Talk:Villanova University/Archive 2

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3

Possible revisions

I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I think this article needs widespread revisions to make it more like the other university articles on Wikipedia. First of all, I think the campus myths section is rather unverifiable and un-encyclopedic. (How do you verify that a myth exists? I go to Villanova, and I have heard all these myths, but I can't imagine finding many articles to sustain most of it). I would recommend moving the information in there to other sections of the article, like history, or eliminating it. You could probably find articles that would sustain that Alumni Hall is reputedly haunted by citing articles about haunted places in Pennsylvania, or old articles of the Villanovan, if you have subscriptions to that.
I also think that it would be more consistent with the other university articles, and more encyclopedic, if we grouped the current sections on VEMS and campus publications together on a larger section on student activities. As the article stands, it seems odd to have a full section devoted to those two groups of organizations, and nothing about other on-campus organizations.
I think the history section deserves to be expanded, possibly including references to the early history of Villanova, and that the Augustinians wanted the site as a refuge from the Nativist riots. You could probably find some important information on the presidential timeline on the Villanova homepage. The athletics sections should be expanded to include references to more sports (some of which have won many NCAA championships) and perhaps expanded into an article of its own on Villanova Wildcat athletics. Finally, I think that the academics section should include much more than a mere copying and pasting of the available majors and minors. It could include information like the admissions, research, study abroad, etc.
I think there should be discussion about these changes before anything is done, and I was just hoping to stimulate such a discussion. This is the first time I've posted on a discussion, so I'm sorry if I did it wrong.
Wldcat 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Wldcat

That's how wikis grow, my friend. A section on BBall here, a section on VEMS there.... However....

I agree wholeheartedly with more or less everything you've outlined. I think this article is okay, but it could be much better. One thing we should consider deleting is that list of notable graduates. It doesn't add much to the article, it takes up a lot of space, technically each name would need a citation, it invites self-promotion, etc,, etc., etc. The commencement speakers are kind of interesting, but it's definitely skewed toward recent years. That's something that might bear inclusion in the history section.

As for campus groups, what we can't have is a section on EVERY group on campus. Wikipedia's notability guidlines are applicable not only to what can have its own article, but what should be included in each article. This would also be applicable to athletics. The BB team is obviously notable, I think it was the girl's cross-country team that won like a million national championships when I was there -- if they won championships or spawned a professional player (Brian Westbrook) or an Olympian, then they're notable. Existence is not notability. As for student groups, Special Olympics being the largest student-run Special Olympics in the nation (as long as that's still true) is notable, Jim Croce having been part of the Singers makes it notable, CAT for scheduling notable speakers, etc. For the most part, most of the groups probably have some "claim to fame", and that's enough to establish notability, as far as I'm concerned.

Improving this article has been in the back of my wiki-head for awhile. I don't know how much help I can be -- I just started working 50 hr weeks -- but I'm a much better editor than writer, anyway. (However, I'd be able to write a pretty decent section on the Singers....)

If you're really rearing to go, I would suggest starting with the history. It's the most important section, by far, and will always need the most attention. If you don't already have one, here's a sandbox. It's much easier to work it out there, then post it in the article.

And, since we're talking about it, the article on the law school could use attention, too. —  MusicMaker5376 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of expanding the academics section. I'll take a look at the admissions website and see if I can get some data up on that sort of thing.Nf utvol 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alum

I think we should get rid of this section. Almost all of the vandalism to this article is in this section, with people adding themselves or friends. It's lengthy and doesn't impart any information that couldn't be gathered by using "What links here" -- the fact that they're VU alums are most likely on the articles for the people, themselves. I say we get rid of it. —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just as entitled to be a Notable Alum as anyone else. I was one of the youngest undergraduates in the history of Villanova, and I am (so far) the youngest ever to have attended the electrical engineering department. I have endured a lot of hell from my classmates during all four of my years there, and so for surviving I deserve the honor of a mention. So whoever is deleting my entry, PLEASE leave it alone.

