Template talk:West Virginia University

Untitled
The Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy is no longer a current issue at West Virginia University. This occurred under a different administration and is an afterthought. The WP:Consensus via the main page shows that this is no longer something that should be a part of the page.

Template redesign
The template as currently implemented does not use the university recommended gold value of #FFCC00. This change will be made soon, as it is a university recommendation for all web representations (See WVU Web Services Guidelines ). If anyone has any reservations please list your reasons.

Additionally, I would like to propose a redesign of the current template banner that is shown at the bottom of Wikipedia articles related to WVU. Implementing a new banner that showcases the university's landmarks could provoke interest in Wikipedia viewers who see the banner at the bottom of various WVU-related pages. Below is a banner that has been created from open source material and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in compliance with all of the guidelines found therein. It was designed to depict: Cmcginni (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Woodburn Hall: one of the oldest university structures and a symbol of academic tradition at WVU.
 * The Mountaineer: a symbol of the school's ties to the state of West Virginia and the pride felt by students and residents alike.
 * Text: "West Virginia University" and "established 1867" in official Goudy Old Style BT font type.


 * I do not support changing the banner. The graphic adds little benefit, just taking up additional room especially when this template box is stacked with others.  The text does not look good as it lacks the actual logo's styling, and I see no reason why the "Established 1867" is relevant to the header. Brian Powell (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your point of view. We'll need to wait a while to get a better view of how others view this topic, but I must disagree with your assessment that the graphic adds little benefit. Yes, the template will take up more room, but that will not negatively affect the look of the banner. Conversely, the banner will be more noticeable and garner more attention from passersby on various university-related pages. The text is the officially recommended university font for web content (WVU Web Services Design Guidelines), and your assessment that it "does not look good" is a matter of personal taste. Once again, it is the official WVU-recommended font as outlined in the Web Services Guidelines. I believe the font distinguishes the university name from other web-standard fonts, and creates a uniform look across the Wikipedia article and other official university sites.  I understand that the text is not the exact styling of the logo, but the official logo, flying WV, and other symbols cannot be used in a derivative work due to their trademarks. The text "Established 1867" provides a sense of history and tradition, allowing the viewer to immediately get a sense of the school's age. This is important in understanding a school's tradition and to distinguish it from universities which were established more recently. Remember that the purpose of the banner is to:
 * Provoke interest by providing a snapshot of the university.
 * Provide a unified impression of West Virginia University across all related Wiki articles that use the en:Template:West Virginia University.Cmcginni (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point about the appearance of the text was that you have created a hackneyed version of the wordmark. Since the actual logo isn't available, it would be better to leave things as-is than to use an amateurish graphic.


 * The purpose of the navigation box is to easily facilitate access to WVU-related articles. How is the school's age relevant to that?  What do other more recently founded schools have to do with it? Brian Powell (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear that our differences are a matter of preference. I ask that you refrain from using insulting language, such as your use of "amateurish" and "hackneyed" above. It is clear that you do not prefer the look of the banner, which can be simply stated without degrading the work of a fellow Wikipedia editor. As seen by your recent attempted deletion of one of my newly created articles (East-West Rivalry), it is clear that you are attempting to nullify my editing. I am asking you to please use good judgment and not cause unneeded tension between editors. I understand that you reserve your right to opinion, but why so confrontational?
 * In response to your latest comments:
 * I did not create any version of the wordmark. The text is purely Goudy Old Style BT font type. I will state this one final time: the font and text is the recommendation of West Virginia University's Web Services Guidelines. I apologize if you disagree with the university's suggestions.  Nothing about it is "hackneyed".
 * I understand that you see no significance of the establishment date. However, how do you see its inclusion as damaging or unfavorable? Additionally, the establishment date may reaffirm that the individual is researching or referencing the correct university (and not a similarly named institution such as West Virginia University at Parkersburg). This is what I was referring to by "more recently founded schools." Sorry for the lack of clarity in that section. Cmcginni (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To provide further clarification of the proposed changes, below is an outline of the current and proposed templates (expanded). Cmcginni (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you disliked my descriptions of your image, but I wanted to ensure I was precise in expressing my concerns with the image. You dismissed my previous less-direct comment out of hand.  To be clear, I believe your image to be detrimental to maintaining a professional appearance of the articles in which this navbox is embedded.


 * I recognize the West Virginia University wordmark was based on a modified version of the Goudy Old Style font. By using Goudy to render the text, you've created an image that looks like it is supposed to resemble the wordmark but doesn't quite match it.  It comes across as a bad knockoff.  Your argument about WVU's web guidelines isn't relevant since Wikipedia isn't a WVU website. A font that is consistent with normal Wikipedia usage (like Arial) would be more appropriate for the heading text.


