Talk:University of Toronto/Archive 3

William Lyon Mackenzie King involvement, 1895
For the record, previously the Student Media subsection read, "In 1895, University College students, allegedly led by William Lyon Mackenzie King, boycotted classes for a week after the editor of the Varsity student newspaper was suspended for anti-administration articles. Although King is traditionally given credit for leadership of the strike, recent scholarship has suggested that his involvement has been overstated."

I checked the source but it didn't quite say King's involvement is overstated. So after a bit of reading, I reworded that part into a more factual summary avoids mentioning whether it was overstated. Still, if anyone knows more about the actual extent of King's involvement, post the info here and we might have a more complete account of this piece of history. For now, I think the summary is okay and sufficiently neutral. Jphillips23 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an entry from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography: link. Included as a source in addition to the original. Jphillips23 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The "overstated" reference was mine, but the way you have reworded it is O.K. There is a wonderful series of letters which denigrates King and his role in the strike in the Fisher Rare Book Room, but they have not been published yet. My original aim was to remove any idea that the strike had a "leader", let alone that the leader was King. A nice balanced account can be found in Ferns and Ostry, "The Age of Mackenzie King." The proper, unbalanced account, as they note on page 27 in a footnote, has yet to be written. Lostphd (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for clearing that up, Lostphd. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section
I plan on taking some time to review the Further Reading section: there are some minor fixes needed in terms of formatting, and as time allows I will also gradually review the references. Also, if an item is more appropriate as a specific citation than a general reference, then we might need to move it into the text as a source. Of course, if anyone finds more good, general references about the university, please go right ahead and add them to the section. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the article (2)
Jphillips23: Concerning the nature of the satellite campuses, although you are right that they cannot be treated as faculties and that the Principal is also a VP, their legal nature is still that of a college. According to the University of Toronto Act, UTM and UTSC are officially Erindale College and Scarborough College, respectively. They are legally constituent colleges of the University of Toronto until the University of Toronto has been amended. nat.utoronto 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As well, the students at UTM (although not UTSC) are represented in the UTSU, generally a very St. George oriented group, and participates in UTSU elections. I actually know that quite a number of students that attend many/most/all their classes at St. George but are actually registered at the satellite campuses. To further my point, there are no student Governors who solely represent either satellite campus and are represented by 2 students governors (FT Undergrad ArtsSci) who can come from any of the 3 campuses. The incumbents are currently from St. George and yet they supposedly represent the tens of thousands of ArtsSci students at all three campuses. I know you're not saying that UTM and UTSC aren'tt part of UofT, but they are not as autonomous as one might think. nat.utoronto 07:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and I still believe that the all the campuses should be mentioned in this article. Perhaps we could use this page as a portal-ish article of sorts (keeping governance, colleges, history, Research, academics; while including a blurb about the three campuses), split the St. George parts out (i.e. grounds, and student life). nat.utoronto 07:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is quite large in size (86KB i believe), which according to the Manual of Style is between "Almost certainly should be divided" and "Probably should be divided". nat.utoronto 07:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to quickly answer the size issue first. The editing size is mostly from the formatting of citations (i.e. all the things within and , etc.), and there are well over 100 citations in this article. The Manual of Style specifically uses Readable Prose Size, which for this article is just under 40KB, around the middle of the scale (see WP:LENGTH). For some really big university articles, check out MIT and Duke University.
 * However, I absolutely agree with you that the article shouldn't get any bigger than this (again in terms of readable prose, since more citations are always welcome). The article is now more or less mature. Jphillips23 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

<<< Nat, yes I do know what the University of Toronto Act says. That is a very archaic, legal technical perspective. Again, if you want to get technical I can say that the principals of the UTM and UTSC report directly to the central administration, while deans and colleges are under the provost. And legally, U of T still owns the land at Queen's Park and the Government of Ontario is only leasing it for 999 years. It doesn't help anyone to get into an endless discussion of obsolete legal trivia. By any reasonable person's definition, UTM and UTSC are considered and treated as satellite campuses, and I think you know this as well.


 * It is not at all unusual for campuses to collaborate and interact as you mentioned. Having autonomy doesn't mean a institution exists in complete solitude and is not allowed to interact with other institutions. You are abosolutely correct in the things you mentioned about student politics (I don't know as much about it as you do, although I believe UTM still has its own student union?). Frankly, UTSU can set its election rules however they like; student politics has very little to do with the fact that we have three campuses. Let's agree on one thing: I think it is generally accepted by virtually everyone that we have a de facto three-campus situation here. A collaboration here and an election rule there doesn't change that fact.