Andrew Jonathan Fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. —  MusicMaker5376 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, 'enduring alot of hell from classmates' doesn't qualify you. If everyone who 'endured hell from classmates' got on a notability list, it wouldn't be that notable anymore. Being the youngest in a single department in a smaller university isn't much of a qualification either. Now, if you have done some notable things after you have graduated, then you are entitled to put something on there. Also we have the NPOV issues and the regulations regarding autobiographical information to take into account. Until you give reasoning with citation for why you should be included on the list (remember, bad experiences at college don't qualify you), I'm going to vote for taking your name off the list. Nothing personal, you understand, just trying to keep the article as accurate and reliable as possible. After all, you don't see me putting my name on the list, even though I'm most assuredly the only person in my department who has flown with NASA. It simply isn't enough to make me a notable student. If I end up as an ambassador, senator, president, or representative, then I'll ask someone else to include me on the list. nf utvol 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side ntoe, I'm not the one who has been deleting your entry. nf utvol 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nfutvol, You are just as insufferable as MusicMaker. I believe that people who overcome severe life circumstances are just as notable as people who make the presidency. I haven't even begun the scratch the surface, but there is not enough room to explain it on the VU page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't enough room to explain it on the VU page. There is enough room here. If you have information to help your case, please state it, as well as evidence to support your claims. Take a look at the notability guidelines. Tell me if your case fits in there. As I said before, if you put every single person who entered college before age 18 and suffered some sort of injustice, you'd have a massive list. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. It generally does nothing more than hurt your case. No one has insulted you, and I most certainly do not intend to ever insult you. I find it entirely reasonable to expect the same courtesy to be given by you to other contributors on Wikipedia. nf utvol 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni List Overpopulation

Should we cull the list, move it to its own page, or remove it altogether? It's taking up an inordinate amount of space on the page. nf utvol 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my thought is that notablity is notability. If we cut it down, we're just going to be faced with the same problem: it's going to go from "Is this person notable?" to "Is this person notable enough?" Having an entire article on notable alumni seems silly. Besides, there's Category:Villanova University alumni which would serve the same purpose without having to be maintained. I say we get rid of it. (Obviously.) —  MusicMaker5376 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make it a point to tag all the individuals who are on the list and have articles with the category tag, then get rid of it.nf utvol 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd be pretty easy to do with AWB. I've been meaning to compile the latest build, and that'll give me reason to do it. I've wanted to get rid of this list for, well, ever. (I have no idea what that slightly apocolyptic message below means....) —  MusicMaker5376 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I... I've not used AWB. What is it, exactly? (Forgive my newbish question, hah) nf utvol 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is a IE-based browser that makes repetitious edits MUCH easier. You compile a list from a variety of sources (cats, what links here, etc.), then set it to do what you want (adding specific text, adding or removing cats, whitespace removal, typos, whatever). It's not entirely automated, thankfully -- you have to check each edit -- but something like adding a category you can do at a rate of about 5 pgs/min. It'll take about 10 minutes to do that, as opposed to two hours. Actually, the difficult part might be compiling the list. Check out WP:AWB. You have to apply to get it, but as long as you haven't been blocked for vandalism (could you imagine that tool in the hands of a vandal?!?) and have about 1000 edits, you'll get approved.... —  MusicMaker5376 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll put it there and let the world judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've AWB'd things and I was wrong -- it only took 9 minutes. I've also taken a look around to see what other university pages do for their notable alums. Temple University has one sentence about their most famous alum, then a link to a list. Harvard doesn't even bother. St. Joe's has a list like ours, but it's easily 1/3 of the article. I kind of like Seton Hall's -- a couple of paragraphs highlighting the most famous and a link to the list. I think that prozing the "big names" (Croce, Rendell, Westbrook, Cardinal O'Connor, etc.) would be a good idea. Perhaps we can move some of the Navy guys into the section on NROTC and some of the athletes into the section on athletics. And maybe a list article isn't a bad idea. I just have the feeling that the vandalism that occurs here is just going to move there. —  MusicMaker5376 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved the list to a new page (Villanova University Notable Alumni), added a few redirects, categorized it, and added See Also links including the alumni list at the bottom of the VU mainpage. It should work at least as a temporary measure until we figure out something better to do. nf utvol 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

