Talk:University at Buffalo/Archive 2

"SUNY Buffalo" in lead
An unregistered editor has repeatedly removed "SUNY Buffalo" from the lead, insisting that the university's official prohibition against the title be honored. Official or not, the title is extremely common; Googling the phrase brings up 1.1 million hits. Further, we don't work for the university and we're not bound to honor its wishes or proclamations but we do what is best for our readers. In this case, it's obvious that what is best for our readers is for our unregistered friend to stop edit warring with others and for us to include "SUNY Buffalo" in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reliable sources do confirm that the school not only was, but still is, known as SUNY Buffalo. There are more than 100 GNews hits for "Suny Buffalo" just in the last month.  Search results also illustrate that "SUNY Buffalo" is not generally used to refer to Buffalo State College instead (note the errata in these 2 NYT obituaries, for example). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would have read the entire obituary, you would have noticed this correction at the bottom: "Correction: July 24, 2003, Thursday An obituary on Sunday about Anne Rogovin, a teacher of mentally handicapped children and an author of manuals on child rearing, misstated the current name of her alma mater, which was once the State College for Teachers at Buffalo. It is Buffalo State College of SUNY, not SUNY Buffalo." Meaning that the aforementioned "SUNY Buffalo" is actually Buff State, not UB. Also, look at the trend difference between "UB" and "SUNY Buffalo" here: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=UB,+SUNY+Buffalo & here: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=UB%2CSUNY%20Buffalo&cmpt=q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.157.234 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And your explanation for the other 1.1 million mentions of "SUNY Buffalo" found by Google...? ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look up "SUNY Buffalo" on Google News, you will find 967 results. If you look up "UB" you will find 96,800 results...and after looking through the pages, I have only found 2 results that don't relate to the University. If you look up "SUNY Buffalo" on Google, you'll find 7,440,000 results. However if you look up "UB New York", you'll find a staggering 163,000,000 results. If you search "UB Buffalo", you'll find 4,990,000 results, verifying its use not just locally, but globally. "UB" is also used by almost every institution that is associated with the University. For instance, US News and World Report rankings of higher education call UB "UB | University at Buffalo--SUNY". Now you said (in the wiki article) that the term "UB" is only used locally. That couldn't be any more false. The University has an international population at about 22%. I have many friends who are from India, China, South Korea, and the UK who refer to the University as "UB". I have even more proof of the term "UB" being used more often than "SUNY Buffalo". Look here: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=UB%20Buffalo&cmpt=q . You will find that the top google searches (in order) go by the following:


 * 1.	university buffalo
 * 2.	ub university
 * 3.	ub at buffalo
 * 4.	university at buffalo
 * 5.	ub of buffalo
 * 6.	ub buffalo ny
 * 7.	university of buffalo
 * 8.	ub college
 * 9.	buffalo state
 * 10.	suny ub buffalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.157.234 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm convinced. I don't think your arguments are near as convincing or air-tight as you present them but they're good enough for me. ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am one who has edited this article on this 'SUNY Buffalo' matter. As an alum and former employee I am aware of common usage issues, and the confusion. I too have viewed select media and external institutions using the 'SUNY Buffalo' name. This is attributed to ignorance and/or laziness on the part of editors. It is born of the legal 'State University of New York at Buffalo' name. Editors will shorten it to SUNY Buffalo (as well as SUNY ____ for the other University Centers) for spacing needs without knowledge of, or care for, the naming conventions spelled out by UB in the aforementioned communications toolbox: It is not appropriate to refer to the university as the State University of New York at Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, SUNYAB or similar variations.

That some wish to add "SUNY Buffalo" to the article seems to point to merely personal beliefs that it somehow benefits the univerisity brand, counter to the standards set by the UB communications toolbox and SUNY Central  (http://www.suny.edu/communications/pdf/campusnames-2010.pdf). If some wish to add 'SUNY Buffalo' to the article, why not then 'SUNY at Buffalo' (which actually was a formerly accepted short-form name) or 'SUNYAB', another name that has also faded from use since the 70's? When used, these informal names are anachronistic and unrepresentative of common/sanctioned naming. They should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.106.53 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not care a fewmet about "benefiting the univerisity brand" (a sickening phrase; genuine centers of learning should not have "brands"); but neither do I care about "sanctioned" naming. Our rules are clear: we state what names are in common use, with total disregard to whether they are sanctioned. What is so hard to comprehend about that? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanctioned branding was merely one part of my point on ignorance/laziness on the part of editors. Pointing out a personal issue with how univeristies brand should have no place in a wiki. Akin to those who would assert their opinions that 'big-time' athletics or a 'publish or perish' mentality, should not have a place at 'genuine centers of learning'.

My main point was any names those such as yourself (who have no connection to the university or SUNY) and others use incorrectly is not based on fact. Nor are there provided any data to verify that the anachronistic and incorrect 'SUNY Buffalo' is any more common in use than the anachronistic and incorrect 'SUNY at Buffalo', 'SUNYAB', 'U/B', 'University at Buffalo ,/- SUNY'. Those not close to the situation are apparently unaware that the University Centers began disassociating themselves from the 'SUNY' acronym starting in the 1960's, while some SUNY colleges find it beneficial to use the 'SUNY' acronym in their name to draw better-qualified student and faculty/staff applicants.

These are the only 5 commonly-used names that have any place for this article, if it is to be factual. Do some think 5 is not enough, that any names, even 3 or more used in error in an uncommon way, are applicable? (And this point goes for all SUNY Center articles)


 * State Univeristy of New York at Buffalo - legal name for legislative purposes
 * University at Buffalo, The State University of New York - full name used for University documents and letterhead
 * University at Buffalo - a common short-form name
 * UB - a common short-form name
 * Buffalo - most common short-form name for the UB Athletic Department — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.106.53 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of getting involved in an edit war, has anyone actually provided any evidence that "SUNY Buffalo" is in wide use to refer to the university? It resembles "SUNY at Buffalo", which I know was in use for a time, so maybe that's where the confusion lies?  I don't know anyone who calls it "SUNY Buffalo" -- even if only because it's easily confused with Buff State.  Powers T 18:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a site that should reflect factual information generated by a responsible user and editing community. The wikipedia page for UB by no means has to follow, line by line, point by point, what the university's "branding" team has carved out as an identity for the university. The fact is that the school is also known widely across the United States as SUNY Buffalo and is instantly recognizable under that name to people not intimately associated with the school. It is by no means "lazy" or "ignorant" for people to continue referring to an institution by a short name that has been used for decades so as to avoid confusing people in other parts of the country. Rather, it is ignorant, and actually quite provincial, to restrict the nomenclature to what was pretentiously "sanctioned" by the "branding" division of the school. Renard2006 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You offer no citations to back up your assertion that SUNY Buffalo is 'widely known' and 'instantly recognizable', only your opinions. Quite to the contrary, I and others point to other former names that were in common use, such as 'SUNY at Buffalo' and 'U/B'. Check UB's archives. That you've ignored that point for this article shows your personal bias for the 'SUNY Buffalo' inclusion. Your last points show a lack of understanding on the crux of the 'branding argument'. I and others provided explainations of how editors can shorten UB's legal name for sake of space when, as editors, they should not be ignorant/lazy regarding UB's branding conventions. That is a different point to how UB is referred to in the daily lexicon. That is where you need to provide facts. If you can't then all of UB's former short-form, anachronistic names should be added and clutter this article.

