User talk:Keitherson

Capilano (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Capilano (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Capilano. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keitherson, first off, thanks for all of your work at Capilano University. Unfortunately, some of your changes involving redirects at Capilano and CAPU have been reverted. With respect to [{Capilano]], Capilano University is not the primary use of that term, and as such we cannot redirect to the university article. With regards to CAPU, it is not a likely search term for the university, but it is for the bus terminal. In this case, we keep the redirect to the bus terminal. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Fair enough, CAPU may well work as a disambiguation page. Might as well leave it and see how it works out. As for the "popularity" issue, we'd have to see a demonstrated preference for the university article over the other ones. Given the frequent use of the name "Capilano" in the Lower Mainland region, however, it is unlikely to occur. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've restored the proper pages from your reverts earlier tonight. The stats do not support an overwhelming preference for Capilano University, especially given that there are many uses for the term "Capilano". As well, Wikipedia does not use "cut-and-paste" page moves, as it removes the contribution history. Please do not move the pages again without discussion. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As I mentioned earlier, the statistics do not represent an overwhelming majority for the university. Even when combining the listings, it is still less than half of all requests. Furthermore, "Capilano" by itself is a widely used name, and the university is not the primary topic for the word. When we consider the low total number of hits for all of the articles you listed, including the university, there is not sufficient grounds for the redirect. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no justification for the educational institutions to claim those names as a redirect, not with the number of other uses. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC Unis

I saw your edits and am thinking:

a) If ECUAD (instead of ECIAD) was established in 1925, that would make it the 2nd oldest university in BC (which is blatantly incorrect - historically and factually). The 'name change' is far more significant than it looks - different standards and accreditation process and different legal requirements amongst other things. It is a 'seal of approval' compare to its pre-university dates.

News release by the BC Govt reads as follow [1]: "allow the Province to create new universities ", "we are acting on the Campus 2020 report, which recommended the creation of regional universities...special-purpose teaching universities..the mandates for each institution will be designated". They were created by legal amendments and not simply switched over from name a to b which carries legal consequences if they were to issue degrees, etc prior to September 1, 2008 under its new name.

b) Yes, Texas A&M is ONE of the articles that had editors pick that earlier day rather than later - but as far as my quick scan on Canadian universities, almost all tells the reader what its name was prior to the 'name change' on the infobox so I am not sure why you removed them from those 5 new unis. --Cahk (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the establishment of an institution is independent of political legislation" <-- You CANNOT establish a university in BC without legislative approval, private or public makes no difference. All universities in BC are either established under the University Act (ie. UBC, SFU, UVic, etc), its own Act (ie. Thompson Rivers University) or under the Degree Authorization Act (private/out of province universities). When a legislation comes into force, that's when institution X comes to life - I agree CU/KPU/VIU, etc has its own history, but they were not university 10 years ago and should not have claims as such. It is like saying I graduated from UCFV 5 years ago and thus I graduated from a university (that did not exist) - how does that make any sense? (A city merger has retroactive effect, a institution merger generally don't)

The examples you give are US-based... when I look at Canadian universities, they are generally marked its previous name and its current name to avoid confusion.--Cahk (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certain OUC students who were studying between the years of 1998-2004 were granted UBC degrees [2] but the university status on the institution was not retroactive. It was simply the decision once UBC-O began operation that the governing body decided to grant degrees retroactively but were not required to so (I used UCFV as my example because I know retroactive is not in existent).

Queen's University in Vancouver is not created by BC law, but its presence came only AFTER it passed through the steps outlined in the Degree Authorization Act (ie. a political legislation) which is why I say it's wrong to say an institution is 'independent of political legislation' - similarly in Ontario, you would either need a Charter or be legislated (ie. Nipissing University Act, An Act respecting Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Western Ontario Act, etc)

I am saying why remove references to their old name in the infobox when it's prefectly factual?--Cahk (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... now we're finding some common ground...haha. As to editing for all unis in Canada, I will leave it to other editors as my main focus is BC unis and Canadian law enforcement.--Cahk (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster University

Keitherson, I had a look at the WP: Universities article guidelines and didn't find any requirement that the top image be the coat of arms. The universities infobox template states that either the shield, seal or coat of arms are acceptable (depending on which is used in official documents) but there is no direction provided as such in the guidelines. Nor is direction provided by the FA and GA articles which both use sometimes; logos, pictures, shields or coats of arms. Until there is policy clarification I have reverted to the higher quality image of the shield. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the issue to the project discussion page for resolution, there's no need to get into a reverting conflict over such a minor issue. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image sources

Why did you change the sources for File:FAU Seal.png, File:Fau logo main.png, and File:FloridaAtlanticOwls.png to a website the images were not taken from? KnightLago (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. KnightLago (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CU logo-blue 200px.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:CU logo-blue 200px.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Featured Article

Thank you! KnightLago (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:McMasterCoatofarms.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:McMasterCoatofarms.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BCITwordmark.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BCITwordmark.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]