Talk:Ohio State University/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
Is there any real need for a massive section of links in the middle of the article? Also, many parts of this page are woefully outdated (the Buckeye Bullet story isn't new or particularly relevant to the University itself). I'd say this whole article needs a massive renovation.

Any football fans out there? The Ohio State Buckeyes football team really needs its own page. Unfortunately, I hate football... ; ) There should also be something about the campus riots from the past few years. Postdlf 12:04 5 Apr 2004 UTC

I added some external links. CES 03:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Added info on Student Orgs and government, and had to correct a few of my own errors, but all should be well. Nja247 23:10, 05 Feb 2006

Elaboration of Campus section
OSU has a historical campus full of interesting buildings both old and new. (Orton Hall and Rpac) Perhaps someone with some knowladge could expound upon this?


 * I second that request. While the article is good, it could be better.  OSU is huge and has a lot of history, but little of that history is discussed.  I'm not comfortable going at it alone, as I have little knowledge of details myself. Nicholas 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to a brief description of Orton Hall. Please elaborate if you have additional info.

This page is incorrectly titled
The correct name of this university is The Ohio State University, not just Ohio State University. I motion to have this page moved to a new one under the correct heading. Please comment on this. Gmcapt 06:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Motion seconded and carried! --Taoster 19:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I am moving it back to Ohio State University; see Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). If we use the word "the", we'd be making this page name inconsistent with the pages of other universities which officially have "the" at the beginning of the name but do not use "the" at the beginning of the page name.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   01:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You don't know how annoying that "The" silliness is to those of us who've attended other state universities in Ohio. -- SwissCelt 15:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (whose alma mater is Another Ohio State University in Bowling Green)


 * Hey, take it up with your state representative, please! The university was named by an act of elected officials, it's not merely an affectation, and this document is here to report facts, not opinions. To be fair, though, since we all call the school "Ohio State" anyway and it conflicts with wikipedia conventions, the page needs to stay where it is, under "Ohio State University" -- Bricoleur 21:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we settled on "The Ohio State University?" I disagree with SwissCelt, whatever the point was, but I would prefer to keep to the naming conventions.Rkevins82 03:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "The" Ohio State University, besides being hopelessly pretentious, violates the naming conventions. You're essentially penalizing people (and Wikipedia's servers) for neglecting to type "The" in the search box.  Please move it back to Ohio State University. -- SwissCelt 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. SwissCelt you were welcome to move it.Rkevins82 05:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. While I was certainly able to move it, I wasn't certain that I was welcome to do so.  As the article had been moved at least once, and possibly twice before, I thought there should be a consensus before I would feel welcome to move it again. -- SwissCelt 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"The" Ohio State University should be the name. The "naming conventions" policy referenced by Lowellian were simply invented by him without any consensus. I'll check back in a few days for comments and then likely officially move to rename it. --Gopple 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says "The Ohio State University" already.   Stick with the Wikipedia article naming conventions.  That Lowellian invented the naming conventions on his own is downright silly. JDoorj a m     Talk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "naming conventions" policy referenced by Lowellian is a logical extrapolation of Use common names. john k 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ohio law does pretty clearly states the name of the University to be "The Ohio State University". R.C. 3335.01 ("The educational institution originally designated as the Ohio agricultural and mechanical college shall be known as "The Ohio State University."). However, seeing that a similar statute says the name of Ohio University is "The Ohio University," (R.C. 3337.01) and no one at OU seems to care one way or the other, some people at OSU may be taking themselves a little too seriously. Peyna 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the legally incorrect name usage at one place invalidates the legally correct name usage in another. The matter is moot, as The Ohio State University points to Ohio State University. Rkevins82 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Universities template
I have applied the template that is outlined at the Wikiprojects: Universities page. Please add/delete as necessary. --Taoster 19:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Need to clarify?
Recent edit added a phrase clarifying (I suppose) that there is more than one OSU. The editer added Oklahoma State and Oregon State that go by the same abbreviation. Is this really necessary? US(outh)C(arolina) and US(outhern)C(alifornia) are without notice, as are UT(exas) and UT(ennessee). I doubt many people confuse schools in Oregon, Ohio and Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas, or California and South Carolina.Rkevins82 04:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

And....you would be wrong. Being "from" the great state (minus Jessie Helms) of North Carolina, I can firmly say there is great confusion over "USC" and "UT" both!! As for OSU, I don't get that one a lot, but I definitely see the problem. USC, as in Southern California has a a lock on much of the country, but in the Carolina's and presumably in SEC country in general, there is issue. There is so much confusion over UT, in fact, that I don't have any idea which would be considered by most to be "UT." I've lived in the South my whole life, and UT has ALWAYS been Tennessee, but my uncle-in-law is from Texas and UT means Texas to him....those crazy Texans... Dawhitfield 01:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've seen the error in my ways and tried to clear-up the pages in question. As a Buckeye fan though, there is only one OSU, and this year, only one UT ;> Rkevins82 04:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Items that could use mention
- Further broken-down rankings of US News - Mention of The Ohio State fight song & Carmen Ohio - More about campus culture (?) It doesn't mention Mirror Lake or the Oval. Just ideas! JD79 18:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * More thoughts - the alleged haunting of the spire at Orton Hall and some of the legends about the oval...possibly stuff about the old steam tunnels. JD79 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Better Logo PLEASE
I am extremely disappointed with the image used on OSU's page. While other schools' pages have official seals or logos that look quite impressive, Ohio State's has a photograph featured as a wallpaper on the university's website.

Could someone please find an actual professional looking OSU logo to put on the page? The square logo would be great; the official seal, in color, would be even better.

--buckeyes1186 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

''The university seal is not a logo but a symbol reserved for use by the Board of Trustees for items such as official documents, diplomas, and certificates. University offices should substitute the use of the university logo for the use of the official seal. Requests for use of the seal should be directed to the Office of the Board of Trustees at (614) 292-6359 or University Marketing Communications at (614) 292-4272.'' --Bricoleur 06:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a new logo needs placed on this page. I'd like to see the Red Square logo.

Could someone, a student or faculty member perhaps, request the logo and place it on the page?

Today I emailed a guy from photography relations about getting a logo or seal licensed under GFDL. We'll see what happens...Sanjayhari 22:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded and updated the red university logo. I'm a student there and had it on my computer. I also uploaded the OSU seal, but thought that the red logo looked better. If anyone can find a good place for the seal (OhioStateSeal.jpg) feel free to put it in the page somewhere.

Research?
Its a bit pathetic we dont' have a research section. It sort of reinforces the impression that OSU is a big giant football field. One notable thing that should be mentioned is that OSU is one of the few unviersities in the United States (I think their maybe a dozen) that does significent research in Mathematical Logic -- which is linked with theoretical CS and AI theory. Thats actually a big, emerging field. Ontop of that OSU is top 20 or 25 for Physics research.

There are a couple strong non-trivial depts that OSU is decent (or getting better) at... what i mean by decent is around the graduate research ranking of 21 - 35. The fact that OSU is like within the top 10 institutions on Research spending should also be mentioned....


 * I'm up to the 1940's on the history section and am curious if anybody might know what prominent war-related research projects took place at Ohio State. My guess is that much of it was centered in the engineering college.  I seem to remember reading once that Hoyt Sherman's methods of teaching art (that Lichtenstein found very influential) was used to teach pilots to quickly recognize aircraft types.  I paln on going through some of the oral histories, but I have a hunch they really aren't relevant until the 1960's.

University template
The template cuts info and I would like to revert it, but would like some feedback. Rkevins82 05:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the template that was in use before looks janky, both in appearance and in the underlying old-fashioned html representation. Wikipedia already has a predefined style for organizational taxonomies and it seems like it should be used here. The information that was removed is present elsewhere in the page, but if you're adamant that it be present in the taxonomy, I'm sure thee's a way to extend it somehow. --Bricoleur 06:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The old infobox was ugly. However, there is no way to extend the current template.  I would prefer information over aesthetics. Rkevins82 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at the documentation for the taxobox, and I'll just define a new template with the same appearance and the information present in the old table layout. --Bricoleur 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bricoleur. Rkevins82 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Infomation needed to be added in Category:Ohio State University
People who know more about TOSU should create and add more details and information (such as more pictures and web pages about certain facilities or programs) that are related to the university and link them to the category page.

Here is the link to the Category:Ohio State University,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ohio_State_University)

Buckeyes
Buckeyes incorrectly links to the OSU page now. The word could refer to a number of things. Rhhs 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I redirected Buckeyes so it points to Buckeye. - EurekaLott 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Scandals
The end of the athletics section discusses recent academic scandals involving Jim O'Brien and Maurice Clarrett. I am going to remove this statement, and before people jump on me for being an alum let me explain why. The "Maurice Clarrett Scandal" is a total non-scandal. After being relieved from the team, he said he was paid from boosters and coaches and made many allegations. The fact is that nothing came from this nearly two years later. He declined to interview with the NCAA about these supposed infractions and no action ever came from the incident. In the case of former coach Jim O'Brien, he loaned money to the mother of a player who was looking at OSU for school. The player did not come to OSU and the only action taken was a self-imposed one by the university. Jim O'Brien is actually suing the university for wrongful termination since he didn't do anything one. Once again this is not really a scandal, and actually not really that recent either, since it has been over a year or two now. Anyone who wants to revert the edits could kindly give their reasoning here before editting wars start. -Thebdj 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Academics, Alumni Section & Hockeye Link
I think that there should be a section on academic achievements and rankings that is at least the size of the athletic section. After all, by varying rankings, Ohio State is somewhere between the 30th (U of Florida Center for Research University Data) and 60th (USN&WR) ranked major university in the US, as well as the top rated public university in Ohio, ranks 15th (public or private) for the amount of research conducted and has an endowment that's closing in on two billion dollars. Also, it should be pointed out that with the abandonment of Jim Rhodes' admissions policies in 1987, that were directed in large part towards the university he flunked out of as a freshman, Ohio State has also become the most selective public university in Ohio (although admittedly the numbers between it and Miami(OH) are very close). As is done with athletic conference affiliations we should also have a link section for the other CIC schools.

The alumni section is very disorganized and unruly. Could we break it up into catagories, as is done on the Michigan page? As for the inclusion of Jeffrey Dahmer, I have to question its logic. It's my understanding that he attended the university for only one quarter before flunking out, so his time here certainly didn't shape what he would later become. Had he graduated from Ohio State or committed any of his crimes while attending, I think that he would certainly merit inclusion. As it is, I'm not so sure.

Also, we should add Ohio State's conference affiliation in men's hockey, which is the CCHA. Sam Harmon 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

History
I've added a paragraph expanding on Ohio State's rather quick emergence as the state's flagship university, noting both its 1916 inclusion into the AAU and the role of Governor Davis (21-23) in funding the expansion of Ohio State's physical plant. I'm new to this, so any suggestions or pointing out errors that I've made is entirely welcome. (Sam Harmon 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Endowment
I've corrected the university's endowment to reflect its total at year's end 2005. Here's my reference:  --Sam Harmon 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

External Link Changes
The Sentinel is not a "right-wing" newspaper, it is merely an alternative political opinion paper, and publishes articles of a variety of political views. Changing the description from the "right-wing" to the more accurate term "op-ed" is completely valid and shouldn't be subject to needless alterations.

Hobbes557 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term "right-wing" was inflammatory. The sentinel is, however, a stridently conservative or "neo-conservative" paper and proudly identifies itself as such on its website.  I think that either of the above two phrases give a much more accurate description of the newpaper, its self-described mission and the role it plays on campus than does "op-ed."--Sam Harmon 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The present website of The Sentinel is experiencing a "re-branding" of sorts, and no longer describes  itself as a strictly conservative paper.  This is the full mission statement as taken from their website: "The mission of the Sentinel is to serve as a campus voice of reason, to enhance the intellectual   environment on campus and locally, and to serve as a forum of ideas among those who embrace life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Sentinel is a premier organization committed to providing experience to students entering fields of journalism, politics, and business, by offering opportunities in writing, editing, website and newspaper layout, publishing, sales, finance, marketing, and argumentation." As such, the Sentinel expresses no official political orientation, and I think the description should be politically ambiguous to reflect the fact that the political statements expressed in the Sentinel are the view of the authors of articles rather than the viewpoint of the paper itself. Hobbes557 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, what should be the proper term? I think "political opinion" paper is accurate and ideologically neutral.  Taken literally, "op-ed" makes no sense as a descriptor.  Op-ed is derived from "opposite the editorials" and refers to the physical layout of the section in a newspaper not the actual content.--Sam Harmon 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Section
If nobody has any objections, I have a long overnight flight to Europe this weekend and would like to use the time to organize the alumni section into catagories (i.e. business, arts & literature, politics & diplomacy etc.), as well as adding a section for notable faculty members.--Sam Harmon 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already done this in a text file. I can post the recommendations this weekend and we can collaborate. Rkevins82 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted my changes before I saw your note. Sorry.  Feel free to look over what I've done and merge it with what you've been working on.  As I've mentioned previously, I am new to this and am unsure how to collaborate on an article without posting it first.  Your help in this regard would be very welcome.  Thanks again.   --Sam Harmon 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Public Ivy" Designation
I'm curious as to the removal of Ohio State's inclusion in the 2001 publication of a listing of "public ivy" institutions. While I think that both this edition and the 1986 book that included Miami(OH) tend to be overly subjective and not the best available rankings, they are legitimate references--in both cases. I also question the motivation for its removal by an anonymous editor whose primary edits have been on the Ohio University page. I am working on a more detailed section of rankings and academic points of pride for Ohio State and plan on reinstating it there--unless someone can make a strong argument for its exclusion. --Sam Harmon 14:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds appropriate. Don't worry about the list page.  You have put signigificant work into it and I will probably only make a few changes.  Also, please sign with four tildes, as that makes it easier to leave you comments. Rkevins82 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Its probably because such a designation would be embarassing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.223.251 (talk • contribs)

Miami President Stanton & founding of Ohio State
I'm curious as to the details of how the Miami president was "instrumental" in the founding of Ohio State other than simply failing to gain the land-grant status for his own institution. Even Miami's own official history, The Miami Years makes no mention of his role other than Miami's failed effort to be designated the land-grant institution. I'm going to leave it in place until I can do some more research on Ohio State's earliest years; however, I am starting to believe that this may be another apocryphal story that floats around the Miami campus as fact. Does anybody have any relevant ref. on the matter? --Sam Harmon 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this section to more accurately reflect the founding of Ohio State and the peripheral role that Miami and OU's failure to gain the land-grant played. Seriously, only the "mother miami" mentality could take a failure so colossal that it resulted in the university closing down and somehow spin it into some "point of pride."--Sam Harmon 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Heisman potentials come to "die"
Under the football section, I think it would be interesting to have a trivia comment about those in the Heisman Trophy race. Many times after a team plays the Buckeyes, the player's "stock" seams to drop rapidly (except Woodson). Despite the "Unwin" (yeah, yeah, I'm a fan, sue me.) to Texas the Texas player who was up for the running, his "stock" dropped after the game. S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of Curriculum Vote
I've changed the date of the vote on Ohio State's early curriculum and focus to 1873. Referance:. I can't find any competing referance that it occurred in 1878, which wouldn't make sense anyways as the university's opening curriculum reflected the expanded focus.--Sam Harmon 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alumni & Time Magazine Covers
I would like to add several Time Magazine covers that have featured Ohio State alumni to the alumni page. I've added two that were already in use elsewhere on wickipedia. In researching this, I found that there was a rather contentious debate concerning the use of Time Magazine covers as it relates to copyright and fair use concerns. This appears to have been resolved in favor of their use as low-resolution thumbnails. I'm a little unsure as to how to upload them with all the proper tagging and "fair use" explanations, so that they won't be deleted.
 * Done. I just hope I did it right.--Sam Harmon 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization Revisited
The "Organization" section really makes the article look awkward--bisecting the middle of the article with a long list of external links. I don't know how to resolve keeping the content in a more elegant manner, but it is something that should be considered.--Sam Harmon 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at other Big Ten university articles, and the few that do include some form of organization table do so at the end of the article. I've made the Ohio State page similar, which IMHO makes the overall page much more clean and flowing.--Sam Harmon 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 NFL Draft
Now don't get me wrong, I love OSU football. But, information on the 2006 NFL draft and the players who went to which teams seems a bit out of place. Seems like it should have it's on seperate page or something. If included here, you should include every year of the draft and every Buckeye that has ever been drafted. I realize 2006 was a stand out year because so many Bucks were drafted, but I don't think it belongs in this article. I'll wait for replies, but I plan on removing the section if there are no reasonable objections. --Scotsworth 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but just don't want to get into an edit war over football. I do think that Ohio State sports should have a seperate article, with the main Ohio State article just hitting the highlights.--Sam Harmon 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is anyone interested in making a seperate OSU sports article? All of the information about the 2006 draft, while concise, is out of place in this article, and i'm tempted to delete it altogether. --Scotsworth 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be a serperate "Ohio State Buckeyes" article, linked from the main Ohio State article. Seeing as the main article still needs some work and athletics are not my primary interest, I'm not going to take it on.  To make the Ohio State article worthy of Featured Article status, however, it will eventually need to be done.  At to the 2006 draft info, I feel that it has the shelf-life of a firefly.  In other words, by August it needs to go.--Sam Harmon 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Flagship status
I want to dispute the "flagship" status of OSU in the realm of Ohio higher education. That remark is unqualifiable. OSU does have the most students of any school in Ohio, unfortunately all that does is make them the loudest.
 * I'm not certain that the use of the term flagship is inappropriate, and the statement makes it clear that this is a matter of perception. The term is used often by the University's Presidents, and in vaious places outside of the school.  Do you just want to complain or do you want to suggest more neutral language that reflects the school's relatively much larger enrollment, faculty, and budget?  (Please sign talk pages by typing four tildes, " ~ .") -MrFizyx 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to Berdahl's speech. He couldn't have stated better the situation in Ohio, where a lack of control and leadership combined with pork barrel politics has led to every lesser state school feeling entitled to try and become something they're not.--Sam Harmon 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether, the Ohio Board of Regents chooses to officially designate Ohio State the flagship university or not, the fact remains that it is the flagship and is widely viewed as such both in Ohio and outside the state--and that is the point the article makes. This has nothing to do with football or the number of students, and everything to do with Ohio State's rankings (undergraduate, graduate and research) vis-a-vis Ohio's other public universities.  When another Ohio university matches Ohio State in the rankings, has ANY members of the National Academies on its faculty or gets accepted to the AAU, we can reopen this discussion.  The history section also makes it clear that the state government 100 years ago did make Ohio State the flagship university, and the decentralized and redundant system we're stuck with today is largely a product of Jim Rhodes populist, anti-intellectual policies of the 1960's and 1970,s.--Sam Harmon 15:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree on two points. First, Ohio State University is not the flagship, as it does not hold an official position above the other universities in the state, is younger than many, and only in the last few decades has achieved the degree of academic standing it has today.  Second, Sam, I disagree with your reading of Ohio's history with regards to university.  From before the founding of the university until today the state has consistently favored maintaining balance between the universities.  An early example is the state's rejection of folding OU and Miami into a state system under OSU, instead hoping they would serve different populations and geographic constituencies.  More recently the state has capped enrollment at Ohio State, also capping the aid it can receive, while not doing this to any other university.  Rhodes' policies with regards to higher education may not be popular, but for poor reasons.  His administration built the infrastructure for the improvements at Ohio State in the 1980's and 1990's through the capital budget.  Yes, he invested in community colleges throughout the state.  That decision is still popular among many, as it keeps college "within reach" of students, reduces costs, and serves the technical professions. Rkevins82 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you bring up some interesting questions, Rkevins82. Yes, it's true that OU and Miami were not folded into a single university system.  There is also equal, if not more compelling, evidence that the Ohio legislature did intend on Ohio State being at the very least first among equals.  Three specifics spring immediately to mind.  First, in 1891 when Ohio State became the first public university funded by a permanent tax levy.  Second, the Eagleson Bill in 1906 which prohibited Miami and OU from offering doctoral education or conducting basic research and third the 1921 university building fund which was split 72-14-14 between Ohio State, OU and Miami.  As to the relative youth of Ohio State, this is one area where Ohio's system of higher education is somewhat unique.  If one reads Berdahl's speech on what defines a "flagship university" he does make an allowance for not being the oldest university in the state when the university was founded under the Morrill Land]Grant Act.  As to academic reputation, yes Ohio State's has increased significantly in the last two decades, but I would argue that it was always ahead of Miami and OU even in the darkest days of the Jim Rhodes policies--particlularly in terms of graduate/professional education and research, which is a fundamental basis of a "flagship university."  AAU membership is probably the most significant factor here.  Remember also that there also wasn't this mania over college rankings until the mid to late eighties.  The enrollment limits were actually instituted with the blessing of Ohio State.  They saw it as a necessary step in abandoning the conditional admissions policies of the 60's and 70's and also saw it as preventing a future governor from reviving Rhodes' plans for a 100,000 student Ohio State.  Ed Jennings and Herb Asher are very clear about this in their oral history interviews.  I'm not saying that everything Rhodes' touched was bad.  Ohio clearly needed a community college program.  His policies, however, did hold Ohio State back (at least on the undergrad level) twenty years, inherently favored quantity over quality (as in the "a four year campus within 30 miles of every Ohioan")and led to a bloated and redundent higher education system, that, given current tax structures, Ohio can not afford.  BTW, thanks for the book recommendation.  I found a copy from a used bookstore in Seattle.--Sam Harmon 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems rather moot given that the initial complaint has remainded that user's only edit. I gather that someone was just blowing off a bit of steam.  The article never implies that OSU is an "official flagship." -MrFizyx 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but knowing how dearly some partisans of other Ohio colleges cling to this Lake Wobegon view of higher education in Ohio--where every college is above average and there's no seperation between them and Ohio State, it's probably best to settle and define the issue now.--Sam Harmon 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ohio_State_University
I would appreciate some feedback and assistance with the tasks identified (or any others you believe we need).