Why is this so important for alums like myself? How do you think alums of schools with complex naming and certain branding, like a UCLA, Tennessee, or UNC, would react if someone pushed to include unproven, uncommonly used, or anachronistic naming in an article on their alma mater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.77.129 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Branding is a non-issue; it is a tool of marketers and other advertising people, not people who concern themselves with learning and information. The "daily lexicon", as you phrase it, is exactly what we are talking about under WP:COMMONNAME. And your "anachronistic" argument holds no water, since Wikipedia articles are about the subject as a whole, not just the latest iteration with the latest shiny new image reboot. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are inserting your beliefs concerning how higher education should operate, and not the reality of modern higher ed branding for media and recruiting purposes. And, I will now insert every name UB has been known as in the past to this article. Based on your position, there are no limitations regarding defining 'common' names, nor citations needed to substantiate 'common' from 'uncommom', or 'the opinions of one'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.77.129 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you admit you don't believe that some of the names you added are in common use, you are deliberately inserting content you believe to be false, to make a point. Such behavior can get you blocked. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruption to prove a point is bad, but it doesn't invalidate the point. Do you have any evidence that "SUNY Buffalo" is so widespread a name that it needs to be mentioned in the first sentence?  Would "SUNY at Buffalo", a similar and once-official rendering, be acceptable as an alternative?  Powers T 23:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That - Is SUNY Buffalo a commonly used name? - is the right question to be asking. The previous discussion, still included at the top of this section, concluded that the answer is "no."  But if we were mistaken and there is additional evidence we overlooked or failed to consider, please let us know!  ElKevbo (talk)

If my action came off as disruptive, I appologize. That was not my intent. But, if the article is to be fully enclusionary, where is the line drawn in the absense of citations, as others are questioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.77.129 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not intended to be "fully enclusionary [sic]." The discussion seems to be getting on to the right track now as people are asking if "SUNY Buffalo" is a commonly used title.  (Which is good because the discussion threads about the media branding of the university have very little meaning here in Wikipedia as the marketing guidelines of the university don't apply to us as we have our own procedures for determining the label(s) of a subject.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, I am not contesting the use or place for the word "UB" in this page. Personally, I use it frequently when I discuss our alma mater with others affiliated or living close to it. But from personal experience, as well as that of others who work in other parts of the United States, using the word "UB" just leads to confusion when you are far away from Buffalo, and using the terms "University at Buffalo" leads to awkward glances. (I don't know of any other English-language higher education institution in the world besides the University at Albany that calls itself the "University at" anything.) "SUNY Buffalo" reflects a persistent popular name, and there are other editors who agree with me. Demanding evidence is an easy tactic; however, I will offer you the main page of the School of Law, which on its website (http://law.buffalo.edu) clearly and proudly calls itself the "SUNY Buffalo Law School" - and these are lawyers mind you! Renard2006 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the vast majority of the examples I've found involve the law school in some way. I had wondered why that was the case.  It appears that it is indeed the law school's official name.  But it's important to note that that applies only to the law school, not to the university as a whole.  I have found virtually no references to "SUNY Buffalo" outside of the law school context.  Powers T 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

New Pictures
I have new pictures for the wikipedia, I'll post them here and anyone can give a general consensus as to where we should place them. The page is now lacking pictures. Davidhar (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Parker 2.jpg
 * File:Back of crosby hall UB south 1.jpg
 * File:Backside of crosby hall 2 UB.jpg
 * File:Clarke Hall from Afar.jpg
 * File:Crosby midday 1.jpg
 * File:Crosby dark 2.jpg
 * File:Crosby front.jpg
 * File:Engineering building south panorama.jpg
 * File:Foster across 1.jpg
 * *File:Townsend Hall UB.jpg
 * File:Wende hall Buffalo.jpg
 * File:Wende hall buffalo close.jpg
 * File:UBsouth campus wide shot.jpg
 * File:UB health & sciences library interior 3.jpg
 * File:Abbott Hall on UB South Campus.jpg
 * File:UB south campus panorama.jpg
 * File:Office of the Dean of the School of Nursing UB.jpg
 * File:UB south campus panorama 2.jpg
 * File:Clark Hall on UB's South Campus.jpg
 * File:UB health & sciences library.jpg
 * File:Fosterhall2 UB South.JPG
 * File:UBsouthcampusquad.JPG
 * File:Hayes hall on UB south campus.jpg
 * File:UB south campus lawn.jpg
 * File:UB Ellicott & Spine.jpg
 * File:UB Alumni.JPG
 * File:UB stadium exterior shot.JPG
 * File:UB Stadium 2 picture.JPG
 * File:UB Stadium Wide.JPG
 * File:2008 MAC football trophy.JPG
 * File:UB's Lake LaSalle.jpg
 * File:UB's North Campus.jpg
 * File:UB Greiner & Ellicott.jpg
 * File:UB health sciences library straight.jpg
 * File:Health and sciences library shot 1.jpg
 * File:UB south campus shot 1.jpg
 * It would be helpful to me and others if you could explain where you are proposing in the article you each of these goes and what relevance to that section the picture has. For example and picking two images at random, the article does not mention the 2008 MAC Championship Trophy so why have a picture of it, nor does it mention Clark Hall so again why a picture ? Mt  king  (edits)  08:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. So the file, "UB south campus wideshot" should be placed in the history section because it visualizes the historic south campus and shows the campus from a high altitude. The panorama shots can be used at the top of the "campus" section. The 2008 MAC championship trophy shows a big accomplishment of UB athletics...which is very significant in its history. The big shots of north campus should be placed in the north campus section because it correctly interprets what the campus looks like. This is the same for all of the building shots & wide shots of south campus. Ellicott complex & greiner hall should be placed in the student housing section. The close up of Foster Hall architecture should be placed in the rankings & reputation section because it identifies the university's longevity & prestige. The "abbott hall on south campus" interior shot should be placed in the library section. The exterior shot can be added to this as well. Davidhar (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2008 MAC championship trophy image, it seems to me would be better off placed in Buffalo Bulls football (subject to consensus at that page), I am interested in exactly how you think "The close up of Foster Hall" "identifies the university's longevity & prestige" as for your reason "interprets what the campus looks like" seems to suggest a desire to turn the article into a prospectus. So at this time I oppose the inclusion. Mt  king  (edits)  19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the others? The close up of foster shows the architecture of south campus in an intimate way which symbolizes its history & prevalence in Buffalo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.35.165.51 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please respond. It's not very helpful when you don't give us your thoughts on the pictures, and you just decide to take them down. Davidhar (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe many of these pictures are appropriate for the article. I've put some up...the ones I thought fit best with the article. 128.205.118.53 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And they have been reverted, this is not your uni prospectus. Mt  king  (edits)  19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me^. In any case, why don't you discuss your own opinion? Davidhar (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are yet to make a clear proposal, why not start with what you consider the best of the images in that list, and clearly and concisely explain where on the article it should go and why and how you believe it enhances the readers understanding of the subject of that section. Mt  king  (edits)  23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I first think that the file File:UBsouth campus wide shot.jpg should be shown in 270px size in the middle portion of the History section when wiki references the establishment of the Main Street (South) Campus. After that, I think File:Parker 2.jpg should be placed at the right hand corner of the administration section in 290px size because it's a hisoric building and was once home to the school of engineer, and is now home to the school of architecture. It's a monument in UB's history, because it was one of the founding buildings of UB's undergraduate education program. Then, File:UB health & sciences library interior 3.jpg should be placed in the academics section, because it is both a historic (being a monumental figure on campus) and popular location to study at UB. In my opinion, I then believe File:Fosterhall2 UB South.JPG should be placed in the rankings and reputation section, because it represents the prevalence UB has had nationally and abroad. The shot, taken from below, shows strong lines and shapes. This symbolizes how strong UB's academic reputation is. In the North Campus section, File:UB's North Campus.jpg should be shown because it properly shows what the north campus looks like (illustrates this to the reader). In the south campus section, File:Crosby front.jpg should be shown because it is the main focal point one sees when entering the University green (and is at the bus stop, so people see this building first and foremost). In the athletics section, I would like to see maybe 1 or two pictures of either UB stadium, alumni arena, or both. Davidhar (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GA?
Hey there. I am thinking about making this article a GA, as with University of Miami. There are some issues that need to be fixed, possibly including citation fixes obviously. All are welcome to assist in this process and if anyone has suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