 * We can't really "split the St. George parts out" as you say, because basically everything in this article is already about the main campus. To make a "portal" article is basically to make a "university system" article, which involves splitting the main campus from the central administration. But that is impossible for a university like U of T because it is not a university system like University of California, where there is no "main campus". U of T is more like University of Michigan where there is a main campus that contains and is fused with the central administration (therefore they have to be covered in the same article). Right now there is already one article about each campus, and there's no need to make it any more complicated than that. There has also been a compromise made to use a disambiguation link at the very top of the page so the satellite campus articles are easily accessible. I hate to repeat so much but again, there are many, many university articles that make this same arrangement, so your concern actually involves many articles besides this one. Jphillips23 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

^^^P.S. I hope I didn't come off sounding angry in my comments above, because honestly I am not. I just want to make that very clear since these things are not always obvious. Jphillips23 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * UTMsu may exist, but it runs inconjuction with UTSU. Strange enough, UTSU doesn't have a presence on the Scarborough Campus. nat.utoronto 05:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have our own union, SCSU. I admit this article is a slippery rope (but not our fault). OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Images in the history section
There is a wide selection of historic images related to UofT over at the Commons. I don't particularly care which ones are used, but I think we should take advantage of them, especially since many of them are directly related to the text of the article (say, for example, the images related to King's College). While I have no doubt that the uploader of the Soldiers' Tower image is fond of the photo, it represents one of many contemporary images of historic buildings in the article (not to mention dozens of others over at the Commons), and can easily be accommodated elsewhere in the article if necessary. UofT has a long and interesting history, and we should use some images taken from that history for the article. We have no shortage of snapshots of iconic buildings on today's campus, but at least we can have 2 or 3 historic images in the history section.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Skeezix1000, thanks for your historical photos of U of T. The existing photo of Soldiers' Tower and its caption are relevent in the history section and not the life section where you moved it in favour of your own pictures. As well, there are already historical pictures in the article and in the history section, and also many picutres of historic buildings. I know you uploaded all those images and want to see all your pictures used, but please understand that the University of Toronto article is mature and doesn't hold or need even more pictures per section, and it will be going through a GA review soon. Because of all this I've placed your photos in University College, University of Toronto instead. That article is still underdeveloped and can certainly use some historical pictures in addition to a well-written history section. Jphillips23 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add, Skeezix1000, I completely agree with you in the importance of historic images. I am in fact the user that created the "Historic images of the University of Toronto" category in commons last year and grouped the historic images together. I did upload a few historic images myself, although no where as many as Skeezix1000 (great job!). I was not the one who uploaded the original Soldiers' Tower image although I transferred it to commons.
 * I also agree that it would be great if more historic pictures can be used, but this article already has quite a few and any more would crowd and dominate the article. A good place for these pictures is the yet-unwritten History of the University of Toronto, and I hope that an expert user in history like Skeezix1000 or anyone will create that article in the near future. Right now I am mostly trying to gather more quality references for the article. Jphillips23 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, as I mentioned above, I am not fussed whatsoever as to which historic photos we use, whether I uploaded them or someone else did. I didn't create them, and with all due respect, this has nothing to do with me wanting to showcase my own images (they are not really mine, nor do I care which ones we use -- by all means, use the ones you uploaded if you prefer them).  As for the relevance of the Soldier's Tower image, certainly it is relevant, but actually historic images are far more relevant to the history section.  Yes, an unwritten article on the history of the university would be nice, but that doesn't change the fact that the history section in this article would be best served with historical photos.  The Soldiers' Tower image is one of many contemporary images of existing buildings in the article - it adds nothing different to the reader's understanding of the history of the University than any of the other contemporary images.  There really needs to be a better diversity of images in this article.  If you feel that the issue of the participation of UofT students and alumni in the two world wars is one you want to highlight through the use of the Soldiers' Tower image, then I will insert an image of actual UofT students training for World War I.  You name the topic or issue that you think is best highlighted - I can assist in finding the appropriate historic image.  Your point about not needing additional images is well taken, however, and perhaps you are correct that the history section only require two images.  And if you really feel that the Soldiers' Tower has some special relevance to the history of the University that it absolutely must be a photo of that particular building in this section, then I have just uploaded a 1925 image of the tower (on the right), taken relatively shortly after it was completed, and like any other historic image, I'd be happy using that one if you prefer.  If you don't like this one, there are others of the tower, and I would be happy to upload them for your consideration.  If, however, at the end of the day, you ultimately believe that the contemporary image better serves the article and the history section than an actual historic image, then I will defer to your better judgment on this issue and I wish you best of luck on the upcoming GA.  I'm not sure I would agree with that choice, but you've had the long involvement with the article and are better placed to make that call.  I will leave it in your hands from now on.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Skeezix1000, I'm leaving your recent change alone. It wasn't very clear in my comments above, but I was firstly concerned with too many images in the article, and secondly with image relevence and quality. Both the image you just added and the one of Soldiers' Tower here are great pictures and either one would be fine. I did not claim to have "better" judgment--that's not my intention at all. In fact considering your extensive contributions to Wikipedia you are probably far more knowlegable than me. It's great that now we have two historical pictures in the history section, and at least 1/4 of the article's images are historical. Jphillips23 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD
There is currently an AFD discussion about DEEDS Project, a project at the University of Toronto. The discussion can be found here. Otebig (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Toronto in the movies
This section was deleted and deemed as "trivia". Someone please integrate it somewhere else into the article or buildings.


