Talk:University of Toronto/Archive 4

Convocation hall pictures
Convocation hall is pretty iconic; Should include some pictures of it. (and maybe fewer pictures of UC. they are a little redundant in a general article about U of T)

Also possibly Bahen centre b/c it is one of the more modern iconic buildings.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Added an image of Con Hall. There are just two images of University College, both are in the History section and only one is a photograph. Jphillips23 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Convocation Hall image looks good. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Total enrollment
why aren't UT scarborough's numbers included? --67.189.30.170 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article pertains to the St. George campus. For UTS figures, see University of Toronto Scarborough.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube link
Another editor recently added a link to the university's Youtube channel. He or she has edit warred to retain this link. I contend that it doesn't belong because "Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites....More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." (from our external links policy). ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must agree. I fight tooth and nail to have official YouTube links removed from Wikipedia articles that do not deal with YouTube or on specific YouTube videos. The addition of the video may jeopardize the article's GA status as well.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this as well. Per the policy quoted above by ElKevbo, the link does not belong in this article. It has somehow been re-added, so I removed it again. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The official University of Toronto website has a direct link to its official YouTube page anyways. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

University Of Toronto President's Estate
Can someone please help link to this orphaned article? Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added the link to the U of T template. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Composition with other campuses
The U of T consists of three equal-standing campuses which all award equal degrees (University of Toronto as opposed to University of Toronto Mississauga). I would therefore suggest, to avoid confusion, the merging of the two other campuses into this main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs)
 * While I completely agree with what you intend to do, I have again reverted your edit. I carefully read over your edit, and you only touched on what a huge job this would be, and in my opinion, a "merge" of this scope needs consensus.  If you look at York University in Toronto, the editors seem to have done what you intend.  The university is treated as a whole, while each individual campus has its own article.  In the U of T article, the other two campuses are mentioned in a hatnote.  My intent isn't to edit war, and I won't revert it back.  I agree with you, but am just suggesting that your intended edit is a monster which will require a major merge and re-write.  Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the rudeness of the edit war I started - that was my b. If you check out my edits, I revised a little on the history, campuses, student numbers, and introduction. Would you be able to work with me on this to make it more appropriate? How do we recruit other wiki editors as well to help out? Thanks mate! Davidhar (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * STOP - If you want to do this you should nominate the articles for merging. There are procedures for discussing this! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So then let's go through those procedures...I don't know how they work, can you start the process? Davidhar (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the proper procedures to merge. In any case, I disagree with the proposed merge based on the lone argument that 3 UofT campuses award the degree from the same institution. We have other universities that has multiple campuses, grant the same degree and have their individual campus pages (University of California is one of them that comes into my mind and there is no doubt that other examples are out there). OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not true, each University of California school rewards its own respective degree. The University of California is a University system, as opposed to a single university. There's a lot of confusion about the distinction between the two though. In Toronto's case, it is not a system, and is instead a single university which rewards 1 single name on each degree. Davidhar (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I should note that you, as a UTSC graduate, should know that you're making UTSC, as a campus, equivalent to that of a school like University of California Merced, a much more unknown, less notable, and less prestigious institution than something like the University of California Berkeley, which are both within the UC system. A University of Toronto degree is a significant accomplishment, and you've received a U of T degree, not a UTSC degree. Davidhar (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all UC graduates receive a degree awarded from "University of California". Anyway, I think this just confirms your proposal is mostly motivated by the real or imagined perceptions of "prestige" by association. If that's the way you think, I can't help you but please don't drag Wikipedia into it. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not giving specifics here. Yes, each university within the University of California system awards a 'University of California' degree, but that just serves as a prefix to each institution's name - Berkeley, Merced, Los Angeles, San Diego, Davis, etc. I'm sorry, but I'm from the U.S., and know quite well how these systems work, and have provided you with a wikipedia that backs up my points quite well. You on the other hand have not done anything like that. Davidhar (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, University of Toronto Scarborough and University of Toronto Mississauga are both lengthy, mature articles with more than enough content to stand on their own. Merging all three articles would result in a disorganized mess or massive loss of information, or both. For universities like U of T with semi-autonomous satellite campuses and a central administration, the current arrangement works well. Examples for similar universities can be found with articles for University of Michigan, University of Washington, and their respective satellite campuses.