University at Buffalo & William Greiner
Please do not re-edit over and over the University at Buffalo alumni sub-section, including replacing Terry Gross with Bill Greiner. Your recent edits both on the University's wikipedia and on William Greiner's suggests a conflict of interest and I would advise to not edit wikipedia pages with respect to Bill Greiner if this is the case (per WP codes). Terry Gross, the original alumnus who was replaced by Bill is surely more notable on the national and international levels. Thank you. Davidhar (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Davidhar, You are mistaken. First of all, you do not own any articles, nor have any authority in telling me what to do or how to edit.  Second of all, I did not replace Terry Gross, nor did I realize or know that Terry Gross had been in that section.  Terry Gross had already been deleted by someone else when I added Bill Greiner, and then re-added him again after you deleted him.  I believe it is you who are in conflict.  Please do not jump to conclusions before going back through all the edits to confirm this.  Once you do that, you will see that I did not "replace" anyone.  I only added Bill, and it was you who deleted him.  Why did you delete him, reverting my two edits/additions of him?  This is something that should be discussed on the talk page.  The former president of UB who worked there for 42 years, who was president for 13 years, who made many advancements for the university, and who brought the school back to Division I, I believe is noteworthy enough for his photograph to be reflected in the notable alumni and faculty section. I am moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I have re-added Bill's photo again. It should not be removed until there is consensus on what, if any, further action should be taken. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, any conflicts regarding the article on Bill Greiner have already been resolved with the involvement of an administrator, and need not be brought up again by you. I set the record straight with those editors who were in conflict on that article, and I am again doing so with the UB article.  As you can see regarding that article, I created it and have added the greatest amount of work to it.  Why is it your interest to attempt to control my activities on this article and the UB article?  The Bill Greiner article, itself, has no bearing on the UB article and the current conflict that has ensued due to your reverts. It appears that your informing me about how to edit are more akin to ownership, which Wikipedia is against, and about which I have previously informed an administrator regarding the UB article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On reviewing the article in its entirety, I see that you also removed at least four other images that I added to this article. Unless you have updated photos with which to replace them, they should not be removed.  You stated in your comment upon removal that they are not historically relevant, however they, indeed, are historically relevant.  It appears to me that you are detracting from the article rather than building it up due deleting images and information. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add photos or content that is in dispute without having prior consensus. You alone do not meet that requirement. I'm reverting your edits back. Please don't start an edit war. As for your involvement with a UB administrator, that is in direct conflict of interest. Furthermore, the University itself has no right or ownership of its wikipedia page. The purpose of WP is to be as objective as possible. While Bill Greiner served UB well, he is not notable enough to be placed among the other alumni. There should be further discussions on this topic if you are to edit in this way. Davidhar (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend either deleting the photos of alumni or keeping only two or three of highly famous people. Harvard has no such photos. Princeton has only a 19th century group photo including several notable people. Yale has just two, Meryl Streep and William Howard Taft, despite the fact that several other presidents were alumni. My alma mater, the University of San Francisco, has no alumni photos. I do not think it appropriate to have photos of people who are relatively unknown in the wide world.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Cullen. Truly, I am in agreement with you.  Who is to say how much "more" notable one person is than another, really.  All notable people's photos should be included, or none, because those who are not included are being excluded.  It would definitely be more fair to delete all photos in that section. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Davidhar, It is you who began the edit war when you reverted many of my contributions, including the image of Bill. You did not acknowledge that I did not remove Terry Gross, nor did I "replace" her with Greiner.  Did you review the edits to confirm my information that I was not involved in that?  My point of view is that your perspectives and actions are rigid and inflexible, not only on this issue, but also regarding the other images that I included, and which you deleted.  Your reasons for doing so do not appear to be solid enough for me.  When I realized that you deleted 4 or 5 images to the UB article that I included, I contacted a Wiki administrator to request intervention.  Note that he has given his comments and suggestions.  I, therefore, open the floor to further comments about this.  As per your purporting about my "involvement" with Greiner, I am not, nor was ever "involved" with him.  That you are a UB student in the economics department suggests to me that you are in a conflict of interest about the UB article and Greiner.  Your deletes and reverts of several photos that I added to the article make it appear that you have an issue, not only about UB, but with Greiner, as well. That's how it looks to me.  You seem to be an editor who is 'delete-happy' based on so many of your deletes to information that I added.  Perhaps you should reconsider your involvement in this.  Daniellagreen (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers, please note that I have updated the 'notable faculty and alumni' section to read 'selected notable alumni, faculty, and administrators' as that is the more correct title for this section, based on the revisions made by Davidhar. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You would be happy to see that in fact, the large majority of photos that have been uploaded to UB's WP are from me. In addition, a large portion of the content was written and sourced by me as well. My contributions to UB's WP far outweigh my deletions. It is not my intent to delete your content on the basis of conflict of interest - it is merely to portray the University in the most objective yet notable way possible. Adding photos of UB's athletic teams from 1991-1993 does not help either the objectivity or notability of the subject. As for your replacement of Terry Gross for Bill Greiner, you did not properly code your edit, which resulted in Terry Gross being cut out. Evidence of your recent history of edits on Buffalo Bulls, William Greiner, and the University at Buffalo has suggested to myself and others a potential conflict of interest whereas you've shown considerable interest to portray him in a positive and notable light. As for your comments that "who is to say how much more 'notable' one person is than an other, you're right - it's hard to judge. However, it's easy to say that certain members of society are in fact more notable than others. For example, a CNN News Reporter will be much more nationally recognized than a local TV News Reporter (on average). And for your comments about bringing an administrator to help your case, the WP contributor did not support your claim whatsoever. I do however disagree with him, and I would point to many University articles that have similar photo structures featuring notable alumni and faculty (University of California, Berkeley, Cornell University, Emory University, Brown University, and others...). As for your attacks on my own conflict of interest, I try to be as objective as possible when it comes to my edits and when I know something may be controversial, I wait for consensus from other WP editors before final approval. I would suggest a similar method for your own edits, especially on this page. Thanks. Davidhar (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Davidhar, I can appreciate your work on this article. Certainly, you may state your opinion regarding the photos that I contributed, and which you deleted, however I remain in disagreement.  My view is that they should be replaced only when updated photos are located and uploaded.  Of those that I uploaded and which you deleted, the cheerleaders photo continues to seem most relevant (particularly because they are holding up placards that read, "Fight Bulls Fight"), regardless of whether it was from Division III or Division I.  My intent was to reflect those teams that I could - including football and cheerleading, as well as the historic UB Mascot, Buster and the current UB Mascot, Victor E. Bull.  As I've stated before, any disagreements regarding the article about Bill have already been resolved.  In fact, the editor who was in conflict added information to provide a more balanced perspective.  I explained to those editors who had concerns my request for their patience so that I could provide a more balanced perspective - which, as you will see if you review my edits - I did, in addition to those that one editor provided.  The other editor appeared just to want to complain, and took no action to make improvements, nor add information or source it to provide a more balanced perspective.  Now, you're throwing in another issue, which appears to be your own personal concern, about the Buffalo Bulls article.  Rather than complain, why don't you add information and sources to the article that will provide a more balanced perspective.  There's nothing preventing you from doing that.  As you know, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.  Regarding your waiting for consensus from other editors regarding something controversial, I again disagree because you, in fact, did not wait.  You simply took your own action and made at least 3 deletions without posting anything for discussion, nor waiting for consensus.  I also see on your talk page a history of simply deleting information, and you having received warning(s) regarding it, including that you may have a conflict of interest in those articles that you edit.  You have been warned about being blocked, and you have been warned about disruptive editing.  It really appears to me that you do what you want, and that makes me have the perspective that you have ownership of the article, and cannot maintain a balanced perspective regarding other editors' contributions.  That is what I was saying the other day regarding ownership.  I know that UB doesn't own this article; my point was that your actions in regard to your many deletions and edit war make it seem like you own the article.  I just wanted to make that clear.  Also, certainly, as a self-proclaimed UB student, you are a representative of the institution, and therefore have a conflict of interest.  As for requesting the involvement of an administrator, I value his opinion, regardless of whether or not he supports my own.  He is obviously more experienced regarding these types of concerns, and appears to do his best to remain neutral.  I believe he made good suggestions.  UB, after all, is not Yale or Harvard, nor is it any of the others that you identified.  Because the article can be edited by anyone, people will place their own flavor in the article; that is understandable.  What seems to me to be petty and unnecessary is having an edit war over whether or not to include a photo of a notable administrator/faculty member in the relevant section.  Maybe he's not quite as notable as some of the others, however he is notable.  One could also ask why Jack Quinn or Dennis Vacco are not included in that section, as well as many others.  Regarding your statement about my "replacement" of Terry Gross, when I edited the article, I recall that her photo had already been deleted.  I had no knowledge of that.  At least, when the section came up for editing, the information regarding her photo was not there; I added Bill's to that section, and did not delete Terry's.  That is how the page came up onscreen when I did the editing.  Obviously, my perception of this is different from your's, however it remains that you appear to be continually accusatory to me about this when I have had no knowledge about it.  At any rate, again, I am one who can appreciate your contributions to the article, however obsessing over it appears to be more like ownership on your part.  I am someone who does my best to contribute to and build up articles.  I do not purposely delete others' work unless I am correcting and/or updating it.  While I realize that anyone can edit on Wikipedia, I generally follow the rules of journalism regarding consideration in association with such matters.  Some rise to that challenge, but most do not, as I have observed on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia appearing to be a very male-dominated organization, it is important for women's voices to be heard and women's contributions to be recognized.  Your repeated deletions of my voice and my information do not appear to support that.  That is where I take offense, and believe it is important to let you know that.  Daniellagreen (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers, also note that Cullen edited the subsection heading that I referred to above, to one that is more generally accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks, Cullen! Daniellagreen (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniellagreen, please excuse my edits not as offensive, but as helpful to the quality of this page. You mention a variety of things in your last post, so I'll try and touch upon them all. UB Athletics did not have significant exposure before the hiring of Warde Manuel in 2006. As the Treasurer of True Blue, I have knowledge on the notability and history of the Buffalo Bulls. You're right, it is in my own opinion that pictures of cheerleaders at Kunz field from the early 1990's is not notable enough to be featured on WP. But you think that consensus needs to be reached when specific items (i.e., pictures) are still featured on the page. That's simply false, and that's why I removed them. You need to have consensus before you post, and with items like that, don't think that I'm repressing your edits simply for my own sake of protecting the UB page. Further down your long paragraph, you admit that Bill Greiner is not as notable as other UB alumni - your argument for inclusion stops there. As for Jack Quinn or Dennis Vacco, the alumni featured are still much more notable, and a politician is already represented - Millard Fillmore. As for my "perception" of your removal of Terry Gross from the WP article, it's simply not up for dispute - I fixed your mistake. I am totally open for other people to edit the UB article here, and I have no intentions of 'owning' this article. But when I do see edits that are not helpful towards the understanding of the University, its notability, and its objectivity, I will act accordingly. As for your assertion that I don't support women's voices on WP, I revised your edits not because you're a woman, but because they were poor edits. You seem to have an idea that I'm out to get you, and that is simply not the case. If you are to add quality information to this article, I will of course accept. However, I don't believe the majority of your edits on UB's pages have held up to a high standard. Davidhar (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Davidhar, I can see that you are a person who is not going to consider anyone else's perspectives or opinions but your own, and that, to me, is what is most disappointing because it actually detracts from the article, and does not - as you believe - add to it. You and I obviously disagree, and I agree to disagree.  In fact, I am quite happy to disagree because my points are also valid.  Your unnecessary, superior attitude and obvious ownership of this article are quite clear to me, and I do not believe they are qualities that will change, at least in regard to the current situation.  That is what is truly most abrasive and offensive, an attitude that is rigid and inflexible.  Too bad for Wikipedia; there is definitely too much of that here.  I believe cooperation is key, not control and micromanagement of others' relevant and valid contributions.  I've tried to contribute and build the article up.  That's my perspective, and that's how I try to approach everything, not deleting, but adding.  And personally, while I do enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, as a woman, your comments are indeed sexist because they do not recognize my personal experience in which most male editors on Wikipedia that I have encountered make more deletes - as well as those deletes being of greater magnitude - than I have ever experienced from any of the few female editors here.  Following Wiki's guidelines, I have made my verbose replies to you (and of which I am very proud, I might add) so that I have thoroughly and clearly replied to all of your points.  At this juncture, then, I believe that I have responded to all of them, and anything further is simply a rehashing of what has already been communicated.  I have invested a considerable amount of time in this argument, and really, far too much time.  Therefore, this will be the end of my rebuttals as I can see that there has been no progress or improvement made regarding my concerns about your editing out of my contributions to your article.  I am taking this situation as another Wiki learning experience, and will do my best to avoid editing your article in the future. Happy editing! Daniellagreen (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniellagreen, I have said before and I'll say it again - this is not my article and I have no 'ownership' of it. Maybe the reason why Wiki editors delete your additions isn't because you're a woman, but because you're adding things that 1) aren't notable 2) don't add to the understanding of the subject and 3) are not objectionable. Asserting that I'm a sexist couldn't be farther from the truth, and your actions to attack me personally are in violation to WP conduct and procedure. I have been very open for actual debate over these issues, but you had no intent to do so - instead you attacked me personally and gave many many logical fallacies to support your arguments. Feel free to edit UB's wikipedia - you're 100% allowed to edit whatever you like. Just don't be pissed off when someone reverts them due to poor quality. You should also know that I've reviewed all of your edits, and I've allowed many to be kept. Thank you for your contributions and I hope you stay active. Davidhar (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Davidhar, Again, I think your assumptions with regard to what I had attempted to achieve in contributing my images to the article are incorrect. Instead of complaining and continuing an argument that is going nowhere, I challenge you to take and upload photos of some UB sports teams to the athletics section of this article. My perspective is that some photos are better than none. Having not had any photos in that section prior to my contributions creates a reflection on the article that athletics are unimportant at UB. While most of my text contributions to this overall article have been maintained, you deleted 2/3 of my photo contributions. So, I challenge you to replace them with updated and current photos since I am on the other side of the country and it would not be feasible for me to do so, otherwise I would. You have taken a leadership role with this article, and I challenge you to uphold it by improving and enhancing it with more updated photos than what I contributed. If you do not, then it would be obvious that a conflict about it may be preferred by you rather than compromise. Having had no images in the athletics section, in my opinion and prior to my image contributions, made it a section that was lacking in quality and which needed enhancement. That is where I'm coming from, and I challenge you to take charge and make it better. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