 * 2008: The Incredible Hulk	 - University College
 * 2008: Flash of Genius
 * 2004: Mean Girls - Convocation Hall
 * 2000: Gossip
 * 2000: Skulls	- Trinity College
 * 1998: Urban Legend
 * 1997: Good Will Hunting - The lecture scene at McLennan Laboratory, dorm Scenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.76.231.209 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually if you'd like, you can be bold and add the relevant bits to each article such as University College, Convocation Hall, etc., because these facts might be notable to the individual buildings although not to the university as an institution. Try to expand these bits into sentences, indicate the their significance, include reliable sources and integrate them into the texts. Trivia sections are generally discouraged in Wikipedia. Jphillips23 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to have such a section in our entry. I will try to gather up some more information on this as soon as the midterms are done, and add a "Trivia" section. (By the way, several films and one novel were either filmed at or takes place in Tinity College, as well.) Surely, this will be interesting for everyone to know that such and such films were filmed at or take place in the University of Toronto, and I believe everything that's 'true' (well-justified with citations in many cases), informative and possibly, interestig should be on wikipedia. By the way, if you actually watched Good Will Hunting or have heard about it more precisely, you will find out that the famous lecture scene was filmed at McLennan lab. Wisdompower (talk) 3:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Interesting" does not justify including trivia because "Wikipedia is not a place for trivial information of that sort, especially in a developed, mature article like this. If a fact is actually notable within the context of a particular building, then it can placed in that specific article with proper citation. Jphillips23 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We worked hard on developing the article and I agree that film references belong in the articles pertaining to particular buildings. This is because film references add up quickly in such a central article such as this.  Furthermore, there is no section on film references in the Toronto article, because there would be too much to list.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But other universities have such sections, and I don't see why the University of Toronto's entry should be so different. If anything, having an additional section like that will make the entry look better, not worse. Furthermore, if we research more, we might find out that some fictional people in movies, tv shows, etc are from the university. Wisdompower (talk) 2:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Architecture
To Wikipedia contributors: What's the name for the architecture at Trinity College?


 * It is mainly Jacobethan Tudor architecture. The style of the Trinity College Chapel is Gothic Revival. Jphillips23 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also known as "Toronto"
Hello, in the interest of getting into a revision match, I figure we might as well talk this through... I do not believe it is common place at all for Canadian universities to be known by their place name only. I agree it is quite common at US schools, (Texas, Alabama, Tennessee etc). Can you provide a source confirming that it is commonly known as just "Toronto"? If not, I think it should be put back the way it was. TastyCakes (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who went to the university and have lived in the city for some time, I don't think I've ever heard the university itself being referred to as simply 'Toronto'. Perhaps this is a common name in some areas, but If it is to be included it really needs a cite. - 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: I've never heard anyone call it "Toronto" and TastyCakes is correct, it is not a Canadian convention to refer to universities casually in this manner (i.e. Calgary, Manitoba, British Columbia, and so on). Since the local (and by this I mean all of Canada) favours both the full name and the acronym (U of T, UBC, etc.) we should use this. Any other naming device would need to be sourced (and I feel sourcing for "U of T" is not necessary because it falls under common usage; just scanning any Toronto-area newspaper would confirm this).  freshacconci  talk talk  03:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's something people tend to just talk about and hear, most of the time. (so I don't think web citations would be appropriate.)Obviously, in Canada, U of T is almost always used. But outside Canada, trust me. You could say "I study at Toronto" and people would actually know which university you're referring to or at least, have some idea about the university you're talking about. But when you say "I study at U of T", almost always, they will respond by saying "What is U of T?". How the University of Toronto is called among people is similar to how the University of Michigan is called, since the University of Michigan is also often referred to as either U of M, Umich or simply, Michigan. I really don't think the University of Toronto should stand out differently from others. We want to be among the best in every way.(even on very trivial matters like this one. We need to let the world recognize the university's greatness more easily.) And by best, I'm talking about the best universities in the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, Michigan, Sydney, Melbourne. The University of Toronto is certainly among the best. "Toronto" sounds better than "U of T" anyway. (Plus, consider how the university is also sometimes called "Toronto University". "U of T" is in no way, the only informal way to address the university.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.162.141 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, stop reverting the changes. We are trying to reach consensus here and you are violating WP:3RR. Second, as we have stated above, we are going by common usage here, not what you think sounds better. If people outside Canada refer to it as "Toronto", provide a source. Otherwise, it does not belong. U of T is what the university uses as well. Check the website.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just "Toronto" is not a name widely or even used by the University community. Generally, UofT, University of Toronto, utoronto, the University are generally used by the community. There are just too many post-secondary school within or really close to Toronto to just use Toronto. and also, Toronto isn't really centered around the University. nat.utoronto 05:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point: Toronto is not a small university town dominated by one school. There are four universities and several colleges. A good point of comparison would be NYU: I don't think anyone calls it just "New York" or says they're studying "at New York" as that would be confusing. It's New York University or NYU.  freshacconci  talk talk  05:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's interesting tho is that many people in Toronto would say "I study Downtown" or "You go to school Downtown?" and some how that would translate into UofT, even tho Ryerson is closer to the core that the UofT St George Campus is. nat.utoronto 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but just "trusting you" is not acceptable for this, or any, article. Wikipedia hinges on verifiability, not trust.  Nobody else seems to have heard of the university being referred to in this way and we can't just call it something because we think it makes the university look better (which I don't think it does anyway).  When you say "I study at Toronto", people familiar with the city and school can probably make a pretty good guess what you're talking about, but it doesn't make it a common name (or a very clear one).  Further, being as this is a Canadian article, the manual of style suggests we use Canadian grammar and, I would argue, Canadian naming conventions.  It should, therefore, be the other commonly used Canadian names in the article, not a name that may (or may not) be commonly used outside of Canada.  