Talk:University of Waterloo/Archive 2

Campus media
Why are The Boar and @UW mentioned before the jump, and other most sustained campus media outlets like imprint, iron warrior, math news and CKMS not mentioned? @UW is no longer updated, and the Boar is no longer printing. You might as well mention OMGUW if those two are the only ones that fit the idea of campus media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.160.57 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Added mention of IW/MATHNEWS/IMPRINT with references to their main pages. Annihilatron (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is someone actually going to mention OMG UW? because that would make my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.160.57 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Dubai
The move into Dubai/UAE has received a lot of negative attention, but it isnt mentioned in this article at all. I know general speak around campus has reverted to "muslim vs. western" but that alone should not be a reason to keep the controversy out of this article.


 * Its there, although the references provided need to be fixed so that they join the references section. Will do if I have time. Annihilatron (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Edited and updated for the fact that it is already open. Annihilatron (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Academics
Why does it seem that this entry is constantly stripped of valuable content and replaced with petty bickering. Should a university entry not have a whole section devoted to academics.

The co-op system, a cornerstone of the institution, has also not been described in any detail. Numbers, history, the modern method would be useful.

Too often there seems to be some disgruntled student who strips the page of content they feel as being to biased in favor of UW. However, rather than replacing the section with referenced, balanced material, it is removed completely (check the history for many years to observe this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.74.94 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
I removed the statement about "the coat of arms changing in the 1990s" The coat of arms did not change merely its representation in the logo of the university. The coat of arms is defined by the blazon and the blazon did not change.

The change of logo did not just change the lions, but the shape of the shield, removed the motto, and changed the position alignment and typeface of the name. That happened in 1997 ( http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/1997/sep/12fr.html )

Prior to the penultimate logo the lions on the logo we the same. You can probably most easily see this in the stairwells of the PAC.

-- Rybo 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The current lock (Regarding the Macleans quote)
The options are simple: Keep the quote, or remove it completely. Not the half-hearted attempt by 74.124.56.37 which removes the term "computer" from "computer science" such that science has more emphasis. I like the fact that the quote highlights what the school is best known for, but obviously any such quote will seem unbalanced.--AlphaTwo 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the quote should be kept. The source is reliable, and it does demonstrate that school's strengths. I think there should be elaboration about why these programs are highly regarded. I do think there should be mention of specific strengths in other areas as well; the school is well-known for its Optometry program, no? We should also try to cite other sources regarding this. Mind  matrix  13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support keeping the quotation. Macleans is a well respected source and it is reflective of the reputation of the university. The Optometry program is the only Canadian English Optometry school. Kratoz 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason why the quote should be removed. Raistlin11325 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How long do we wait for 74.124.56.37 to come back and make their counter-argument before we propose the unlock?--AlphaTwo 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we've had nearly a full week, with nary a comment from the anonymous user. I'm reverting the article to its prior state, with full citation, based on this discussion. (Four users support the citation, none oppose it.) Mind  matrix  13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the quotation. Macleans is hardly a well respected source; MANY universities have pulled themselves from the magazine's yearly rankings. Everyone is well aware of each university's strengths.  There is a whole CS section on Wiki where CS students may flaunt their department. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.120.213 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * It's a valid point that many universities pulled themselves, but it does detract from the fact that Macleans is a published source. In addition, not everyone outside of the university like you (judging by your 129.97 IP) is aware about Waterloo. --AlphaTwo 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is your only argument against the validity of the source? The quotation is in the Reputation section, and I assume that the magazine can at least determine the reputation of a university. They aren't talking about any numbers, just some generic information and public perception. It seems to be accurate and informative. Raistlin11325 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Generic information or not, universities pulled out by the masses. I am a UW student and I'm embarassed that we are boasting about rankings from a magazine from which most major universities have pulled from.  Praise or no praise, no one will deny we have fine programs in CS, math and engineering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.124.154 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The magazine is a credible source; the reason for the universities pulling out is because they disagree with the evaluation methods (and probably their repeatedly (relatively) dismal rankings, especially UT, which regularly scores (relatively; they expect to be #1 in the country) poorly due to the size of its student body making any improvement vastly difficult). Annihilatron (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Psychology department/program is also exceptional. --Telanis (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, Waterloo's in the Comprehensive section of Macleans. (There's no Science, Computer Science, math, etc, section) It doesn't say anything specific in that Comprehensive section about math, engineering and computer science. It says Comprehensive (Which should automatically be all sections, including English). While Waterloo may attract math, engineering, and computer science, for computer science, it's likely because of their proximity to RIM and other corporations, and for math it's proabably because of their Cayley, Fermat, etc, math tests, which they develop and distribute. Logical2uReview me! 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that UW's computer science department attracts students because of RIM? I'm going to challenge you to provide a source for this claim. Waterloo has had a successful CS department which has drawn many top students for decades, and it has built on that reputation. RIM had nothing to do with it, and it's historically inaccurate to suggest so. Also, the math contests are a direct result of having built a strong math program, and are now used both to find good students and as an advertising tool.
 * Further, the quote was in the review of the university itself, not in the overall rankings section of all comprehensive universities. Most universities question the overall rankings, but I doubt any of them question the generic reviews of the universities or their programs. Mind  matrix  20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All I intended to suggest is that RIM (And the Google facility nearby, if I remember correctly) may be a factor for attracting computer science students: there is a nearby location that may wish to hire them after their graduation. I myself don't question the rankings (nor Macleans, I own the magazine that rates these ones) but using the comprehensive ranking to talk about computer sciences in specific seems odd. I don't know if I'm getting the full effect of your statement, it's fairly early in the morning for me. Logical2uReview me! 13:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it seems that I may have inferred something from your message that I shouldn't have. You're right in suggesting that there is a relationship between various faculties or departments and industry, especially notable firms such as RIM. My apologies for the misunderstanding.  Mind  matrix  15:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, RIM jobs are definitely sought after by CS/SE students. Seriously though, I was looking for a source for the claim in the article that "Waterloo prides itself on its high performance in Maclean's..." There's this 2005 article in which the President expresses pride, but that was before other universities refused to give data to Maclean's. –Pomte 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure these jobs attract that many students. The people I know went to Waterloo because of it's academic reputation and program strength - in particular co-op rather than any potential jobs at RIM, Google, etc.