University Seal
The current university seal situation is explained on this page http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/brand/visual-identity/correct-use-of-the-ub-logo.html As the page states "The official university seal is strictly reserved for formal uses, such as authenticating diplomas, transcripts and other official documents. It is not to be used for any other purposes." However, it is also stated that "Although the full seal is reserved for presidential use only, the interior portion is available and is often used as a decorative element." So the crest can only be used in this case. The crest is also only available in the UB communications toolkit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.10.248 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't work for the university and it doesn't control this encyclopedia article so that's not very persuasive. Do you have any arguments in favor of not using the seal in this article's infobox which is what we've standardized on the university infobox in nearly every other article?
 * Further, note that using multiple accounts to edit this article isn't going to help you at all; instead, it will likely get you blocked and convince editors that your edits should not be retained. This particularly true for this article that has recently seen a prolific sockpuppet blocked.  (And if you're the same person, welcome back and stop fucking around unless you want to get blocked again.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Common name, historical name, and abbreviation in lead
Davidhar is insisting that the lead of this article omit mention of other names currently used, names formerly used, or abbreviations used in this article (and many, many other places). In his most recent edit, he removed this sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the University at Buffalo (abbreviated UB) and was formerly known as the University of Buffalo." Not only does that remove an abbreviation used throughout the university's documents, other reliable sources, and the article itself but it also removes a historical name that is detailed in the article. More confusing is that he removed that sentence while using the edit summary "the 'University at Buffalo' name is still commonly used, bring it up in the talk if you still have issue. You're promoting an edit war." which is exactly what the sentence says!