The logo we have on the Ohio State University page does not have the correct colors for the web, as shown here. Rkevins82 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks very good. One thing is that the blue links and text wash out against the red background, making it very hard to see.  Maybe a lighter, brighter shade of red would solve the problem.

You have the John Glenn school listed twice. I'd add the Mershon Center. It's one of the universities more prestigious departments or centers, and it does have its own wikipedia article.

The Hilander Research Library also has a wikipedia article.

If we're going to have the Big Ear, we should also include the Mount Graham telescope, which is actually more relevent these days.--Sam Harmon 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Buckeye NutHouse
Hi. I've been putting together pages for each of the Big Ten's basketball student sections and was wondering if someone would be interested in expanding and maintaining that of the Buckeye NutHouse. Thanks! --BroadSt Bully 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

University Area, Columbus, Ohio
Someone created this which I'm assuming is a neighborhood in Columbus named for its location? I think that's what it is at least. Would someone mind taking a look at it and improving it since its related to the university. Metros 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wasted a little time on it, and I think it's now pretty neutral and reasonably well thought out. Dhimelright 19:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So-called "vandalism" on 12 August 2006
Hi there. I'm the Wikipedian who wrote the edits that User:Sam Harmon reverted as "vandalism". I maintain, however, that my edits were designed to strive for less POV in the article. If I may explain, a previous edit cited US News and World Report's survey in claiming that tOSU is the "best public university in Ohio." While true, the claim is somewhat disingenuous when one realizes that Ohio State is tied for the 21st best public university in the US, and that Miami University is ranked just one place below that (at 26th). Moreover, Ohio State is not the "flagship institution" in the Ohio "system of higher education"; primarily because Ohio has no singular system of higher education. OSU-Columbus is as much-- and no more-- a "flagship" as the main campuses of Kent State University and Bowling Green State University, to name but two others. Let's try to maintain a sense of perspective when editing this article, and not turn this into another BCS and Ohio State fan page. -- SwissCelt 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here would be my arguments to each of the above two points:
 * First, with regards to the USN&WR ranking, when this article or any other university article, mentions its rankings they need to be done accurately and with source citations. There is no wikipedia convention that says one must place them in a relative context with competing schools.   And even if this is true, would SwissCelt then allow that what's good for the goose is good for the gander--i.e. that the Miami page detail MU's USN%WR ranking in the context of being ranked behind Ohio State?


 * Second, with regards to the flagship institution statement, the fact of the matter is (and the article is clear about this) is that Ohio operates a decentralized system of higher education and that Ohio State is widely considered the flagship institution of that decentralized system. The specific source citation is to a speech by the UC Berkeley Chancellor (and former president of U. Texas-Austin) directly concerning the definition and role of flagship universities.  To this one could add numerous other arguments in Ohio State's favor including graduate and undergraduate rankings, quality of the faculty (more Guggenheim fellows than all other Ohio universities public or private comobined, more National Academies of Sciences and Engineering members than all other Ohio universities public or private combined, more Nobel Prize winning faculty than all other Ohio universities and so on) Library resources (18th largest university research library in North America), research (more research condcuted annually than all other Ohio public universities combined), the historical background behind Ohio State's founding, the Eaglson Bill of 1906 which by law banned other Ohio universities from offering doctoral education or conducting basic research, and I could go on...and on...and it has absolutely nothing to do with football or size!


 * The fact is that in certain quarters of Ohio there is an almost maniacal drive to believe in a "Lake Wobegon" version of higher education where all universities are created equal and all are above average. Sadly, this is not the real world situation.  Whereas if somebody in Michigan were to argue that there was no fundamental difference between Western Michigan and Michigan--Ann Arbor they would be laughed out of existence, in Ohio some choose to believe in such wishful thinking.


 * I think you'll find that there are many in Michigan who will compare the University of Michigan with Michigan State University. Though this does raise an interesting point:  Why should Ohio State be viewed as the more august university in Ohio, when Ohio University is clearly older?  Indeed, both Ohio University and Miami University predate not only Ohio State but also the University of Michigan.  Or, to use an example I cited on my talk page, who would consider Iowa State University the flagship institution of Iowa public post-secondary education when there is the University of Iowa?  Only in Ohio do we take a Morrill Act institution and declare it superior to older institutions. -- SwissCelt 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if you're talking about considering designating an institution as a "flagship", that takes into account several potential meanings and implications. Age might have something to do with it, but I think that the overall public perception is a more important factor. Obviously this is just conjecture, but I would imagine that if you asked someone to think of the University that most represents Ohio, you would probably find that most people would say Ohio State. In addition, OSU's endowment, coupled with it's overall financial impact, is unmatched by any other public university in Ohio. The extensive medical complex alone, which could be seen as combining both endowment and finance, sets OSU apart from virtually every other public institution in Ohio. Also, OSU was recently recognized as the 19th best public University in America by US News & World Report, making it the only Ohio university in the Top 20, something that should be reflected in the main page. I guess what I'm getting at is that while a school like Miami Oxford is an excellent institution, in terms of resources and visibility, it pales in comparison to Ohio State. A centralized university system is by no means necessary for there to be a "flagship" university in Ohio.

As someone born and raised in Ohio but who attended school elsewhere, I would say Ohio State is considered by most as Ohio's Flagship University. This is because it is not only the largest university in the state, but the oldest to be designated -- prior to the 20th Century -- as a 'comprehensive' public U: an undergrad liberal arts school supporting professional schools like law, medical, engineer, along with multiple Ph.D programs (while it did not have all these units by 1900, it's pretty clear, looking at history, most pols and academicians at the time understood OSU would be getting them)... All that said, I still think most people would widely agree that, despite any USN&WR ranking -- which is influenced by grad research reputation -- Miami is clearly the better (more competitive, prestigious, traditional, etc.) undergrad school. OSU has become considerablly more competitive but, as we all know, it was an open admissions school BY LAW until around 1987, while Miami, for over a century, was able to circumvent this law (which applied to all state schools) by saying: it was open admissions to all who could commute to campus -- and, of course, we know how isolated Miami is. As such, Miami, particularly in Midwestern circles (ie, centered in Chicago, Detroit & Cleveland) developed a kind of Midwestern Ivy rep while OSU, fairly or unfairly, was seen as (and still is, by some) as a jock or football school -- happily, though, things are a changin' (cause I'm a huge OSU fan), but, well ... I hope this clarifies rather than muddles this discussion further.141.151.23.197 08:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

 * I think the picture of the new lab in the middle of the article needs to be reduced to keep the h-scroll intact.

Colleges Schools and Departments
In addition to details about Buckeyes athletics and players, We should extend details about colleges schools and departments at the university. Currently, there are only a few colleges (such as colleges of business and law) listed (under Category:Colleges Schools and Departments of The Ohio State University, the name of this category can also be changed later to cover centers of study and institutes related to academic and research at the OSU.). Also, we should add more details about each campus at OSU. Currently, the link of each OSU campus is defaulted to the main OSU page.

project teams
The external links refer to the OSU ChallengeX Team, and mention that there are several others. However, nothing makes the ChallengeX Team stand out among the other project teams. There's a full list at. If any team stands out, it's the Buckeye Bullet. It seems like this should be dropped and a link to the project team list should eventually be put on an Ohio State University College of Engineering page.

Agreed. ~Kruck 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Branch Campuses
I'm removing the sections for each branch campus. I don't think that every branch campus needs its own entry. Here's my reasoning.

1) To give each branch campus a prominent part of the article is not consistent with how other Big Ten university articles are set up

2) It clutters up the article

3) It gives the roles of the branch campuses a focus in the article that is disproportionate to their role in the university. The branch campuses are a very minor part of the university.  Ohio State, in fact Ohio State never wanted them in the first place, and only built them in response to OU trying to encircle Columbus with branch campuses.  Ohio State also lobbied strongly in the sixties to have everybody's branch campuses folded into the community college system but was unsuccesful.  Today, the branch campuses function more as independent community colleges than as integral parts of the Columbus campus--with different missions, different admissions standards and so on.--Sam Harmon 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there shouldn't be an inline section describing each, but it might be a good idea to put links to the wikipedia pages about all the branches and not just links to the cities themselves. Perhaps it could be in an infobox or a related articles section. The pages are currently only found in Category:Ohio State University. Bcirker 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, I changed the links in the second paragraph from the cities to the branch campuses. That'll do until we come up with a more elegant solution. -- SwissCelt 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rankings
The academic rankings section of the article is a little hard to follow. I think the information would be easier to read and compare in a table. What do you think? I haven't finished the table, but I could do so if people think it would be useful.

Tables
Table shortened to save space ~Kruck 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that we as a society put way too much stock in rankings of colleges and universities, but that is a matter of personal opinion I suppose. That being said, if we are going to include these sorts of things in the article, a table does read easier than inline text. My suggestion would be to have subheadings under each college or department so it would read as follows:

(College or Department)-Rank (Specific Subject)---Rank Bcirker 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Bcirker. That is more organized, and that's all I'm looking at here. You're right, though, that we focus on rankings too much, but rankings are facts people look for. To make it obvious that these are the opinions of groups like USN&WR, we need to label the rankings clearly. ~Kruck 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is something like this good?

~Kruck 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The column headings can be abbreviated too: like USN&WR, with wikilinks. Something to shorten cells to one line each would be good. ~Kruck 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that I'm biased towards the text version (I wrote it so take that into consideration) It just seems as though text is more "encycopedia-like" and tables or list tend to break the flow of the article. Also, it's easier to incorporate various non-USN&WR rankings, which I think are just as important--if not more so. All that being said, we should come to some form of concensus on the talk page and then follow through on that decision.--Sam Harmon 19:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the wiki tables will be way too big and obstructive, which I hadn't realized. However, if someone was looking for a ranking for a certain college at OSU, I think it is currently hard to find. Maybe a text preformatted table would be better. ~Kruck 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Text table:

Category		  USN&WR: USA	 USN&WR: Ohio	Other rankings

Fisher School of Business Undergraduate level 		17		1		N/A Graduate level			21		1		The Economist: 28th Internationally Moritz College of Law		39		1		N/A College of Medicine and Public Health Primary care 			33		1		N/A Research			32		1		N/A College of Engineering Undergraduate level 		28		1		N/A Graduate level		26		1		N/A Political Science Department 	13		1		London School of Economics: 4th internationally American Politics 		5		1		N/A International Politics 	12		1		N/A Political Methodology		10		1		N/A Political Methodology		10		1		N/A

Any other ideas? ~Kruck 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Other options
Another option would be to have the article link to a separate page with a table of rankings. ~Kruck 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Geographic coordinate system for OSU campuses
Anyone who know the Geographic coordinate system of each OSU campus please help filling it out.

Hey User:140.254.115.130, please sign discussions with four ~'s, like this: ~. I'm not sure how you think the geographic coordinates could be used, but they're almost certainly not published by the university branches. To get an idea, though, you can just search Google Maps for "Ohio State campus" or something and get the coordinates from the URL. I could get them if you'd like. ~Kruck 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Branch Campus                       Geographic Coordinates Lewis Center (the Delaware Center)  40.227121 N, 83.026428 W Lima                                 40.749338 N, 84.027557 W Mansfield                            40.802635 N, 82.580795 W Marion                               40.585278 N, 83.089256 W Newark                               40.128491 N, 82.444153 W

If someone has more exact coordinates, that would be good too. The main campus coordanates may need to be updated in that case. ~Kruck 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Google Earth, the coordinates of the clock tower of University Hall are: 40°00'01.03" N 83°00'52.25" W with an elevation of 748 feet above mean sea level. That sounds right to me because there is a marker soutwest of that building indicating the 40th parallel as surveyed a while back. Bcirker 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - Google Earth should be a good source too, probably the best available. ~Kruck 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A question about Ohio State University's system
I am just curious. Based upon the sentence in the following: "Although Ohio operates a decentralized system of higher education, Ohio State is widely considered both within Ohio and outside of its borders to be the flagship institution of the state's public system of higher education."

My question is if the Ohio State University has only one president. Deans/directors are in charge of its other small campuses. How can you call that this system is "a decentralized system"? From my view, this is a centralized system. For example, if we look at University of California or University of Illinois, their campuses have their own presidents and seem to operate independently. Each campus has its own policies and societies. I would consider University of California and University of Illinois have a decentralized system. Am I missing something here? Thanks--140.254.115.50 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the comment states Ohio not Ohio State. Ohio has no "system".  Actually UI and UC are both centralized systems, with state systems where there are individual campuses, but the state has created a system with a "single" university with multiple campuses.  Even if each university has its own president.  The key is not the President, which honestly is as much of a ceremonious role as it is anything else.  The key is the Board of Trustees.  In Cal and Illinois, there is only a single board of trustees.  Ohio State's individual campuses have their own Boards and more importantly, the state has no central system. See if the link helps.  Check for public universities.  -Thebdj 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Name Change
There's no mention of when OSU actually added the "The", which was only in the last few years, and partially in response to the fight with Ohio University over the web domain name www.ohio.edu


 * That's not my understanding. I'm pretty sure the name was originally The Ohio State University, and has been so since the current name was chartered in the 1880's. Analoguekid 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bcirker is correct. The "The" was part of the official, legal name of the university as of its last formal name change in 1878.  It's recent emphasis predates the lawsuit and was a response to Governor Rhodes' attempt to dumb down the university system and emphasize quantity rather than quality--in effect, Rhodes attempted to undo the very reason (establish a flagship research university for Ohio) that Ohio State was founded.  Emphasizing the "The" was simply a subtle attempt to punture his populist illusions of no differences among Ohio's public universities.  In a more direct incident, showing how Ohio State felt about Jim Rhodes, his transcripts were mysteriously leaked to The Plain Dealer showing that he had, in reality, flunked out of Ohio State his freshman year rather than left in good standing "to support his family" as his "official biography" maintained.


 * The last sentence of the first paragraph in the history section makes note of this.--24.136.28.175 07:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that Governor Rhodes instituted the open admissions policy that undermined the academic standing of the University for a generation, but to suggest that he did so in response to flunking out of the University does not hold up. More students flunked out of Ohio State during the open-admissions era than at any other time.  A moment's reflection will reveal why: sub-standard admission will lead to students unready for the demands of a university education.  In addition, there is no reason to assume that the emphasis on the "the" in the school's name has anything to do with Governor Rhodes.  Indeed, that emphasis predates the Governor's birth.  For my own research I have read every issue of the Lantern published in the 19th century, and many if not all of the references to the University published in the Columbus city papers.  The emphasis has always been there. ChicJanowicz 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidently, Governor Rhodes relation to the University is more complex than simply the admissions pollicy. The Governor delivered funds from the state legislature that made the Ohio State Medical School one of the finest facilities in the country.  Rhodes Hall on the medical campus was named for him for that reason. ChicJanowicz 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Special projects in engineering
There is an artcle about the Buckeye Bullet -- this may also be of interest to add somewhere: DARPA vehicle. Rkevins82 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Communistic
Right now, the word communistic (in the first sentence) redirects to homosexuality. I'll change the redirect to communism like it is supposed to. But is that the intention of the word? If the adjective form of 'community' is meant than I'd suggest 'communital'. John Reaves 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you check older history of the page, the word is supposed to be coeducational but it was vandalized. I corrected it. ~Kruck 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved page
Moved page from "Ohio State University" to "The Ohio State University". Now a question and answer session:

Q. Doesn't having "The" in the title violate Naming conventions?

A. At first glance, it may appear that this is the case; however, it is not that simple. First of all, please note that this page is a guideline, NOT and official policy of wikipedia. Thus we don't necessarily have to follow it, but for the sake of preventing anarchy, I can explain the move within the pretenses of this guideline anyway.

The guideline goes on to say that the most common name should be used. If you follow the Buckeyes or other activities at the institution in the media, you will here the university referred to as "Ohio State". Of course this would not be a correct title for the page, as it is ambiguous at best. It also says a definite article may be used if it is "used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere".

The first point is easy to prove, simply look at News and Information. I encourage all to look through and find a single example of a lack of "The" when referring to the university as a whole. Note that if some department is mentioned, they will say "Ohio State University's Geology Department." However, this page is not about the geology department, it is about the university as a whole, thus "The" should appear.

As for the second point, common usage refers to the university as "Ohio State", and as mentioned, this would not be a proper page title at all.

Q. Isn't this "The" nonsense all made up by some pundit of the university?

A. Although it may seem as such, Ohio law R.C. 3335.01 says "The educational institution originally designated as the Ohio agricultural and mechanical college shall be known as "The Ohio State University."

Q. Doesn't having the page titled with "The" penalize people for not typing it in?

A. No, as wikipedia has many redirects, including "OSU" (disambiguation), "Ohio State", and after the move, "Ohio State University".

Q. Isn't having "The" in the title rather pretentious?

A. You may think so; however, opinions should not dictate this encyclopedia. Thus although you make think graduates from this university are stuck up snobs because they always say they went to "The Ohio State University", that doesn't change the fact that the name is what it is.

Q. Didn't we discuss this before?

A. Yes, and in fact, 6 people were in favor of "The Ohio State University" and 4 people were opposed. As it happens, those opposed were especially vocal with their opinions. --Analogue Kid 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Move was requested, as it is not possible to move it on it's own.--Analogue Kid 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I afraid that 6 to 4 is not a consensus to move. Perhaps opening a new debate with your ideas above is in order. — Mets501 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Debate away!--Analogue Kid 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Every Buckeye knows that "THE Ohio State University" is the official title of the university, but this article is correct in referring to the university by its proper name within the article while having the title “Ohio State University.” The simple reason for the title to withhold the “THE” is that people would look for Ohio State under “O,” especially non-buckeyes who forget the technicality. For example, the Category:Big_Ten_Conference page would list Ohio State under “T” if the title were “The Ohio State University.” It is correct to list Ohio State under “O.”