 * Secondly, I don't follow the logical link between how a university awards degrees and how many Wikipedia articles it has. I recommend you check out the Manual of Style, because the way we spread out information into articles on Wikipedia is purely based on how best to arrange the information available. It has nothing to do with university degrees. Jphillips23 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it has everything to do with the awarding of university degrees. While you cite the University of Michigan and University of Washington as examples, their satellite campuses have a separate admissions process and award separate degrees (Such as University of Michigan–Flint, University of Michigan–Dearborn, University of Washington Bothell, and University of Washington Tacoma. They are in fact separate Universities in their own right, although they are part of a broader University system. The University of Toronto's campuses on the other hand, do not share any of these traits, and are more similar to the University at Buffalo, which also has three campuses (North, South, and Downtown), yet has one single application process, as well as distribution of degrees. A student of the University of Washington Tacoma, or Ohio State University, Newark Campus, is thereby not a student of the flagship University of Washington or Ohio State University. In contrast, a student of the University of Toronto Mississauga is in fact a student of the whole University of Toronto. As for your comments about the other two campuses having lengthy established articles already, I agree with you, which is why I've suggested to keep those articles. However, the main University of Toronto article should, by effect, be some sort of amalgamation of all three campuses. The main article doesn't require as much detail as the campus articles themselves, which resolves the issue of there being a 'disorganized mess or massive loss of information'. As for my argument being logical, it's not defined within a dictionary, it's defined within accreditation. The satellite campuses you've mentioned are accredited separately outside of the larger university, so there is legal backing to that 'logic'. Davidhar (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have asked you to do this through the proper process where comments will carry some weight. This is, otherwise, just a lot of chitchat. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be doing this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the possible merger, we're discussing about keeping the current articles on the other campuses, as their notoriety may be high. However, the main University of Toronto wikipedia page will need to be revised if consensus is met. 'Merger' is not the right term here, it is instead 'revision' from solely the St. George campus, to a broader, more comprehensive article that details the entire institution. Separate, smaller, and more detailed articles, such as the campuses, may be kept in place with that in regard. Davidhar (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually each UofT campus has its own separate admission process. In university application submission, you have to apply separately to St. George, Mississauga, and Scarborough campuses. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Undergraduates firstly, apply to the U of T through the Ontario Universities' Application Centre (OUAC). They don't apply for the University of Toronto Mississauga, and instead apply for the entire University of Toronto, and then thereby choose which program they'd like to study, which may be located at one of the three equal-standing campuses. Graduate students, unlike at the university examples previously mentioned, apply through a central application system through the School of Graduate Studies, which encapsulates all graduate students throughout all three campuses. This is very distinct from the University of Michigan, University of Washington, or Ohio State University systems. In addition, you didn't address the most important points I brought up that highlighted Toronto's difference, which include accreditation and degree names. Davidhar (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This article treats the U of T like a University system, as opposed to the more accurate multi-campus university. The University system wikipedia states, "A university system should not be confused with a multiple-campus university. A university system contains several universities. A multiple-campus university is a single university that has more than one campus." Furthermore, the only institution regarded as a University system in Canada is the Université du Québec which holds 10 separate institutions within itself. Davidhar (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The University of Toronto is neither a single-campus university nor a university system. It has a main campus where the central administration resides and two semi-autonomous satellite campuses. The closest comparison here is the University of Michigan: There is no such thing as a "University of Michigan system", but the central administration resides in Ann Arbor directly, while Flint and Dearborn enjoy significant autonomy over academics and operations. The campuses are significant enough that they each merit their own dedicated article, and it works well. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The University of Michigan–Flint is accredited separately from the University of Michigan. Davidhar (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jphillips23. Additionally, the UTSC and UTM articles both clearly state that they are satellite campuses of UofT, unlike the U of M articles, in which the first sentence in all three articles gives the perception that each campus is an independent public university. I am not in favour of a merger. I must note, however, that I would prefer if the first paragraph of this article clearly noted that the University has three campuses.
 * Current:
 * "The University of Toronto (U of T, UToronto, or Toronto) is a public research university in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, situated on the grounds that surround Queen's Park. [...]"
 * My suggestion:
 * "The University of Toronto (U of T, UToronto, or Toronto) is a public research university in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, with satellite campuses in the Scarborough district of Toronto and the neighbouring city of Mississauga. Its main campus, St. George Campus, is situated on the grounds that surround Queen's Park. [...]"