I don't understand and I contest his bizarre insistence that the article lead not have the commonly used name, formerly used name, and abbreviation in the lead like every other article does. His explanation doesn't provide any substantive rationale for making this article different from every other article that includes this critical information in the very beginning of the article as dictated by the Manual of Style: "...significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo previously edited the header of the page, adding both "Buffalo University, The State University of New York at Buffalo" as a current name and the "University of Buffalo" as a former name of UB. While the "University of Buffalo" name was in fact used prior to 1962, the former name has never been used by UB's administration, faculty, or affiliates. If it has, sources are needed. As for the "University of Buffalo" inclusion, I regard the difference between that and the current "University at Buffalo" name as marginal at best. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not worthy of such inclusion. While he cites the WP Manual of Style, I don't regard this particular alternative name to be "significant" enough for added inclusion to the main header. Davidhar (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the article has been at this location and this text in the lead for several years. I haven't tracked down exactly when the article was moved to its current title or when this material was added to the lead but some of it (e.g., mention of the former name University of Buffalo) has been here since the article was created 11 years ago.  So your complaint that I added the material is as untrue as it is irrelevant.
 * Since the material remained largely stable for 11 years until you removed it three days ago, it seems like there is ample consensus that the material is important and relevant. Not only does the Manual of Style tell us that this kind of material should be included but the article itself spends time discussing or using these names and abbreviation the burden is definitely on you to provide reasons why it should be omitted.
 * That you haven't personally experienced anyone using a historical name is absolutely irrelevant (nevermind how ridiculous it is that you insist on leaving out a historical name because you haven't personally heard it used recently). You also insist that the article omit a commonly used name just because it's slightly different when once again your personal opinion and experience are completely irrelevant.  Finally, why in the world do you insist on omitting the abbreviation used throughout this article?
 * I'm trying to assume good faith but it appears that you're blindly edit warring and throwing baseless accusations at others (me) to remove material that has been in this article for over a decade, is documented and used throughout this article, is mandated by our MOS, and used throughout Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (cut and pasted from conversation I left on davidhar's page)