I noticed that someone undid my modifications to the Pop Culture references section and reverted it to a list style format. Would it be better to leave it as this or to return it to a more prose oriented section that I had modified it to? nf utvol 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted that edit. It is my opinion that, as it is written, this section is best presented as a list. Nothing is gained by removing the bullets to convert it into a "prose oriented section"...it makes it more difficult to read, if anything. Alphageekpa 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? I'm somewhat ambivalent to it, really. It just seems like half the page is a list of bullets. Admittedly mine was a quick edit with nothing much more than some basic sentence structure changes and an introduction, I intended to come back later and make it more readable, but whatever everyone else thinks is good with me. nf utvol 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was noticing, too, that the article is EXTREMELY listy. And, frankly, I would get rid of the pop culture stuff. I mean, it was HUGE news when I was there and it was on the Simpsons, but it's not half as funny as the reference to Brandeis.... I don't think three references in the whole of pop culture really warrants a section. —  MusicMaker5376 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. I think I actually wrote everything but the Scrubs entry, so I doubt there's going to be any backlash. For me, the section was "Trivia", and didn't really add anything to the article. Alphageekpa 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Commencement speakers

Where are we getting this information? I think that the Project Smile founder spoke in 1997, not 1994. —  MusicMaker5376 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I didn't have anything to do with writing that section. nf utvol 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another bulletted list.... —  MusicMaker5376 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all up for killing...I don't think it adds anything to article. After all, any major university tries to recruit 'notable' commencement speakers - it's nothing unique. If anything, it can be folded down into sentences... previous speakers have X, Y, Z, etc. Speakers in recent years have included X1, Y1, Z1, etc. 2-3 sentences should do the trick... Alphageekpa 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on killing it, but I do know that the 1997 speaker was not the Operation Smile founder, he was Bill Shore, founder of Save our Strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.9.9 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just changed that back. I was there at the time, and I'm nearly certain that it was the founder of Operation Smile. Do you have a source (since this has been a matter of contention)? —  MusicMaker5376 20:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was there. I'm a 1997 graduate. I'll see if I can find my commencement program, however I am absolutely sure. We were all very disappointed to have a speaker who was basically unknown when the class of '96 had had James Earl Jones. When our speaker was announced, we were all asking each other "Who's Bill Shore?"

Without digging around for the program, I confirmed it by doing a google search for '1997 Villanova University Commencement speaker Bill Shore' the preview of the first article in the search confirmed that it was Bill Shore. I know that Operation Smile was a popular charity on campus that year. I was an RA, and we raised money for it a few times in my building. That might have been the source of your confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.9.9 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My recollection stems from a memory of a friend who graduated the year before me opining, "We have some Main Line dentist speaking at our commencement." It's possible that it was the year after, in 99.

Either way, I think this section should be removed, or at least prozized. It doesn't really matter whether this non-entity spoke in 97 or 99 -- it's wholly unencyclopedic. I think this whole thing can be cut down to one paragraph. Mention the big names, and leave it at that. —  MusicMaker5376 16:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't need to be an exhaustive list of commencement speakers. Dppowell 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to toss this out again, but I'm all for getting rid of this bulleted list and killing it or folding down to a couple of sentences. I think the content is trivial in nature, at best. Alphageekpa 12:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Universities WikiProject

It might behoove us to take a look at the suggested article structure at Universities WikiProject. For example:

• The Campus Landmarks section should probably be consolidated and prozized into a Campus section describing the campus.
• We need a Student Life section. This could integrate VEMS and the Student Publications and we can add more groups.
• The athletics section should probably mention more than the BBall team.
• I think we need to delistify the Academics section.