And certainly not if that name can't be sourced.  And "Toronto University" is just wrong - maybe it's common in some circles, but it's like calling the UK England, perhaps common among some, but wrong.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * God, last time I've read something that used "Toronto University" to describe UofT was in a 19th century document. nat.utoronto 05:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up at least once before with this same user. When 142.151.162.141 was editing under the name Wisdompower (proof), he/she wrote: "Think about it. Why would I want to waste my time doing this? This is not something that I'm doing because I'm just crazy." I think we're getting close to answering that particular question here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Steamroller Assault, yes Wisdompower is me. I just can't be bothered to log on, in order to discuss this trivial issue. Okay, I give up. Whatever. What a waste of my time I guess. Strange thing is that no one complained about "Toronto" being put there, since it was first added about a month ago. But now all of a sudden, what the hell? This university is really weird any way. No one here seems to have any pride about his/her university. (probably because it just accepts too many people. a lot of students here do not deserve the prestige carried by the university. they simply need to be cut.) I realize this as I talk to people. Tasty Cakes, no, calling the university "Toronto University" is like referring to England as "England, United Kingdom" or "England in Great Britain". Your example doesn't fit. Only uneducated people would think that England is the UK. It's just wrong. England is a part of the United Kingdom. However, University of Toronto can be called "U of T", "Toronto", "Toronto University", etc, whatever, without sounding stupid. Freshacconci, no, NYU is a private university (it's even called "New York University", not "University of New York". Plus, obviously even if it were a public university called "University of New York". "New York" wouldn't be used, since there are other globally known universities in NYC like Columbia.) University of Chicago is private too in fact, but its name makes it look at though it's public. University of Toronto is much closer to public universities like Michigan, Chicago(just for naming sense), Sydney etc. Just visit the wiki entries of those universities. Look at how they all accept that they are also often simply referred to as "Michigan", "Sydney", "Chicago". University of Sydney probably isn't the only university there as well. So are Universities of Michigan and Chicago. But in real life, you do hear people saying "he studied at Sydney", etc. (It sounds much better than saying "he studied at Usydney" as well, and lets the listener recognize what's being talked about more easily.) Also, yes, there are indeed other universities in Toronto as well. But honestly, University of Toronto is the only internationally acknowledged university in Toronto. So I don't see anything wrong with the university being called "Toronto" in the sense of it representing the city. Whatever though, end of story. I'm sick and tired. I'd hate it when people express "What is U of T?" when you talk about your university. It's all up to you people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.162.141 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, NYU can be called University of New York quite correctly by your internal set of naming rules? Or would only uneducated people call it that?  Perhaps rather than "U of T" you could try "I go to school in Toronto", and they say "where in Toronto?" and you say "the University of Toronto" and, if they're American, they likely say "oh I haven't heard of that".  That seems to work for every Canadian put in the position you describe.  In any case, I think this is settled: "Toronto" and "Toronto University" are not to be listed as common names.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I attend the University of Toronto and I have never heard of anyone there using simply "Toronto" for the university. If otherwise is the case, please cite. If there is no citation, U of T is more common and preferred, even by the university itself. UToronto is not as common, but is used on the Internet as utoronto.ca and its official email. The website toronto.edu is no longer officially used. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TastyCakes, NYU is a private university, and private universities often have ".... University" form. (with University of Chicago being an exception) If there were a public university representing New York, it would most likely have been named "University of New York". So you misunderstood my comment clearly. Plus, rather than U of T (you would be dumb to say U of T to someone who's not from Canada), we most often say "I go to the University of Toronto", but also sometimes say "You study at Chicago? I study at Toronto" or "I was educated at Trinity College, Toronto", etc. Besides, the league tables (rankings, as Americans call them) often use "Toronto" and never use "U of T". As I've said, I'm not going to bother with this anymore. It's not a big deal. If you're going to reply to me, please try to make a relevant and valuable point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.116 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you apparently missed my point - NYU is not called "University of New York" because that is not its name. Similarly, the U of T is not called "Toronto University".  Hope there are no hard feelings, take care.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the issue around public versus private is off-point: CUNY is a public university and is never called just New York. It's CUNY, or City University of New York. Anyway. I think we're done here: the consensus is clear and we aren't in the business of editing based on "pride" of institution, whatever that has to do with anything. If you go to U of T and you're visiting a foreign country and someone asks you where you study, you say University of Toronto. Seems simple. But in any case, whatever a student calls his or her university when they're on vacation is not relevant to Wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm done too. Whatever it's called, really. Freshacconci, I really think University of Toronto is similar to University of Michigan, University of Sydney (for example) in terms of appelation and reputation. I don't understand why University of Toronto's wiki page should be so different. It's not really about "pride" (which most students in this university lack anyway) TastyCakes, calling NYU "University of New York" is like calling Harvard "University of Harvard". You're wrong about this. Namings have something to do with the university being public or private. (and Freshacconci, yes, this is off-topic. But I brought up this topic just to clarify to TastyCakes that NYU has nothing to do with this issue. NYU is definitely not a suitable example.) Read my previous comments without being all too emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.115 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, although obviously Harvard is different because it's in Cambridge, not "Harvard", a situation unlike both NYU and the U of T. My point is that you can't just switch "University of X" to "X University" and vice versa if you can't document (recent) uses in both ways (as is possible with Oxford, Cambridge etc).  NYU would seem to be a bad example from your side of the argument only, since it is an obvious case where you can't flip the name around like you're saying is commonly done with the U of T.  But lets look at some other examples: would you call the University of Texas Texas University?  Would you call the University of Michigan Michigan University?  No because those aren't their names.  If, like you say, namings have something to do with being public or private, why would the U of T, as a public school, be referred to as Toronto University, except in error?  Are you trying to make it appear that the U of T is a private school?  Like you say, it's a pretty silly thing to argue about and the matter appears to be settled.  So consider me argued out on the subject.