Hey, I don't know how to leave a signature so sorry about that but saw your edit. Those were college majors (have provided a link to the correct source), I don't know if it's against WP policy to list the majors the college offers (if it does, please feel free to let me know or undo it and I apologize) but wanted to give you the heads up. Anyway, it is dedicated to Criminal Justice, hence the college's name (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.108.33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that university reputations have been removed from articles. Why is this? There's plenty of information about Michigan, UCLA, etc. being prestigious. I don't know enough to say but these are things I think would improve the pages. תִּקְוָה (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the rule you cited but it just seems to say that it needs to be from a high-quality reference? תִּקְוָה (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those kinds of claims are important and helpful for readers. But they're hard to make responsibly and very often subject to bias and exaggeration. Hence the consensus that was established with WP:HIGHEREDREP.

The primary challenge with those kinds of statements, and this one in particular, is that they are so sweeping and broad that they require especially strong and explicit supporting references. One cannot make a massive claim that stretches across decades and only cite sources that focus on one specific ranking awarded in one specific year - you need sources that responsibly, accurately, and credibly synthesize many different factors across a large span of time. Specifically, a claim that an institution is "consistently ranked among the best public universities in the United States" would need independent sources that synthesize many years of rankings. And for such a claim to be included in the lead section it would have to be something that is already discussed in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. Has an objective standard been established for "best"? תִּקְוָה (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly, as far as I know. But in this area where there are active scholars and peer-reviewed publications we would probably be wanting to see those kinds of things, especially since there are many people who also publish in this area with little expertise and a primary desire to sale ads and subscriptions. We would also want to ensure that the publications are independent of the subject since those who have strong connections to specific institutions (e.g., employees such as staff and faculty) have a strong reason to want to promote those institutions, consciously or unconsciously. And, of course, the sources should support what is being claimed i.e., they should ideally have been written about or across a large span of time if the claim makes a sweeping claim such as "usually" or "historically." ElKevbo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There probably should be. Either T-10 or T-20 would be a good standard. Depending on how widely you want to cast the net. I know why most state flagships have been scrubbed, but to do it to UC Berkeley or Michigan is wrong. תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

. Mistersyxx (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have an article about her and that is our typical standard for inclusion in embedded lists of "notable" people. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goshen College, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although both have been suggested, I'm not technically competent enough to add ARWU and TIME Magazine to the template.

Could you do this for me? I'd be incredibly grateful.

https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025 https://time.com/7358185/top-universities-globally-2026/

I tried. It broke the template. תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably the wrong person to go to about this. I just don't know who to go to.

The talk page is inactive (one post every year). תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an affirmative consensus to make changes to such a widely used template. Please open a discussion in the template's Talk page. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]