); I will check back in in a few weeks to see if a featured article review should be initiated, or if cleanup and citation has been accomplished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've started to look through the article to see what can be done. In the meantime, can you point to some instances within the article to help the process (and hopefully avoid the need for FAR)? Pentawing^Talk 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • In terms of citation, the major problem I see is for the alumni section, since all of the listed people have their own articles (which in turn mentions educational background). Nevertheless, should outside citation be included or should one try to whittle down the list of several people, whose mention have an outside citation? Pentawing^Talk 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better already (since my notice of several weeks ago), although I see the unfortunate reintroduction of linked dates (dates are no longer linked per MOS). I'll start through and make a list, or leave sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think I managed to correct the MOS problems concerning citations and dashes, though I might need someone else to make sure that I got all of them. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 03:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• If a passage needs a citation, can someone add a {{fact}} tag to the passages in question? Pentawing^Talk 03:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've gone through and tagged up some passages with fairly egregious WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK violations. There were also some sections that have become really rough around the edges, likely a function of spammers and astroturfers coming through and airdropping their advertising in and then well-intentioned editors trying to incorporate it rather than just deleting it. The article doesn't leave me wanting for information but I also feel like it's much shorter than other FAs - I don't know if this is a "good" or "bad" thing. I think the lead needs to be totally reworked since its exhibiting flagrant violations of WP:PEACOCK and WP:BOOSTER and devolved into rankings-cruft and undue emphasis on the affirmative action litigation/legislation. Don't juxtapose a "positive" with a "negative" to make a "neutral", just summarize the rest of the article. I think regular editors should take some time to ensure that WP:UNIGUIDE is reasonably approximated. Ultimately, I think it might be worth sending this through FAR to ensure that it is fulfilling 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2c, but will give some time for changes and discussion to percolate. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other issues:

• No organization/administration section describing the relationship with the State of Michigan, trustees, president, and general organizational structure.
  •  Done Pentawing^Talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• The academic profile is attempting to do a lot of things with regard to describing student body demographics, organization, faculty, rankings, etc. and I beleve it may be better served with distinct subsections or merging with other existing or yet-to-be-created sections.

• I think faculty description and research make a more natural pairing since faculty achievements are usually tied to research accomplishments.
  •  Done Pentawing^Talk 05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Student demographics could be unpacked a little bit more to give descriptive information on applicant class, admission rate, yield rate along with the incoming averages. More demographics on distribution of student origins and perhaps using a Wikitable to provide an overview of racial/ethnic demographics (see University of California, Berkeley for example) since this issue figures prominently into litigation history. Also provide information on student retention and graduation rates.
  •  Done - Unless you feel more information is needed. Pentawing^Talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    •  Not done See comment re: Carnegie and Academics bellow. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done - Hopefully. See response to "Carnegie and Academics" below. Pentawing^Talk 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• While I despise rankings generally, there are several notable omissions (and inclusions in the lead but not the body) like ARWU, Center for Measuring University Performance, The Times Higher Ed Supplement, Forbes. I would recommend implementing the Template:Infobox US university ranking.
  •  Done - Rankings are exclusively by the table. The previous section on rankings has been eliminated. Pentawing^Talk 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Despite having created the template it never crossed my mind that doing exactly this could save a whole lot of boosterism headaches as well as space within the articles. I would very much like to see this practice replicated elsewhere!!! Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• There is no information on accreditation.
  • As a whole, or by individual colleges and schools? Pentawing^Talk 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe stating it is accredited by NCACS and those of the major professional schools (law, medicine, etc.) is sufficient without devolving into department-level ones. Perhaps just university-level is sufficient; I think I'm the only one pushing for it, so there's neither consensus nor precedent for one way over another. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Carnegie Classifications absolutely need to be included somewhere in the article.

• •  Done Pentawing^Talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    •  Not done I've made it a habit to "prose-ify" as much of the Carnegie classifications into the paragraph(s) immediate under the start of the Academics section and throw in descriptive states about number of degree programs and degrees awarded (which you already have). I've done this (somewhat erratically) with my cleanups on Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc. I still think "profile" is far too much of a catch-all and should be split into the aforementioned intro paragraph(s) and a separate subsection on the student body including demographics and admission information. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done - The profile section has been split into a section intro and a new section entitled "student profile." As for the number of degree programs, I would prefer that the university article mention the number of colleges and schools, with the degree programs being mentioned in individual schools/colleges sub-articles (for instance, the UM College of Engineering has several degree programs such as aerospace, chemical, computer, mechanical, and just recently added biomedical engineering). Pentawing^Talk 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The College Navigator likewise provides some important descriptive statistics that are missing.