 * Let me throw my two cents in. As an employee of the university system, I was "strongly encouraged" to use "University AT Buffalo", since it's the State University of New York AT Buffalo.  Buffalo does not have a university of it's own.  The use "of" and "at" have completely different meanings last I checked.  Here's my nickel to including "at" as a current usage, and "of" as a previous use, which is the way I've understood it since I was informed of the correct usage of University "at" Buffalo.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: Have spoken with a colleague regarding the use of "Buffalo University" being used for the university.  Although it's definitely not used locally (in his experiences), it has been known to be used outside of the area.


 * What is the policy regarding something that may be factual, although it's not exactly citable online or in print publications? It doesn't remove the validity of it as being used.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is "Buffalo University" used anywhere in writing? I did a search for that string but found nothing online. I got plenty of results pointing me back to U at B, but the string "Buffalo University" never showed up. I'm reluctant to use a term that's not a common name. (And I would take a look at how it's used before adding it: I wouldn't add "Texas University" to the lede for the University of Texas, given that it's used primarily in a non-flattering manner by people associated with Texas A&M.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Buffalo University' is NOT used anywhere both officially AND unofficially. The WP user tried several times to undo my edits on this, and provoked an edit war without providing ANY sources whatsoever. 'Buffalo University' should NOT be used. Davidhar (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to UB's style guide, the legal name of the school is "State University of New York at Buffalo"; "University at Buffalo" and "UB" are noted as approved short names. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think both of you are missing the point. The page "University at Buffalo" is not owned, updated or managed by the University at Buffalo.  As an employee of the system, I understand that.  I agree, the name "Buffalo University" isn't used within the circle of people that I am associated with.  What did I do?  I asked another person if they have heard of "Buffalo University" being used.  In my case, I heard that it was in fact used, though not in a local situation.  Whether or not it can be Googled or Binged is irrelevant, in my opinion.  To my surprise, it had been heard by another person that I happen to talk to personally, with no knowledge of this edit war that continues over a such a minor detail.  Is it defaming to the University that they've got a known other name that one (or other) editors haven't heard?  JC, get over it already.  I've watched the beginning conversation turn hostile, and it's UNNECESSARY to bully without first giving the unfortunate editor a chance to cite it, USING the "citation needed" function on this site.


 * I'm done arguing this, however, whatever you choose to do, do it. I already think that some of the behavior on this topic has been less than professional from a person that associates himself with the university.


 * C.Fred, thank you for putting your comments civilly.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What has been bullied, has been the placement of 'Buffalo University' on the page repeatedly, without prior consensus - promoting an edit war. In order for 'Buffalo University' to be approved of, wikipedia requires sources to be placed with the name. Because you couldn't even find 'Buffalo University' with a simple google or bing search, I would argue there are no good sources out there. Therefore, I'm removing 'Buffalo University'. Have a splendid life. Davidhar (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your attitude stinks. 'Nuff said.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Flagship" designation
If "flagship" designation is appropriate in a Wikipedia article at all, it should be referenced, and not just in SUNY Buffalo's own materials. I don't live in New York or have an affiliation with any higher ed institution there except Cornell, but I think the Stony Brook people would take exception to Buffalo receiving that designation. I'll leave it here for a while and see if generates discussion, if not I'll just delete it.AlexFeldman (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is correct, and I would advocate removal as suggested above (and removal of listing of Buffalo here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flagship_universities_in_the_United_States). It is at best highly misleading to refer to Buffalo as SUNY flagship, as the system has deliberately not ever designated a single flagship campus. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_University_of_New_York#No_Flagship and links added to introductory section of that entry.

Attempted to edit entry and added referenced to reflect the actual state of affairs, but reverted by anonymous partisan/s who seem invested in Buffalo's alleged flagship state. ~dak~ 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I edited it again. If the people who reverted it want to give us something more than the internal reference, and the College Board, I'll stop.  But please don't revert it without comment. AlexFeldman (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How you can ignore the University and the College Board is baffling. Those are the two major players in the topic at hand.

'university at buffalo is the flagship. The College Board and buffalo's own site, are accurate, valid, current sources. The College Board is the one who put together the list of flagship universities in the first place and it lists buffalo's as it for new york. Look at the definition of a flagship University, on Wikipedia even, it says it's determined by the state and college board. It's the largest and biggest public school that has all the big division 1 athletics for the state. It is the most well known and highest research activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_university#Education `The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities, it is also the states biggest University '. Which buffalo is. It's crazy it keeps getting removed, unless you find something that says it's not or another University in New York is the flagship then buffalo remains to be the flagship. There is even much talk at the state that it's the flagship, it's own website makes the flagship designation. Nothing else in new york comes close and that's backed up by sources, the College Board article was posted this October as well as the universities own website which is run by suny!!!!! And also I'm not affiliated with the University in any way. I just live in New York so I know a thing or to about ny and just spreading the facts which are backed by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechosenwhom (talk • contribs) 19:48, November 19, 2014‎

Please note that this discussion and (which has mostly taken place at Talk:State University of New York and related articles have been extensively edited by an editor using over a dozen sockpuppets, including Thechosenwhom and most (all?) editors in favor of describing UB as the SUNY flagship. ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