 * Including the date in the heading is unnecessary and undesirable. It is an unneeded distraction.  The heading is supposed to identify the subject of the navbox; the date does nothing to further this goal.  I highly doubt any reader is going to see the date and just happen to recognize they were viewing the wrong article. Brian Powell (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One quick note--changing the banner heading to the newly proposed design does not affect the user's ability to navigate the navbox; it is simply an aesthetic change. Additionally, the new design adequately identifies the subject. It could be argued that the new design makes it easier to identify the subject due to the use of symbols for easy depiction when many navbox headings are stacked at the bottom of a page. Text-only entries are much harder to distinguish from a group than those using imagery as well. As an exercise, glance quickly at the two designs above. Which one is more readily identifiable with WVU? Which would you be more likely to recognize as WVU-related if there were many other navboxes listed?
 * I want to be clear that my intentions are to make improvements to the article and not have lengthy arguments over subjective disagreements. I have attempted to follow the guidelines suggested by Wikipedia policy--that is the reason I have suggested the template change on the talk page rather than simply making the change. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot here, and I hope that we can work collaboratively in the future. If you agree, lets leave the issue as-is until others comment, as our respective points-of-view are now well known. Cmcginni (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As you suggested, we can wait to see if a further consensus develops.  If you still want to go with a graphic heading, perhaps it would be worthwhile to contact WVU to see if they would authorize the use of the actual Flying WV logo and wordmark.  This would help to more immediately tie in with WVU since the Flying WV is widely used in athletics, whereas only WVU people would likely recognize Woodburn Hall and the Mountaineer. 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To help field some more comments on the issue, I took the "Be Bold" approach recommended by Wiki policy. Let's see what comments/suggestions we get.Cmcginni (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
As discussed on the Talk:West Virginia University page, the event does not merit its own section per WP:UNDUE. Below is an excerpt from the policy:


 * "'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.'"

The previous configuration of the template violates the above by overemphasizing Heather Bresch over other university topics, specifically the prominence of placement aspect. The topic simply doesn't merit 20% of the template, and doing so misconstrues its significance to the topic.Cmcginni (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a navigation template, not an article. WP:UNDUE does not apply in this context.  The purpose of this template is to provide a central resource for linking to all WVU-related articles, hence the inclusion of this link is desirable. Brian Powell (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Incorrect--WP:UNDUE applies to all aspects of Wikipedia content, as it is part of one of the Five Pillars by which all of Wikipedia must operate. From WP:NPOV:
 * "'Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.'"


 * You can see that the undue weight argument is also represented above when the policy mentions that the info must be proportional to its weight on the topic. If you wish the link to be included in the template, reduce its weight. The current format in fact violates the policies as described above. Cmcginni (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're throwing red herrings. You've not explained how including the link violates WP:FIVE or WP:NPOV.  If anything, your spurious suggestion supports my assertion you're trying to white-wash WVU-related materials.  You've also not explained how a navigation box is an article or how linking to a WVU-related article in a series of links to WVU-related links gives undue weight. Brian Powell (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and don't know how much clearer I could have been in this discussion. I've stated that the undue weight was the result of the topic receiving 20% of the entire template, and its prominence of placement. My last post was an attempt to falsify your claim that a template is not affected Wikipedia policy. The excerpt above clearly states that all content (not just articles as you repeatedly claim) should follow these guidelines. The reference to WP:NPOV was to show that the WP:WEIGHT falls under that category, which is one of WP:FIVE which, once again, affects all content.


 * Please stop personally attacking me. Your repeated assertions of my "white-washing" the articles is a direct accusation to another editor. The fact that I am attempting to reduce undue weight of a topic does not imply that I am white-washing the article. It's quite apparent that WVU articles have been subject to a few editors giving too much weight to recent events in the news and to overwhelmingly negative views on several of those topics. Examples include an entire section for the Heather Bresch scandal, recent poor fan behavior (in sports traditions) without mention of warm fan response mentioned in the same sources, and over half of the history section describing the tenure of a president (Garrison) who held the position for less than one year.Cmcginni (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy page from the History section of the WVU template due to violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The Bresch controversy is not a significant event meriting linkage in the University's history section. Including the page in this template does not coincide with the Neutral Point of View guidelines, and it provides undue weight to a one-off controversy that is not indicative of University practice. Swcrowe  msg  13:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see...
A discussion on the appropriateness of images in nav templates, in which this nav template has been mentioned, has begun at Template talk:University of Pittsburgh. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)