Not delistified, but it has been expanded with prose. Perhaps this is one area a list is doing some good? nf utvol (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• We can have a "Notable people" section. It would be more than a list of notable alums, but we can add them, too. Perhaps the commencement speakers could go here.

And.... unless we can get sources for the "Campus myths", it should probably go.... —  MusicMaker5376 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Would love to see "Campus Myths" hit the bit-bucket. It seems like at least half the libelous vandalism to the entry manifests in that section... Dppowell 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for killing "Campus Myths" as well. Alphageekpa 09:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dump it if no sources can be located. nf utvol 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the University Shop site to see if they had any books that might help us, and it doesn't seem good. I'm probably going to shoot them an e-mail to see if they have anything that's not on the site. Also, if any of the other editors are actually on campus, they might want to check Falvey. —  MusicMaker5376 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to go over in a bit to do some research in Falvey, I'll take a quick look to see what they have. nf utvol 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen old Villanovan articles (which can be found on the internet by people who have a subscription to it) that deal with the Campus myths. I don't know if this would count as a good enough source, but since it may be considered official, because I think the university checks in on the content of articles. These could be used if it's decided to keep the Campus myths section, but I personally think it should be eliminated Wldcat 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at one of the articles I mentioned as GAs, can't remember which, and they have a section on campus myths... which they proceed to debunk or verify. If we have a source that says, "Yes, this is a myth. Here is the truth," they can -- and probably should -- stay. Villanovan articles would be perfect in that regard. However, I don't see anything on their site that says that a subscription entails an access to archives. Falvey has the Villanovan archived since 1916. It's mostly on microfiche still, but, I'm sure articles like that are out there, and if we can get to them -- preferably for free -- let's do it. In the meantime, I think they can stay: they're (for the most part, save for the Dundale one) phrased as "reportedly", etc. There are claims throughout the article that are in glaring need of citations. If we can't verify them, they should go.

But let's try to verify them.... —  MusicMaker5376 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found a Villanovan article that discusses the history and added appropriate citations. I found it at

http://media.www.villanovan.com/media/storage/paper581/news/2006/09/07/Features/The-Facts.About.The.History.Of.Villanova-2262405-page3.shtml (or just go to the Villanovan's website and search for "The factts about history of Villanova" or just search haunting, like I did.) I don't think I formatted the citations right. Read the article to make sure what I added was appropriate. Wldcat 03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol -- I didn't see that search engine at the top.... Nice work! There's a lot in that article that could be used.... —  MusicMaker5376 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things -- make sure that when you put in a citation that the citation leads directly to the page with the information. That article was three pages long, and only using the URL for the 3rd page implies that all of the information can be found on the third page. Some of it was on the other pages. Also, citations go after end punctuation, not before.

Now, we can cite the website, but it would be better to actually cite the Villanovan. Since all we've seen is the website, that's what we have to cite. The website gives the date of publication, so it wouldn't be difficult to hunt down a copy of the paper and cite it directly. The internet is transient; the hard copy is not. —  MusicMaker5376 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating Re-Assessment

I'm fairly certain that this page, for all its problems, warrants a GA rating. I'm fairly certain it meets all of the minimum requirements. I'm going to up it if no one objects. Once we fix the problems listed directly above, it will probably warrant an A rating. nf utvol 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we take a week or so to try to get it a little more in line with the WP:UNI guidelines, get rid of some of these lists, etc. Then, yeah, I'm all about it. —  MusicMaker5376 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need A LOT more citations. I don't mean to shoot you down; this can be a GA, I just think it needs a bit more work before it can get there. —  MusicMaker5376 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no worries. That's the reason I posted here prior to actually doing it. nf utvol 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at College of the Holy Cross and Vanderbilt University -- two GAs. We've got quite a bit of work ahead of us.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to take a look at the ratings again. I believe we are at a much higher point than we were 6 months ago, and GA isn't out of the question. nf utvol (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Campus landmarks -> Campus