SUNY at Buffalo is the flagship university for New York state. This is based on numerous factors and publications. Now the system itself doesn't define one itself, rather 4 flagship centers , but all publications(which include government resources/collegeboard/and others) all point to the University at Buffalo as the flagship. And as such, it has shown to be the flagship campus. Here is a dump of some of the sources:. Now this is consistent with what is found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship#Education. This also matches what other universities are using to define/categorize themselves as flagships and also goes beyond certain institutions. Please take a look at all the sources, and see they match what is found on the actual education flagship page. Some of the responses (from what it looks like) are just because the system itself doesn't define one, which is not important ( the system seems to lean towards U at B as the flagship anyway ). Take a look here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flagship_universities_in_the_United_States. Boise State is on there over University of Idaho. University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M are both on there. As well as Ohio State University over Ohio University. State University of New York at Buffalo fits with all the other universities on that list and is the flagship.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no official "list" of flagships. There are many lists, all unofficial, of varying degrees of persuasiveness, and none definitive. There are also standalone descriptions by reliable sources that may not be reflected on any list at all. It is folly to argue that a school "is" or "isn't" a flagship by reason of a list that it is or isn't on. Particularly since *no* list has ever supplied a useful or meaningful definition of the term, but rather just general principles (to which there are always exceptions). I think if a source IDs a campus as a flagship then it is, barring some circumstance, to be discussed at Talk, such as the system deliberately avoids the use of the term or the source is incompetent.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources provided seem to link University at Buffalo as the flagship though. No other SUNY school is ever listed in any list, its always buffalo. Furthermore its multiple lists from multiple places as well as articles. Now it alone dictates that it gets the flagship designation on its page, regardless of anything else but I would like to add, how does biose state or Texas a&m get this designation if they're not even on one list. It seems a few articles are nit picked in those situations and there's some confusion as to wheter they should or not. With buffalo there is none. It seems all the sources back it up as such ( which also list it with other flagship's from other states ) and even some articles. Overall, if Buffalo is listed over and over again from publications ranging from the past to the immediate future then there is no debate really.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

UB a Land-Grant University?
There seems to be disagreement between AlaskanNativeRU and myself about whether UB is a land-grant university. Would anyone be able to help us reach consensus? It is my belief that UB is not a land-grant university, as it has not been designated under the Morrill Acts and related extensions by the government. However, AlaskanNativeRU claims that the APLU has somehow superseded the government-run land-grant act. I'd like to note that in AlaskanNativeRU's provided citation, the APLU itself states that UB is not a state-designated land-grant university. Any opinions on this? (We are having a similar discussion at Talk:Binghamton University.) Vmanjr (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to further add Membership in APLU is automatically granted to land-grant institutions per the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862,1890 and 1994. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Would like to also note the space grant type. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/national/spacegrant/home/Space_Grant_Directors.html#.VU10_nPD_qA is the official list. Showing Cornell as the master and the rest as affiliates in NY. But in the space grants wiki and on other universities (other than the mains) it includes expansions and affiliates, so I believe we should either follow through or stay consistent. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Copying from the Talk:Binghamton University page:
 * Being a land-grant institution is not the only condition of admission for the APLU:
 * "B. Institution Membership 1. Automatic Membership Accredited universities that meet at least one of the following three criteria are qualified for APLU membership without formal action by the APLU Board of Directors. a.  Institution is a Land-Grant institution (1862, 1890, 1994) b.  A public institution classified in one of two Basic Classification categories from the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Instructional Programs (Source: http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/) i.  Research (Very High) ii. Research (High) c.  Institution is a current APLU member in good standing."
 * There can also be discretionary membership, even if none of those criteria are met. That said, from the text above, being a member of the APLU does not mean that you are a land-grant institution.  In fact, this cites the three Morrill Acts in its definition, which as we discussed before are only the institutions shown on this map from the federal government.
 * The space-grant consortiums are very different from the APLU. Let's go with NY, since that's where I'm from.  Unlike the land-grant universities, which are single-university designations, the space-grant program was designed by the government to use state-wide consortiums.  If you go to the New York Consortium page, you can see that there is a list of affiliated institutions.  No such institution affiliation exists for the land-grant program in the Morrill Act, though it does exist for the space-grant, sea-grant, and sun-grant programs.  The APLU is not any sort of land-grant consortium, but is instead a tangentially-associated private association that advocates for both high-research public universities and land-grant universities.
 * Vmanjr (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The space-grant consortiums are very different from the APLU. Let's go with NY, since that's where I'm from.  Unlike the land-grant universities, which are single-university designations, the space-grant program was designed by the government to use state-wide consortiums.  If you go to the New York Consortium page, you can see that there is a list of affiliated institutions.  No such institution affiliation exists for the land-grant program in the Morrill Act, though it does exist for the space-grant, sea-grant, and sun-grant programs.  The APLU is not any sort of land-grant consortium, but is instead a tangentially-associated private association that advocates for both high-research public universities and land-grant universities.
 * Vmanjr (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Vmanjr (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let please continue this discussion over at Talk:Binghamton University and keep it all in one place.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2015

 * 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: No consensus to move. Discounting the duplicate !vote, the most relevent mention here is WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

University at Buffalo → State University of New York at Buffalo – The official name is State University of New York at Buffalo and the name should be stated as such. The Article : University at Buffalo and when viewed on mobile the wiki page looks like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_at_Buffalo,_the_State_University_of_New_York and the category section : Category:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York are all baring an incorrect name(as well as others), University at Buffalo, The State University of New York should not be used instead State University of New York at Buffalo. State University of New York at Buffalo already redirects to the correct wiki page so I imagine changing shouldn't be much of a hassle. Some references here – http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/brand/editorial/ub-name.html. It would also fit in when referencing it among other universities. The current name creates confusion, thats why the official name (State University of New York at Buffalo) would be a better fit. Do not sign this. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectful oppose – we actually prefer shorter titles, rather than more official ones. Red  Slash  02:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there simply isn't enough usage of the longer name and "University at Buffalo" is unambiguous. While there are some examples of more "official" names on this wiki such as California State University, Fresno rather than Fresno State University, there has never been a RM discussion for Fresno so I'm calling WP:COMMONNAME on Buffalo. ONR (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move. The article's current name, University at Buffalo, is actually a reference to something that hasn't existed since 1962, when the old, private UB joined the SUNY system. I realize for non-NY'ers this is all confusing as heck, but the article's current title as it stands right now is essentially an incorrect name. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In the "Brand Guidelines", the university says to refer to itself as "University at Buffalo" in "day-to-day instances". — X96lee15 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

§AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move It says to use it as day to day use but this page isn't just some writing blog. Its an enclyopedia and should have it stated as such. At least if this article doesn't change I feel the categories or the logs of this wiki should be changed from University at Buffalo, The State University of New York to State University of New York at Buffalo. And for the user who said to just use a short name, why wouldn't University of California Berkeley just use UC Berkeley or University of California Las Angels just use UCLA, and there's a ton more of examples. Its important to see how it compares to other universities and take all aspects into consideration


 * Support, per . Now that I think about it, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't make sense in this case because University at Buffalo is somewhat out of context. The University at Albany, SUNY article seems to have taken the right approach. Buffaboy  talk 00:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See UB's "Brand Guidelines", they specifically say to use "University at Buffalo". I think this is a pretty clear case of COMMONNAME. — X96lee15 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (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.