 * The proper name of the university needs to be emphasized, but that is already done every time it is referenced in the article. I disagree with changing the name of the article. ~Kruck 14:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My previous argument wasn't a good one considering that category names can be corrected as in  . The name of the university is "The Ohio State University," so that should be the title of the article. See http://www.osu.edu and the university's logo - the proper name is "The Ohio State University." ~Kruck 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the move to The Ohio State University. That is the official name, and whenever the school is refered to by its full name (rather than "Ohio State" which is almost always used), the "The" is included. --- RockMFR 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone who supported the move when the last serious attempt was made, I wanted to voice my opposition. There is no reason to move the page and the thousands of internal links in this article.  The article makes it perfectly clear what the legal name of the university is.  Inclusion of the "the" by university officials appears to be a concious branding decision, but it is not one that must be repeated here.  Furthermore, it is out of place, when other universities, such as "The Ohio University" (link for official name) or "The University of Arizona" (link for official name). Rkevins82 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move. It does not present any advantages as "The Ohio State University" redirects here anyway. Even though "The" at the beginning of "Ohio State University" is superfluous, the article sufficiently addresses the issue for those who are interested. As far as "The Ohio State University" being its legal name, if we took this stance on all articles, "Virginia" would be moved to "Commonwealth of Virginia" and "New Mexico" would be moved to "State of New Mexico" and so on until we had covered all 50 in the United States, then you could start on the other nations of the world. --Wordbuilder 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe all of the other ones should have a redirect to their real names? -  hmwith  talk


 * I support that it should remain Ohio State University. Continually adding "The", especially capitalizing it in the middle of the sentence, goes against Wikipedia's goals and against the Naming Conventions (or, perhaps for OSU fans, THE Naming Conventions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

featured article nomination
Hi, I just sent a request for feedback from Peer review on the Ohio State University article. It is the first step to become a featured article on Wikipedia. Let's work together and respond to peer reviews Peer_review/Ohio_State_University--140.254.115.133 10:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

 * OK, Let's stop the frickin' madness. I've probably written the lion's share of the current Ohio State article, and when my browser shortcut directs me to a dead page...enough is enough.  The whole "The" thing is getting out of hand.  I understand why it was first emphasized a quarter century ago--and with good reason (in response to Jim Rhodes' attempt to dumb down the university and pretend that there was no qualitative difference between The Ohio State University and the other 12 public universities).  Today, however, those reasons have long since been negated.  Now, it has become simply a "chest thumpin" statement for NFL players--most of whom NEVER GRADUATED from THE university that they're bragging about!  Stop this ridiculous B.S. and follow the wikipedia naming convention for every other Xxxxx State University.--Sam Harmon 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry you got directed to a dead page, I will fix it shortly. I'm sorry you don't like the title as it is now, but it is the proper title. Most former OSU NFL players I've heard say they went to Ohio State. Whether or not they graduated is irrelevant to this discussion. I attended this fine institution, graduated, and I fully support it being titled properly. As illustrated on the talk page, the naming conventions say in this instance that the definite article should be used, as it is used throughout the running text in university materials, and has caught on elsewhere. I.e., nobody says they went to Ohio State University, they either say they went to "Ohio State" or "The Ohio State University", tongue in cheek though it may sound. --Analogue Kid 13:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you are moving the goalposts. If Ohio University's official name is not important, then how is Ohio State's? They are both in the Ohio Revised Code. Rkevins82 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To clairfy, the reason OU's official name is not important is because it is not used in "running text throughout university materials" (per naming conventions). In the above discussion heading, I put a link to the OU news page to show that they never refer to themselves as The Ohio University, but rather Ohio University, whereas OSU always uses the definite article on their news page (as well as other official university materials).--Analogue Kid 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So the Revised Code argument is moot? You are leaving out the second part of the naming convention guideline (which is only a proposal): ...if that usage has caught on elsewhere. I doubt that you can make that argument. The local paper doesn't call use the definite article, nor do (my eclectic mix) U.S. News & World Reports in its college guide, The Lantern (school newspaper), NCAA, NNDB, Princeton Review, Encyclopedia Britannica, and ABC News.  Those who do include Peterson's and a variety of university-related entities.
 * Looking at google, there are a little over 1 million hits for "the ohio state university" -site:osu.edu -site:ohio-state.edu, though this undoubtedly included many mentions that are not supportive of the use, as the "the" would be capitalized. The more restrictive search "the ohio state university" -site:osu.edu -site:ohio-state.edu yields well over 3 million hits. Rkevins82 05:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can indeed make the argument that it has caught on elsewhere. My Moms Brothers Best-Friends Dogs Owners Dads Cousins Aunt always says The Ohio State University, and she's always right. (haha, just kidding) Some of those sources do indeed omit the definite article. However, mentioning the Lantern and the Dispatch doesn't work as a citation if you can't give a specific example from an article. That's not to say they're unreliable sources, just that we can't assume. Google can be confusing in this case, as when you type in "The Ohio State University", it omits the "The". A quick glance through the bookcase next to my desk reveals some more substantial evidence in the form of hard citations from reputable books and publishers. Here is what I found:
 * This book says "At the Wexner Center for the Arts, built at The Ohio State University in 1982-89, Eisenman's..."
 * As some of you know, Ed Lentz is a well regarded Columbus historian. He has written at least two books on Columbus (can't remember if there are more). He frequently appears on Open Line with Fred Andrle and writes a history column for This Week. In chapter 21, Lentz says "...I made the unpardonable error of remarking that this was my first visit to Ohio State University. I was rather peremptorily told that the proper name of the school was and always has been The Ohio State University."
 * This book has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but since it is published by the university press, I thought it a good source. In the biography of the author, it says "Jeff Lyttle is a graduate of The Ohio State University and has worked as a professional writer...". Now before someone points out the name of the publisher, remember that we're discussing the name of the university as a whole, not of it's subdivisions which I strongly feel should not use the definite article in their titles (they don't anyway).
 * Here is some pretty damming evidence. The cited page is the internal title page, with the title, authors, and publisher. Here, it says "William J. Mitsch, Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio". Right below it says "James G. Gosselink, Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.". Note that when referring specifically to Ohio State, the definite article is used, when referring to LSU, it is not. Another example you say?
 * Yes, yes, I know its that book from that class you probably don't want to remember. But again, we find the definite article in use. The internal title page is akin to the Wetlands book above. It says "Theodore L. Brown, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; H. Eugene LeMay, Jr., University of Nevada, Reno; and Bruce E. Bursten, The Ohio State University; With contributions from Julia R. Burdge, University of Akron". Yet again we find the institutions rightful title being utilized. One more...
 * Well the title pretty much says it all. In addition, the other pages cited also make use of The Ohio State University. Now a quote from page 81 from a person in the news recently: "It is a very great honor for me to be at The Ohio State University, sometimes known as the Land of the Free and the Home of Woody Hayes. I met Woody at the airport. We just had our picture taken together and when the picture appears in today's Dispatch, I'm pretty sure what the caption will say: Woody Hayes and friend. - President Gerald Ford, Commencement Address, 1974."
 * That about does it for my long drawn out citations. In writing this, I got to thinking as to a possible underlying cause of people's uneasiness about the title. Wikipedia has a strong and well regarded Neutral policy. Perhaps it seems that by including "the" in the title, it somehow becomes POV. I thought about this for a while, but then I came across something: The Greatest Show on Earth. Now there is a POV title if I ever heard one. And yet it remains. What else could you call it? "That one movie by those guys about a show"?--Analogue Kid 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sam Harmon and others that the title should be "Ohio State University" and this debate seems ridiculous. There's a very clear and explicit policy regarding this exact issue. Every school with a similar name uses this convention. There's simply no reason to have moved this page, and the move should be reverted. --MZMcBride 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, there is a clear and explicit policy, and I spelled out in the discussion why it should be titled as "The Ohio State University". It does not say never use it, it says use it if and only if you meet the two criteria. With all the hard citations now, is that really in doubt? Who is to say other schools are presently titled improperly because of a blanket policy that was applied to everything and it shouldn't have been? Whether or not the others are titled properly is beyond the scope of this discussion. But the policy does provide for an exception in this case.--Analogue Kid 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Intentionally or not, you have side-stepped the Google problem. I specified "the ohio state university" and "ohio state university," so the definite article is signigificantly more likely not to be included.  The guideline says that the definite article should be included in the title only when the usage has caught on elsewhere.  In this case, some places use it, while most don't.  Also, there is a difference in our examples.  Mine are from broadly used sources (and don't give me that argument about not specifically citing them—that is absurd), while yours are more niche.  I hope some more people will join this argument. Rkevins82 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Analogue Kid has made some great points here, and I support the use of "The" in the university's title. The fact is that its official name is "The Ohio State University." It can be seen in a Google search for "the THE in The Ohio State University," that many people disagree with the use of the definite article, but that's another matter worth discussing within the article. ~Kruck 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Google cannot be used to establish relevance due to the technical limitations of the system. As previously mentioned, when discussing a specific entity of the university, one should say "Ohio State University's Geology Department" (for example). Now when you search for just "Ohio State University", remember you are capturing all of these usages where it didn't stand alone but rather was part of a sentence describing some subdivision. I.e. it was referring to the department, not the official title of the university as a whole. Therefore, the results you get will be highly skewed, as there are probably many more mentions of specific things within the university than to the university as a whole. Broadly used sources do not necessarily make them Reliable Sources. Certainly I wouldn't argue with Britannica as a good source, but the others don't hold as much weight as printed material from a widely distributed book. I fail to see how it is absurd to cite a specific article. Both papers have been around for over a hundred years, and have written thousands of articles. Thus, how am I supposed to know for sure how they use the article? For example, even this Scathing Op/Ed piece from that city up north uses it. Other Opinion pieces such as this also use it. Here is an example of why Google picks up so many more hits without the "The". It says "Ohio State University's President". Searching further, I found another example, and another, and yet another. I too welcome any and all to contribute to the discussion. --Analogue Kid 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

it seems allot of emotion is wrapped up in this topic. I don't think thats productive. This decision is not that difficult. If we were uncertain of the correct spelling of a university, we would contact that university. same concept here. Give OSU's marketing department a ring and ask them: 614-292-4272 or check their website: [] this particular page makes a total of 8 references to "THE Ohio State University" and zero to "Ohio State University". Would anyone here argue that the band The The should get moved to The (band) ? I doubt it. For that matter, under this argument, shouldn't The Band just be listed as Band (band)? Obviously, I support keeping the article at "The Ohio State University" as labeling it anything else is simply incorrect. Stuph 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Count me for Ohio State University. The Band is always called as such. The Ohio State University is rarely called as such by anyone who does not work for the university. Wikipedia has a policy of using common names, not using official names, and with respect to articles, we only use them in things like titles of literary works. Ohio State University is universally recognizable, non-ambiguous, and the way people who aren't pretentious Ohio State homers refer to the place. Note also George Washington University, where many of the same arguments were hashed out, and we ended up with, well George Washington University. john k 07:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that we have a naming convention about this at Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), which says not to use direct articles. john k 07:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

a direct quote from the naming conventions page:
 * If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources, then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X.

Thus, until someone brings forth evidence of Ohio State University being used MORE than The Ohio State University, the conventions page supports the move to The Ohio State University.

A list of uses by credited sources other than the university itself:
 * http://www.petersons.com/ugchannel/code/InstVC.asp?inunid=7934&sponsor=1
 * http://www.wexarts.org/
 * http://www.thelantern.com/
 * http://www.princetonreview.com/mba/research/profiles/schoolsays.asp?category=1&listing=1011056&LTID=2&intbucketid=

Stuph 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The text you are quoting is a proposed substitution, not the actual current policy. As to credited sources that use "Ohio State University" rather than "the Ohio State University", Google gives 4.3 million of them, as compared to only 1 million or so for "The Ohio State University". Also check out the 28,700 hits that don't include the direct article on OSU's own website. The comparable figures for "The Ohio state University" on OSU's site is 165,000, but note that this includes many instances where you'd always right that - "The Ohio state University School of Law" and such. At any rate, the general rule is not to use articles. john k 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Googling misconception has already been addressed by Analogue Kid. Referring to "Ohio State University's Geology Department," for example, is a Google hit for "Ohio State University." It does not refer to the entire university, which is the topic of this article. I am an Ohio State University engineering student. I attend THE Ohio State University. Your Googling strategy would say I call OSU "Ohio State University" as often as "THE Ohio State University." This is not correct. ~Kruck 05:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no googling misconception, because it works both ways - one also has "The Ohio State University School of Law," and so forth. There is no particular reason to think this issue affects the one side more than the other. john k 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify my google note, I agree with what john k said; it shouldn't be used at all in this debate as there are too many variables in writing style to know what the hits are referring to one way or the other. I see in an above post that it was said that people who refer to the university using the definite article are pretentious. This is a borderline personal attack on those who favor using "The". Remember, the issue is not people from the university, it is naming conventions. Let's keep the discussion centered on that issue and not what we might think of those who've attended.
 * Two more points I'd like to emphasize again: 1. Naming conventions are a Guideline, NOT a rule. There are only 5 firm rules. 2. The naming conventions do NOT say the definite article should never be used. They spell out pretty specifically when it should be allowed. Using Reliable Sources, I have spelled out why it should be "The Ohio State University". Is there any argument over the fact that common usage refers to the university as "Ohio State"? Obviously we can't call it by this name, thus we go with the official and next most common name as shown by my numerous citations. --Analogue Kid 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two versions of the naming convention. One of them would suggest (but not necessarily mandate) The Ohio State University. The other pretty clearly says Ohio State University. It is the latter that is currently in plain text, and appears so far as I can tell, to be th guideline. The former is a "proposed new version", which has seemingly not been adopted. Let me repeat the text of what appears to be the current guideline:
 * The definite article should not be used for universities, even if the official name of the university uses the definite article, as indicated on the website links below.

Note also the large number of other articles on universities that call themselves "The University of X", but where the article is not located there. We need to resolve this issue at the level of the naming conventions, I think. john k 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it seems that the naming conventions are flawed as they currently stand. Looking at that talk page, it appears that there was no consensus arrived when originally formulating them. It may have been assumed that common usage never uses the definite article, which is not the case here. The proposed conventions would allow the definite article based on the evidence presented here. There is probably no point in continuing this discussion until the naming conventions are agreed upon, as one can honestly argue that "Ohio State University" meets the naming conventions, even though it is incorrect. --Analogue Kid 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ohio State University" is not incorrect, it is merely less formal than "The Ohio State University". It is incorrect to state that "Ohio State University" is the formal name of the school.  But it is not incorrect to call the school "Ohio State University," any more than it is incorrect to call it "Ohio State."  We should not confuse "informal name" with "incorrect name."  john k 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Google test that I used is appropriate and I can explain it further if necessary. I would keep Ohio State University in line with the other universities that eschew the definite article and the majority of common users (Google test).  I am glad that some more people are joining the discussion and hope more will in the future. In the meantime, we should continue on the the Talk page for Ohio State University. Rkevins82 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Ohio State University. there is no "the". I went there, received my BS degree. I should know.Thenext 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out the logo in the article and go to the website John Reaves 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This surely looks like a topic that could use another opinion (like a hole in the head). Nonetheless, here's how I see it: The school is legally named The Ohio State University. The administration's preferred nomenclature is The Ohio State University. There is a naming convention argument to be made for naming the article The Ohio State University. However, applying a bit of common sense, I have to view the (putatively) best name for the article as Ohio State University, as it is by far the most likely formal name by which both Wikipeida users and editors would refer to the school. Generally, we should put articles where most people expect to find them, so haing Ohio State University be the article name, with redirects from The Ohio State University, Ohio State, and a suitably disambiguated OSU would make the most sense. While the letter of the convention supports the longest of the names, in this case, we should ignore the literal rule and carry out its spirit, instead. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Ssbohio 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thenext, you went there? Then how in God's name do you NOT know what your school was called? Did you sit at home taking online classes or something? I'm confused. I currently attend The Ohio State University. That is the name of the school, officially, and I strong believe that this article should be titled such. -  hmwith  talk  06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved back
The page was recently moved to The Ohio State University. I've moved it back here and dummied edited the aforementioned page. As this is a controversial move, it should be listed on Requested moves. --- RockMFR 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Football
Ohio State is the number 1 team in there division. They are number 2 in the nation. They aren't going to be as good next year becase the are loosing so may of there people to the NFL. They will ill be prtty good though because they will get some f the best kids out of high school, and other colleges. Jim Tressel is still a great coac though. I hopee wil lead the team to a championship this year. There program i great for academis and also sports. The students can keep there grades up and still be able to play football. There rival school though stinks. Michigan is a bad col. If yo are choosing your college, then you should pick Ohio State. Another rival school is Texas but they arestill a good school. GO BUCKEYES!!!!!!!!--Brail4 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

People who are changing Ohio State University references to "the Ohio State University" all over Wikipedia need to stop. Even if your school and its athletes uses the chest-chumping emphasis on the word "the," it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. Nobody calls it "the Ohio State University" unless you went there. It's marketing PR that has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Rcade 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See above discussion on the naming of the page. It's fine if people link it as The Ohio State University as that is the official name. There are enough examples of sources outside the university PR department to make the case that it in general use, although certainly not exclusively. It's not a matter of being neutral, the name is what it is. The reason the name is without the definite article currently is that Wikipedia's naming conventions say you should never use the definite article, ever. This discussion is a potential can of worms, so I encourage you not to take it too seriously. Your time (and mine) is better spent improving this an other articles rather than debating small details such as linked names, as long as everything works (redirects take care of that). --Analogue Kid 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you acknowledge, Wikipedia guidelines state that the article "the" should be omitted from the school's name. The only reason I'm commenting on this is because of OSU people adding the chest-thumping "the" references to dozens of articles. Rcade 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Analogue Kid, Wikipedia's naming conventions refer to the naming of Wikipedia articles. Articles pertaining to colleges and universities (other than The Citadel) are not to be named using a leading "the."  The naming conventions page is irrelevant to how the universities are to be referred to within articles.  Furthermore, Wikipedia tradition permits users, within articles, to accurately render the names of schools using a leading "the": "the University of Nebraska," "the State University of New York," etc.
 * 2. Rcade, if it is true that "Nobody calls it 'the Ohio State University' unless you went there," then it seems education is in order. Perhaps the best place to provide such education is in an encyclopedia entry.  Accuracy is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.  Accuracy is not "chest-thumping."  A better example of chest-thumping, Rogers Cadenhead, is writing an article about yourself to test Wikipedia's notability policy.  ChicJanowicz 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the Wikipedia article naming conventions state not to use the word the, Rcade's reasoning is incorrect; the official name of the school is indeed The Ohio State University. Simply read the Wikipedia article and you will see that "In 1878, and in light of its expanded focus, the college permanently changed its name to the now-familiar "The Ohio State University."" --Urzadek 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ChicJanowicz, for your comments, especially what you said to Rcade. Just because many people who don't know better use "ain't" or "cuz" in everyday language due to lack of education on the subject (English) doesn't mean that we should start using those words on Wikipedia. Just as some correct others for using poor grammar, people who use the incorrect term for The Ohio State University will also be corrected. -  hmwith  talk  06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
There is a mediation case going on about this current issue. I have made a statement saying what I think is going on, and what the problem seems to be from a third point of view, please correct me if I am off on any of the finer points of this issue. Feel free to comment on the mediation page, or if you all decide to comment here, then do so! I hope that you all will accept me as a neutral third party in this issue, and we can resolve this quickly and efficiently. Cheers! —— Eagle 101  Need help? 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Size" Chart
I removed this chart for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see the need to include it. The infobox breaks down current enrollment, and the overview notes that Ohio State is the largest single campus in the country. I don't see the need to take up that much space in the article to detail enrollment figures that are out of date. Second, the article was orignally placed squarely in the middle of the rankings and recognition section by an anonymous editor. I moved it to the campus section and left it there to see if the editor planned on making any additions that might have made its inclusion more relevent. This never happened, leading me to believe that--given its placement--it was simply included a by a partisan of a certain other Ohio university in some lame belief that Ohio State's large enrollment somehow negates its top rankings in the state.--Sam Harmon 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Ohio State University → The Ohio State University — This is what the university is called. ABCBS 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add    or     on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * 1) Support ABCBS 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is the subject of much discussion both on this page and others. The official name is of course "The Ohio State University". In all press materials put out by the univeristy, this usage is consistant. People have suggested that using the most common name would preclude this title. However, the most common name is simply "Ohio State" which of course is far too vague to use as the title of an encyclopedia article. One of the main reasons for opposition previously was the fact that the naming conventions said never use the definite article. They have since changed noting that if it can be shown that it is in common use, then it is allowed. A note to people who are opposed: Using the arguement about "chest thumping" is not appropriate here. It is fine if you oppose it but please give a valid reason. Just stating "you don't like it" doesn't help. --Analogue Kid 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  I am sympathetic with the above statement by User:Analogue Kid, who adopted the new formulation of the naming convention this afternoon.  However, it is my opinion that even under the new formulation, this move isn't justified.  The Ohio State University has done an exceedingly good job in enforcing its brand image: the "The" is capitalised on everything coming out of the school. And yet, this usage still hasn't been adopted by others! Example: The New York Times, (whose "The", incidentally, is in common use) do not capitalise the T, even when they get the name right.  I do not dispute that the proper name of this school is the Ohio State University.  I do not dispute the "The" in bold text in the intro paragraph, or the "The" in the infobox, or the university's name given (quite correctly) as "the Ohio State University" in running text.  I don't however, support the definite article for the page name.  Additionally, I concur with the above suggestion that an "oppose" argument based on the short form "Ohio State" is on shaky ground - a "compromise" would be a fudge, in my opinion. — mholland (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Comment The discussion of who calls the university what could go on forever. I do find it funny that the Times insists on calling itself "The New York Times" but not calling Ohio State it's proper name. I cited a bunch of reliable sources in one of the discussions above showing it is commonly called "The Ohio State University", especially in academic circles. I'm a little confused by your compromise comment though. You say a compromise would be a "fudge". But isn't the article without the "The" but with the "University" already a compromise? Also there is a flaw with searches on this subject in general. Although I would call the university as a whole "The Ohio State University", if I were referring to a subdivision, I would say "Ohio State University's Department of Wikipedia discussions" (for example of course). So by searching on it, you're picking up all the additional uses that don't acutally refer to Ohio State in general.--Analogue Kid 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say compromise, I mean editors arguing that "the Ohio State University" (official) + "Ohio State" (common) = "Ohio State University". That's just spurious reasoning.  The current page name doesn't seem like a compromise to me. There is a pattern:  " the University of Oxford", but "Oxford Brookes University"; " the University of Pennsylvania" but "Pennsylvania State University" etc.  When the place name comes first, the "the" is grammatically awkward.  Now, Ohio State have broken this pattern.  Successfully so, because I agree that common, even popular usage is now "the Ohio State University".  But that applies to content and running text: Wikipedia page names run to different rules, for good reasons. — mholland (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clairification. It's true sometimes you have to say "the" university in order for the sentence to make sense. I guess the distinction here is "the Ohio State University" vs. "The Ohio State University". A matter of capitalization really.--Analogue Kid 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mholland and also WP:COMMONNAME. While I would agree that "Ohio State" is probably the most common, Ohio State University is certainly more common of usage then "The Ohio State University". 205.157.110.11 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:NCD. —  AjaxSmack     06:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Remember  AjaxSmack  , NCD no longer says it's innapropriate to use it. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider?--Analogue Kid 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NCD should be reconsidered. —   AjaxSmack     06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While as an Ohio State grad, I smile at the chest-thumping approach of The Ohio State University, typically style books stand against using the upper-case The for organizations like this except at the beginning of a sentence. Chicago Manual specifies to use the lower case (for an American example). The Guardian style-book specifies to use the lower case (for a British example). The upper case The was developed for marketing purposes and an encyclopedia is probably not a place to perpetuate a marketing strategy (inspired though it might have been); in proper prose,it would be the lower case. Alas, it is not in common use beyond the University itself and those of us who call it our alma mater -- indeed, it is often made fun of by folks from other universities. Cyg-nifier 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--Sam Harmon 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)I think that the article should be "Ohio State University" in keeping with standard wikipedia conventions for other xxxx State Universities. That said, however, I think the use of "The Ohio State University" within the article as well as elsewhere on wikipedia is perfectly acceptable and is a correct usage of the university's proper, legal name since 1878.--Sam Harmon 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Wikipedia is not obliged to defer to institutional vanity. older ≠ wiser 13:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - many institutions, technically, have the definite article in their names but for consistency and clarity it should be dropped. TerriersFan 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questioning accuracy of survey with few votes
Shouldn't this survey have lasted longer to get more opinions? I think one should be up for at least a week or two, as there are clearly much more people who have strong opinions on this controversial topic than the 10 or so who checked this talk page on their watchlist those few days (check the users who commented on this topic in the archives). I think that to gain true consensus on this topic, we should have more users commenting. hmwith talk  16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagship Status
Reasons both historical and contemporary for viewing Ohio State as the flagship of Ohio's public university system.

