Template talk:Infobox university

Type

The current TemplateData proposes using formulations like [[Private university|Private]] [[Proprietary education|for-profit]] [[law school]] for |type=. This poses problems:

• Accessibility. If all of the links are unclicked (or all clicked) a reader cannot easily distinguish between Private for-profit law school, Private for-profit law school, Private for-profit law school, etc.
• Semantic meaning. This approach amalgamates multiple types into a single, undifferentiated phrase. This makes it difficult for technologies like screen readers or data reusers to interpret.

The simple solution is to amend the TemplateData to recommend that, where there is consensus to list multiple types, they be formatted as a list, using {{flatlist}}, {{ubl}}, or any similar option. Courtesy ping to users in the discussion that prompted this post: @Moxy, ElKevbo, and Sdkb:. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo.

For the given example, a flatlist would potentially look like

• Private
• For-profit
• Law school

. I dislike that approach for grammatical reasons. "Private" is an incomplete thought on its own. When we say Private for-profit law school, the "school" can apply to everything, but if we broke them apart with a horizontal list, we'd need to say

• Private school
• For-profit school
• Law school

, which would be redundant.

MOS:SOB is qualified by When possible. Blue seas are never desirable, but they're not forbidden either, and I'd argue that here is one place they're inevitable, since having appropriate links/grammar takes precedence. Sdkb ^talk 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: See Talk:Columbia University § Type for prior discussion. Sdkb ^talk 05:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb and with the points made by ElKevbo in the linked discussion. MOS:SOB states "When possible, do not place links next to each other" (emphasis added). The flat list suggested not only looks terrible but is also ungrammatical, so isn't a possible option.

The semantic meaning is given by standard application of English grammar, so shouldn't be a problem for any competently designed screen reader, any more than 'large green apple' or any other phrase with multiple adjectives. Robminchin (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the noun at the end of the phrase is not just an affectation of a few Wikipedia editors - it's critical because this template is used for all kinds of institutions e.g., colleges, universities, schools, seminaries. And if piped links and phrases with multiple adjectives in Wikipedia are an accessibility problem then I'm afraid that's a much bigger problem than we can address in this one template. ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

a much bigger problem than we can address in this one template. I agree, but if that was a reason not to address a problem we'd never get anything done. Conversely, I don't agree with the "grammatical" pleading; "type: private" is a perfectly reasonable fact-value pair, and is widely used not only in this template but in others as well - compare for example {{infobox company}}. Similarly the "kind of institution" piece; if there is a desire to clarify the institution type then list it as a type, making it clear and available to reusers, rather than repeating it across multiple entries or tying it to one in particular. As to "when possible": here it is possible. Aesthetic preferences are not a good reason to discard that possibility, nor is "it's not forbidden". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "rather than repeating it across multiple entries or tying it to one in particular." This isn't an "aesthetic preference" - it's the cleanest, most straight forward way to handle this.

It really seems like you've come here to "show how it should be done" without any regard for the experience and expertise of any of the editors here who have worked in this area and worked with this template for many years. I appreciate your questions and your recommendations but they don't seem to acknowledge that we do it this way for some very good reasons. ElKevbo (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I.e. actually present "Type: University".

I do appreciate that you (collectively) have worked with this template for many years. But that doesn't mean the way you've chosen to do it is the best or only way, and in this particular case the local approach here diverges from projectwide guidelines and best practices. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you earlier on the thread, the way it is done here is entirely in keeping with the guidelines: MOS:SOB is quite clear that there will be times when the use of multiple links sequentially is unavoidable and thus acceptable. It is also clear that the opinion among editors here is that your proposal is not a workable solution. Robminchin (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the infobox company template has four mutually exclusive options for 'type'. This is a very different usage of 'type', referring specifically to ownership, that makes no sense for universities. It cannot serve as a model for this template. Robminchin (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The obvious, simple solution to this is: "Law school (private, for-profit)", which solves both problems (links not being separated by any non-linked characters, and phrase run-together as if a unitary expression), without requiring use of any templates like {{hlist}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

adding a tuition field

Hello, I was wondering if anyone else would support adding a tuition field to this infobox? I think a lot of people looking at universities on Wikipedia would want to be able to quickly see that. We could add an in-state tuition and out-of-state tuition box. Any feedback? Hannahthom7 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it might be a good idea. It might be better done as two definable labels, as "in-state" and "out-of-state" are US-specific (the UK equivalents would be "home" and "international", for example). Would we want to also include fees for (post-)graduate courses? At that point things could easily become complex with different fee levels for different schools. Robminchin (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No thanks. This is way too complex and ever-changing to be appropriately captured in the infobox as has been discussed many time (in the Talk page archives). ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not add this field. It would be highly misleading, because a large proportion of people do not pay the nominal tuition rate, and the true cost of attending a university or college often includes housing and meals and other fees that are not accounted for in a standard way. We run the risk of having outside people saying inaccurate things like "According to Wikipedia, it costs $60,000 per year to attend Foo University." – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

for update the logo of JE Mondejar Foundation College MMS2024 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a link to the new image. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Please add a field for university “Acceptance rate” TapticInfo (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a basic parameter for universities globally that needs to be in the top infobox. For US institutions, 'admit rate' (which is presumably what is being requested here) is already given in template:Infobox U.S. college admissions, which is (usually) placed in the admissions sub-section under academics. That seems a far more appropriate place for it. Robminchin (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this would not a good addition to this already bloated infobox. As Robminchin said, this is information best left for a more specific portion of the article body. Further, many editors mistakenly add material to articles about U.S. colleges and universities "admissions" processes when the information is only about undergraduate admissions; a generic parameter labeled only "Acceptance rate" would likely contribute to that confusion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of latin_name for romanization

Several universities, for example V. Dokuchaev Kharkiv National Agrarian University, have native names in the Cyrillic Script and have romanizations listed in the latin_name field. I had removed some as obviously not Latin before I realized that's what was meant. Should the rest be removed as well? Should there be a field for romanization? Does the romanization belong in the lede? McYeee (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Romanization of Ukrainian, it looks like the {{lang-uk}}, {{lang}} or {{transl}} templates is the preferred method of giving both Cyrillic and romanized forms of Ukrainian names. I assume this would apply in the infobox as well, so using one of these templates in the "name=" field would seem the best approach, e.g.:

:name={{lang-uk| Харківський національний аграрний університет ім. В.В. Докучаєва| translit= Kharkivskyi natsionalnyi ahrarnyi universytet im. V.V. Dokuchaieva| translit-std= ungegn}}

Robminchin (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean

::native_name={{lang-uk| Харківський національний аграрний університет ім. В.В. Докучаєва| translit= Kharkivskyi natsionalnyi ahrarnyi universytet im. V.V. Dokuchaieva| translit-std= ungegn}}

or something else? I think name is for English? McYeee (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so busy working out the other template I got confused on this one! Robminchin (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Is there an easy way to search for university infoboxes with names listed in Cyrillic? If so, I'll look into fixing more of them. McYeee (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of one I'm afraid. There might be some clever thing that can be done with maintenance categories but that's not something I know much about. Robminchin (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)