 * NAT/HBA.YYZ/MA.WAW/PHDABD.CDG 05:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. The University of Michigan is a bad example, particularly because its satellite campuses are accredited separately, in addition to its degrees having different university names. The University of Toronto is instead accredited as a whole. The University system wikipedia states, "A university system should not be confused with a multiple-campus university. A university system contains several universities. A multiple-campus university is a single university that has more than one campus." The University at Buffalo is really the closest comparison here. Does the University of Toronto Mississauga award degrees that say the "University of Toronto Mississauga"? No. Neither does the University at Buffalo reward "University at Buffalo North Campus" degrees. However, the University of Michigan certainly does award "University of Michigan - Flint" degrees as opposed to the degrees it awards on its flagship main campus, which say "University of Michigan." Davidhar (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, you really need to check your facts. Diplomas from UM Flint, Dearborn or Ann Arbor say simply "University of Michigan" on top regardless of campus, and all UC campuses degrees simply say "University of California" (more accurately "The Regents of the University of California", followed by specific Faculty/College, not campus). Anyway, all these are merely stylistic choices; Wikipedia article organization is not based on degree name/title/wording etc. Like I said, you really just care about some arbitrary text on degree and whatever real or imagined perceptions of "prestige", and Wikipedia can't help you with that. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Nat, it's been years since we bump into each other on wiki. I agree with your suggested change. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merger as the Scarborough and Mississauga campuses have some autonomy. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JPhillips23, degrees from UC do in fact refer to the specific university they are from. So does Flint and Dearborn of the U of M. You STILL have not refuted my main argument about university accreditation, which is the legal backing of my logic. Davidhar (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Way back in this thread, User:Secondarywaltz pointed out that there is a procedure for gaining consensus for or against a merger--and this isn't it. May I suggest someone propose a merger, or drop it. My opinion has changed to "drop it". Magnolia677 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This report here: http://www.towards2030.utoronto.ca/reports/tf_report_3.htm outlines exactly what I've been saying...U of T is an institution composed of many smaller colleges, as well as campuses. Those colleges and campuses are not separated from the greater university, and this wikipedia should reflect both the legal and official status of the institution. Currently, this wikipedia serves as an improper and inaccurate forum to provide factual information to its readers. I stated in the talk that I've rescinded my proposition to form a merger. Instead, I'd like to keep the UTM and UTSC campus articles, in addition to revising the U of T article to represent the entire University. At present, the wikipedia leaves out roughly half of the entire U of T population...and that's inaccurate and inappropriate by wikipedia standards. While the U of T isn't a University system (like I've said repeatedly), even if it were treated as a university system, all university systems have one single comprehensive article (University of London, University of Massachusetts, State University of New York, University of Minnesota System, University of California, etc.). Do you see my point? Davidhar (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding repetitive, nothing is left out here any more than you can say for the articles of University of Michigan or University of Washington (neither of them are university systems; and they similarly have a central admin/campus and two satellite campuses, with one article devoted to each of the three). Any relevant info can be found in one of the three articles. "One single comprehensive article" is just not the ideal arrangement for a university like U of T. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is basically going in circles, and I'm pretty tired of retreading the same points. All the fixation on things like recognition, separate admissions, some arbitrary text on diploma, prestige of campus ... can be debated endlessly but are ultimately not relevant to article merging or reorganization. Honestly, Wikipedia is simply not the right place. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Should mention the two other campus in here but not for a full merge. Martin Morin (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a clear mention of the satellite campuses in the first paragraph, as suggested by Nat and supported here by Martin and earlier by OhanaUnited. This should make it clear that there are two other campuses. University of Michigan's lead text also contains a similar sentence. Jphillips23 (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been debating for the other campuses to have significant room into the U of T article, and I'll repeat myself: I'm against a full merge, I believe the other campuses should have their own articles. But the U of T article should be comprehensive in nature, and represent the entire university. Not just the first sentence, but the entire article should reflect that (number of students, campus grounds, academics, departments, etc.). As for the University of Michigan and University of Washington debate, those universities are in fact systems, and are verified by the fact they are included in the University system wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_system#Michigan. Davidhar (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. So far we have had a mostly esoteric discussion about the structures of other university systems. None of that matters if you can give a practical example of what you would like to see, perhaps on a sub-page. You obviously have something in mind, but you don't seem to be getting through to anybody. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pratical example for what I'd like to see: University of London. While London is in fact a university system, it would appease the users here who obviously believe the U of T is. The example if it weren't a system is really not that different - the University at Buffalo. What I've been saying all along is that the U of T is not set up similar to the University of Michigan or University of Washington, and is actually more simple: a university with 3 campuses, not a university system with satellite campuses that are accredited legally and separately from the main campus. St. George is not the main campus of the university, and this is reflected in URLs I've provided, to which my counterparts have not followed suit with their own sources. Each campus of the U of T has equal standing, while at the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor campus is reflected as the 'main' campus when compared to Dearborn and Flint. Again, the U of T is much closer to the University at Buffalo than the University of Michigan...so I think it should look like the University at Buffalo. Notice how on the UB page, there is a section devoted to 'campuses' and underneath it, there are three smaller sections for each respective campus (North, south, and downtown). This should be placed on the U of T wikipedia as well. In addition, the number of students should be updated to 83,000 (and whatever the breakdown of undergrads versus grads is), among other edits as well. Davidhar (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I hate to repeat, but you are talking about things already addressed many times in this discussion. The downtown campus is the main campus and central administration, and we have two autonomous satellite campuses in Scarborough and Mississauga. This is the same arrangement as Michigan and Washington. This article is about the main campus, so if you want info on the other campuses, you can simply edit the respective articles. It is not difficult. I understand you have an affiliation with University at Buffalo, but University at Buffalo is itself a campus of the SUNY university system and a completely different situation from U of T. And now it seems you are arguing in favor of the very thing you argued against earlier. University of London is not one university, but a system of many universities, this is again very different from U of T and is the very thing you opposed earlier. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

<<< I suggest it is time to close this long and circling debate that goes no where. There seems to be a strong consensus to not merge the articles. And now we have added mention of Scarborough and Mississauga to this article as well, which is one suggestion that received considerable support from multiple editors. So now we have info on satellite campuses in main article, and dedicated statelite campus articles where more details can be found. I believe this is already sufficient to satisfy most editors. If we must continue this debate, I suggest the original proposer to do so formally at WP:MERGE so at least it might be productive. Otherwise, I don't expect more debate over the same things would accomplish anything. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, I do not suggest merging. Allow me to refute all of your arguments separately: 1. the St. George campus is not the main campus. You've stated this multiple times, yet have provided no source to back up your claim that it is. In addition, I've provided multiple sources that specifically state that the St. George campus is not in any way, shape, or form, the main campus. "The theme here by now will be familiar. We have one University on three campuses. Those campuses have unique attributes and mandates, and, notwithstanding some intercampus competition for undergraduates, they operate in a synergistic fashion. There is no reason why, with appropriate diligence and goodwill, we cannot develop communication strategies and vehicles that will reflect those realities." (source: page 22 http://www.towards2030.utoronto.ca/files/2030_REDUXv7.pdf). Instead, the University of Toronto regards each campus equally - not as satellites. I provided the University at Buffalo and University of London wikipedia articles as examples. I believe the U of T's model is closest to UB. The University of London's article, although a system, still provides information for the broader university (number of students, info about ALL campuses, etc.). So even if the University of Toronto were a University system, this article should STILL reflect that and not be limited to solely one campus or another. I've stated this a multitude of times, yet you have not refuted any of these points. You've also not refuted my point about the U of T's campuses not being entirely separate entities, legally, as is differed by the examples you brought up - the University of Michigan and University of Washington. UM-Flint and UM-Dearborn, for example, have university charters. UTM and UTSC do not. As you can see here, the state of Michigan defines UM-Ann Arbor, UM-Flint, and UM-Dearborn as totally separate institutions which are given a budget by the state, not by the greater University of Michigan system: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xqevsfjtwl5irb45t5ir3555))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-388-1836&query=on&highlight=University%20AND%20Flint and here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xqevsfjtwl5irb45t5ir3555))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-30b&query=on&highlight=Flint Davidhar (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The Constitution of Michigan defines a single "University of Michigan". Legally, all three campuses fall under the same organization without distinction at all. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But you said that you wanted to merge. OhanaUnitedTalk page</b> 15:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And then I've said about 50 times I'm against merging. But this article needs significant changes (change in the number of students, representation of all students/faculty/alumni across ALL three campuses, pictures of all three campuses, etc.). The University of Toronto, for now the 4th time, is not in any way shape or form the University of Michigan. U of T's model is most similar to the University at Buffalo, and refuting that argument without providing any concrete details, sources, or ANY information whatsoever is not up to proper wikipedia standards. Davidhar (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * University at Buffalo is a campus of SUNY. University of Toronto is a university. So now you decide the "most similar model" for U of T is to become a campus of some other university and not even a full university...? With all due respect, I don't think you really understand what was already explained here multiple times... so anyway, all I can say is please refer my earlier comments. I don't expect you to ever be satisfied, but I respectfully suggest that things should end at some point. Thanks. Jphillips23 (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, UB is not a 'campus' of SUNY, its a university, chartered within New York State. I'm a graduate of UB and currently attend the U of T for graduate studies, I know what I'm talking about here. You can make all the ad hominem attacks you want, but you still haven't refuted ANY of my concrete detailed points. Listen this is actually quite simple really: how many students are there who are enrolled within the University of Toronto? Answer: 83,000. How many current students are capable of graduating with a University of Toronto degree? 