1) At the time,Governor Rutherford B. Hayes and the political and economic leadership of the state founded Ohio State specifically to be the state's comprehensive flagship institution. In fact, Hayes manipulated the university's founding to a great degree both in terms of its location and board of trustees to ensure that it would fulfill this role.  The reference standard scholarship on the subject and the period is Kinnison, William A. (1970). Building Sullivant's Pyramid; An Administrative History of The Ohio State University, 1870-1907.  Kinnison also goes into great detail outlining why neither Miami or OU (despite their extensive lobbying) were awarded the lang grant funds, making Ohio the only Great Lakes state that did not designate an existing university as its land-grant institution.  It should also be noted that Kinnison was a professional historian who was neither an alumnus nor a faculty member at Ohio State.

2) The Eagleson Bill of 1906 specifically barred all other state universities from offering doctoral education or conducting basic research. These policies would remain in force until the 1950s.  In other words, Ohio State was literally written into Ohio law as the flagship institution until right before the dawning of the Rhodes era.

3) AAU Membership: Ohio State was elected to the nation's premier organization of research universities as early as 1916. No other public university in Ohio has ever been offered membership.

4) Contemporary factors such as any ranking of undergraduate or graduate universities that one would care to look at; indicators of faculty quality such as National Academy members (Ohio State-23; all other Ohio publics=1) and Guggenheim Fellows (Ohio State-32 in the last 25 years; Miami and OU combined-5), endowment resources; amount of research conducted

5) The Ohio board of regents has been stripped of most of its power. Ohio has created a cabinet level "higher education czar" filled by Eric Fingerhut who recently gave this quote to Cleveland's Plain Dealer,

''Ohio State fills the state's needs as the comprehensive, research university. When I met with the trustees, I told them we are committing to making Ohio State the No. 1 public research university in this country and, hopefully, in the world, he said.'' Notice the nomenclature. He uses, "the" not "a"...not "one of the"

Gov. Strickland and Fingerhut have also repeatedly said that they plan to do away with the funding compact of the 1960's which treated all universities equally and based funding upon a simple head count. Stickland's plan is to begin funding the universities in accordance with their "unique mission."

During the Jim Rhodes era, I might be inclined to agree with the notion that Ohio did not have a singular flagship university. Rhodes' populist, anti-intellectual policies favored quantity over quality and gave rise to the misguided notion among some Ohioans that all public unviersities were equal. That, however, was not the historical norm. Rather, it was a temporary abberration borne of Rhodes' peculiar policies. It hasn't been reality since Rhodes left office in 1982. In fact, as evidenced by the forthcoming changes in funding, it's last vestiges are being snuffed out as we speak.

So in summation, we have the historical record, the current rankings and status and the recent pronouncements of Ohio's higher education czar. I know that some will never reconcile themselves to this fact, but that doesn't make it any less real. People can argue about this on wikipedia until the cows come home. It, however, won't change the historical record or the facts on the ground as they exist today. At the end of the day, if one were to ask 500 Ohioans and 500 out of staters, "what is Ohio's flagship state university?" 990+ would say, "Ohio State" and it has nothing to do with football or BCS affiliations. It's simply a reality that some, for various reasons and ingrained prejudices, tend to view as "an inconvenient truth."--Sam Harmon 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Of course I graduated from said "flagship" university, so I'm sure that's something of a conflict of interest right there. Still I think the case can be made. The fact that other universities such as Miami, OU, and BGSU are as good as they are speaks to the quality of OSU itself.--Analogue Kid 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All of which is POV, and none of which-- as yet-- have you substantiated in the article via cited sources. Come now, Sam, you're a better editor than this.  Please take another look at my edit, in which I cited a source for Ohio's decentralized system of higher education, and tell us how this edit is erroneous or POV.  I even allowed for the claim that tOSU is a "flagship institution", despite my opinion that your substantiating citation is weak indeed.  At the very least, let's re-insert the Ohio Board of Regents source that demonstrates the decentralization; a claim that, at the moment, is unverified without the source.  Can't we compromise here? -- SwissCelt 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Swisscelt, I have no problem reinserting the reference that you had provided; although, I do think it (along with the entire BOR--also a legacy of the Rhodes era) is becoming increasingly irrelevant with each passing month.


 * Eh... I might be tempted to agree, but I don't think we could substantiate that opinion.

I do take exception to the idea that everything that I posted is POV. The reference point scholarship on the subject, the 1906 actions of the Ohio legislature and the comments and descriptions of Ohio State made by Fingerhut this year are hardly POV in the wikipedia sense. Also, the Kinnison book is referenced in either the main article or the history of... article. If there is a wiki way to specifically footnote relevent passages, I'd be happy to do so. I can reference Fingerhut's speech, but given the Plain Dealer's web policy, the link will quickly become outdated.


 * Actually, Sam, that's not a bad idea... referencing Fingerhut's speech. Even if it's not on the PD website, it still made it to print, no?  Just use the "Cite news" template with the "reprint" option, which if I'm not mistaken indicates that the source is no longer available online yet still available in paper copies.  Sources need not be online, so long as they are available to the public.

I do note in the article that Ohio's system of public education is decentralized and that Ohio State is widely "percieved" as the flagship. Even so, one institution is still very much capable of functioning and widely being viewed to function as the flagship institution. The same argument could be made to many other states also, which is the point that Berdahl makes rather convincingly in his speech. I've read up on this matter fairly diligently for several years, and I truly believe that the Rhodes era was a temporary episode and not the historical norm. Nor is it primary research as the Kinnison's scholarship on this matter is unchallenged. Even, The Miami Years (which I would hardly call serious historical scholarship) notes the Eagleson Bill and what it represented.--Sam Harmon 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need more than the one source to demonstrate wide perception. How's this:  Keep the language as is, but add another source or two.  The Fingerhut speech would be perfect. -- SwissCelt 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An anon IP just deleted the sentences in question, then deleted this discussion on the talk page. I reverted the latter, but I haven't been involved enough with this discussion to know if there's real consensus on whether to keep what was removed from the article.  If one of y'all wants to revert the anon edit, be my guest.. --Jaysweet 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put it back, there was no consensus to remove it although discussion is certainly encouraged on the subject.--Analogue Kid 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its difficult to declare one school in Ohio as flagship for the state. Ohio's public education system was created in a five quadrant system to serve the state. North East Ohio is Kent State University, South East Ohio is Ohio University, South West Ohio is Miami, North West Ohio is BGSU and Central Ohio is OSU. The original intent of this geographic layout was to serve each region of the state with a 4-yr residential university. But due to poor oversight, schools such as YSU, University of Akron, Cleveland State, Toledo, have all tried to compete with these 5 schools by creating residence halls and trying to copy the mission and purpose of the Ohio-Five region system.


 * Yes, Kent and Bowling Green were founded to give the NW and NE corners of the state a public university. They, however, were NOT founded to be in any way co-equals with Ohio State.  You can't just pass over the Eagleson Bill and what it represented.  Ohio State was designated by law to the be the flagship university.  The founding of two regional schools to serve the northern part of the state did not undo that.  The notion that all public universities were created equally did not arise until the Rhodes era, and has been thoroughly repudiated by the state government since his departure.  The fact that Rhodes essentially controlled higher education for two decades has unfortunately led some Ohioans to believe that his policies were the historical norm not the historical departure that they truly were.--24.136.30.203 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Each university offers strengths that others do not have. While it is obvious that OSU is a research-heavy school, you must keep in mind Cincinnatti, Kent State, and others do a great deal of research too. But if I had to delegate a title of "flagship" for research, OSU would be on the top of the list. BUT, it is not secret that OSU is not an Undergraduate friendly school, due to the heavy emphasis of research and graduate students. I feel therefore its hard to say its the flagship school all around. I think that too many people try to compare us to states like Wisconsin or Michigan that have state-wide public systems. Here in Ohio, we do not have any large public universities with "directional" names and each university competes well nationally and internationally.

Ex. Ohio U - School of Journalism Kent State - Liquid Crystal institute, largest nursing college in Ohio, 3rd best fashion school in the country. UC - Many Medical Break Throughs


 * Every regional public university in every state can point to one or two strong programs and "points of pride" it does not mean that they're equal to the state's flagship university. Cal Poly has some highly regarded engineering programs, but nobody in their right mind considers it an equal of Berkeley.  Look at national rankings across the board.  Look at the indicators of faculty quality that I listed above.  Look at the 650 million dollars in research funding at Ohio STate last year.  It's far more than every other public university in the state--COMBINED.  It's almost as much as every public and private university in the state combined, including Case.  Look at AAU status.  If these universities are Ohio State's equal then why have none of them been extended membership into the Association of American Universities during the organization's 107 years of existence?


 * Define "undergraduate friendly" because, now that the Rhodes era has been put behind us, we are easily the most selective public university in Ohio (Miami included) The numbers for the '07 freshman class are 52% of applicants accepted/56% from the top 10% of their high school class and 93% from the top quarter/an average ACT of over 28/over 300 valedictorians in a class of 6100.  Miami is the only public university in the state from which a significant portion of their student body would also be accepted into Ohio State.  Ohio State undergraduates are also the most likely to eventually go on to earn a Ph.D.  In a recent ten year period studied 2.7% of Ohio State baccalurate graduates eventually earned a Ph.D.  The number for Miami was 2.5%, and no other public school was over 1%.  Look at the national scholarships won this year by Ohio State undergraduates .  Something must be going on there at the undergraduate level, or the top high school seniors in the state would not be flocking to Ohio State in recrod numbers.--24.136.30.203 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about how OSU had to recently change its criteria for graduation because it was impossible to graduate in 4 years for the majority of undergraduate students? Also, consider in recent years the increase in undergrad tuition for what? Research funding for Graduate students...thats really friendly.


 * Ohio State did make this change. We looked at the credit hours required for a bachelor's degree at the schools that we benchmark ourselves against (Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, UCLA, Texas, Washington, Penn State, Minnesota) and found that we required significantly more credit hours than these schools.  We lowered the number to be in line with these schools.


 * As for tuition, Ohio as a state has ridiculously high tuition throughout its higher education system. This is a result of decades of funding neglect and the money being spread too thin because of redundant programs and too many universities.  Ohio State--despite being the most highly ranked undergraduate school in Ohio--is only the fifth most expensive for in-state students.  We may not be tuition friendly relative to other states, but I certainly think that we're very tuition friendly on a cost-quality ratio relative to the other Ohio schools.


 * At the end of the day, applications for the 2007 class grew by 20% over the previous year and 50% among students with a 32+ on the ACT. I think those numbers speak quite directly to how "undergraduate friendly" Ohio State has become.--Sam Harmon 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As for your source to the statement about flagships status, I read it and it gave no particular support to OSU as flagship so I do think you need to back it up more.


 * He specifically mentions Ohio as a "one flagship" state. Who was he talking about?  Bowling Green?  I am working on footnoting specific references in Kinnison's history of the period, which is the reference point scholarship conducted by a professional historian who was neither an alumnus or faculty member at Ohio State.--24.136.30.203 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, realize that the football program plays a big role in your flagship status "preception" which might not be the best thing.


 * Perhaps among everyday Ohioans it is one factor. I guarantee you that if one were to poll 1,000 professors, deans and university presidents from outside the state of Ohio and with no connections to any Ohio university (like Berdahl for example), 1,000 would say that Ohio State was Ohio's flagship public university.--24.136.30.203 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You make good arguments, and you have lucky for you, some obsolete bills in the past still exist. I think it will be interesting to see how higher education fairs in the future with Fingerhut. I still am not convinced that Ohio St. is "declared" a flagship school for reasons other than their football program. Do not get me wrong, I think OSU is a fine school but I do not feel it soley could be considered the ONE and only flagship school in Ohio. I wish I had the link to the article in the New York Times that was doing a tuition comparison amongst states and from each state it chose two or three flagship schools and for Ohio it chose, OSU, Ohio U. and Miami.


 * Strickland and Fingerhut definately are intent on making fundamental changes to the higher education system. With each passing month, however, it becomes very clear that they are intent on doing away with the last vestiges of the Rhodes policies.  So far, they've advocated tearing up the funding model from the 1960's which treated each university equally and begin funding universities according to their "unique mission."  As noted above, Fingerhut has repeatedly stated that Ohio State's "unique mission" is to be the state's leading comprehensive research university and one of the best in the country (a role that I might add is impossible without it also being the top undergraduate school in the state).  They've advocated doing away with the numerous redundant, lowly ranked graduate programs that sprung up around the state under Rhodes.  While I certainly don't foresee a return to the Eagleson Bill (where only Ohio State was allowed doctoral programs and primary research), I certainly see an undoing of the Rhodes era where every school in the state was free to add Ph.D programs in the vain attempt of turning themselves into mini-Ohio States.  In recent months, they've also been strongly hinting at a forced merger of Kent State and Akron.  If successful there, I'm sure that Toledo and Bowling Green might face the same.


 * Since taking office, they're essentially advocating and instituting Ohio State's dream list. I think that in five years, we'll see a system very similar to Virginia's with Ohio STate assuming the UVA role, Miami assuming a William & Mary role as a selective undergraduate focused college, Cincinnati (over OU because of the power of the Cincy business/political community) assuming the Virginia Tech role as the secondary/easier admission research university and the rest assuming regional roles as either moderate admissions/limited grad program schools or open admission/undergraduate focused schools.--Sam Harmon 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are some very bold statements, you can not force merge two schools with distinct histories, traditions and alumni base. I whole heartly disagree with the above statement. If anything were to happen, I forsee YSU shutting down, Akron becoming more of a community college, and changes along those ends. You have to keep in mind that our universities are 25% funded by the state, so the state's ability to force mergings is very limited.

What would their names be? Who would keep there name in the Akron/Kent merger? How do you decide who's 100 years + of history and identy is destroyed?

Also, I highly doubt you can take the OLDEST school in Ohio, OU and say its going to become a med-grade college. Ohio is unique, just because the state has a horrible investment in education doesn't mean we have to conform to another state's model. Ohio has 5 very large very good universities, all arguments behind, these 5 schools, OU, KSU, Miami, UC and OSU are capable of standing up to other very good schools.

I think you need to examine each school, I bet if you looked into each university you would be amazed at their abilities. I think if Strickland were to force merge any schools it would be political suicide. You don't mess with peoples alma maters, for example, Kent State is THE university of importance in NE Ohio, with a very large and strong base of alumni, you don't wanna make those people mad.

Also if you can please supply some data/support for your belief that a force merger between KSU and UA, that would be appreciated...


 * For many of the reasons that you've brought up, they're only hinting at it at this point. While it is among the more extreme measures being discussed, I do, however, know for a fact that it is on the table.  Remember also that the state essentially owns the buildings and land that the univesities are on, and the Governor controls appointments to their boards of trustees.  I also believe that Case is considered THE university in NE Ohio.  Because of the presence of Case and the Cleveland Clinic, the Cleveland business-political infrastructure has never felt the need to pump up their local state universities in the manner that Toledo and Cincinnati have.  When it comes down to brass tacks, the political and business leaders in NE Ohio will throw their support behind Ohio State--as they always have.  I wouldn't expect you to take this at face value on an anonymous message board, but I am fairly connected to these decisions that are taking place behind the scenes.  As for OU, it has become a "med grade college" quite well on its own, which is quite frankly what it always has been.  They can cry "Ohio's First and Finest" until they're blue (green) in the face.  It doesn't change the history that they've always been a mediocre, fall back school.  There's a reason that they were passed over for the land grant funding in the 1860s.  Look at it by any standard, undergraduate rankings, graduate rankings, research funding, admissions standards.  OU is far more similar to Kent, Bowling Green or UC than it is to Ohio State or even Miami.  Do the political calculus:


 * Central Ohio will support whatever is in Ohio State's best interests as will NE Ohio. SW Ohio, content with the William & Mary and Va Tech roles for Miami and UC will get on board.  SE Ohio won't fully support OU.  Political and business support will probably split evenly with Ohio State.  The only region that will fight tooth and nail for its local universities is Toledo and The Toledo Blade which has always resented the rest of the state and seen anything coming out of Columbus as a direct conspiracy to keep Toledo down.


 * The changes are coming, and while I don't expect you to take my word for anything, check back with me in two to three years, and I think you'll be shocked at what has transpired. Here's a recent article discussing some of their plans:   In it, Fingerhut and the Republican Speaker of the House talk of disbanding lowly ranked, redundant grad programs, forcing universities not to compete with each other and funding universities on an individual (rather than the universal formula from the Rhodes era) basis and in accordance with what their "unique mission" is.--Sam Harmon 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Western is not THE college in NE Ohio. Actually, if you did your research, Kent State has a large stake hold in Cleveland, Who's helping redevelop downtown cleveland, with urban design and architecture? Kent State, Who has the most start up companies with highest profit yields per dollar invested for the region, Kent State, Who's contributing the largest amount of nursing students, and teachers to the region and the state, Kent State, who's among the largest employers in NE Ohio, Kent State. And you have to look beyond Ohio, Kent State has campuses in Florence Italy, Geneva Switzerland, Chicago, and New York City. The Governor could force all he wants but in politics, reelection is a proximate goal, he'd be pissing off a lot of people. Also, Governor Strickland personally praised Kent State for its research and economic impact on Cleveland/Akron area.

As for that article, I've read it before, I think losing a Graduate History program in the 80's is something we can move on from. Yes I agree the duplication of programs amongst schools is disgusting, but it doesn't serve the state well to place the majority of the programs and funding in one school in Columbus. You obviously go to OSU, so I know your statements are very biased, as are mine of KSU, but this debate has clearly moved from the topic of flagship school to a blatant belittling on the other research intensive and extensive universities in Ohio. I have an internship this summer working with the administration of KSU, I'm interested to see how they view this topic.


 * While Ohio State University will be the flagship of the system, Strickland and Fingerhut said all the public institutions will benefit from combining efforts. Fingerhut refused to say whether programs would be cut, because he has yet to map out a plan.


 * The announcement of The University System of Ohio BTW, the average Bowling Green, OU or Kent State alum doesn't care whether their alma mater gets to keep some research or doctoral programs.  They only care about how much it will cost to send their kids there, and a large part of this debate will be framed specifically in terms of redundancy=high tuition.--Sam Harmon 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading this entire section (it was tedious), I have to agree with Ohio State being the flagship university in Ohio. I also reiterate the already stated fact that OSU is harder to get into than any other university in the entire state (yes, including Miami). Even in 2006, Miami was admitting students that Ohio State denied on the spot. In 2007, it's been documented as official. I know that difficulty to get into a university doesn't necessarily compare to the quality of the university, but it says something. hmwith talk  16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote from Strickland and Fingerhut has beeen referenced on the articles opening paragraph. The quote is below.