• •  Done - Unless you feel more information is needed. Pentawing^Talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The 4 and 6 year graduation rates are missing. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is other important descriptive information available at the Office of Budget & Planning that should also make its way into the article.

• •  Done - Unless you feel more information is needed. Pentawing^Talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Libraries and museums could probably be demoted under Campus or Academics
  •  Done - Though I am currently looking into incorporating the material elsewhere. Pentawing^Talk 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:UNIGUIDE, campus should immediately follow History, Athletics should follow student life,
  •  Done Pentawing^Talk 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• There should be a {{redirect}} template at the top since AA is the intended destination 98% of the time, but the links to Dearborn and Flint shouldn't be relegated to the very end of the article either.
  •  Done Madcoverboy (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• The notable people and alumni section desperately needs cleanup to get rid of some less notable people, redlinks (!!!), and tangential commentary. It's an unenviable task, but it's unreadable now.
  • I looked at other FA university articles and the same thing could also be seen in those articles. Hence, I am unsure exactly have one might go about rectifying this. Pentawing^Talk 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Consistency of citation templates is generally good, but spotty in some places.
  •  Done - Hopefully, but someone else might have to look through it to make sure. Pentawing^Talk 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In most cases I would just do all of this, but as it is a FA I decided to renounce my usual "bull-in-a-china-shop" ways. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work and kudos to Pentawing -- my concerns are by and large addressed save for those trifling few minor things I'm confident will be resolved. No need for FAR here anymore, IMHO. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The research section might be improved by incorporating this NSF data: [1] Madcoverboy (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors

I'm not sure what if the official colors have been implemented to the different pages and templates, but they can be found here. Apparently, some of the colleges and the athletics department uses different official colors than the university itself.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dearborn, Flint, and Ann Arbor

User:Dearborn83 has added information on the Dearborn and Flint campuses to the article and I have removed it because the article is just about the Ann Arbor campus rather than the UM system as a whole. I created a disambiguation page and referenced it at the top as well. Nevertheless, looking through the archives I don't see any discussion of why the article is not named "University of Michigan, Ann Arbor" given the presence of other campuses within the system. What's the consensus on this? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the University never refers to itself this way. On official sites and in common use, "University of Michigan" only refers to the Ann Arbor campus. This is contrary to similar state schools, such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which has the city name in its official title, although University of Wisconsin redirects there, since in common use the Madison branch is usually intended. I would advise to not move the UMich article. —Ed Cormany (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 15

I think it's dubious to claim the entire crew of Apollo 15 are alumni when, in fact, David Scott received an honorary doctorate just months before going on the mission despite never having enrolled or attended the university. It was an obviously publicity stunt for the university back then and I frankly don't like being uncritically duplicated now. The fact that the three astronauts brought UM paraphernalia on board the mission would seem to be a further indictment of their judgment as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I RFA and learned that astronauts were allowed to bring personal paraphernalia on board. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dubious or not, Apollo 15 is considered an all-UM crew at the university (I have heard this anecdote during a campus orientation a while ago, and this fact was used in an ad for the university during televised football games sometime around 2002-2005). Nevertheless, I reworded the related passages (since the problem here appears to be semantics about who could be considered an alumni), as well as added the necessary citations throughout the article. Pentawing^Talk 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

National Research Council (rankings)

Someone had asked me about including National Research Council rankings. However, I would prefer not to use any further rankings and leave the rankings information in the rankings template. If the National Research Council is still doing rankings (as opposed to their rankings now being defunct), I think it is better to include the information within the rankings template so that it can be included with other university articles that are using the template. Pentawing^Talk 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest NRC rankings were supposed to be published in September, then November, then January. I haven't seen the original report nor do I know the form that the new version will take, only the TAMU analysis of them. When they are released, they should be included in the rankings template alongside any other rankings. I concur with Pentawing that there's no reason for the information to be unnecessarily duplicated in the prose of the article when it is most concisely and best summarized in the infobox. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Endowment numbers

Please only use the NACUBO study numbers for listing the endowment. This is the most reliable, comparable, and authoritative source for this information because they use common standards and benchmarks across all universities. A local newspaper quoting some hearsay about the endowment being down $2 billion as a result of market conditions does not meet the conditions of a reliable source. One would no more strip out enrollment numbers from the Common Data Set and replace them with some approximate number found in the Lansing State Journal. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Brandstatter

Please take a moment and comment whether this article should or should not be deleted. Ikip (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.h.D

what is the p.h.d scores —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.22.70 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)