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you missed my point. Well, this time, completely. My main argument was that "U of T" is not the only informal way to address this university. "Toronto", "Toronto University" are informal ways to call the university too. University of Michigan's wiki page does inclulde "Michigan" as its informal appelation, though not "Michigan University". So do most of other major public universities. Since, apart from Oxbridge, most do not include "... University" forms as parts of their informal appelations, I agreed that "Toronto University" is not suitable for this wiki article, about a month ago. I have never tried to make University of Toronto look as though it's private. I'm proud of the fact it's public, if you ask me. Why would I want to make it look as though it's private, when I've read so much about the university's history and have contributed immensely to the university's alumni/faculty wiki page? "Toronto University" is not something I've created. I've seen it used a few times. So, I thought it should be put up there with "U of T" and "Toronto". But that was about a month ago, and I did agree with it being unsuitable, compared to other informal names, since Oxford and Cambridge are the only universities to use that form when they're public. If you don't want to be in this, stop making nonsense comments. Before, it was NYU being addressed as an example. Now, what? I'm trying to make it look as though it's private? For Christ's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.115 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not demonstrated in any way that "Toronto" or "Toronto University" are commonly used ways to refer to the university. That is the bottom line.  You certainly didn't sound like you've dropped the "Toronto University" issue when you said " University of Toronto can be called "U of T", "Toronto", "Toronto University", etc, whatever, without sounding stupid".  If by "sounding stupid" you mean "being incorrect", I disagree entirely.  Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but it seems that it's your arguments that don't seem to make sense.  You don't seem to understand that information in Wikipedia needs to be demonstrated in a reliable source, not ripped from your "experience" talking to people that have probably never heard of the U of T and hence wouldn't know any better.  Anyway, take care. TastyCakes (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a similar and long discussion with Wisdompower before. He wanted to add "Toronto University" which is not a common variant of the "University of Toronto" name. However, this page used "U of T, or simply Toronto" for quite a while before the recent edit war, and I think that is the best compromise.
 * "Toronto University" is clearly non-standard. No one uses this name except by mistake. I removed it after Wisdompower inserted this.
 * U of T the standard initialism for the university. This is not disputed by anyone.
 * Toronto is the standard one-word abbreviation for University of Toronto. Note that abbreviation is not the same as initialism. There are situations in which the abbreviation is used instead of the initials, most notably in university rankings such as Maclean's and the ARWU. In general, it is standard practice to abbreviate any "University of XXX" into "XXX" (but not "XXX University"). Also, when university names are used in a sentence it is desirable for consistency to use words and not letters. For example: One says "Michael Ignatieff attended Harvard, Oxford and Toronto," not "Michael Ignatieff attended Harvard, Oxford and U of T." This is done for consistency and clarity.
 * The best parallel I can think of is University of Chicago, which is usually called the U of C in conversations. However, Chicago is often used in international or more formal writings and to avoid confusion with other U of C's. Schools of thought are named using the one-word abbreviation as well, as in Chicago school of economics and Toronto School of communication theory (not U of C school of economics or U of T school of communication theory). University of Michigan is another good example. Note that public vs. private has nothing to do with naming convention.
 * So the best solution is "U of T, or simply Toronto" as a compromise (but definately not "Toronto University"). "U of T" is the common initialism and "Toronto" is the common abbreviation. The initialism and the abbreviation are used in different situations as they are at many universities. I restored the version before the edit war. This should be enough satisfy most people. Jphillips23 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: Apparently the discussion was just archived. Please move my comments inside when done. Glad to see the dispute is concluding. Jphillips23 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was me putting it in the battle archive box because it was devolving into an unproductive argument between me and wisdompower. You are right about the Maclean's thing, as shown here, and since that seems a reliable, recent and notable source I concede that just "Toronto" is an acceptable abbreviation.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Mclean's is being used as the standard-bearer for these naming conventions, then would it be prudent to adjust all the other city- and province-named Canadian university articles for consistency? My very quick search of some of these (Guelph, Montreal, Alberta, Saskatchewan) showed that this is not in place yet. (Also, not sure if this qualifies as a WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ALLORNOTHING argument). Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I logged on to thank the person who finally put an end to this. The solution seems just. I in fact, agreed with "Toronto University" being inappropraite about a month ago. (after initially, putting it forth) Wisdompower (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"People"
The people included in the second paragraph of the "People" section are the most well-known alumni from every field. Stephen Harper is the only one who's not an alumnus. But it's clearly indicated that he attended briefly. I edited that section about few months ago, because the older version looked empty, weak and uninformative. (It didn't even have Erving Goffman and John Kenneth Galbraith.) I seriously do not understand why some contributers are so passionate about concealing the truths. I've seen so many other university entries and I do know what I'm doing. I really do not want this entry to look any weaker than those of other universities. (By universities, I'm referring to universities of this class. e.g. McGill, UCL, etc etc) About the inclusion of Harper again, the fact that he was a student for two months reveals that his first choice was studying at the University of Toronto, not working in Calgary. What harm will stating this and letting everyone know do to mankind? Jphillips23 thinks that the section is too long. That is absolutely nonsense. I tell him to go and see more university entries. (e.g. University College London, London School of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, McGill University, Duke University, Cornell University, University of Michigan, University of Heidelberg, King's College London, University of California, Berkeley, Dartmouth College, etc) This university has produced a vast (in fact, dominant if we're only looking at Canada) number of essential figures of Canada and the world. Why can't it let people know of this? Wisdompower (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wisdompower, I know very well that the University of Toronto has a long list of accomplished alumni. And in fact, you can check that I was one of those who organized much of List of University of Toronto people. The People section already mentions that the university has two governors general and four prime ministers who have graduated, which is "impressive" enough. When you add someone like Harper who's not an alumnus by any reasonable measure, you are not making the section "impressive"; you only come across as desparate. There`s no need to be so desparate as to create an exception for people who have negligible ties with the university, when there is no shortage of notable people who really are alumni.