New SLC Picture
Can someone find/take a non-snowy preferably non-winter picture of the SLC? The best description I can come up with from the current picture is "it's a red building". -- Seraphchoir 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a picture when I go back to school in september Nano Dan 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added 3 panoramic photos that I've made to the campus section as this article was lacking in good photos of the campus. - Giligone: 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giligone (talk • contribs)

Stop the fanboyism
Now you Math/Engineering students need an exceptional programs category? Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.2.249 (talk) - However, one can not argue with the strengths of these departments and what the public feels is the prominent aspects of UW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.74.94 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously... even Harvard doesn't have that many sections dedicated to reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFEice (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the section is necessary at all, we'll let the public judge by themselves, not from what a Canadian magazine claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.140.186 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
The 'controversies' section doesn't belongs here. When viewed alone, they may have been heated issues; however, I don't think they are relevant to the university as a whole. If the beaver trappings tarnished the school's reputation as the leader in environmental studies, it may be worth a mention in the ES section. Finding a proper reference for that would be hard though. Likewise, if the Microsoft agreement influenced important policy changes, that may be worth a reference as well. However, right now, all the page has is a mish-mash of student newspaper headlines with no links to the subject of the page (the university). --Jdeboer 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should totally whitewash any action take by the university that received widespread media attention. TheGiantVermin 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)TheGiantVermin


 * Media attention is a poor metric for determining what should placed on the page. As is the level of controversy surrounding a topic. Choosing a new SE director is a controversial topic, as is the "24-hour" Tim Hortons, as is the B2 Green, as is paying for weekend parking, as is the Engineering frosh week, as is the internal affairs of the Christian clubs. If the only Wikipedia-worthy aspect of a topic is its controversy, than I would say it should not be listed on the university page. However, if it is relevant, then it should be incorporated into the relevant section. --Jdeboer 17:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As per Wikipedia's standards, a given topic is considered to be notable if it "receives significant coverage". Thus, some events unfolding on campus are indeed notable as they have received widespread coverage in the national media.  Specifically, the killing of beavers is notable as it did result in "significant coverage" (in the globe and mail, national post, etc) where the "sources address the subject directly in detail."  The opening of a Tim Horton's or the appointment of a new SE director did not receive the same "significant coverage" and thus don't qualify for inclusion.  In other words, media attention (or attention from any reliable sources) is a great metric for determining which information should be included.  TheGiantVermin 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)TheGiantVermin


