Talk:University of Waterloo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Education in Canada
This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
/archive1


Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Mindmatrix 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.) Mindmatrix 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).
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. Mindmatrix 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. Mindmatrix 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

I have been attempting to reference unsourced material on this page. I have 'Facts and Figures' mostly done -- I have tagged material I could not verify with the 'fact' tag; if anybody has references to replace them, that would be helpful. --Jdeboer 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been several months now. I will remove unsourced material and post it here. --Jdeboer 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

From Facts and Figures:

--Jdeboer 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/arts/arts_facts.html has a reference to your first one. Lmdemasi (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.) Mindmatrix 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)