Just wrote a Campus section, incorporating the old "Campus Landmarks" and moving it up. Please check it, as its based on my 10-year-old recollections. In particular, pay attention to the bit on Connelly -- they change it around alot. —  MusicMaker5376 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about Jim Croce writing "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" in the grotto many times but I've never seen any evidence for this. It may just be a campus myth. Also, the article currently says that he wrote "beneath the statue of the Blessed Mother". Is "Blessed mother" an encyclopedic term for Mary? If anything, shouldn't it say something like "Mother of Good Counsel," which is the title on the statue?

Just a thought.---Wldcat 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence, either, and short of asking a dead man, it might be hard to find.... I used "Blessed Mother". I have no memory of what it says on the statue, but I think more readers would be familiar with the term "Blessed Mother" than with "Mother of Good Counsel". If you think it's unencyclopedic, change it to Saint Mary. —  MusicMaker5376 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked up the wikipedia article "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown". According to the article, Croce said in an interview he wrote the song about a man he met in the army. The Jim Croce biography from the website his wife set up for him (jimcroce.com) says he joined the army after going to Villanova. That doesn't mean he didn't write it in the grotto- the "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" article doesn't cite its source, and I can't find it, so it may be made up, but I imagine the story about the grotto is a campus myth. (Just so you know, the Spires these days are saying Croce wrote "Time in a Bottle" in the grotto for a girl who lived in Alumni Hall while he looked up at her window. My friend, a Spire, pointed out that no girls lived in Alumni when Croce went here, and "Time in a Bottle" was written for his son. I think this story is the same kind myth.) If there is no interview with Croce in which he says he wrote it in the grotto, or maybe an article about Villanova that makes the claim, I think it should be removed. As to the title of Mary, maybe it should be "Mary, the Mother of Jesus," which is the title of her Wikipedia article.

Again, it's just a suggestion. Wldcat 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to change anything I post as you see fit. Be bold, my friend. This is a wiki.... I fully expect to be edited mercilessly. Please do. —  MusicMaker5376 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not certain about this, but I think Croce's photo in the student center (various famous alums are featured there) has a caption which makes the claim about him writing the song in the grotto. I'll try to remember to check the next time I'm near the student center. Dppowell 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea as to how to cite a plaque...? —  MusicMaker5376 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blessed Mother redirects to Blessed Virgin Mary, the article about the Catholic interpretation of Mary (mother of Jesus). Since that's what the statue depicts -- the concept of the Blessed Virgin rather than a historical entity -- I think it's okay. But, of course, feel free to change it. —  MusicMaker5376 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no article for Mother of Good Counsel, but that should probably also redirect to Blessed Virgin Mary.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

People

Also started a prose section for notable alumni. —  MusicMaker5376 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Villanova is not in Philadelphia

Contrary to what I said in my most recent edit summary, it is in Pennsylvania, obviously. But it is not in Philadelphia. It is in the Philadelphia area. So are numerous other colleges not in the "Universities and colleges in Philadelphia" category. I note specifically Swarthmore College, Haverford College, Bryn Mawr College, Widener University, Ursinus College, the University of Delaware, Rutgers-Camden, Wilmington University, Penn State Abington, Penn State Brandywine, Penn State Great Valley, West Chester University, Arcadia University, and so forth. The category for schools in Philadelphia should be for schools in Philadelphia. john k (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, Villanova is not in the city of Philadelphia. There are no other schools outside the city of Philadelphia in the category. If you think they should be there, it's up to you to propose that the category be redefined. The category is "Universities and colleges in Philadelphia." Villanova is 6 miles from the city limits. It is not in the city, and, so far as I can tell, these categories are defined by city limits. I am not adding other schools because I don't think any of them should be included. You clearly don't care about whether or not the category makes any sense, because all you care about is making sure Villanova is included. A category ought to have a clear definition, especially a category like this. If you can provide an alternative to "located within Philadelphia," try to do that. Otherwise, back off, as you're clearly in the wrong. john k (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it when random editors ordain themselves the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen. —  MusicMaker5376 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Philadelphia or no?