 * Again, I am not arguing against the topics themselves. I am arguing that "level of controversy" is a bad metric. This section has already led to a couple edit-wars where people believe that their controversy is controversial enough for the UW page. --Jdeboer 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that level of controversy is a bad metric. Notability is a better metric -- specifically, if an issue receives significant coverage outside of UW (e.g. globe and mail), then it probably deserves inclusion.  My recommendation is moving this section to the bottom of the article and eventually expanding it into a cohesive section  as per style guide recommendation (re:trivia). TheGiantVermin 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)TheGiantVermin

Beaver Killed on Campus
Section deleted due to leftist, hippy inspired bullcrap. such an insignificant issue pales in contrast to the academics of the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.22.90 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to restore the old version manually. Multiple IPs were vandalizing the page, and hence I had to revert back to the last edit made by a logged in User (which was a reversion of Vandalism too). Please come to a conclusion whether this section is to be removed or not. If it is, I would gladly do it myself. I would even recommend running a form of vote if required. Aly89 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am for removing News section completely since it is only relevant to very small portion of people who are in UW. Wikipedia articles are suppose to represent what is relevant to people around the world. How do I set up the vote? Stampit (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VOTE for full guidelines on voting. It is essentially discouraged, since it reduces the amount of contributive discussion on a specific topic. I don't see any topic on this talk page regarding this particular section, or all the sections in General. So, if you have anything in particular to say as to why this section should be removed. Personally, I feel that this information should be best re-located into other sections, or the name of the section should be changed. Aly89 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of the University of Waterloo called 'Waloo' before
I'm just commenting on the fact that over all my years at the University of Waterloo, I have never heard it called 'Waloo' before. It seems like someone who has a major lisp might say it like that, but besides that, I don't think it is a common way of referencing the university. I think it was funny that it was in the article, though. Gary King (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard it called that either after being here studying for 4 years. Kratoz (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, neither have I, but that's not a valid reason for removing this. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is about deletion debates but applies here as well. What matters for inclusion in the list is a valid reference to prove that the name is actually in use by more than five people. --99.236.163.79 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * True enough. By the way, my apologies for being so blunt in my most recent edit summary reverting your change. That was about UWaterloo, and I've found these results, most of which would be classed as "anecdotal". However, there are so many of them that in bulk they may have some value (that is, they prove the point that the term is used), but nonetheless fail the reliable sources criterion. Does anyone actually have a reliable source for this, perhaps a few issues of Imprint, old student handbooks or some such? (Here's one minor reference to such usage.) Mind  matrix  00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand the introduction
Can we expand the introduction please? It's way too short compared to the rest of the article, and it can be improved on. Gary King (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
I've never heard UW referred to as Loo before. Possibly The Loo, but without "the", it sounds awkward. Anybody else agree with this? Lmdemasi (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's obviously correctly called "the Loo", and I've changed the article accordingly. Andareed (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the nickname link in the infobox links to athletic nickname. The Loo is certainly not the athletic nickname.  If anything Warriors should be here instead of under "sports teams", as it is on other pages such as Notre Dame.  Maybe the Loo should just be in the intro?  Although, the Yale page lists two nicknames other than the team names, but they both refer to what students are called, not the institution.  Hmmmm..  After more looking, the U of T page is similar to ours, with Nickname as U of T and True Blue, and a heading called "Athletics" with Varsity Blues.  Guelph has the heading of "Sports" with the name gryphons.  So on further observation, I'm not sure what the best course of action is, but something should be done to make things consistent among universities and something to make it not seem as though "the loo" is our athletic nickname. Lmdemasi (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Enrollment Section
What do you guys think about combining the Enrollment section of the article with the Lead (introduction)? There has been some concerns of the Lead being too short, and I think adding the enrollment info into the Lead would make it seem more complete. Enrollment section seems also quite redundant on its own as well. stampit (talk) 16 March 2008 Okay, I combined the two since there was no objection for a month. Stampit (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone should use this page to keep enrollment accurate. http://www.analysis.uwaterloo.ca/docs/pi.php#pi Annihilatron (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Faculties
In the Faculties section, it says, "The University has six faculties." However, it only has Faculty of Environment subsection in it with some information. It should at least list the other five faculties.. or actually add information on them. I know what the other five faculties are but I don't know much about them. --staka (T) 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what others would like, but personally I would encourage you to list the remaining faculties right underneath them. It does not matter if they are empty. Just an empty section with a heading should be fine. And yes don't forget to add the on each of the empty subsections to promote anyone from writing about these faculties. Aly89 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are separate articles for each faculty... I'll just add since I think it seems weird by adding Expand template in it along with it. Add if you want. --staka (T) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, Sorry. I never knew that each faculty had its own Wiki page. I guess just a Main should be fine until someone decides to write small summaries of those articles. Nice work! Aly89 (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ira Needles link
The Ira G. Needles link re-directs to the UW article. Safuman (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perimeter Institute
I really think the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics should be mentioned somewhere, as it is an internationally famous institute, and is directly associated with the Department of Physics (several of the Physicists at PI are associate Professors at UW). (Einarath (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Be wp:bold and go for it. Annihilatron (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as no one over-states the connexion: I have no doubt that links exist, but still the Perimeter Institute is not part of the university. David Arthur (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's some cross-lecturing or research or such, I don't really know, but its not owned by the University, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annihilatron (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PI also just recently instituted the Perimeter Scholars International (PSI) which is a program where, upon completion and passing, you receive a Master's degree in Physics from University of Waterloo. PI and UW are quite connected. (Einarath (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Macleans
Why is Macleans referred to as "the Canadian counterpart to the American US News annual ranking of universities."? On the page for US News, are they called the "american counterpart to the Canadian Macleans annual ranking?" This comment is written from a US viewpoint and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.154.186 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rankings and Reputation section not NPOV
I removed some garbage from the Rankings and Reputation section, but the whole thing is written like a marketing rag. Can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmyklebu (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Waterloo rebranding
I am beginning to make changes to reflect the new Waterloo branding.  Switching the use of the "UW" with "Waterloo" or more appropriately "uWaterloo". Teela Brown (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Talk


