Jump to content

Talk:University of Virginia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good articleUniversity of Virginia was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Skackled Legacy has two authors

[edit]

Kate Ellis. Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Summer Enrichment Program (University of Virginia) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Summer Enrichment Program (University of Virginia) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Summer Enrichment Program has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Summer Enrichment Program until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW, considered in the context of the 100+ RMs proposed at once by this user. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]



University of VirginiaUVAWP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The full name provides a WP:TITLECON consistent naming convention across all articles on universities and colleges in the United States. Many reliable sources like Forbes and US News and World Report still use the full name. The OP has also made numerous individual RMs on this same issue like this one, which may violate WP:ACROTITLE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or use a shorter common name that is rarely used outside a sports/athletic context. Better to stick to the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary, unwise, and unhelpful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "UVA" (and various other forms like "U.Va.") should redirect to this article. The full name of the university is "University of Virginia." There’s no need to use the short form in the article title. Doing so could, theoretically, introduce ambiguity that is not present with the full name. For example, I have a tube of sunscreen upstairs whose label says it protects against "UVA" rays. I’m also aware that some people from outside Virginia seem not to realize that the "VA" stands for "Virginia"—for example, some people more familiar with the University of California system think the "V" stands for "Virginia" and the "A" stands for a location ("University of Virginia at where? Arlington? Amherst?"). While I don’t believe readers are stupid and need their hands held, I see no benefit to this proposed change. 1995hoo (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A further comment: After reading Zzyzx11's comment, I took a look at the OP's edit history. It’s insane how many of these he's proposed. If in fact he is serious about these proposed moves, I very strongly believe that an article-by-article talk page approach is an entirely inappropriate way to go about doing it because it can lead to arbitrary and capricious inconsistency if people accept it as to one article and reject it as to another. While I think that’s probably unlikely, it’s also not implausible. It should be discussed at a more centralized talk page if in fact it’s a a serious proposal (which I tend to doubt). 1995hoo (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @1995hoo, while I'm assuming that the RMs were filed in good faith, at the very least they seem to have been submitted rather hastily. Here are some other notable RMs by the same user that seem to have been rushed through:
In my opinion, these should be snow-closed as most of them are not viable. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.