83,000. So why does this wikipedia page say there's only 33,000 undergrads and 13,000 grads enrolled? This wikipedia article is not representative of the entire university, and until you explain to me how that's appropriate, I will keep debating you. "Three Campus Experiences, One University" (source: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/about/Pages/default.aspx) Davidhar (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The enrolment figures clearly stated that they only account for St. George campus. What you point would amount to synthesizing numbers from various sources, which is not allowed per original research. School of Graduate Studies (SGS) opens another can of worm. More than 95% of all graduate programs are administered on St. George campus (but the school is trending towards having more locally administered programs at UTM and UTSC). At this point, I think quite clear that we have established a consensus of maintaining status quo (aside from adding the blurb on two satellite campuses in lead section). <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the first time anyone has attempted to refute the points I've brought up, thank you for responding. Because of that, I don't believe there is any consensus whatsoever until we've gone over each individual point I've raised. As for the greater picture here, you just said that enrollment figures state they only account for the St. George campus. So can you tell me why students at the other University of Toronto campuses aren't accounted for? In addition, I wouldn't call UTM and UTSC 'satellite campuses', as I've shown through provided sources, the University regards each campus equally. If you show me a university document and/or URL that calls UTM and UTSC 'satellite campuses', my opinion would obviously change. If you'd also like another example instead of SUNY Buffalo, the Washington University in St. Louis has multiple campuses as well - the same model as U of T. Davidhar (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * University of Michigan has over 60,000 students, about 40,000 of which are in Ann Arbor and the remainder in Flint and Dearborn. They all receive degrees which reads simply "University of Michigan" at the top. U of T works the same way. The enrollment figures are accounted for in each article and add up perfectly. Everyone is accounted for. You are making a big deal out of a nothing. Jphillips23 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, UTM and UTSC are satellite campuses with autonomy, they are not like the "campuses" of UB at all. UTM and UTSC are headed by their own Principals at the Vice Presidential level. The downtown campus does not have a principal, because it is directly under the central administration headed by the President. This is why it is the same arrangement as University of Michigan. (from your own source: "Regarding functional integration, the east and west campuses are divisions in the University structure, with a Principal and Vice President position as the highest executive officer and relationships at the departmental level cross the three campuses." ) And UTM's own website uses the term satellite campus . And so does this article: Anyway, I don't know what more you want here. You are pushing a POV that does not reflect consensus by fixating on irrelevant things like whether some text appears in some document, or campus name appears on diploma. The question here is not whether we use whatever term, the question is whether these campuses are autonomous and  distinct enough to merit their own article. The answer is clearly yes, and therefore you can find all the relevant info on those campuses in their respective articles. Each campus is accounted for in its own article; it's not that difficult to understand. Jphillips23 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And I don't know why you would deny something that is universally acknowledged as fact. UB's own website says it is a campus of SUNY. " UB is the largest and most comprehensive campus in the 64-campus SUNY system" Jphillips23 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know how US public university systems work. The greater system calls each institution a campus, but in reality, each institution is its own college/university. SUNY is basically just the overarching body that distributes funding and certain requirements from the state. These things are more complex than just saying 'campus' versus 'university' in the states. Like I stated before, if you want another example, look at Washington University in St. Louis. Again, look at this list to see relevant University systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_system#Canada - notice how the U of T is not included. Davidhar (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I actually find your arguments rather funny. Earlier you brought up the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. While you mentioned that UMinnesota has satellite campuses which regard themselves as individual institutions (something you still have yet to concede), you also failed to recognize that UMTC has several different campuses of its own: east bank and west bank in particular. Your other example, the University of Michigan, while again has satellite campuses (Flint and Dearborn) which again regard themselves as individual institutions, the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor has 3 campuses - just like Toronto (Central, North, and South). Instead of arguing against the facts I've provided (backed up by sources and URLs) you consistently state the same thing over and over again, while preaching that consensus has been made. And instead of arguing whether or not U of T's model is most similar to UB or Michigan, you focus on things that don't actually matter here. These are all signals that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Here: U of T's model is most similar in scope to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, not the University of Michigan. Happy? Davidhar (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice try in muddying the waters. The "campuses" of Ann Arbor are not real autonomous campuses, just non-contiguous areas of the same campus (Ann Arbor), hardly comparable to Dearborn and Flint unless you wish to argue UMich has 5 campuses in all. Dearborn and Flint have their own administrations under the Presidential level, while the President heads the whole university and the main campus, which is the same arrangement as U of T. This structure was already explained to you multiple times with citation. By your logic, even U of T's downtown campus can be split into more so-called "campuses"--Front and Back "campuses". (Btw, I never brought Minnesota into this at all, not sure where you got that idea.) UTSC and UTM are significant on their own as semi-autonomous institutions, while you consider them to be merely geographical areas. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as the U-M Ann Arbor's campuses aren't autonomous, UTM and UTSC aren't completely autonomous either (at least not to the degree of which U-M Flint and U-M Dearborn are). U-M Flint and U-M Dearborn are chartered separately from the Ann Arbor campus, receive separate budgets from their government (in this case, the state), and are accredited separately as well. These are legal traits that differentiate and identify not separate campuses, but separate institutions in their own right (i.e., universities). Contrary to this, the University of Toronto is chartered holistically in Ontario, is administered a budget holistically by the government of Canada, and is accredited holistically by the province of Ontario. Again, these are legal proceedings which qualify an institution to be independent, of which the UTM and UTSC campuses do not meet. In addition, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) recognizes only the University of Toronto, not the University of Toronto Mississauga or the University of Toronto Scarborough. (source: http://www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/our-universities/). In addition, all major institutions affiliated with higher education that I've come across view the University of Toronto as one institution with 83,000 students.    . While I completely agree with you that UTM and UTSC are significant in their own right, I disagree with you that they should be left out entirely from the main University of Toronto article. That's my whole point: this article's infobox should include all 83,000 students, there should be established a section for all three campuses, and UTM and UTSC should not be represented as lower-tiered 'satellite' campuses, because they're not. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that they are in fact 'satellite campuses', as opposed to just regular campuses. In the United States, the term 'satellite campus' refers to a lower tiered institution that is separate legally, and administratively, from the main campus. Contrarily, the University of Toronto does not designate any campus a 'main' campus, and also does not identify UTM and UTSC as 'satellite campuses'. With all of this said, I would highly recommend input from other wikipedia editors as I believe the debate between myself and Jphillips23 has become overly redundant - our cases have been made. Davidhar (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * UTSC and UTM have their own articles, so nothing is "left out" as you claim. What you propose is effectively an article merger because you are bringing content from two other articles into another one. It will give dedicated coverage to only two of three campuses and deny it to the third, so not sure how it makes things "equal". There is nothing "lower tier" or "upper tier" about making sure everything is well covered in a dedicated article, those are your own perception and choice of words, and no-one else's. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And, as I have previously pointed out, the Constitution of Michigan only defines a single "University of Michigan"; Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint are not mentioned separately. Legally, all three campuses fall under this same enabling act without further distinction. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Université de Hearst gives out Laurentian degrees, and is a member of AUCC, Algoma University was a member of AUCC before its independence from Laurentian. (The point I am making here is that AUCC has affiliates, and even has the various University of Quebec campuses, it seems that if a school wants to join, it can, but it need not join).  A small correction, I believe U of Ts budget comes from the province, like all public universities in the province, not from the feds.  I really think things are fine the way they are.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AUCC is just one of many educational lobbying groups, not an accreditation body at all. Its membership is as arbitrary as any other. Three of U of T's colleges have separate memberships in AUCC, so by your logic, I guess we should remove them from this article? As for accreditation, all three campuses participate individually in various means of accreditation. For example, Certified General Accountants considers the campuses all individually and grant each of them an accreditation. You can check it out on their official site, notice that each of them are mentioned. And I have previously provided several links already where the term "satellite campus" is used. Anyway, as already mentioned, you are too fixated on the usage/existence of random strings of text on some website, or whether diploma mentions campus names, and other irrelevant detailslike prestige and reputation. What is important is that all three campuses are significant in their own right, and are best served by being covered in a dedicated wikipedia article. This has been and continues to be the consensus view long before this endless debate began. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Tuition Fees for Domestic and International Students
The article should mention that international students are charged $40,000 a year, whilst domestic students pay a considerably lower tuition fee of $6,000. Furthermore, the reasons for this should be explained to the reading public, e.g. whether it is related to documentable higher expences, intended as a marketing trick or motivated by racism against third-world countries. No More 18 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is because the province does not give grants to universities for international students. I am not sure we need go into this in the article.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed. And the same is true at most universities as well. Jphillips23 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to mention this, as it is not unique to University of Toronto. All other universities in Ontario are the same when it comes to funding international students. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As an international student, I pay $25,000 CDN, but that's for a masters. FYI - if you're going to insinuate that tuition is greater for international students because of "racism against third-world countries", maybe you should look up why using the phrase, "third world" when referring to least developed countries, is inextricably racist in of itself. Sort of ironic I guess...Davidhar (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy section