 * Where exactly does it say uWaterloo should be used over UW? I can't find it anywhere on your reference. The common usage is certainly still UW and you will need to provide direct evidence that they are now referring to themselves as "uWaterloo" or I will revert the edits --24.114.252.231 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It can be found on the University of Waterloo official Style Guide [ http://www.graphics.uwaterloo.ca/guide/story_ourway.php] Teela Brown (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't reflect branding, it reflects common usage. Mind  matrix  22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may, however, mention in the article that the university is re-branding itself. Mind  matrix  22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case the article should be switched back to UW. I don't have the time now but will later if it isn't done. --24.114.252.231 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I already did this yesterday. Mind  matrix  16:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does that mean I cannot update the logo either since it does not reflect the most commonly used logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teela Brown (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Although UW has been in use for a long time, including in many print articles, the term 'Waterloo' has also been used to refer to the university so should likewise be prominently mentioned. 'uWaterloo' is new, and should be mentioned as I already noted above. As far as the logo is concerned, can you link directly to the new logo please - I can't seem to find it. I've found a page with the new seals and wordmarks, but not the logo. Mind  matrix  16:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The wordmark is the logo. I still need to upload it. "UW" is a term that is only used locally. Outside the area UW can belong to a long list of other University's. Which is the reason behind moving to calling us Waterloo, or uWaterloo (when it could be confused with the city).Teela Brown (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

New 2010 marketing wordmark has been uploaded to replace the old 2008 marketing logo. Added "red" as one of Waterloo's colours. Teela Brown (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chevron
I originally deleted the mention of the so-called underground publication by the name of The Chevron (the recent version.) It was readded and a source (a brief note in the Daily Bulletin) was added. I don't see how this is notable as it seems they have "published" two issues and only gotten a mention in the Bulletin. Does this merit mention in the opening paragraph of the article? --24.114.252.231 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)