 * This section is only a summary of List of University of Toronto people, and it's enough to have just a few prominent names within each field. There are already enough names here to show that the University of Toronto has produced a large and very impressive group of alumni. It won't make any difference if you keep adding another 20, 30, 40 names. We should not place undue weight on relatively unimportant sections. A lot of the articles you mentioned have Alumni sections that take up one-third or one-half of an article, and that's totally unbalanced. Sections like Alumni, Athletics, etc. are minor sections that should be smaller than important sections like History and Academics. Right now the article already quite long and the sections are all fully developed. There are many other university articles with short Alumni sections, like University of Chicago, Princeton University, University of California, Los Angeles. If you have more names to add, you can always add them to List of University of Toronto people.


 * On another note Wisdompower, I have no doubt that you really wish to "impress" people about the university. But you really need to understand that the point is not to fill an article with a long collection of everything to brag about. It seems you feel the lack of academic boosterism makes the article "weak", but it is not at all "weak". This is one of Wikipedia's best articles, having been identified as WP:GOOD. A deliberate effort was made to minimize the excessive boosterism that plagues so many other university articles. Sections like Rankings and Alumni are especially prone to that kind of excessive boosterism. When you try too hard with boosterism, you are not making the the article any "stronger", in fact you would only be making it less informative. There's still plenty of information in this article that tells readers just how impressive the University of Toronto is, shown through its history, academics and traditions. A truly impressive university would not have to rely on more than that. You should have a look at WP:BOOSTER. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excessive boosterism is obviously not appropriate. I do know that. But I hardly think our "People" section is long. (If anything, it's short relative to those of other institutions.) University of Chicago, Princeton University do not really have to make much effort to inform people about their impressive alumni. They're so well renowned that it's not necessary for them to do so. However, University of Toronto is a university that has accomplished a lot and produced so many influential alumni, but does not get the recognition it deserves, often even within Canada, for reasons such as that it's not selective generally in admitting undergraduates. (This reason is very unfair for those undergraduates who excelled academically in high school, and certainly U of T does have a great number of such students.) Within some constraints, I believe that we should try to let the reader know of our achievments.

I do not think that adding how Harper attended the university for a very short amount of time will do much harm to the quality of this article. Why would it seem 'desperate' by doing so? The university has produced the largest number of Prime Ministers and Governors-General in Canada. (not 100% sure about Governors-General though) The additional line about Harper would just show that the "tradition" of affiliation with politics is still kept.

Excellence, not known by others, in my opinion, does not have much value. U of T could be considered to be in the same class with universities like Michigan, UCL, etc. And those universities' wikipedia articles all try hard to let people know of their achievments. (However it's true how McGill and UCL emphasize their positions in the Times World Rankings is perfectly stupid and absurd considering the fact that the ranking is flawed (how can it be that institutions (like Berkeley and U of T) that rank under top 20 for every field do not make it into top 20 in the overall ranking), subjective (unconstructive peer review system based) and has incomprehensible fluctuations.) It does not compete with universities like Princeton in terms of reputation. When the majority of universities of our class boast their achievments and demonstrate some degree of boosterism, I don't understand why we shouldn't.   Wisdompower (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue with your personal opinions and perceptions on recognition and rankings. The point is there's already a lot of information here on the university's achievements. There's already a lot of information on the university's impressive alumni. The article already contains the "impressive" information that you wanted. Have you actually read the article? It mentions just as many achievements as all the other universities you listed, if not more. A renowned university like the University of Toronto does not need more boosterism; its excellence is already well known. It is possible to be "impressive" with just a dozen prominent names, there's no need for 100 names. Jphillips23 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

100 names? I have clearly said that I tried to include the most well-known ones from every field. (you see the structure of the paragraph in the section?) Face it, for christ's sake. This article looks much much better since I've edited that empty "People" section. You may be proud of this article that you've created. But this article still isn't perfect. I'd be much happier if more people could contribute to making it better. I wouldn't want to block other people from adding information all the time like you do. I would encourage more contributions. Plus, you've mentioned that this article went into one of wikipedia's best articles. So I went in, but I saw McGill's article as well, which is obviously full of 'boosterism' and hyperboles. (If you read it, you will know.) Thus, being picked as one of the 'best articles' is meaningless. I didn't even know that such a thing existed until you told me by the way. Wisdompower (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a third party I tend to agree that the 'People' section is already too long. It is mostly a long list of names in a very dense paragraph that is very hard to read. We already have List of University of Toronto people for those who are really interested in this topic. - SimonP (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Simon Pulsifer (SimonP) that the "People" section should be in prose format, rather than a laundry list. Unfortunately, we do not have control over the contributions.  A note in that section is needed to keep this article good and this section is probably the main obstacle in gaining "featured article" status.