Should Villanova be included in a category for colleges in Philadelphia? MusicMaker says yes - it's considered a Philly school and it's a member of the Big 5, an important Philly sports institution. I say no - it is located outside the city and no other schools located outside the city are in the category. What say others? john k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the name of the category to Universities and Colleges in the Philadelphia area and be done with it. --Looper5920 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support —  MusicMaker5376 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How would we define "Philadelphia area"? john k (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Same way everyone else does...Philly and the 8 surrounding counties.--Looper5920 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

4 counties in PA and 4 in Jersey? Who is "everybody else" in this case? The Census Bureau defines the Philadelphia area more broadly. john k (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not getting roped into this. You guys figure it out. I have a feeling that if I wrote to use the "Reasonable Man" approach it would be followed by "What is a reasonable man?"--Looper5920 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the fact that this article is part of WikiProject Philadelphia. —  MusicMaker5376 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As well as part of the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Colleges template. —  MusicMaker5376 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject is a) just a working group for wikipedians, and not present in the article itself; and b) not strictly defined as pertaining only to the city itself. The template is specifically for the metro area. If we agreed that we wanted this to be "Universities and colleges in metropolitan Philadelphia," or something, that would be fine, but I just want to be clear on what that means. As it stands, Villanova doesn't belong. john k (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do note, though, that changing to "metropolitan Philadelphia" would require the addition of an extra category. Metro Philadelphia extends into New Jersey and, arguably, Delaware, so the article would have to be in "Universities and Colleges in metro Philadelphia" and "Universities and colleges in Pennsylvania" categories, separately. john k (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And the metro Philadelphia category could not be a subcategory of "Universities and colleges in Pennsylvania", since it would include schools outside Pennsylvania. This is among the reasons I'd prefer to just leave the category with schools in the city itself. There's alternately "Universities and colleges in Southeastern Pennsylvania," but that rather dilutes the Philliness of it. john k (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I renew my assertion that THIS IS STUPID! This article has been in that category for YEARS and no one's had a problem with it. I don't understand the reason for all of this chaos to alleviate a problem that NEVER EXISTED. I mean, seriously, an RfC? Because of SIX MILES? Do you have any idea how much energy you've expended on this non-issue? How much bandwith it's taken up? I am in awe. —  MusicMaker5376 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely how much of my own energy I waste is my own affair. How much of your own energy you waste is entirely up to you - obviously you care about this "non-issue" just as much as I do, or you wouldn't be reverting me so fiercely and shouting on talk pages about it. BTW, in fact, it has not been in that category for "years," unless by "years," you mean, "slightly more than two months."

Again, the issue is not "six miles." The issue is that membership in categories ought to be somewhat intuitive, and to follow rules. There ought to be a clear guideline for what articles go in this category, and what do not. The most obvious guideline for "universities and colleges in Philadelphia" is that it represents universities and colleges in the city of Philadelphia. Obviously, Villanova fails this criterion. When I found the category and tried to tidy it up, there were exactly two articles in the category which were not about schools located in the city of Philadelphia - Villanova University and Westminster Theological Seminary. Rather than trying to divine a set of rules that would allow these places to be included, and then trying to figure out what other places should be included, I removed them to the Category:Universities and colleges in Pennsylvania, where they found good company with Arcadia University (located in the same city as Westminster), and Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges (which are located between Villanova and the city of Philadelphia). This ought to have been a perfectly reasonable solution. Certainly it was one that didn't warrant an unexplained revert, which was your immediate reaction, and which certainly didn't set us on a very good footing going forward. You have since reverted without explanation several times.