DAB page issue
There is a discussion going at Talk:State University of New York–Buffalo concerning whether that page should be a redirect directly to University at Buffalo or a dab page including both that school and Buffalo State College, given the similarity in the formal names of the two. Comments welcome - thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University at Buffalo. 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/20071116183239/http://www.buffalonews.com:80/opinion/editorials/story/194233.html to http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/editorials/story/194233.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on University at Buffalo. 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/20130916145214/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bschools/rankings to http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

President and Vice President
User_talk:173.71.161.29 continues making multiple divisive and false edits throughout wikipedia and this article. Please feel free to look at the discussion on his talk page. With this is mind, I don't see why Millard Fillmore being mentioned as the 13th President of the United States and 12th Vice President of the United States keeps being taken out. Ronald Reagan's Eureka_College has a whole section dedicated to him and in the notable people section it gets stated that he was both Governor and President. This is also present on Multiple other college/university wiki's where a President whose had multiple prominent roles in American Politics is connected. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just be careful of the mention. The article is about the University at Buffalo, not Millard Fillmore or any of the other notable people. We don't need to know every specific title they've ever held, and getting too specific is beyond the scope of this article. If readers want to know their specific order of title, they can visit that article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Name again
Of course Wikipedia isn't bound by the UB Branding Guide, but UB is somewhat unique in its naming scheme. The brand guide seems pretty clear about the usage of the legal name and the formal academic names. The legal name "The State University of New York at Buffalo" "should be used on legal documents such as contracts, diplomas, formal agreements and proposals", while the formal academic name with the SUNY modifier, "The University at Buffalo, The State University of New York", can be found consistently on the university seal, SUNY lockup logo, the school's official website, and in usage like the UB listing for the AAU. The legal name, however, is rarely found, which makes sense given the description on the brand page. Obviously, "University at Buffalo" is clearly not only the university's preferred name, but is also the common name in secondary sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see this page to be renamed to the official name "State University of New York at Buffalo", because wikiepeida is supposed to be an encyclopedia in which it would be most appropriate to have its official/legal name as its article name. But if you purpose it to be renamed with the SUNY modifier, I also agree it would be better than what it is currently so you have my support there.

What else is interesting is Buffalo's own law school, lists students who graduated from Buffalo and are attending the law school as " SUNY at Buffalo Center " under the college represented area. This is also present at other graduate schools at Buffalo and other schools too. University of Miami lists alumni of buffalo as " State University of New York, Buffalo " Vanderbilt lists it as " SUNY Buffalo Center "  and University of Rochester lists Buffalo alumni as "SUNY - Buffalo". Lastly something else I found quickly was NY state yellow ribbon lists Buffalo as " State University of New York at Buffalo "

-AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I want 2 be part of the sussessor sus DJ remzy (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University at Buffalo. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20111211174652/http://law.buffalo.edu/About_UBLaw/default.asp?firstlevel=1&filename=ub_law_in_brief to http://law.buffalo.edu/About_UBLaw/default.asp?firstlevel=1&filename=ub_law_in_brief
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116181259/http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf to http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130117163058/http://www.atthebull.com/index.php?/user/47-satish-tripathi to http://www.atthebull.com/index.php?%2Fuser%2F47-satish-tripathi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032936/http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/241_712pg1_16.pdf to http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/241_712pg1_16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506205950/http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/campus/campus-host-page.host.html/content/shared/university/news/ub-reporter-articles/stories/2015/06/jones_champion.detail.html to http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/campus/campus-host-page.host.html/content/shared/university/news/ub-reporter-articles/stories/2015/06/jones_champion.detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

SUNY Buffalo nickname
SUNY Buffalo is a well established nickname of the State University of New York at Buffalo, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here just for some examples. These are from a wide range of reputable sources.

AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Flagship
Buffalo is not a flagship, de facto or otherwise. These claims are based on cherry-picking and should be removed. I made changes to reflect this a few times but they were systematically removed by sockpuppet vandals who with this claim to be true. ~dak~ 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Citations are listed in the article. Multiple reputable sources are listed. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo.jpg

Flagship
Buffalo is not a flagship, de facto or otherwise. These claims are based on cherry-picking and should be removed. I made changes to reflect this a few times but they were systematically removed by sockpuppet vandals who with this claim to be true. ~dak~ 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Citations are listed in the article. Multiple reputable sources are listed. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've brought this out of the archive because an unregistered editor is now claiming that this article should say that this university is the state's flagship university. However, the cited sources are clear that the system does not have an official flagship so stating or implying otherwise is disingenuous.

Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I support including the flagship information. Many sources indicate it is (official or not). I believe other state universities have this problem and it is usually clear which is known as the flagship. But I would like to see the IP editor chime in. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Radio station info
WRUB (college radio) redirects here. Two editors added this content to the disambiguation page WRUB:


 * Prior to 1981 the struggling, little known station's call letters were WIRC. They were changed to WRUB by then UB undergraduate psychology student Eugene Gennarelli Jr. who was a new radio personality at the station with many ideas  who felt that improvements were needed.  Gennarelli who was very audience oriented and soon became  publicity director of the radio station and changed the call letters to WRUB and  working with a local artist designed a new logo for the station.  Gennarelli felt that programming changes, the call letters change and new logo reflected more accurately the university identity of the station as well as  its progressive  music format. The station gained popularity among listeners and  grew to a large staff and community presence. The station ran until 1991, when after a few semesters of mismanament and shut down by Sub Board One, the nonprofit that ran the station. Undergrads Chris Miller and Mike Vago relaunched the station in fall of 1993, and over the next several years the station transitioned from AM to online. It ran until July 2019, when the University of Buffalo withdrew funding from Sub Board, effectively shutting it and WRUB down. In September of 2020, Vago and other WRUB alumni launched Subject, a student-led multimedia platform in an effort to replace WRUB in spirit.

If useful, it could be cleaned up and added here, or the redirect could become its own article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seal of Buffalo, New York.svg

Interim campus
When I attended SUNY/AB in 1968-1970, prior to the groundbreaking for the North Campus, there was an Interim Campus, also in Amherst. The computing center was there, as well as the Computer Science and Mathematics departments. I don't know when it was built, but if someone has the date it should go into the article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Common abbreviations?
When I attended from 1968-1970 the name was often abbreviated as SUNY/AB. Does anybody have a WP:RS that indicates what abbreviations were used in what years? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)