The "for research" comment was actually made by an Ohio State VP. Seeing that Fingerhut has stated that Ohio State's role as the flagship is to compete with the top public universities in the nation, anybody who doesn't think that this also means "undergraduate flagship" (which according to recent admissions data it is anyways) is willfully deluding themselves. Then again, I've always maintained that if an Ohio governor ever publicly declared on the steps of the capitol that "Ohio State is the flagship, the state flag was being replaced with an Ohio State flag and Woody Hayes picture was going into the state seal" partisans of the regional colleges would still continue to reject reality.--Sam Harmon 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha, I feel the same way, Sam. hmwith  talk  18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Ohio Stadium Cake into article
Opposed: While it's a great thing that this group does, being authorized to raise scholarship money is not really the same as being an actual part of the university's operations--or in particular, its honors program. I have no problem with a seperate article, but it shouldn't be part of the main university article. Ohio State has thousands of similar (if not quite so unique) scholarship funds. Are we going to include them all? The Young Scholars and Land Grant Sholars programs are fundamentally different. They are large scale (each over 100 students per year), run and funded solely by the university and are central to the university's mission of access.--Sam Harmon 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed While it's a nice thing they've got going, it's not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia anywhere, be it the Ohio State article or by itself.--Analogue Kid 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the article
I just redid the OSU template (Ohio State University) because, frankly, it was too big. I decided to take a look at this article and noticed it was up for GA nomination. This is not a GA review but I'm sure that will come later. However, I did have some comments that I believe will get this article a pretty quick rejection from the GA people. First of all, please correct your citations to follow WP:CITE (i.e. use the citation templates). Also, please minimize the number of external jumps in the article. Having them in the See also section is fine, but there are too many in the Schools and colleges section. I, also, would like to see more content in the History section. I am not a fan of short paragraphs, so please try to work paragraphs that are less than 4 sentences long into other paragraphs or try to expand them. Please resolve any merge suggestions before nominating for GA, so you all may want to solve that one pretty quick. Some sections look too short; such as Student organization, Leadership & service, and Ohio State-affiliated media (also, you and instead of the ampersand in the section title per WP:HEAD). This will also reduce the size of your TOC which I believe is too long. I also question the necessity of the Points of interest section. But anyway, that is a quick review. Bear in mind I didn't actually read the article so I do not have any advice on wording or opinion on unsourced statements which may come later from either myself or a GA reviewer. Good luck!↔NMajdan •talk 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

spam?
I was doing cleanup and WP seemed to think that this link below (with a break in the URL) is a spam link and wouldn't let me save the page.

http://collegeuniversity. suite101.com/article.cfm/gay_friendly_college_campuses The Advocate College Guide

No clue what the story is there, so I'll let one of the regular editors figure out what (if anything) to do about it. Esrever 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Overall the article is well-written, includes broad coverage of the university, and has generally nice images. I did find some problems with the article which I don't believe can be completed in a week (thus my decision to fail the article rather than put it on hold). I realize that the article was nominated over a month ago, so if it has changed significantly since then feel free to bring the article up to GA standards and nominate again. Here are my suggestions for improvements:
 * Adherence to the manual of style was for the most part good. However, the lead should not be an introduction. Rather, it should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Consider placing some important facts and data snippets in the lead that would explain the entirety of the university in a few short paragraphs.
 * Similar to the comments that were left by Nmajdan above, the table of contents needs to be cleaned up a bit. Student life is especially clunky. The last 4 of those subsections (4.4 Activities and organizations, 4.5 Student organizations, 4.6 Leadership and service, and 4.7 Student governments) can probably be combined in some way. Also, the Points of interest section seems like a trivia section to me. I would integrate the points into the rest of the article. A few of them can go under the campus section. The Ohio State media section is not worth its own header &mdash; it only has two sentences. Integrate that into another section that you deem appropriate.
 * The references that were used in the article were appropriate and reliable, as far as I could see. However, there are numerous reference problems. First, the references cited need to be adequately referenced in the article. What I mean is that you should include the title of the work, the publisher, the date, date accessed, and any other information. Simply including the URL is not enough (but it's a good start). Second, the article is very lacking of needed citations. Some sections have no references, which needs to be improved. This is especially important in the History section. But other sections have similar problems: Rankings, much of the Student Life section, and Notable Alumni. Any time you quote anything it needs to have a reference immediately following. I also found a number of potentially controversial claims that needed references: "Ohio State was the first university in Ohio to be extended membership into the Association of American Universities", "Although development had been hindered in the 1870's by hostility from the state's agricultural interests and competition for resources from Miami University and Ohio University, both issues were eventually resolved", and "The Ohio Union was the first student union built by a public university", for example. Read through the article as if you knew nothing about Ohio State and put references where you think something needs support. Generally any time you cite a statistic, something that may be questioned, a quote, or refer to something people claim or argue, you need a reference.
 * The article was very broad in its coverage, which was good. However, it was not focused at all. Sections like Student Life are far too descriptive. If all of that information is really notable then consider creating a new article for all Ohio State Student Life. I imagine, though, that most of it does not need to be included. For example, in Student Governments, the sentence "this goal will be achieved through student advocacy, programming, promoting student leadership and involvement, and facilitating communication with university administrators to promote student success in all facets" can be removed as it does not add much. If readers need to know more about what student governments do, then wikilink them to the page on Student governments. Other sections I noticed this focus problem were Academics (rankings are not needed for every school and every program - try to include only those that are most important) and Campuses (again, consider breaking this section of into a new article if it is all important - though that may be doubtful).
 * I questioned the fair representation without bias because there was nothing in the article that would give OSU a bad reputation. I don't think the article quite fell into a categorization of boosterism, but considering there were no news stories or references to information about bad practices, labor disputes, budget issues, town-gown relations, or anything that would present the more negative side of OSU (every major university has one) - that made me question whether the article gave fair representation.
 * I do not understand it since when that a good article has to include a bad mark (reputation). Also, this is an institution of higher education, the institution itself cannot do any wrong, it is just what it is. This article is just a report that provides some information about OSU.    Personal opinions should be included separately from facts.  If someone at OSU does something wrong and gives a bad reputation to the school, it should also be reported separately in his/her biography.Ohho (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most images were excellent, but the OSU logo and the athletics logo were not accompanied by fair-use rationale. Once you add that, they will be fine.
 * The section on schools and colleges should not be just a collection of links. Integrate the bullet points into a paragraph or two and (rather than linking to their OSU website) wikilink to the schools that have their own Wiki articles. If you want to link to the OSU school pages this needs to be done in the external links section. Consider linking to a page with all of the schools on one page. Otherwise, you can link to each individual school but it is not preferred.

The article is well on its way to become a good article, but these concerns should be addressed first. I was impressed that information on budgeting and research was already included, as many university articles do not. Once these issues are tackled resubmit the article and we'll get it reviewed much more quickly (and probably approved). Good job! :) --  Noetic  Sage  16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png
Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png 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 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) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohio State University → The Ohio State University — In light of the recent move of AFC Wimbledon to its proper name, I think that this article should also be moved for the same reason. The Ohio State University is the proper, legal name used by the University in all of its officially released information. The fact that we have a common format for "XYZ State University" should not matter if it leads to the article being given an incorrect title. Whenever possible we should call things by their proper names, and this name is well known enough to not create problems. Also, we can link Ohio State University to The Ohio State University in the same way that we currently do the inverse. I see no reason why we shouldn't make this move. —--  Grant  .  Alpaugh  09:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Find me ONE press release from the university that doesn't say "The Ohio State University" when referring to the institution as a whole. Can't do it, can you? As station previously, if we were to apply the common name rule, the article would be titled "Ohio State" which is of course way too ambiguous for Wikipedia.
 * Support as nominator. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  09:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per para 1.9 of Naming conventions. 201.228.123.66 (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the WP:NC stated above. Apples and oranges. JPG-GR (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per naming conventions and my own comments the last time this was mooted. AFC Wimbledon does not seem relevant here. — mholland (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per use common names and the last time this was beaten to death. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The para 1.9 cited above refers to unnecessary the/a/an at the beginning of an article name; however, the linked section Naming conventions %28definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name%29 says to include it if it would be capitalized as part of the official name.  That, as well as the Official names section below, with link to The Citadel and others, makes this issue seem pretty clear to me. Neier (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; see more below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support yet again. From WP Naming conventions: On the other hand, some universities religiously refer to themselves as "... The University of X..." even in running text. If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X.

Incidentally, votes from IP addresses cannot be counted in a poll. Please sign if if you would like you have your vote counted.--Analogue Kid (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that quote makes it a pretty open and shut case as far as naming conventions go. Anyone with any new arguments care to weigh in?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your position has no support from the naming conventions, and very little support from the consensus of editors (which is more important). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait so the quote above isn't from WP:Naming conventions? All of the protests to date except one have been based on that policy.  If the policy also contains that quote, then I think that nulifies those objections.  The only other complaint has been that this was brought up before.  If that's the only reason not to move then I think there's consensus to do so.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an artful misquotation of the subpage on The. The true wording is "A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. This is a weak version of the common-name rule." There is no evidence, and we should require the same evidence as the page linked to, that this is common usage outside OSU. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

AFC Wimbledon was moved from A.F.C. Wimbledon because it was the proper name of the club. People opposed the move because normally Wikipedia includes the periods as part of a consistent naming policy, but because the title was patently incorrect, it was appropriate to move. The Ohio State University is the proper title of the institution, despite the fact that naming conventions says don't include "the" in the title of articles. When naming conventions prevent us from properly naming an article, we should overrule the conventions in favor of a proper, commonly used alternative. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The periods are a question of style; if indeed A.F.C. Wimbledon is clear majority usage, we should follow, but I doubt it is. Do most people call OSU The Ohio State University? does anyone outside the present University Administration? (See WP:MOSTRADE) If the answers are No and Almost none, as I believe, we should not be pedantic; we should speak the common tongue for the common reader. Evidence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the most common name is Ohio State or just OSU, The Ohio State University is not so uncommon to justify not using the proper name of the article. We can link Ohio State University to this page after the switch just as we like The Ohio State University to the article now.  The linking and searching argument simply doesn't fly.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you concede the only fact considered by our naming conventions. If you wish to change those conventions, their talk page is the place to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The?
The? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.179.67 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ohio State report
What is the average GPA of the school

There is no Ohio State Cortland campus
just thought i would let someone know, there is no OSU Cortland campus 128.146.115.93 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ohio State University Medical Center
I was planning on establishing an OSU Medical Center entry, but wanted to inquire with the authors of this page at to whether I should branch off of the University's entry. I noticed the stem for The James and the request for further information on the Ross Heart Hospital. I could assist in contributions to those areas. I'm assuming I would be directed to contribute Medical Center information to the University's entry, so I thought I'd start by asking. LukeRussell17 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It definitely deserves its own article. --- RockMFR 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'm building the entry on my user page and will shift to public in a few weeks. LukeRussell17 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Traditions
I was thinking about adding a small section on traditions. If it becomes too large, I would probably make it its own article and leave a link in this page. Before I get started, I want to see what others think and get some input on traditions. Some of them are covered in Student Life but I think it might warrant at least its own section. Ol Yeller Talktome 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful about sourcing; we don't need invented traditions, which can fade as rapidly as they sprang up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Things like the mirror lake jump in have been covered by tons of reliable sources. That can be included.  hmwith t   21:52, 6 September 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. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

University seal
Per the manual of style for university articles, the lead image in the infobox should be the university's academic. Does anyone possess or know where to find a higher-resolution version? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Image request
Image searching came up with nothing, as a student, I can request copies of images and marks provided I state intent. I filed a request with some padding but the guts of it are here:

When displaying icons, it is the policy of Wikipedia to show the icon in low resolution and to tag the photo with a large copyright notice, and a description of how the image obeys United States copyright law. An example of how the logo would be displayed in the article is here, and, viewing the file in detail, a user is directed  to see the aforementioned legal notices.

I am hereby formally requesting a release of a low resolution (>200 x 200pixels, < 700 x 700 pixels) image of The Ohio State University Seal, to be used as a protected, copyrighted trademark that is not used for profit. The statement of the purpose of the seal:

"The image is used to identify The Ohio State University, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.For fair use on the topic of The Ohio State University. This image is a low-resolution image of The Ohio State University Seal. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Use of the logo visually identifies the university and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC."

It is kind of an odd request as you don't usually ask for the actual file of a trademark from the owner. As expected, I got a polite "no": The university logo, which appears on Ohio State's Wikipedia is the correct and appropriate logo to use on that page and elsewhere. The seal is reserved for use by the Board of Trustees on official documents such as diplomas. It's our preference that the box logo be a universal representation of the university. I've done the research we're well within our legal rights to post the logo as public domain or by replication under the protection of copyright law. The formal request was worth a shot. Westherm (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's odd that they'll allow it to be put on commercial sweatshirts and whatnot but not to be used in a non-profit encyclopedia.  hmwith t   21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aerospace Engineering Research Laboratory
I created an article outlining the Aerospace and Astronautical Research Laboratory, a research facility owned and operated by the university. I felt the facility was important to include as an article on wikipedia because of its large budget, non-main campus location, and the magnitude of research conducted there.Famous, international companies like Boeing, GE, Honda, and Lockheed Martin all regularly use the lab and past research conducted at the lab. The article can be linked from numerous other Ohio State articles. I put also put a link under the research tab in the OSU template. Westherm (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I just changed to its official name and redirect your original page to the new one.Ohho (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Official School Colors
FYI, according to the school policy, our school color Identity is scarlet and gray: Color Specifications The Ohio State University Red (Scarlet) •PANTONE 200 •CMYK: four-color process formula: •0 cyan •100 magenta •65 yellow •15 black •Web or interactive: Use web safe hexadecimal: #990000 or RGB values: 153, 0, 0 The Ohio State University Gray •PANTONE 429 •CMYK: four-color process formula: •6 cyan •0 magenta •0 yellow •34 black •35% black •Web or interactive: Use web safe hexadecimal: #999999 or RGB values: 153, 153, 153 I personally think that we should follow/adopt these OSU standard colors through out the wiki pages but should not put any Scarlet and Gray formula just to make it look good.66.167.121.250 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are the two colors that are currently used in the infobox. Where do you see an issue?  hmwith t   21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I just made changes. The issue is that some people keep changing it to different colors.Ohho (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Honors Programs
Removed following paragraph:

For the 2006-2007 academic year, Ohio State undergraduates were awarded the following nationally competitive scholarships: one Marshall Scholarship, one Truman Scholarship, two Goldwater Scholarships, two Udall Scholarships, one Gates-Cambridge Scholarship, one Soros Fellowship, one Petrie Fellowship, one Beinecke Scholarship, one Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Scholarship, seven National Science Foundation research fellowships, two National Defense Science and Engineering Fellowships and seven Fulbright Scholarships. One student was also named to the USA Today All-USA Academic First Team. Since 2000, 49 Ohio State students have been awarded Fulbright Scholarships. In November 2007, senior physics major Jessica Hanzlik was announced as one of the 32 recipients of the 2008 Rhodes Scholarships.

This represents an extremely small subset of all of the awards the university has achieved. I reccomend starting a separate page for Ohio State University Awards if this type of information is desired. 24.12.205.22 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Greek Life info
I support the removal of the content. If it's important to someone to keep, please make a different page. There's no need to list every fraternity and sorority on this page. Ol Yeller Talktome 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Penn State and U. of Michigan do have it on their profiles (the only two I checked before deleting the section) Chriss.2 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regional Campus list to disambiguation page
Hi! I put the list of regional campuses, found within the article, into a new disambiguation page, with a link to it at the top of the article. This is how regional campuses are setup on University of Michigan's article. I also stated the regional campuses in the lead paragraph. If you think a different course of action should have been taken, please reply to this. Chriss.2 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Thgeneral, 20 June 2010
editsemiprotected

In the athletics section, there is the sentence, "Ohio State is one of only three universities (the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley being the others) to have won national championships in all three major men's sports (baseball, men's basketball, and football)."

It leaves out the fact that Stanford University has also won a title in all three sports. Football, 1926 Basketball, 1942 Baseball, 1987 and 1988

Thgeneral (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources please, before I change it? C T J F 8 3  pride 05:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to restore the editsemiprotected tag when these souces have been provided. Thanks.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   216° 24' 30" NET   14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The proper source is http://www.ncaa.com, with the histories of the individual sports (lists of annual champions) being at .../history/baseball/d1, .../history/basketball/d1, and .../history/football/fbs. Since it was unprotected, I made the change w/cite. GWFrog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Prefix or No Prefix
FYI, I have informed everyone that I could find that has recently taken part in this discussion and informed them that the discussion is taking place. I don't want to tell you want to do but I'd like to request that we steer clear of any WikiLawyering or incivility. I feel that we have a pretty competent group here for this discussion and I'd like to see this discussion come to a strong conclusion so that we can put this to rest. Ol Yeller Talktome 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * “I'm going to wait to add my own opinion until the discussion gets started.”  Actually OlYeller, since this is your idea I think we would all benefit if you were to be the first to offer up an opinion. Hammersbach (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll go type it out it my next edit.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added below. Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Common
Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." meaning that the commonly used name should be used for this article. I'm not sure that the pasted definition can be argued but the definition of common seems to be disputed so I would like to try and reach a consensus on a metric that determines what the definition of 'common' is (i.e. how many Google hits it receives, how its used most by reliable sources, etc.). Ol Yeller Talktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Metric Discussion
I think it would be best if we try to discuss this metric in terms larger than that of this article. We're obviously not setting a precedent for all of WP here but I think it's the best way to come to a consensus. Please discuss your opinions here and we can create a list of criteria for the metric in the section below. Ol Yeller Talktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that there are a few ways to determine the definition of 'common' regarding the name of an article. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." which in my opinion implies that only reliable sources are to be used when determining the common name.  To me, that means that the number of Google search hits that a name receives is not to be used when determine how common a name is.  I'm not saying that anyone suggested it was the best way but I think it's best to be clear that it not be included at all in the metric.  The next step, in my opinion, would be to determine how we would measure the usage of each name by reliable sources.  Books and newspapers would be the easiest to check but we obviously won't be able to get a census of the usage.  That being the case, my schooling would tell me to take a random sample of a predetermined number of reliable sources, find their usage, and use that information to determine to a certain degree that one name is used more than another.  In short, my first point in the metric criteria would be something to the effect of "A random sample of reliable newspapers and books is to be taken to find which name is used more than the other (The OSU or OSU).  We may be able to try and swing a census with a Google Books search and Google News Archive search but that's not really my expertise.  Point to would be something like, "The reliable sources that are randomly sampled are to be published between date X and date Y" so that the most common name at the time could be used. Any thoughts?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what is going on with all these sections, so I'll just post here. Google News returns ~26,300 results for "The" and ~123,000 results without "the". Given the general Google web search results above as well as the accreditation, Dept. of Ed, and Carnegie Foundation sources I pointed out, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence to the contrary regarding the institution's common name. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. So then regarding the metric, your opinion is that pure Google News hits is the best way to determine 'common'?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added two criteria to help others understand this discussion format. I would have liked to have waited to add to that section until the discussion was fleshed out in more detail.  Is there really no one that has seen this format before?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that pure Google News is the best way. I've already demonstrated that 3 undisputably reliable sources, Google web search, and now Google news all present very clear evidence about what is the common name of the university. Since no editor has presented either guideline or factual evidence to refute my claims about the obvious common name of the university, I don't see why the goalposts keep shifting towards more baroque means of determining the common name. What is left to discuss? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, Google Books has ~1.1 million without and ~560,000  with. What's next? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a Google Web search is a reliable source or are you suggesting that every use it finds is from a reliable source? I hope that I don't have to explain to you that both cases are incorrect. You also don't-say that Google News is the best way to determine common then immediately say that it should be used.  If you don't think it's the best way, what do you think is?  If we follow your criteria, the article should be called "Ohio State" because it returns 722k news hits (the other two uses were excluded as "Ohio State" would show up in the other two as well).  As "Ohio State" doesn't adequately describe what the article is (is it an article about the state of Ohio?), I don't see that WP:COMMONNAME can be used.  It seems that you think that this is a simple discussion and it's most obviously not or this issue wouldn't consistently brought up; it would have been solved years ago. The metric and the discussion on it are to determine a way to eradicate opinions from the discussion and follow facts.  We can call it a guideline if that's more familiar to you.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't use straw man arguments. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're deflecting. I'm sorry if I've made you defensive, if that is in fact what you're being (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth).  Can you answer any of the questions I've presented?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - The section below is for criteria that has been decided upon in this discussion. The only reason I added anything was because you didn't understand this discussion format which is widely used in the business world. You apparently agree with two of the criteria though so I left those.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the accredidation body from the criteria because it's only one body and by definition cannot determine common. Common would at least be determined by its used by more than one person/organization. I also removed Google Search hits because the search itself is not a reliable source and it's not a search of all reliable sources (most likely there are relatively few reliable sources in a Google Search, in my opinion). Ol Yeller Talktome 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't use straw man arguments: no where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your suggestion that I have is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you unilaterally get to decide what is or is not evidence? You also get to decide whether I'm making good faith attempts at consensus? No where have I advocated that an article should be named solely by the most popular relevant Google search term. Your attempts to distort my arguments and suggestions that (1) I fail to understand the complexity of the discussion and (2) would suggest employing such a facile criteria is a discredit to your otherwise good-faith attempts to build consensus on this trivial and easily decided issue. I leave it to other editors now to refute the evidence I have provided because it's obvious that editors can't decide this without resorting to bad faith assumptions. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would offer that the assumption that this is an "easily decided issue" is rather flawed given that it has been debated for quite some time now... Hammersbach (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't unilaterally get to decide but you don't either. As you (1 person) and I (1 person) disagree, I don't see how it can be added.  I never implied that you're doing something in bad faith; I'm not understanding where I could be perceived as doing that.  I'm not trying to distort your arguments and don't see that I have.  If I'm misunderstanding, please help me to understand; that's all I've been trying to do.  Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked; that wasn't my intention at all.  We disagree on some points but let's not be disagreeable. I'll be back after a few hours or tomorrow.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Metric Criteria