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wisdompower, if you find that other university articles are loaded with boosterism (and I definitely agree many of them are), then a better solution is to edit those articles and remove the boosterism. McGill's article indeed has many problems with boosterism, so it may need to be cleaned up and possibly reviewed. We should not respond to boosterism in other articles by loading more boosterism into this one. Academic boosterism is something that needs to be reduced in all articles. Jphillips23 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jphillips23, I got your point. However, I really honestly do not think the "People" section is long. I get what Jphillips23 is saying. But really, why can't we do what other universities do? Not many people are going to go into the full list and check out who studied at the university. The full list, to which I made immense contributions, needs to be alphabetized as well. Most people are going to just read the "People" section which is on the main article. I don't see anything we can do at this point to make the "People" section better. Maybe, we could separate them into short paragraphs, and this is what many universities do. But otherwise, I can't think of anything. I mean, do you people (if you studied at the university or like the university) wish to remove John Kenneth Galbraith, Erving Goffman, Michael Ignatieff, Gerald Bull, David Easton, etc off the list? They are well-known and respected even outside Canada. There are reasons why I chose the most famous ones from each field: 1. The reader will be able to recognize the alumni mentioned. (at least one or two, he/she will know. e.g. Say the reader is an economist or a student interested in economics, his reaction will be "John Kenneth Galbraith went to this university...". Suppose the reader is passionate about literature, she will notice Margaret Atwood.) 2. This will show the balanced (so to speak) strengths of the university. (not twisted to one or two particular areas, but good in general.) 3. Before, it was just too short and did not include some of its best known alumni. Wisdompower (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You did a nice job expanding the section and the names should stay; I never said they should be removed and I have never tried to remove them. All I am saying is let's not make the section longer than it is now. The section is a bit long but it's still managable. However, please don't keep adding more and more names without end, as you seemed to be doing.
 * You've already added most of the famous alumni anyway, so there's really no point in adding even more names. And the section shouldn't contain people who have attended for two months and have almost no ties with the university at all. Let's save that space for people who really are alumni. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article have a reputation section?
The beginning of this article says that this article is about the st.george campus and not the entire university. But this article has a reputation section whose sources are referring to the entire university. The rankings are not exclusively given to st.george campus. No sources say that the ranking is about st.george campus. If this article is about the st.george campus, the reputation section should be removed.Wikipedian05 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article should be split into one for St. George campus only (as University of Toronto St. George) and the University of Toronto article would be for the entire university system. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. That would be consistent.Wikipedian05 (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see University of Michigan and University of Washington as examples comparable to University of Toronto's governing model and how the articles are organized. While the regional campuses are semi-autonomous, the university's central administration is based in and directly governs the main campus. Thus there is no such thing as a "University of Toronto St. George" and a "University of Toronto system"; the main campus itself and the university administration are one and the same without any clear distinction. This is different from true university systems like University of California, where each campus is equally semi-autonomous. For Toronto, Michigan and Washington, anything that is general in nature and not campus-specific, such as investments and research activity, would still pertain to the main campus and the central administration. This is consistent with the articles of University of Michigan and University of Washington.
 * While it is usual practice to be specific when talking about regional campuses, the same kind of distinction is rarely used when talking about the main campuses, especially in international contexts: the St. George campus is usually just U of Toronto, the Ann Arbor campus is usually just U of Michigan, and the Seattle campus is usually just U of Washington. It is not surprising that news and rankings publications also do not make this distinction.
 * When it comes to rankings, publications like ARWU and THES rarely bother to separate the statistics of each campus for universities like Toronto, Michigan and Washington, even though some data such as research funds are combined totals from all campuses. In fact, the THES ranking for Ohio State uses combined data from its half-dozen campuses. Unfortunately, this means regional campuses like Scarborough, Dearborn and Flint don't show up in some of these rankings. Some publications like Globe and Mail's survey actually do separate the campuses, but most others do not. Still, the common practice in Wikipedia is to simply mention such rankings in the main university articles. On a related note, the section on rankings can be condensed a bit to reduce academic boosterism. Jphillips23 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your views on the campus, but the rankings are found in 11 universities' entries. It appears that this section doesn't need to be condensed. Condensing it will make it comparing apples and oranges. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that if it were not for Scarborough and Mississauga, the rankings would be different. The researches done in Scarborough and Mississauga affect the rankings. It means st.george, Scarborough and Mississauga campuses belong to the same university, U of toronto. The rankings are not exclusively given to st.george campus. Then if this article is about st.george campus, and not the entire university, the reputation section should be removed. Articles in Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. We should not give the wrong impression that the rankings are exclusively given to st.george campus.Wikipedian05 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the profile page in QS ranking.  It says "Established in 1827, the University of Toronto today operates in downtown Toronto, Mississauga and Scarborough" We can see from this that the ranking is based on the total researches done in 3 campuses. Then we should specify that the reputation is not about st.george campus but about the entire university.Wikipedian05 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As for University of Michigan, the ranking is about the Ann Arbor. the profile page in QS ranking says "The University is located in the culturally rich and exciting community of Ann Arbor." ARWU clearly uses the name "University of Michigan - Ann Arbor"  So university of toronto is treated differently from University of Michigan. When publishers refer to university of toronto, they mean 3 campuses. When publishers refer to University of Michigan, they mean Ann Arbor. We should not compare university of toronto to University of Michigan. The systems of the two universities are different.Wikipedian05 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How the publishers treat campuses from different universities is beyond the scope of this discussion. Besides, many UofT professors teach and research at different campuses at the same time. Anyways, this is just drawing a line in the sand and any meaningful figures produced from the calculations are original research, which means these figures will be removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "meaningful figures"? I do not get what you are saying. I'm saying that the reputation section should be removed, and not that we should add some figures.