This new thread in the article strikes me as recentism and is unlikely in my opinion to pass the 10 year test. As it stands, the text just recapitulates news and does not add in a durably meaningful way to the core article. Medmyco (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should go. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-read the section and yes, I agree that it should go. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there are further significant developments this is indeed too small and recent to be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When it was added the editor who added it mentioned in his/her edit summary that it was being put there to match the one at the article on Queens University. There is indeed one there and I think it ought not to be there either.  I will start a discussion over there.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be good. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the soruces I cited said that the anti-vaccination course was part of a larger problem that included a homeopathy study and a new mandate for alternative medicine research. And I'm sure the concerned medical students will still be talking about this two years from now since that is the next time when the course might be taught. The other thing to remember is that everything was once recentism. Should the fact that people have short attention spans these days reduce articles to being time capsules of the 90s? I'll admit that writing a whole paragraph was excessive but I think the UT Scarborough or faculty pages should have a sentence about this. Universities appear to be an exception but articles for most organizations have sections for collecting minor controversies. Connor Behan (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to take a step back and consider if, in the history of U of T, does this even matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a U of T faculty member in the School of Public Health, I'm scandalized by this major gap and lack of oversight, but wearing my Wikipedian hat, I don't think it belongs in the article, and I think the similar discussion should be als be removed from the Queens article. Medmyco (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How much it matters (for an article about U of T, not just its history) depends on how much of a foothold antivaxers are able to gain in Canadian universities. Keeping pseudoscience out of top resesarch bodies is an issue important to many people and I think greater importance falls upon the first few precedent setting examples. Connor Behan (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking for something comparable at a Canadian university (a controversy) and I can think of a couple. We don't mention Rushton on the UWO page, we don't mention the Ann Coulter brouhaha on the U of Ottawa page for example.  These are, in the grand scheme of things, minor news stories.  (As an aside, I despise the anti vax nonsense and pseudoscience in general and am pretty pissed at my PhD alma mater for how they have handled this).  Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pro-vaccine by the way, and the controversy should not be added to the U of T or the Queen's articles. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of students
Should the number of students be the grand total across all campuses? It would make sense since it shows the shared endowment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.8.171 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University of Toronto. 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/20081209080017/http://www.utoronto.ca:80/knox/pages/About%20Knox/history.htm to http://www.utoronto.ca/knox/pages/About%20Knox/history.htm

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

U of T's contribution to Harlem Shake?
Should we add in a discussion about its contribution to Harlem Shake? If not, then it would be good to state why. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty trivial to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Maclean's ranking
I noticed that reference 107 goes to the UofT's main news page, not the specific article about withdrawing from Macleans. I did a cursory check for the article but couldn't find it. A new source may be needed. CharlieRusso (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Student Strikes
Do we need this? Yes, TAs have been on strike before. Indeed, as a TA at U of T I was twice on strike in the early 90s. But, first off, in this capacity they are not 'students' but employees who happen to be students. Secondly, in the history of the institution, are any of these job actions even remotely notable? Do we list other strikes or job actions by other unions on campus? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and the link for the ref about the strike in 15 is dead. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be removed then. The only strikes that should be mentioned is if there were deaths, serious injuries, and/or property damage totalling over $1 million during the strikes in question. However, none of the strikes resulted in deaths, major injuries, or major property damage. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a couple of days and see if anyone has an issue, but yeah, I'm with you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of Jewish students at U of T
The issue of harassment and targeting of minorities, including Jewish students, would seem to be appropriate for mention in relation to the U of T and other Canadian campuses. Although the topic is considered controversial, the incidents are well known and covered in the mainstream media such as the Globe and Mail, Star, CBC and Maclean's. This has impacted on the university's image and not mentioning these clashes and complaints could be seen by some as censorship and avoidance of an important dimension. Would appreciate other views and comments. Nosnoyl23 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an article covering an institution that has been around for a very long time. While this is an important issue and the behaviour of some of the people who support the 'BDS' movement is disgusting, it is would be WP:UNDUE to talk about it.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not dispute your point on institutional and historical perspective versus potentially ephemeral issues as discussed re student strikes. However, after more than a decade of high visibility Israel "apartheid" and BDS clashes at U of T, the problem appears to be chronic and significant in the institutional context. Suggest watching the issue at U of T over the next couple of months to see if it escalates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosnoyl23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dbrodbeck here. This would be considered undue, as it is considered controversial.  We also did not include gender harassment issues in U of T and in other post-secondary educational institutions in the part of the Anglosphere within the Global North as a result of the Gamergate controversy as well, as that too is undue.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of Jewish students at U of T