 * 1) Take the number of Google News hits per name and see which name is used more often.
 * ✅ Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Take the number of Google Books hits per name and see which name is used more often.
 * ✅ Without prevails. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Official Name
Discussions never seem to reach a consensus on what the official name of the University is. I sort of hope that we don't have to get this far but this section is dedicated to determining a metric for the official name if we get to that point. Ol Yeller Talktome 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the university's own FAQ page, the name was officially changed to "The Ohio State University" in 1878 as mentioned here. Common usage, including within the university, dropped the "The" but in recent years the University has re-claimed the "The."   Thus, I do not see how the official name of "The Ohio State University" can be in debate.   The question at-hand is whether or not this article should be labeled with or without the "The." ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. There have been arguements that WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored and the official name used.  I agree about the official name but others have had differing opinions in the past. Again, we can probably ignore this section for now if not completely. I only added it so that discussions about what the official name is wouldn't be included in the discussion on the common name. As I see it, they're two totally separate conversations.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that there was any real question of the official name. Its clear from the website, its only about common name usage. But, what some consider the common name of the school, may not not what others consider the common name. Local common name should be greatly considered over what may be common in say, Northern Michigan.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out the archives. I don't really have time to find the discussions for you.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arx Fortis in that there is no question about the Official Name, but the common name is IMO just "Ohio State University" - if you were to ask 100 English speaking persons across the globe "Name a university in Ohio" the answer you would get is "Ohio State University", I also accept if you asked 100 residents of Columbus the same question you would almost certainly get more answering with the "The" included. But the name that is used commonly in the English seeking parts of the globe is with out the "The". Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean no offense to you but your opinion about how the globe names the subject is irrelevant. For one, it's an opinion based on no stated facts and all I have to do is disagree with you and we're both not-wrong and back where we started.  The metric is to help end this discussion with evidence.  Again, the official name doesn't matter right now; your reply probably should have been in the section above.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

THE Ohio State University in the lead
Although, as one editor stated in a recent Edit summery, this has been gone over time and time again, the editor must be mistaken as each of the discussions that the editor must be referring to, have been regarding the article's title or name. The article name is and always has been the common name per WP:Name. As it should be. Yet the lead sentence should be the official name of the school. This would be consistent with just about every single article on wikipedia pertaining to colleges and Universities. Here are 15 examples:


 * University of Notre Dame, UCLA, Rutgers University, University of Alabama, University of Texas at Austin, Pennsylvania State University (which is similar to this article), UCSD, University of Miami, The College of William & Mary, Stanford University, United States Military Academy, University of Oklahoma, Florida A&M University, University of Southern Mississippi, and University of South Dakota.

So please explain why this article should be the only United States College or University article on wikipedia that does not begin the lead with the official name of the school. Putting it back in to be consistent with every other article--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Want to finish the above conversation so we can put this issue to sleep and have the ability to just point at a link instead of having to write out replies like this? I'm not saying I agree or disagree but I think it would make things easier on all of us to have a conclusive conversation that we can just point to when newbies come editing?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What Conversation???? This is about the lead sentence. Is there a reason why this article should be the only article that does not begin the lead with the official schools name? And whose sock puppet ip, who just made a revert, are we dealing with now? Like I said before, Duck, Duck, Goose.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Relax guy. I agree that it should begin with the school's official name but apparently someone others don't (or one person if I follow your socking theory despite the lack of presented evidence).  A discussion which concludes with a consensus would allow us to place an edit notice on this page regarding the The so the 2-3 years of bullshit regarding the The can finally end.  History shows that a simple discussion will not result in a consensus so I suggest continuing (and possibly expanding) the discussion above.  What says you?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in my "Being ganged up on" hat. Its difficult to tell when there are so many "stinky socks" in the drawer. I began this section with the intent of using it as dispute resolution. I am aware of the two above discussions, but they appear to be about the articles name, and I didn't want the lead section discussion to be clumped up with that one, because some people seem to not be able to differentiate between the two. Those other discussuins seem to have stalled, as they usually do, so if this discussion focuses on this just one topic (the lead only), then it should go much smoother.
 * Also, no one person has ever denied that the official school name is The Ohio State University. Every single other school has its official name in the lead, but I have already stated this, so why is this one being reverted so much?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a controversy in regards to those other school's names? No. Are there other schools that trademarked the word "the"? No. Clearly, we're not comparing apples to apples. The word "the" has a special meaning to the millions of people familiar with The Ohio State University. If you are not familiar with The Ohio State University, you may be reading about it on Wikipedia, and you need to know that it is The Ohio State University. Saying differently may be offensive. 169.253.162.2 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The article stood like this until Jojo switched it on sep 8. everyone was fine until then. Husounde (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * it's because it not how articles on colleges and universities are written. Please state why you think this should be the only single article on wikipedia that does not feature the official name in the lead. The question was posed, but you failed to come up with a reason before reverting. You just changed it for no policy reason.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a controversy in regards to those other school's names? No. Are there other schools that trademarked the word "the"? No. The word "the" has a special meaning to the millions of people familiar with The Ohio State University. If you are not familiar with The Ohio State University, you may be reading about it on Wikipedia, and you need to know that it is The Ohio State University. Saying differently may be offensive. 169.253.162.2 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This discussion on the official name in the lead is still open. If anyone would like to chime in as to why this article should be the only article on wikipedia that does not begin the lead with the schools official name, any suggestion would be appreciated. But just reverting and saying "I don't like it", or "thats how the article was before.." or "get consensus", without communicating on the talk page your opinion is becoming disruptive. This section has been opened for two weeks now, and so far only two other editors beside myself have officially stated opinions on the subject.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most articles on WP open with the article name, so I don't think your point is well made, as far as I can see either opening is valid, but leaning towards the pre Sept 6th version. This is not something to which you should edit war over, as far as I see there is no consensus to make the change and WP:BOLD comes into pay and think that Jojhutton should revert until a clear consensus supporting any change emerges. Codf1977 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the evidence brought forward on Universities seems to contradict the article name in the lead theory. Why should this be the only article that does not follow that pattern?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * cos sometimes that is how things are, there does not appear to be a consensus for your wording - so banging on with the same point is not going to help, it is not a NPOV issue or a factual problem, it is a copy-editing difference, not worth getting worked up about or getting a block over. Codf1977 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said antything about getting worked up or a block? Its a consistancy issue with similar articles, plain and simple. No reason to have this article be the only article that doesn't follow that pattern, unless one is just trying to be pointy. The reason, I feel, that this article gets this type of attention from so many is that Ohio State has so many haters who try and use wikipedia as a way to detract from the school in any way they can. Its the same with many BLPs. That is why we use WP:BLP as a policy to keep the POV to a minimum, but when it comes to schools, there is no such policy to point to. Its not NPOV to single out this article as a way to detract from the school. If the other articles follow this pattern, as has already been established, then this should as well. If you want a policy to state this as fact, I'm sure one can be written, otherwise the pointiness needs to halt and we need to move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * you need to accept that consensus is against you. Husounde (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And what consensus are you referring to? I believe that for consistancies sake, the overall majority consensus appears to agree that ALL college articles should begin the lead with the school's official name. Can you find a consensus that may say otherwise?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the consensus on THIS ARTICLE is against you. Look at the article history and stop with the consistency arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_State_University&action=history the article is full protected because you keep edit warring against consensus. Husounde (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus in article history. did you not notice that you were the only one changing it to your version, against a bunch of varied accounts and IPs? Husounde (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While you work this through, I've protected the article so it maintains some stability. Ged UK  21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SOLVED I just flipped a coin. It came up "heads", which means the article is "Ohio State University" and the lead sentence in the article is "The Ohio State University" ... that's about the only way we'll ever get closure on this issue is with a coin toss and everyone to buy into it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's one way to do it it, although I'm not sure all will buy into it. I of course agree with your final assessment, with the title of the article being the common name, while the official name begins the lead, just as every other collegearticle does.Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * no, it should go back to way it was before jojhutton started edit warring with everyone to get his version in. Husounde (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not "my version" its the correct and consistent version. Its the only version that is consistent with all other similar articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But does not reflect the consensus of other editors - so it should be reverted to the pre-jojhutton state. Codf1977 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What consensus?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By my reading you are the only editor that that is advocating the change. Codf1977 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So User:OlYeller21 and User:Paulmcdonald do not count, is that what you are saying? Besides, consenus isn't a vote, its based on interpretation of policy, guidelines, and precedent.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

well User:OlYeller21 says "I'm not saying I agree or disagree" and User:Paulmcdonald is not advocating anything other than the line his coin took.Codf1977 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time provide a link before you misquote someone or take their words out of context. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio_State_University&diff=385213495&oldid=385212597 Heres a diff to look at, and its not out of context.] And as far as PaulMcDonald, you don't get to decide how others come to their conclusions.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * here's a link Husounde (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who hasn't actually been in this discussion previously and rarely if ever puts in any edits other than fixing vandalism, I offer the following: would it help with consensus at all if, say, I pointed out that 1) I agree entirely with User:Jojhutton's actions to maintain consistency, and 2) that I haven't made such edits myself only because Jojhutton usually got to it before I did? (My suspicion is that the answer is "no, it doesn't help much; this is not a popularity contest or vote"). The point remains, however, that for largely inexplicable reasons there are folks who make a point of excluding the "The" from Ohio State's name as a veiled insult, and so sticking to consistency is arguably a Good Idea. And the evidence so far shows that the consistent approach is to have the full name in the article lead. Accusing one guy of fighting a one-man edit war while not showing any non-ad hominem evidence for your position seems to me to not be in the spirit of WP:AGF. Just a thought. --Viqsi (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked through this, and can come to no other conclusion but that the article should have "The" in its title, as should the lead paragraph. It's the common usage, and how I got to this article in the first place. It looks very much like Jojhutton is simply edit-warring against consensus, so this page shouldn't be protected, and if Jojhutton continues, s/he should simply be blocked. Lithistman (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Still there is no policy or guideline reason given for the POV removal of words from the official name of the school, causing this article to be the only single article that does not have the official name in the lead. Jojhutton (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at the project is to have consistency among the articles, so it should be corrected at the earliest possible moment.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still don't see where jojhutton has consensus. It was all settled until he started changing it in August. Husounde (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. A lot happens when you don't edit for 5 months. The consensus was achieved at the University Wiki-project. The consensus was for article consistency and for all the article titles be the common name, and the "official name" in the lead.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

editprotected WikiProject Universities appears to have reached a consensus that university articles should start with the full official name of the university (at least, there hasn't been any further debate on the topic after this was suggested and agreed to by two others present - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities for the discussion, which is about three and a half weeks old). Jojhutton, two weeks ago, pointed out the results of this discussion on this talk page (immediately above this request, in fact), and there has been no dissenting comment since. I therefore wish to formally request that the opening sentence of this article be changed to the following:
 * The Ohio State University, commonly referred to as Ohio State or OSU, is a public research university located in Columbus, Ohio.

Thanks! --Viqsi (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Avic ennasis   @ 06:58, 8 Kislev 5771 / 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Harmonization. The question of whether "The" belongs at the front of a name is an irresolvable issue in terms of whatever an institution is free to call itself. But Wikipedia, in its titling, needs to adhere to a common practice. It is a matter of grammatical parallelism. When professional writers form a list, they don't make some headwords in the entries nouns, some verbs, some prepositions, etc., nor do they start some of the noun phrases without "The" and some with it. Besides "The Ohio State University," other institutions have similarly designated their names ("The Pennsyvania State University," "The University of Southern Mississippi"). That is their business. But Wikipedia needs one consolidated, consistent, predictable practice in its listings. Failure to adhere to parallelism (including bypassing of "The" as the first word) will contribute to bedlam or an impression of it. Perhaps the thoughtful people who insist on "The Ohio State University" can be satisfied if the title of this article becomes "Ohio State University, The." If that's the only way out of the dark, I'm for it. Putting "The" at the front of this name is not a consistent option unless it is done for all other institutional names. Rammer (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD
To the anon ip who is reverting against consensus. Its BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS...., not BOLD, REVERT, REVERT BACK. Making changes without reason and removing content without explanation is considered vandalism and could and should be reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's User:149.4.115.3. I left a user talk message for him/her.   71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sports controversy
I pretty much said it in my edit summaries, but if they haven't been seen: it should be mentioned, but not in its own section and as lengthy as it is now. Move the info to other articles as necessary. In addition, the POV tag comes from the last paragraph- the SI article is taken as fact here, but it has come under fire: 1, 2, 3, for example.  Spencer T♦ C 23:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are users on here who continue to decide to leave up "cited" but incorrect articles. If Time runs a slanderous article, that is proven incorrect, do we still cite it? No we do not. An article for a lawsuit against http://www2.nbc4i.com/sports/2011/jun/03/2/football-buckeye-dad-threatens-sue-si-ar-518342/ and then showing that no violations occurred, seconded by the NCAA, proving that these activities did not happen http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20110723/SPORTS02/707239904/0/Sports01/NCAA-will-not-further-punish-Ohio-State and if they would have been proven true, they would be punished, which they are not. Therefore, the quote should be removed. OSU is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty by one sports illustrated article, then innocent only by public opinion. dabucks (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Buckeyeboydabucks (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, not truth. And I'm particularly disturbed by the idea that you believe a lawsuit making allegations is sufficient evidence for...well, anything but the fact that there is a lawsuit and the parties disagree.  With that said, this section does need to be shortened considerably in this article and if this material is removed as part of an effort to address WP:DUE - and it almost certainly should since it's quite detailed - then I'm ok with that.
 * In the future, it would be helpful if you provided more information in your edit summaries, especially if there is an ongoing discussion taking place somewhere with additional details. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to know what of the article you find verifiable? The writer has one source listed, a questionable person to being with, then goes on to throw out accusations with no proof. Have you read the article? If you have, please show me where there is any VERIFIABLE proof. If you have not, please read it and find out for yourself. I'm disturbed that a person who has clearly taken an interest on the subject is completely unaware of the situation. The false article part will be removed unless you can give a VERIFIABLE reason to any information in the article. dabucks (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your understanding of verifiability is at odds with how we use the term in Wikipedia. The source itself is verifiable - anyone can locate a copy of Sports Illustrated and check that the article matches (or doesn't match) the way it is cited in the article.  The article might be wrong but that, too, must be demonstrated using sources that are reliable (and that appears to be what Spencer is doing above which is the right way to go about it instead of asserting that the article is wrong without presenting evidence which is how you seem to have gone about this).
 * Incidentally, my interest is more about process than content. The objections initially raised were insufficient to justify removing well-sourced material and that is why I intervened. ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Humor me this, if there are articles like this http://www.regrettheerror.com/2008/04/07/la-times-officially-retracts-article-about-tupac-shakur-shooting/ or http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/06/20/206269/amazon-ipcc-climategate-sunday-times-jonathan-leake-simon-lewis-apology-retraction/ or even this http://www.deseretnews.com/article/640067/Time-magazine-also-retracts-its-Vietnam-nerve-gas-story.html are from reputable sources, with false information given by "sources", but yet no one would use these to cite any information, why would someone trust a Sports Illustrated article that has no bearing, has been proven false to not only the school, but also by the NCAA and the United States Government, and cite it as a verifiable source? BuckeyeScholar (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I struggle to find a reason why this is given its own section in the article. No other university that has suffered a high-profile athletic scandal (including University of Alabama, Auburn University, University of Michigan, and Indiana University Bloomington) has been given such an extensive section on their pages. Southern Methodist University, whose football program was given the most severe punishment in the history of college football, doesn't even have a section on their university's page devoted to the scandal. It should be mentioned under the athletics section of the article and given much more extensive coverage in the Ohio State Buckeyes and Ohio State Buckeyes football pages, but it shouldn't be given such a prominent place on the university's page. It seems like a blatant attempt to give the entire university a black eye. --buckeyes1186 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article title debate - The Ohio State University vs. Ohio State University
I've read all the debate on this talk page about what the title of this article should be. Clearly, it should be The Ohio State University. For the record, I am not an alumnus of the school, but I do have many friends and relatives who are alumni. But I have thoroughly researched this issue with absolutely no bias, wanting only to learn what is appropriate. Amazingly, the most important key point missed in all the back-and-forth is that, per university guidelines and style protocals, the school name MUST (not "should") always include "The" whenever the full name (including "University") of the school is being used. According to the school, "Ohio State University" is NEVER appropriate and this should be respected by Wikipedia. It IS acceptable, in certain applications and in subsequent usages within the same document or other form, to use the alternate references, "Ohio State" and "OSU." But NEVER in its original reference. Quite simply, when "University" is included, then "The" MUST also be used. And the reverse also applies; when "The" is included, then "University" MUST also be included. When one is not used, then the other is not permitted to be used. So it is perfectly acceptable, for example, to have "Ohio State" on their basketball jerseys. However, it would not be appropriate, or allowed, to have "Ohio State University" or "The Ohio State" on the jerseys. Thoroughly browse the school's Web site (http://www.osu.edu/) and you will not find any contradictions to the information I am providing. Most telling is that the university's style guide (http://www.osu.edu/resources/styleguide.html#o) verifies this information. From a lighter, more practical standpoint, I am very confident that if you ask 100 random alumni of the university where they went to school, particularly if they are completing a job application or the like, they will, in almost every case, write "The Ohio State University" or, alternately, "Ohio State." If they are answering the question verbally, they will almost always say either "Ohio State" or, proudly, "The Ohio State University." Rarely will you find an alumnus use "Ohio State University" because the THE is engrained in them. I understand that Wikipedia has "common usage" guidelines. For purposes such as titling an encylopedic article, the common usage, without question, is The Ohio State University. One final note: "The" has been an official part of the university's name since 1878 (see http://www.osu.edu/news/history.php). Most colleges and universities do NOT have "The" as part of their name, but this school does, and has for 138 years. I hope this will be properly remedied by changing the article title to The Ohio State University, as it always should have been. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 00:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The official name can be considered, but it is not www.tosu.edu; in quotation marks, "The ~" gets 1/4th the results; the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress consistently omits 'the' for all current (2 U.S. Senator and 8 U.S. Representative) bios, albeit consistency within a single source. Dru of Id (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, two administrators advised me previously that using the "help me" on an article's talk page is not only appropriate for problems or concerns with the article, but preferred. Second, I have no idea what you (user "Dru of Id") are talking about or how your very confusing comments have anything to do with the issue at hand. And using the university's URL as an example of why "The" is not appropriate for this article's title is, with all due respect, nonsense. Their protocal and style guide for name usage applies to standard text and oral applications, not their URL. However, as I indicated in my original comments, "OSU" IS appropriate and permitted in specified contexts anyway. If you're truly interested in my concerns, re-read my comments and do your research. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to have a chat with any administrator who thinks that this talk page should have had a permanent banner . Those who are interested can watchlist and discuss it here, of course. For those of us who try to help users with questions (particularly those from new users), having to remember that OSU will always be on the list of people who need help—even though it's not a person, and no one here needs help—simply makes no sense. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohio State is not the only university with a "The" in its official name. The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Michigan, the University of Arizona, etc. etc. None of them have a "The" in their article titles and Ohio State should not be any different. "The Ohio State University" may be official in their style guide but the same goes for a lot of other universities. No change is necessary. I hate to be rude, but 99% of the people who insist upon THE Ohio State University are egotistical alums who like to use that to lord it up over other people. That is not valid Wikipedia policy. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's clear to me that it should be Ohio State University.  Enigma msg  03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it's clear to me that it should be the The Ohio State University. Hammersbach (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "it's clear to me that it should be the The Ohio State University" Well ok, you can call it "the The Ohio State University" all you want, but your stance is not the consensus. The the the.  Enigma msg  17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A rather childish, and timely, response from an administrator... Hammersbach (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's blindingly clear that it should not be the The Ohio State University, and it's clear to others as well.  Enigma msg  00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I'm a little late to the discussion but I think this should be moved to The Ohio State University. Anyone will tell you its The. You see commentators say it during games and the players themselves call it The Ohio State University.-- Astros4477 ( talk ) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is it oft referred to with the article, but the "the" is even underlined in the seal, unlike in the UMich and UT-Austin seals.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OSU College of Optometry
I'm new, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this question but here it goes. I noticed that there is a list of Ohio State's colleges in this article and several of them have live links to their own Wikipedia pages. Is anyone planning to make pages for the other colleges and link them to this article? I can't write any of them myself because of conflict of interest. I work for the College of Optometry and would love to collaborate if someone starts working on a page for it. I know I'm supposed to give outside sources, but I've had a hard time finding them. So, as a starting place here's a link to our History page: http://www.optometry.osu.edu/aboutTheCollege/history.cfm. And this is a link to our Toppled Top page: http://optometry.osu.edu/toppledtop/. Can it have it's own Wikipedia page that links to our page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie at Ohio State Optometry (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at Category:Optometry schools in the United States, it appears as though few optometry schools have standalone articles. Perhaps creating a subsection within this article and then redirecting Ohio State University College of Optometry to Ohio State University (neither of which exist right now) might make the most sense.  Spencer T♦ C 15:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there aren't sufficient "outside sources" to create an article then it's likely that an article shouldn't be created. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To not make us an article would go against the WikiProject Universities goal to "Create a page for each and every university and college..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities). To make us a subsection of our university would go against the standard already established by other colleges and universities, which goes against the WikiProject Universities goal to "Standardize the structure and content of all college and university articles." I was hoping the College of Optometry page would mimic the structure of the College of Dentistry's page ([]). I will create something to that effect in my Sandbox. 140.254.88.43 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it's a misunderstanding of the Wikiproject's goal to believe that its members plan to create articles for each constituent part of every college or university. In other words, you're talking about a part of a college when the project is discussing entire colleges and universities.  Second, even if you were correct then please keep in mind that small groups of editors (e.g. Wikiprojects, those of us in this discussion) can not overrule broader project-wide consensus.  In particular, every article must meet our general notability guidelines and those guidelines depend quite heavily on there being multiple independent sources.  That there are other articles that don't meet those guidelines and have escaped broader attention from the community doesn't give you license to ignore those guidelines.  But please feel free to work on something in a sandbox and see what you can come up with! ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ohio State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061230092419/http://thecenter.ufl.edu:80/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Merit_Schol_95-04.xls to http://thecenter.ufl.edu/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Merit_Schol_95-04.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120731113145/http://www.columbusdispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/23/20060823-G1-04.html to http://www.columbusdispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/23/20060823-G1-04.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ohio State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140115191304/http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php to http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060929233821/http://library.osu.edu:80/sites/archives/manuscripts/part1a.htm to http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/manuscripts/part1a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Prominent inclusion of knife incident under "History"
There is no rational reason to so prominently include reference to the November 28 knife incident in the "History" section. As it currently stands, the "History" section dedicates more than a quarter of its characters to this incident--more than the entire previous century of Ohio State's history. No mention is made of the substantial progress and expansion Ohio State made throughout the 20th century. In fact, the only Ohio State event the "History" section currently notes between the years 1916 and 2016 was Dr. Michael Drake's 2014 appointment as President. But Dr. Drake's one sentence is contrasted by a full paragraph about the November 28 knife incident. Certainly, this incident is not so substantial in the light of Ohio State's entire history to warrant such a significant portion of the section.