Now, I don't really care at all whether or not there's a category that deals with Philadelphia as such, or with the Philadelphia area. But I do care that categories make sense. If there's a category for the Philadelphia area, we ought to be clear on what the definition of "Philadelphia area" is, and I would prefer changing the name of the category. In addition, if that definition includes places in New Jersey and possibly Delaware, we should make sure that all the schools are located in both a category for their state and a category for the Philly area, since "Philly area" is not a subset of "Pennsylvania" in the way that Philadelphia is. If everyone else prefers to do it that way, that's alright with me, but I'm not going to accept the status quo "Category:Universities and colleges in Philadelphia and also Villanova". That's an unacceptable solution. john k (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to explain each and every reversion when it's for the same reason.

I've already stated that renaming the category to Category:Universities and colleges in the Philadelphia area is an acceptable solution. You're the one who's making it unnecessarily cumbersome. If membership in categories should be intuitive, why are you asking for definitions and rules? The intuitive thing is to leave VU in the Philly category, since that's where people would expect it to be.

You're making too big a deal over a distance of Route 30 that I've walked. While drunk. In the rain. —  MusicMaker5376 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My point about categories is it should be clear what should be in them or not. "Philadelphia area" would be acceptable, but that doesn't obviate the need to define what the Philly area is. The five counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania are easy enough, I guess, but it would seem weird to include schools in West Chester while excluding ones in Camden. Which, again, makes it complicated, because the current category is a subcategory of "Universities and colleges in Phladelphia". And Camden, obviously, is even more easily walkable from Philly than Villanova is (by a considerable margin). It's not about distance, it's about political boundaries. Philadelphia has fairly distinct boundaries, and Villanova is on the wrong side of them. Holy Family University is farther from Center City than Villanova, but it's located within the city, so it counts. Villanova is located outside the city. Basically, my point is that a category should be well-defined so that it's easy to determine what should be in the category, and what should not be. If you want to come up with a definition that would include Villanova in a Philly schools category, that's fine. We just can't include Villanova "just because". If you want to include Villanova, I don't understand why you're not trying to come up with a reasonable definition that would allow it to be included, rather than arguing about what a jerk I am. It's not terribly cumbersome to come up with a plan. Hell, I can come up with several different ways we could handle the category:

1. Category:Universities and colleges in Philadelphia includes only schools in the city of Philadelphia. Villanova is excluded.
2. Category:Universities and colleges in Philadelphia (possibly renamed to Category:Universities and colleges in the Philadelphia Area, or some such) includes schools in the five counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Villanova, Bryn Mawr, Widener, etc. are included. Rutgers-Camden and Delaware are excluded.
3. Category:Universities and colleges in the Philadelphia Area (or some such) includes schools in the Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland PA-NJ-DE-MD Combined Statistical Area. Schools are also in a separate Category:Universities and colleges in Pennsylvania, Category:Universities and colleges in New Jersey, etc. Villanova, Rutgers-Camden, Delaware, Bryn Mawr all included.

I'd be willing to go with any of these, although I tend to prefer the simpler city=city proper. In all cases, the category introduction would explain exactly what the subject matter of the category is. Take your pick. I just don't think this should be done in a half-assed way. john k (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that you are the one with the problem with how things are currently handled. If you have the problem, it is up to you to present to everyone else an acceptable solution. I had no problem with the current categorization (as I feel I've made clear).

HOURS ago, I supported renaming the category: solution #2. I still do. Go forth and rename. Ita missa est. —  MusicMaker5376 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that all responsibility is not on my shoulders. john k (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that I didn't say that. —  MusicMaker5376 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alumni section

Do people say "fathered. . . alumni"? If so, go with it, but it sounds weird to me.Wldcat (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I thought so. I guess not. If it sounds strange, by all means, change it. —  MusicMaker5376 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)