The issue of harassment and targeting of minorities, including Jewish students, would seem to be appropriate for mention in relation to the U of T and other Canadian campuses. Although the topic is considered controversial, the incidents are well known and covered in the mainstream media such as the Globe and Mail, Star, CBC and Maclean's. This has impacted on the university's image and not mentioning these clashes and complaints could be seen by some as censorship and avoidance of an important dimension. Would appreciate other views and comments. Nosnoyl23 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an article covering an institution that has been around for a very long time. While this is an important issue and the behaviour of some of the people who support the 'BDS' movement is disgusting, it is would be WP:UNDUE to talk about it.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not dispute your point on institutional and historical perspective versus potentially ephemeral issues as discussed re student strikes. However, after more than a decade of high visibility Israel "apartheid" and BDS clashes at U of T, the problem appears to be chronic and significant in the institutional context. Suggest watching the issue at U of T over the next couple of months to see if it escalates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosnoyl23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dbrodbeck here. This would be considered undue, as it is considered controversial.  We also did not include gender harassment issues in U of T and in other post-secondary educational institutions in the part of the Anglosphere within the Global North as a result of the Gamergate controversy as well, as that too is undue.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is clearly significant, as reflected in responses and actions of students and faculty, and reported in main stream media. The "controversy" is not a justification for erasing the issue from the entry, and the claim that this harassment is ephemeral must be tested against time. If the attacks on Jews members of the U of T community end in the current academic year, perhaps the term ephemeral is justified, but this is not the case now. Nosnoyl23 (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I still see no consensus for the edit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Characterization of strike
The description of the reasons for the most strike seem biased, especially as it relies on a source provided by the union local (and that source is no longer online). Anonymous, 18:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.1.50 (talk)
 * Agreed. It has been discussed perviously as well .  I'll delete it now it really is incredibly UNDUE.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Student strikes can be added if they led to major property damage and/or injuries and/or deaths; the most recent strike resulted in none of those.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on University of Toronto. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vicu.utoronto.ca/about/history/One_Hundred_Years_of_Architecture.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utoronto.ca/govcncl/pap/policies/federate.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tst.edu/aboutus/members.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/main/faculty/arts-science-at-a-glance
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citizenlab.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Archive&file=index&req=listarticles&secid=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511100108/http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61 to http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324020431/http://www.researchinfosource.com:80/media/2011Top50Listsup.pdf to http://www.researchinfosource.com/media/2011Top50Listsup.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201061551/http://www.rasc.ca:80/education/asteroids.shtml to http://www.rasc.ca/education/asteroids.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~williams/History_web_site/World
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.footballcanada.com/history_timeline.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060717-2449.asp

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) 21:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on University of Toronto. 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/20130114071434/http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474 to http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474
 * Added tag to http://content.library.utoronto.ca/utarms/researchers/Charter/Charter
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027074817/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fcabcfec-0d12-49b5-938b-7a4e565bb74f&k=27206 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fcabcfec-0d12-49b5-938b-7a4e565bb74f&k=27206
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005191431/http://www.uhn.ca/tgh/ to http://www.uhn.ca/TGH/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004160423/http://www.uhn.ca/pmh/ to http://www.uhn.ca/PMH/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004160954/http://www.uhn.ca/twh/ to http://www.uhn.ca/TWH/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111184916/http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2009/TOP/100 to http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2009/TOP/100
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.researchinfosource.com/media/2011Top50Listsup.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasc.ca/education/asteroids.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~williams/History_web_site/World%20map%20first%20page/Canada/a2004.pdf

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) 09:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable alumni pictures order
The pictures don't seem to follow an order. I would suggest that they be in some sort of order.

Example include: Alphabetical, date of birth and date of degree--50.64.2.22 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Gordon Cressy Student Leadership Awards
Searches for this award are redirected here. However, this page provides no info on them. Here is the main citation for it: https://alumni.utoronto.ca/events-and-programs/awards/cressy

Note it is awarded by the University of Toronto Alumni Association, not the university specifically. So, how to fix this problem? Skingski (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the university administers the awards (as seen in the photos of the recipients). <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 03:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I discovered that the original page was merged as a subsection into this page on September 8, 2011 but the subsection was deleted without explanation on September 10.  can you shed light on why you did this? Skingski (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, he hasn't been active since 2016, so I don't think your getting an answer. If I was to wager on why he removed it though, it probably had to do with notability (secondary sourcing), and potential of "wiki is not a directoryism"(?) (the university does confer a number of awards). That said, to answer the question how this could be remedied, it would probably fit best in the student life section (it is about extra-cirriculars). Leventio (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Julie Payette 2017.jpg