A discussion could be had regarding whether the incident merits any inclusion on Ohio State's page. The "History" section would certainly benefit from information about the University from the 20th century. Perhaps if the section was expanded, one or two sentences referencing the knife incident with a link to its external page may be appropriate. But as for now, I find it necessary to omit the paragraph as it currently stands. UncleJoe20 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you not "find it necessary" until there is consensus for the change, which I presume was your reason for beginning the discussion here. For my part, I don't feel strongly about it either way, other than that it should not be removed without consensus. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also my opinion that what your second sentence really indicates is that the History section is deficient in its coverage of "the entire previous century" of OSU's history, not that the paragraph concerning the attack is overly long or undue. The remedy for that problem is not to remove or decimate the discussion of the one historical event that is adequately covered. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   01:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently General Ization is on the right here. The correct way to have a proper history of OSU is not to delete the part which reflects a current, important terror event, but instead, to add content on the past.  Imagine if one were to add a detailed, well-documented section on 1940's OSU, and to have someone delete it just because there is little content on 2000-2010 OSU.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I have added a expand section template to the History section to encourage its expansion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You requested expansion, and I added a section including some important, verifiable history from the early 20th century (the murder of OSU student Theora Hix by a prominent OSU faculty member), sourced from OSU's own pages (they felt it is important enough to have on their website). Books have been written about this; it's not like this is an obscure event. It was deleted with no explanation and no discussion. You said above that "The remedy for that problem is not to remove or decimate the discussion of the one historical event that is adequately covered," but you did this with my edits, which I spent time on. Could you please explain? Why should I spend time editing Wikipedia if people just unilaterally revert changes they don't like? -Qbert 212.38.183.142 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment 174.101.57.221 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC) You must also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".

"The" yet again
I don't understand why "The" is not included in the title of the article. Based on WP:THE (specifically, the "when to avoid" section), it appears that this page should include the definite article in its title. I don't think anyone would dispute that the university capitalizes it in all of its press releases/kits/etc. I also doubt that anyone would dispute that the usage is "reasonably common" (note that this requirement is a much lower bar than the most common variant). And I also doubt that anyone would assert that common usage has "overwhelmingly rejected the The". Since the usage of "The" is supported by all three litmus tests, it strikes me that those who oppose its inclusion here simply don't like it, when the usage of the definite article at TCNJ has garnered exactly zero objections, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell "The College of New Jersey" is the official name of that instutition. And as far as I can tell, the official name of this institution is "Ohio State University", in spite of www.osu.edu titling itself with the "The". Calling it "The Ohio State University" appears to me to be a stylistic thing, although if someone could show me where it originated, I might change my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the article, though the link appears to be dead. You can find also find it here, which states "In 1878 the college's name was changed to The Ohio State University." I don't think you can get a more clear-cut statement than that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The schools official name is The Ohio State University. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is not. As far as the title of the article is concerned, many opponents of a name change usually use the naming guideline at WP:COMMONNAME to justify not using the schools official name as the title of the article. Some articles on Wikipedia routinely use the longer official names of topics as article titles. Despite that, there never seems to any clear consensus to change the articles title to The Ohio State University. There have been a few "move requests" over the years, all ending in no consensus, but there hasn't been one in quite a while and I wouldn't object at maybe taking a look at it again to see if consensus has changed on the matter.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that local consensus here does not (and more importantly, should not) overrule broader consensus at WP:THE. And the argument to use the common name is based on a faulty understanding of WP:AT, of which it is a part. AT specifically states "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name" and goes on to cite WP:THE for further guidance on the issue. Policy and guidelines support the inclusion of "The" in the title of this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of WP:THE. Thats a good argument. I can also use that same argument for page moves I was considering at Sun and Moon as well. Good info to know.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  17:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So shall we start an RM? Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See below. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AGREED! It has been that way long enough for this Wikipedia to have changed it/., As with algebra, it does not have to be understood to make sense. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:ADA2:7904:8394:D53F (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't quite figured out the whole commenting thing, but the legal name for the institution (per trustee minutes) is "The Ohio State University", it's a pretty commonly asked question apparently. 17:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjessberger (talk • contribs)

Ohio State University vs The Ohio State University
Okay. Here's a suggestion for a compromise. Instead of demanding that the "The" be either added or stricken entirely, we should remain objective. How about this: in the first sentence of the article, it is referred as "Ohio State Univeristy" but then goes on to say "(commonly referred to as Ohio State, OSU, or The Ohio State University)". This acknowledges the presence of its title while remaining neutral. The general public knows Ohio State as Ohio State University, while insiders know it as "The Ohio State University" for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the title of the article should be named as the subject is most regularly referred. See Honda or Chrysler and not their entire names as examples.  The true name of the subject is The Ohio State University (I hope no one is stubborn enough to make me prove that).  The full name of the subject should be mentioned in the article and not as "commonly referred to" but as its true name. From this current version, the only thing that I think should change is the name over the seal in the info box.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be The Ohio State University. Any Buckeye will tell you that. Its not a made up name, its on every piece merchandise about the school.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Everything says "The Ohio State University". Look at the logo. Look at the LAW! The wiki rule says that if it's frequently used then we can put "The" in the title and for debate to be this fiery it's obvious that "The" is used. People against the move are probably from rival schools. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I interrupted two men talking about college ball on an elevator because one asked who "they" were playing that week, and the other said "Ohio State", and as part of the Ohio diaspora, I said, "Is that anything like "THE Ohio State?" and they were puzzled.
 * This happened in California. Guess Ohio enlightenment has not shined everywhere. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:7471:6558:41FE:5E44 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your anecdote is irrelevant and your elevator friends are incorrect. 169.253.162.2 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'll buy that the real name is "The Ohio State University" and also buy that many people call it "Ohio State University" and/or "Ohio State" -- but the question comes to what should the article be called? Here's a few examples:
 * 1) Homer Woodson Hargiss (his full real name) was often called "Bill Hargiss"
 * 2) James Earl Carter, Jr. (his full real name) went by Jimmy Carter

There are countless examples where one subject has a "full" name and the article is named after the "common" name of the subject, and then there are countless other articles where the "full" name is the article name. And the bottom line is that none of it matters--what matters is what does consensus think we should do with this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * William Marshall Rice University and Leland Stanford, Junior University are the full and official names of other universities, it doesn't mean they are the names of the article. As a point of reference, the Dept. of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS accrediation all refer to Ohio State University without a "The". Madcoverboy (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Jeffrey's suggestion.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that any school should be listed by its official name. Redirects should be used to remove any confusion.  I don't think anyone would be shocked to search for "Ohio State University" and be ridirected to "THE Ohio State University".   Moreover, when in use in discussion in other articles, the university should be mentioned using the official name.   By naming the article the official way, you users can simply wikilink the name like this: The Ohio State University, rather than this: The Ohio State University or, even worse, this: The Ohio State University.
 * As for the other University examples given, I posit that the school articles SHOULD be listed using their formal name with redirects used as needed.   The same logic follows University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.   There are many colloquial terms for this school ("UNC," "Chapel Hill," "Carolina," etc.) but the article is literally University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, even though that is rarely the common usage in conversation.
 * Moreover, what is "common" in one area or to one person may be something completely different in another area or to someone else. For example although most people might attribute "Carolina" with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, many alumni of University of South Carolina, people in the area of Columbia, SC, and people associated with other schools in the Southeastern Conference would disagree. The same can be said for "USC" (University of Southern California vs. University of South Carolina).++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedia guideline on common names before insisting that the official name be used. As I pointed out above, several reliable sources (including the organization accrediting the university) already refer to the university without the prefixed article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Google bombing to assess common name usage reveals that "The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits while "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits. Although it is not the case here, for ambiguous acronyms such as USC, that query appropriately returns a disambiguation page. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * School names change (regarding the name at accreditation). If the situation wasn't ambiguous, we wouldn't still be having this conversation.  The school identifies itself with the prefix and the US gov't recognizes the prefix as can be seen on tax forms.  If we want to actually move forward with this conversation, I think we need to decide if its 'official' name even matters and what we define as 'official' because those seem to be the two points of contention.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (At Madcoverboy)The Common naming convention is a good idea, but there are too many assumptions being made here. First, Madcoverboy seems to assume that what he/she considers the common name for the school, is what everyone else assumes is the common name. Not only is that not true, but historically, this has been a problem for like, ever. Secondly, Madcoverboy, assumes that wikipedia policies are binding, and not subject to interpretation. I can most likely safely say that just about every policy and guideline on wikipedia has seen a "consensus overrule" at some point or another.
 * Now, this seems to be more or less a POV issue, rather than a straight up and down issue or common name conventions. As so, since the local common name, as well as the official name of the school is THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, common sense dictates that the full official and local common name be used.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming nothing, I'm simply stating extant consensus, operant guidelines, and facts from the world at large. User:Jojhutton has just articulated the I just don't like it argument for overturning stable Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe anyone is disputing its official name is "The Ohio State University". This is stated unambiguously in the first sentence. The issue is whether or not the title of the primary article should include "the". Wikipedia guidelines specify that the common name used by reliable sources, rather than official name, should be the name used for the article. Given that the Department of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS all refer to the university without the "the" and clear preferences of approximately 7 million websites referring to it sans-"the", the common name of the university clearly has no "the" and thus the article should remain named exactly as it is now. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the 'sense' can't fundamentally be 'common' if a discussion spanning a few years can't be concluded. Like I said, let's discuss what our definitions of 'common' and 'official'. Is 60%/40% no-prefix/prefix mean common or does it need to be 80%/20%? The percentages are representation of whatever metric we determine.  If we decide that we'd like to use the official name because the common name is too ambiguous, is 'official' determined by the highest gov't body's usage, the school's usage, publications' usage, etc.? Like I mentioned before, the IRS and OSU use the prefix but Macoverboy showed that the body that gave OSU its accreditation and some other large gov't bodies don't use the prefix. We're all basically spouting out (presumably) facts without actually getting anywhere.  I'll start a new section with a more structured discussion when I get some time today.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (undent) WP:COMMONNAME clearly states: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name..." Again, to the extent that there needs to be any more discussion, it should ensure that the article is titled in a way that reflects the common usage in reliable sources. As I stated before, no one is disputing the official name. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No Change as per Madcoverboy and others, WP:COMMONNAME is very clear use Ohio State University. The Ohio State University already redirects to the page so Arx Fortis's point about easy linking is moot. Codf1977 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Change as per Jojhutton and others, I don’t believe WP:COMMONNAME is as clearcut as some may have us believe. It also states, “Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name…” (emphasis mine), and the legal, official and proper name is The Ohio State University. Hammersbach (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But you have to look at the examples given on WP:COMMONNAME-Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"), Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus"), Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea") and Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos") coupled with the banner on the main website which omits the The, and the results from google analysis by Madcoverboy ("The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits vs "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits.) all point to the common name being "Ohio State University". Codf1977 (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good examples, and bad, for both sides can be found all over wickedlypedia. 3.9m Hits on Google, while not the most, clearly show that its use is common. Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order Should this discussion be listed on WP:RM? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments about the official name are with regards to the direction this conversation usually takes. If it's not disputed, that's great.  The only reason I'm hesitant to apply WP:COMMONNAME is the section that says, "..technically correct but rarer forms."  I interpret this to be talking about situations where the technically correct name is used far less often than the common name.  Also in this case, the the commonality of both methods is disputed and should be addressed more adequately.  In my opinion, determining a metric off the bat would be the best method of determining 'common' in this case. As for listing the discussion at WP:RM, I don't really care either way. If we don't have enough editors here to come to a intelligent consensus, then maybe we should list it there.  The problem I usually see happen is that many editors who are unfamiliar with WP guidelines/policies get involved and try to turn it into a vote.  I'd like to keep the discuss informed unless we need more eyes but I wouldn't say we should attempt to hide the discussion in any way.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OlYeller, since you have suggested (three times now) that a "metric" be established, would it be possible for you to maybe take a swing of the bat and actually recommend one? Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I realize I've been doing a lot of talk and not backing it up. I've been pretty busy the last two days and haven't gotten the time to start it out.  Sorry about that.  I'll get to it within the next two hours.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check google images under "ohio state university", you'll see that the school itself can't decide what its "common name" is. For example, note this basketball game shot. Their shirts most definitely do not say "THE Ohio State". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, adding "THE" would cost extra.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They also don't say "University"... your evidence is anecdotal at best. You could show the same with a huge number of other school sports' uniforms. Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The position that a T-shirt would always use an official name is unsound.   By that logic, Clemson University would just be "Clemson."  University of Southern California would simply be "USC."  Examples abound. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I still think the common name is Ohio State University. Certainly the official name is "The Ohio State University", and that's duly noted. However, this article certainly should not be moved until someone can prove that "The..." is the common name. Everything I've seen points to "Ohio State University" as the more common usage.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Change. The "common name" arguments, whilst being used to advance the "not change" position, in fact support the changing of the title. The flaw in their argument is the assumption that the omission of "the" is, in fact, the "common name." 99% of state residents, and virtually any person worldwide, who follows U.S. collegiate athletics would consider "the Ohio State University" to be the correct AND common name. Hneilm (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the mere fact that this question has garnered so much controversy demonstrate that "the Ohio State University" has broad enough common support to invoke the WP rule that a technical name should only yield to a common name if the common name is "substantially" higher in usage. The "Jimmy Carter" article has been offered regarding this argument, however only a small percentage of the population would have referred to President Carter as "James Earl Carter," whereas as, substantial percentage of persons are aware that Ohio residents, OSU alumni, and a broad swath of collegiate supports fans are all aware that the correct name is "the Ohio State University..." and that stating otherwise inside the state of Ohio, will generate a verbal correction from the listener(s). Hneilm (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Richard Strauss and the Student Sex Abuse Scandal
The student sex abuse scandal at the Ohio State University is completely absent from Wikipedia. (Indeed Ohio State Wrestling does not even have a wikipedia page! Which is a glaring omission, given its prominence and historical success). The scandal should be included here, too. Likely in the history section as it is for similar scandals at Pennsylvania State University and Michigan State University. Fluous (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

School publications section?
I came across this publication while adding sourcing and it made me think someone with more insight into the school might like to do a section about the scholarly/academic journals put out by OSU. []. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020
An edit I would suggest adding to the tuition/admissions section is an updated price for the 2020 school year. The most recent tuition listed is from the 2014-2015 school year, which listed the tuition beginning at $10,037. According to Osu’s website http://undergrad.osu.edu/cost-and-aid/basic-costs the updated tuition for an Ohio resident begins at $11,084 with an additional $12,708 for room+board and for a non-resident beginning at $32,061 and an additional $12,708 for room+board. Relecteurj (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Relecteurj (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Any objections to this edit?
I noticed that my edit listing Ohio State as a:


 * The flagship school of the University System of Ohio
 * Public Ivy
 * Ranked as one of the best Midwestern public universities in the United States
 * Had an open admissions policy until the late 1980s; since the early 2000s, has become greatly more selective in admissions.
 * Is classified as a Research I university by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education

Was considered too positive to be included. And I'm uncertain why. It's a high-tier, good - but not exceptional on the level of Michigan, UCLA, UC Berkeley, et al. - flagship university school. And probably the best school in the state. If this was written in 1990. I'd agree that the edit would be ludicrous. But the next applicant year will likely see the average ACT score of the college be somewhere above a score of 30. The individuals admitted in 2020 had an ACT score of 29.5. Which places the present admitted student in the college above the 95th percentile in admissions and around the University of Georgia - which is undeniably pretty selective. All of these assertations are well-sourced, cite reputable sources, and widely mirror existing statements found on other articles about American universities. Is there anything about the edit that an editor finds wrong or objectionable? I'll modify "ranked as among the best public universities" to "ranked as among the best Midwestern public universities" if someone wants to change that. And I wouldn't object to modify my original edit to state that. Since Ohio State definitely isn't in the top-7 public universities in the nation — and almost certainly won't be for the foreseeable future. (The seven being UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, Duke, University of North Carolina, Michigan, and University of Virginia) TeaXaviers (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My objection is not that your edits have been "too positive" but that they're overly detailed for the lede and misplaced there. Please check out exactly how those other articles are written. And note that the lede should be a summary of information already included in the body; it should not introduce new information that isn't already there and it shouldn't need citations (because they're already in the body of the article). ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. I wasn't aware of that rule. Are you okay with the new version posted? I transferred much of it to the rankings, history, and academics sections. TeaXaviers (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Much better! I moved it to the second paragraph of the lede and made some edits to trim details. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Including "Big Ten" in the infobox twice
Why do we need to have the "Big Ten" included in the infobox twice, once in the sporting_affiliations parameter as "Big Ten Conference" and then in the academic affiliations parameter as "Big Ten Academic Alliance"? All members of the athletic conference are also in the academic alliance; it's redundant to include both (and the athletic conference preceded the academic alliance and is clearly the more prominent and meaningful organization for the institutions). Moreover, our documentation for the template defines this parameter as: "Academic organizations of which the institution is a member and provide essential definition of the institution (mission, values, activities, etc.)." How is membership in this organization "essential [to the] definition of the institution"? What critical information are readers supposed to learn from us including this in the infobox? We can't include every organization to which this university belongs - it would likely be a list with hundreds of organizations! - so why is this one so important and informative for readers that we must include it? ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023
In the rankings and recognition section, national and global subject-wise rankings are based on 2020/21. Please use our news rankings for 2022–2023 for this section. Saminkabir278 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023
Change instances of “The Ohio State University” to “Ohio State University”

The school is referred to by itself and some of its students as “the Ohio state university,” but official sources don’t support that. The higher learning commission, the commission that grants the university its accreditation, has them list as “Ohio state university.” The article is titled “ohio state university” but refers to it as “the Ohio state university” multiple times which is incorrect. I think it may be appropriate to include a section about how the university and students sometimes refer to it as “the Ohio state university” but that is not actually the name it is accredited under.