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And how u of t is different from u of Michigan is clearly related to this discussion. Jphillips23 used u of Michigan as an excuse. but the fact is u of t is not like u of Michigan, as I showed above. The reputation is about the entire university, not about the st. george campus. Therefore we should remove the reputation section because this article is exclusively about the st. george campus. It's a obvious logic, and wikipedia articles should be consistent.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Or as Johnny Au proposed above, the article be split into two articles, u of toronto and st. george campus. Now that we know u of t is not like u of Michigan, there is no reason to keep this article similar to u of Michigan. u of Michigan means Ann Arbor, but u of toronto means 3 campuses. There is a clear difference between the two universities.Wikipedian05 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making personal attacks on Jphilips23. Read again if you don't understand because I won't repeat the same message. The sources for reputation section did not divide 3 campuses into separate categories. Many publicly available figures (including funding, research grants, endowments) are combined together as a whole across 3 campuses. Unless you have access to private data, there simply isn't a way to divide those figures back into separate accounts for each campus. Furthermore, due to close proximity between all 3 campuses, many professors and researchers teach/research on same topic in different campuses. Even if you have access to and use the private data in the article (which is already against original research and perhaps reliable sources because we can't confirm what you claim is true or not), you cannot mechanically divide the money allocated into different campuses. On top of that, there're other organizations affiliated with UofT and their research accounts may have money pulled from any one of three campuses without fully disclosing the exact dollar figure. Different universities treat their campus statuses differently. Comparing apples with oranges never work and nothing gets achieved by dividing them. By following what you proposed, we will need to repeat the same rankings for all 3 campuses, which will violate the content forking guideline. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand the point. I'm AGREEING that the sources for reputation section did not divide 3 campuses into separate categories. It means 3 campuses are considered the SAME institution. Therefore, we need to specify the sources are referring to the entire institution, not to st.george campus. But currently this article is about st.george campus only. This is why I agree to the proposal by Johnny Au that the article be split into two articles, u of toronto and st. george campus. Having a reputation section in the article u of toronto(about entire university) would be OK. But having a reputation section in the article of st. george campus(current article) is inconsistent.Wikipedian05 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, many universities have several campuses, and most articles of those universities are about the entire universities. The current state of this article that the subject is about one campus is weird.Wikipedian05 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Size
The campus size should be listed as 1767 acres, not 176 acres.

Sources: http://www.princetonreview.com/UniversityofToronto.aspx http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/toronto,-ontario-/university-of-toronto-CA0023 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.59.176 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the St. George Campus : see page 80 of this report. The 1767-acre figure is from all campuses and off-campus sites. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Glendon Hall
I read the plaque on the gates of Glendon Hall and it reads that it was part of the University of Toronto. The buildings and the land around it was where York University was first established before it became independent of the University of Toronto. Should it be mentioned in the Governance and Colleges section as a former college? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Glendon was the early campus of York, which was founded in 1959 and became separate from the University of Toronto in 1966. So in that sense Glendon Hall, the buildings housing York at the time, was indeed part of the University of Toronto. But it became considered a "college" or academic division of YorkU after it became independent and moved to a new suburban campus. It is more similar to the Ontario Agricultural College, a former affiliate school of U of T which became the University of Guelph. It probably belongs more in the history section. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a phrase to the history section to briefly mention Glendon, without placing undue weight relative to the rest of the article. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Administration of the university
A separate article describing the administration of the entire university system should be made. Since there is a lot of reluctance towards including such information in this article, which is about the main campus, an article called University of Toronto administration (or another similarly named article) should be created. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since there is a rather long article called List of University of Toronto people. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess we could move the list of chancellors and presidents into a separate article, similar to President of the University of Michigan, although there really isn't much else that can be put into such an article. Maybe it can be called List of chancellors and presidents of the University of Toronto. It's a good idea to create Governance sections in the UTSC and UTM articles to describe their administrations, but there's no need to create separate articles just for that. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That can be done. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Latin name Universitas Torontonensis
I was just wondering if there was any reasoning as to why the Latin equivalent of the university's full name is translated within the template (or even in the article at all). Having the Latin name of the university just seems to be something rather odd to have in an encyclopedic entry, considering (to my knowledge at least), there seems to be no acknowledgement from the university's administration that the name Universitas Torontonensis has any standing with the university. If the name isn't acknowledged by either the administration or used colloquially, translating the university's name to Latin just seems rather trivial (and if one makes the case for the Latin name of UofT's inclusion, than wouldn't it also be prudent to add the French, Chinese, Spanish equivalent as well...). There is also the issue that the inclusion of the Latin name may give a reader the incorrect indication that Universitas Torontonensis as a name has some official standing with the university community. Leventio (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the convocation program for the University of Toronto, then yes, the Latin name is used officially within the university community. Listen to the podcasts of the June 2011 convocation here: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/uoft-2011/site/archives.php.  The officials presiding the convocation clearly use the name Universitas Torontonensis in their speeches.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I retract my concerns then. I was under the assumption that the Latin name had no standing with the school's administration. Leventio (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)