Link for reference: https://www.hlcommission.org/component/directory/?Itemid=&Action=ShowBasic&instid=1584 68.38.251.17 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is addressed here. As we do with individuals, we respect the right of institutions to determine and to advise how they are to be named. In this case, The Ohio State University was thusly named in the state legislation that gave it that legal name in 1878. There is ample evidence of the use of the "The" prefix in references to OSU. That HLC may omit "The" is not our concern. As for the title of the article, we regularly omit "The" in article titles when it is not necessary for disambiguation and would complicate searches. Note, however, that The Ohio State University is a redirect to this article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As for "official sources don't support that", you can't get any more official than Ohio's Ohio Revised Code Section 3335.01: . <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As well as the legal battles they have fought over their use of the "the"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Lane Avenue Bridge
I've asked at Talk:Lane Avenue Bridge, is the Lane Avenue Bridge part of the OSU campus? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

College colors
Colors need to be changed to correct ones “ruby and porpoise “ 772Local772 (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ohio State wants to trademark "The"?
I was reading this online. Should this be in the article? Husounde (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you advocating for including this in the article? ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating for anything. I was asking. Husounde (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After several years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office finally granted Ohio State's request to have the word "THE" trademarked on June 21, 2022. Go figure. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

lead Section - Public Ivy Status
The lead paragraph currently ends with "Admission standards tightened and became greatly more selective throughout the 2000s and 2010s." However, as is noted at top of the academics section, Ohio State is a Public Ivy. It is also listed on the | Public Ivy Wikipedia page which itself cites "| Greene, Howard R.; Greene, Matthew W. (2001). The public ivies: America's flagship public universities (1st ed.). New York: Cliff Street Books. ISBN 978-0060934590."

Other Public Ivies are given a more fitting end to their first lead paragraph that reflects their status. What first comes to mind is UVA whose article reads, "| UVA is considered a Public Ivy, or a public institution which offers an academic experience similar to that of an Ivy League university." I know at least Miami of Ohio also has a reference to it's Public Ivy status within it's lead paragraphs.

Should the lead paragraph be edited to properly reflect the Public Ivy designation by for example changing "Admission standards tightened and became greatly more selective throughout the 2000s and 2010s." to "The Ohio State University is considered a Public Ivy, a public institution which offers an academic experience similar to that of an Ivy League university."? Njb500 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohio State University → The Ohio State University – This article is currently mis-titled according to WP:THE, which prescribes using the definite article when the "the" is part of the organization's official name, is used in most organizational publications and is "is reasonably common in external sources". Please note that "reasonably common" is a much lower bar than the most common editors frequently cite to oppose including "The" in this article's title (and indeed, WP:THE notes that it prescribes a "weak version of the most-common-name rule". WP:AT instructs editors to "...not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name." I don't know that anyone will dispute that the proper, official name of the university is "The Ohio State University", or that the use of the full name is not "reasonably common". Some editors may not like it, but the correct title of this article according to current policy (which, as a reminder, represents broad consensus and should only be overturned in very rare cases and for very good reasons) includes the definite article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most reliable sources don't use The . Zarcadia (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the relevant policy pages. The requirement is not that most sources use the definite article. Only that use of the "the" is reasonably common. The two are very different bars. Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the fence, but leaning towards oppose I get that Ohio State is officially "THE Ohio State University", but nobody is going to confuse it with, say, Ohio University. And I attended college in Ohio (Youngstown State University to be exact), so I know how OCD some OSU alum can be on that kind of stuff. I would just leave it as is right now. Jgera5 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review why WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an unacceptable reason to oppose a proposal. Do you have any policy-based reasons to oppose the move? Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The definite article may be used in some sources, but it's a less common form. The essence of WP:THE is to avoid definite articles if in doubt, and in conflicts between a WP:COMMONNAME and an official name, the common name wins. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, there is no doubt in this case; it's been the official name for more than a century, and is fairly widely used (at least enough to meet the "reasonably common" threshold). And WP:THE specifically addresses the issue of common vs. official names, and it does not share your conclusion. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is no doubt in your mind; there is demonstrably doubt out there, however. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite. What is you evidence that "The Ohio State University" isn't, A: the official name, B: reasonably commonly used, and C: not explicitly rejected in common usage (you know, the three basic premises in THE). Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:THE are you deriving this three-point test from? I was referring to the opposition already voiced here; to say that "there is no doubt" is pretty clearly not true. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You're either being purposely obtuse or your reading comprehension skills need a little work. Either way, I'll quote for you:
 * Premise #1: "On the other hand, some universities only refer to themselves as "The University of X", even in running text (e.g. The College of New Jersey). If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites..."
 * Premise #2: "...and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X."
 * Premise #3: "Finally, if common usage has overwhelmingly rejected the The, then it should be omitted regardless of university usage."
 * In essence, if the answers to #s 1 and 2 are yes, and to #3 is no, then one should reasonably conclude that "The" belongs in the article title. And that is exactly the case for this article; the organization refers to itself more or less exclusively as "The Ohio State University" (when using the long form - shortened forms like "Ohio State" or "OSU" are irrelevant to this discussion), it is reasonably common elsewhere, and it has not been overwhelmingly rejected. If you think WP:UCN trumps WP:THE in all cases, then perhaps you need to start a discussion there to get THE fixed, since, as I pointed out above, it specifically addresses your objection and rejects it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:THE, "the default rule is to not include" a definite article. So the onus is on you. We can all agree that condition #1, from the lede of the naming convention, is not met. We disagree on point #2. Sometimes, "The" is capitalized in running text. But it's much more common to omit the article altogether. See for example, this Ngram or this one. As you can see, the university's preferred form lags far behind forms without "the," or with it uncapitalized. THEUNI is explicitly couched in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, which must rule the day. I will not respond further until you can discuss more respectfully. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first Ngram search actually shows that the capitalized definite article outnumbers use of the use of the lowercase for the past 2 decades, but you conveniently don't mention that (instead, it's only "sometimes" capitalized). And usage of "at Ohio State University" is a red herring; we're trying to determine whether the definite article is capitalized or not in running text. If the official name of the university was up for debate, then usage of "at Ohio State University" would be relevant, but it's not. I can be plenty respectful to those who demonstrate they deserve my respect, but I have no tolerance for people who deliberately misrepresent evidence and make spurious arguments. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BDD, with precisely the same logic. Common name trumps official name. Xoloz (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly support The one argument that opponents never address is how the university self-identifies. If we follow the argument of opponents the logic is that's how we refer to you, not how you refer to yourself. That's, at best, a crappy argument. "...the common name wins", very encyclopedic.  Hammersbach (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the university calls itself as we use the WP:COMMONNAME not the WP:OFFICIALNAME. You may not like it, but that's the policy. Zarcadia (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Parsecboy's reply to you above. Hammersbach (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't matter how the university "self-identifies". Wikipedia doesn't buy into the marketing and image campaigns of organisations. I very much doubt that even most staff (unless writing officially), students or alumni of the university would capitalise "The" in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's your position that if an organization uses its legal, official and proper name then it's merely a "marketing and image campaign"? That's an interesting take... Hammersbach (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't think organizations choose their names without considerations of image and marketing. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely they do. In fact, this is from a reference that an editor below added showing that “The” is part of the official name, “Those who wanted the name change thought the original name was too narrow in scope, and that it was inadequate for the institution that was the only beneficiary of the land grant act. President Edward Orton was insistent that a new name would separate the institution from other colleges in Ohio” That occurred back in 1878. So the question is as, what point does The Mighty Wik, which has been around since 2001, “buy in” to this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersbach (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 April 2014
 * Move to Ohio State, over the current redirect. A common name is preferred over the official name (the article's first sentence says, it is "commonly referred to as 'Ohio State'"), and its a shorter title per the "Conciseness" characteristic under WP:CRITERIA. Even this page on the university's web site is titled in bold letters, "About Ohio State", not "About The Ohio State University". Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think moving it to Ohio State will cause unnecessary confusion with the state itself, especially for non-US readers. The current title is more recognisable. Zarcadia (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No, we don't usually use the article. There are some exceptions, but not usually for universities. See WP:THEUNI. I would dispute that most sources writing about this university (or any university) capitalise "The" in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-read THEUNI - there is no requirement that most sources use the capitalized "the", only that it is reasonably common. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. "The" is a stylistic approach that does not reflect the official, or even most common, name for the university. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know where you get your facts from, but it is the official name, and WP:THEUNI does not require it to be the most common variant, only that it is reasonably common. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be the official name, by all reliable indicators. See this FAQ from their library, for example. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, duly noted and struck. Stand by my oppose per all other reasons. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:THEUNI, which specifically rebuts the Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I must note that there are several articles on Wikipedia that use the longer more official name for institutions National Collegiate Athletic Association over the common NCAA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals over the common PETA, North American Free Trade Agreement over the more common NAFTA, The Beatles over the more common Beatles, Globe Life Park in Arlington over the more common Ballpark at Arlington, and many more. Common name is one thing, but its not the complete and total rule of Wikipedia. If you you don't like the name thats fine, but its not a justification for not using the schools official title.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  17:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those "common names" you cite are mostly abbreviations. The baseball stadium in Texas also just changed its name last month (I think), so it's hardly an apt comparison either. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE among other reasons. The article is at the perfect title. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 05:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the proper title. "Ohio State" is ambiguous except in h contest where you already know its a university. We might as well call the University of Michigan " Michigan" -- people use just Michigan or Ohio State as an abbreviation when what they're talking about is totally clear, as in a football game summary, but it's always understood as just an abbreviation.  DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ohio State University vs The Ohio State University
Okay. Here's a suggestion for a compromise. Instead of demanding that the "The" be either added or stricken entirely, we should remain objective. How about this: in the first sentence of the article, it is referred as "Ohio State Univeristy" but then goes on to say "(commonly referred to as Ohio State, OSU, or The Ohio State University)". This acknowledges the presence of its title while remaining neutral. The general public knows Ohio State as Ohio State University, while insiders know it as "The Ohio State University" for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the title of the article should be named as the subject is most regularly referred. See Honda or Chrysler and not their entire names as examples. The true name of the subject is The Ohio State University (I hope no one is stubborn enough to make me prove that). The full name of the subject should be mentioned in the article and not as "commonly referred to" but as its true name. From this current version, the only thing that I think should change is the name over the seal in the info box. OlYellerTalktome 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be The Ohio State University. Any Buckeye will tell you that. Its not a made up name, its on every piece merchandise about the school.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Everything says "The Ohio State University". Look at the logo. Look at the LAW! The wiki rule says that if it's frequently used then we can put "The" in the title and for debate to be this fiery it's obvious that "The" is used. People against the move are probably from rival schools. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I interrupted two men talking about college ball on an elevator because one asked who "they" were playing that week, and the other said "Ohio State", and as part of the Ohio diaspora, I said, "Is that anything like "THE Ohio State?" and they were puzzled. This happened in California. Guess Ohio enlightenment has not shined everywhere. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:7471:6558:41FE:5E44 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your anecdote is irrelevant and your elevator friends are incorrect. 169.253.162.2 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll buy that the real name is "The Ohio State University" and also buy that many people call it "Ohio State University" and/or "Ohio State" -- but the question comes to what should the article be called? Here's a few examples:

There are countless examples where one subject has a "full" name and the article is named after the "common" name of the subject, and then there are countless other articles where the "full" name is the article name. And the bottom line is that none of it matters--what matters is what does consensus think we should do with this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Homer Woodson Hargiss (his full real name) was often called "Bill Hargiss"
 * James Earl Carter, Jr. (his full real name) went by Jimmy Carter
 * William Marshall Rice University and Leland Stanford, Junior University are the full and official names of other universities, it doesn't mean they are the names of the article. As a point of reference, the Dept. of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS accrediation all refer to Ohio State University without a "The". Madcoverboy (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Jeffrey's suggestion. Enigmamsg 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that any school should be listed by its official name. Redirects should be used to remove any confusion. I don't think anyone would be shocked to search for "Ohio State University" and be ridirected to "THE Ohio State University". Moreover, when in use in discussion in other articles, the university should be mentioned using the official name. By naming the article the official way, you users can simply wikilink the name like this: The Ohio State University, rather than this: The Ohio State University or, even worse, this: The Ohio State University. As for the other University examples given, I posit that the school articles SHOULD be listed using their formal name with redirects used as needed. The same logic follows University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There are many colloquial terms for this school ("UNC," "Chapel Hill," "Carolina," etc.) but the article is literally University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, even though that is rarely the common usage in conversation. Moreover, what is "common" in one area or to one person may be something completely different in another area or to someone else. For example although most people might attribute "Carolina" with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, many alumni of University of South Carolina, people in the area of Columbia, SC, and people associated with other schools in the Southeastern Conference would disagree. The same can be said for "USC" (University of Southern California vs. University of South Carolina).++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedia guideline on common names before insisting that the official name be used. As I pointed out above, several reliable sources (including the organization accrediting the university) already refer to the university without the prefixed article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Google bombing to assess common name usage reveals that "The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits while "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits. Although it is not the case here, for ambiguous acronyms such as USC, that query appropriately returns a disambiguation page. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * School names change (regarding the name at accreditation). If the situation wasn't ambiguous, we wouldn't still be having this conversation. The school identifies itself with the prefix and the US gov't recognizes the prefix as can be seen on tax forms. If we want to actually move forward with this conversation, I think we need to decide if its 'official' name even matters and what we define as 'official' because those seem to be the two points of contention. OlYellerTalktome 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (At Madcoverboy)The Common naming convention is a good idea, but there are too many assumptions being made here. First, Madcoverboy seems to assume that what he/she considers the common name for the school, is what everyone else assumes is the common name. Not only is that not true, but historically, this has been a problem for like, ever. Secondly, Madcoverboy, assumes that wikipedia policies are binding, and not subject to interpretation. I can most likely safely say that just about every policy and guideline on wikipedia has seen a "consensus overrule" at some point or another. Now, this seems to be more or less a POV issue, rather than a straight up and down issue or common name conventions. As so, since the local common name, as well as the official name of the school is THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, common sense dictates that the full official and local common name be used.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming nothing, I'm simply stating extant consensus, operant guidelines, and facts from the world at large. User:Jojhutton has just articulated the I just don't like it argument for overturning stable Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe anyone is disputing its official name is "The Ohio State University". This is stated unambiguously in the first sentence. The issue is whether or not the title of the primary article should include "the". Wikipedia guidelines specify that the common name used by reliable sources, rather than official name, should be the name used for the article. Given that the Department of Education, Carnegie Foundation, and NCACS all refer to the university without the "the" and clear preferences of approximately 7 million websites referring to it sans-"the", the common name of the university clearly has no "the" and thus the article should remain named exactly as it is now. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the 'sense' can't fundamentally be 'common' if a discussion spanning a few years can't be concluded. Like I said, let's discuss what our definitions of 'common' and 'official'. Is 60%/40% no-prefix/prefix mean common or does it need to be 80%/20%? The percentages are representation of whatever metric we determine. If we decide that we'd like to use the official name because the common name is too ambiguous, is 'official' determined by the highest gov't body's usage, the school's usage, publications' usage, etc.? Like I mentioned before, the IRS and OSU use the prefix but Macoverboy showed that the body that gave OSU its accreditation and some other large gov't bodies don't use the prefix. We're all basically spouting out (presumably) facts without actually getting anywhere. I'll start a new section with a more structured discussion when I get some time today. OlYellerTalktome 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME clearly states: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name..." Again, to the extent that there needs to be any more discussion, it should ensure that the article is titled in a way that reflects the common usage in reliable sources. As I stated before, no one is disputing the official name. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No Change as per Madcoverboy and others, WP:COMMONNAME is very clear use Ohio State University. The Ohio State University already redirects to the page so Arx Fortis's point about easy linking is moot. Codf1977 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * as per Jojhutton and others, I don’t believe WP:COMMONNAME is as clearcut as some may have us believe. It also states, “Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name…” (emphasis mine), and the legal, official and proper name is The Ohio State University. Hammersbach (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But you have to look at the examples given on WP:COMMONNAME-Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"), Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus"), Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea") and Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos") coupled with the banner on the main website which omits the The, and the results from google analysis by Madcoverboy ("The Ohio State University" returns ~3.9m hits vs "Ohio State University" returns ~10.2m hits.) all point to the common name being "Ohio State University". Codf1977 (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good examples, and bad, for both sides can be found all over wickedlypedia. 3.9m Hits on Google, while not the most, clearly show that its use is common. Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order Should this discussion be listed on WP:RM? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments about the official name are with regards to the direction this conversation usually takes. If it's not disputed, that's great. The only reason I'm hesitant to apply WP:COMMONNAME is the section that says, "..technically correct but rarer forms." I interpret this to be talking about situations where the technically correct name is used far less often than the common name. Also in this case, the the commonality of both methods is disputed and should be addressed more adequately. In my opinion, determining a metric off the bat would be the best method of determining 'common' in this case. As for listing the discussion at WP:RM, I don't really care either way. If we don't have enough editors here to come to a intelligent consensus, then maybe we should list it there. The problem I usually see happen is that many editors who are unfamiliar with WP guidelines/policies get involved and try to turn it into a vote. I'd like to keep the discuss informed unless we need more eyes but I wouldn't say we should attempt to hide the discussion in any way. OlYellerTalktome 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OlYeller, since you have suggested (three times now) that a "metric" be established, would it be possible for you to maybe take a swing of the bat and actually recommend one? Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I realize I've been doing a lot of talk and not backing it up. I've been pretty busy the last two days and haven't gotten the time to start it out. Sorry about that. I'll get to it within the next two hours. OlYellerTalktome 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you check google images under "ohio state university", you'll see that the school itself can't decide what its "common name" is. For example, note this basketball game shot.[19] Their shirts most definitely do not say "THE Ohio State". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, adding "THE" would cost extra.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They also don't say "University"... your evidence is anecdotal at best. You could show the same with a huge number of other school sports' uniforms. OlYellerTalktome 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The position that a T-shirt would always use an official name is unsound. By that logic, Clemson University would just be "Clemson." University of Southern California would simply be "USC." Examples abound. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I still think the common name is Ohio State University. Certainly the official name is "The Ohio State University", and that's duly noted. However, this article certainly should not be moved until someone can prove that "The..." is the common name. Everything I've seen points to "Ohio State University" as the more common usage. Enigmamsg 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Change. The "common name" arguments, whilst being used to advance the "not change" position, in fact support the changing of the title. The flaw in their argument is the assumption that the omission of "the" is, in fact, the "common name." 99% of state residents, and virtually any person worldwide, who follows U.S. collegiate athletics would consider "the Ohio State University" to be the correct AND common name. Hneilm (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the mere fact that this question has garnered so much controversy demonstrate that "the Ohio State University" has broad enough common support to invoke the WP rule that a technical name should only yield to a common name if the common name is "substantially" higher in usage. The "Jimmy Carter" article has been offered regarding this argument, however only a small percentage of the population would have referred to President Carter as "James Earl Carter," whereas as, substantial percentage of persons are aware that Ohio residents, OSU alumni, and a broad swath of collegiate supports fans are all aware that the correct name is "the Ohio State University..." and that stating otherwise inside the state of Ohio, will generate a verbal correction from the listener(s). Hneilm (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to people's name does not really apply, especially as celebrities commonly have stage names (sometimes legally changed). But if you want to go there, these names are also what the person in questions calls or called themselves. For example, Jimmy Carter campained for president using his nickname. If that logic is to be applied here, "the" would be inclulded because that is what the college calls itself. I think the UNC Chapel Hill example works well. I went there in the 1980s and never knew of the "formal" name until it showed up on my diploma. Sports announcers call it North Carolina. People who go there call it UNC, Carolina, or the University of North Carolina. The suffix of "at Chapel Hill" was added somewhat late in the school's history because the names of teacher's colleges and the like were being changed to UNC plus a city name. Despite history and common usage, the Wikipedia entry is listed as University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Similarly, Oklahoma State's Wikipedia article is Oklahoma State University–Stillwater and the University of Illinois is in Wikipedia as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Think about it this way. If the university's name were to change to Ohio State University at Columbus, would anyone question changing the name of its article? Rublamb (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:THE WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ohio State University → The Ohio State University – Official school name Sjmaiklee0216 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * But see WP:THE. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:THE. We don't go by how the university wants branded, either. Corky  23:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Please not this again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Never going to happen, per WP:THE. Look at the article, the WP:COMMONNAME is Ohio State. We should move it there, if at all. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close WP:THE is very clear on this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.