Talk:New Jersey Institute of Technology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Why study at the Honors College" section to be deleted

Ok, people need to realize this is an encyclopedia not a brochure. The section above is clearly propaganda which has no place in this or any other Wikipedia article so I will delete it. If you want to read what I deleted go to the history of the article but do not post this section or anything similar again. You can however talk about the honors college in an informative way. I just had to do it guys. I apologize on behalf of my emotions. Y'all just stank me out sometimes.

Student Senate

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that the Student Senate information should be placed in a seperate article and linked instead of being placed directly under student organizations. 128.226.37.19 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone from within NJIT keeps changing the article

128.235.*.* is njit's IP subnet. someone from within the school keeps on adding new items to the article, effectively creating a PR campain for the school. I suggest, whoever it is (Hi, Kevin), should register before messing around anymore with the main article. i'll ask for admin help on this matter. Project2501a 14:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let us not forget

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Absolut NJIT.gif

Absolute engineering

with 18-21 credits a semester, you just have to. Project2501a 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that necessary? That's also gramatically incorrect.

The surrounding city is very dense with hispanic and black americans. (Student who walked downtown, not many white or asian people)

It's never too late.

Organizations at NJIT

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we really need to have a list of organizations for this article? It seems a bit... Excessive. Like, would you really find this kind of information in an encyclopedia? I don't think so. So, from me, one vote or request to nuke that entire section... It'll be done in the new year if no one else gets around to it. --Htmlism 13:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Student's GPA and SAT scores

Could someone add the GPA and SAT acceptance rate to be able to study at NJIT?

Ranking

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On a related note, I'm not registered, and I'll probably never be back, but I just deleted a few comments under "ranking" that were clearly marketing fluff and didn't actually refer to any ranking (that is "noted among the" is not a ranking - "fourth in the state" is). Pluffff! Just thought I'd note it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.250.74 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox University

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why use a static table instead of Template:Infobox University? richardc020 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone kept changing the template, thus the static table. Pridepol 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:NetBot does the changes. Its purpose is to update which is neither erronous nor harmful to this entry's credibility. Most to all major universities use Template:Infobox_University (i.e. Rutgers_University, University of Michigan, UCLA, etc.). Are there objections before reverting to Template:Infobox_University? I also propose deleting Notable Alumni unless one can cite precedent or post criteria. richardc020 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Male-female ratio

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I GO to this school. We do NOT have a 3 to 1 ratio of men to women. Point of fact, the actual ratio is 9 to 1. I am going to edit that to reflect fact, not some fantasy.

If you dorm the ratio is much higher more like 9 to 1 becuase most of the girls in this school commute. However, 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 is pretty accurate for girls in this school. Understand that alot of the girls are in the archtechture major. Alot of the archys spend most there time over at the archy building and the rest of the school rarely sees that building. (Student currently enrolled, Cypress Hall Resident)

Where is the proof? If you cite it, so it will be. OFFICIAL info released by the school says 3:1 see Official Info or More Official Info. Pridepol 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NJIT's official information is just that. OFFICIAL. As in "written by the administration to make the school look attractive to potential students". Revealing the 9:1 ratio hurts the application rate of both genders.

I would have to agree with the above. I have been going to NJIT for the last 3 years and it is FAR from being an actual 3:1 ratio. I remember a couple years ago it was said to be 17:1. Granted there appears to be more girls coming into the school now, but it's just not 3:1, official or not. -DM, 04:20, 9 June 2006 (EST)

Okay, I *was* a girl at NJIT, and while there weren't many of us, it's not nearly as bad as your guys make it out. 4:1 is quite accurate, and more were coming each year. They just don't want to associate with 90% of the males who attend the school. Also, you have to count the certain groups who we all know only talk to each other and live in the comp lab... they are still female.

HEY! I used to live in the CompSci computer lab! oh, wait... No, seriously, NJIT info is just that, official. NJIT has a history of hyping up their quotients. We didn't make the Princeton Review of "worst schools in the US" just for the hell of it. Project2501a 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you graduated five years ago. I graduated one year ago. In my four years, the number of females on campus increased by at least 50%. Trust me, 4:1 is ACCURATE. Yes, NJIT sucks, bur for other reasons.

Branding

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pridepol, you also keep editting out a change that mentions the controversy over the NJIT Brand. I can produce copies of the campus newspaper for proof that a controversy existed at the time.

Maybe it would be better to begin a new section such as “Comments” or "Opposition to the Branding Effort" where the opposition could be mentioned. The reason I keep editing it out is because 1) The reason for the opposition to the Branding effort is not explained, simply mentioned 2) It does not fit well in the “History” section especially as an addendum to the last paragraph 3) It was not cited. If there was such a strong opposition to the branding effort, it would be an injustice not to explain it in a well written, well documented, detailed section or paragraph. Pridepol 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

logo vs seal

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a feeling that what I'm saying here fits in with the section immediately above. I've changed the image used in the infobox from the university seal to the university's official signature. I did this because I don't think the use of the university seal fits the fair use criteria, mostly because NJIT seems to be pretty clear that the only "logo" one can use to represent the school is the NJIT signature. See here for info about the appropriate use of the seal and here for info about the use of the signature. Feel free to revert the change if you'd like, but I don't think you can make an adequate assertion that the seal is used fairly because of the restrictions the university clearly has in place. Cheers! Esrever 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

commuter section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I love the new "commuters" section. let's see how long it lasts....70.23.71.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Linking to NJIT athletics via "nickname" in the infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

What follows is two entries - the first by myself - concerning the practice of linking directly to school athletics depts via "nickname". As this practice is quite common , see MIT, etc., I see no reason why it should not be "allowed" generally. User Bahooka believes otherwise as indicated in the second paragraph below. Notice that it appears to be his understanding that infoboxes should not include external links.

I don't know who you are but your objection to the link I implement is inconsistent with general practice. For example, exactly the same type of linkage is implemented at numerous college wiki entries. There may be some obscure rule that discourages such linkage but either it applies universally or it applies not at all! Try typing MIT or RPI into the search box and see what you get. Again either the rule applies to all or it doesn't apply. I look forward to you (non-automated) response. Wrrsimone. Wrrsimone (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wrrsimone, it would be better to discuss the use of that external link in the article talk page at Talk:New Jersey Institute of Technology so other editors can weigh in. Including that external link in the infobox does not seem consistent with WP:EL and how infoboxes are used. Also, other articles having those links in the infobox does not make it correct. Further discussion at the article talk page would be best. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The MIT page has since been changed to abide by WP:EL, and even going by the the precedent you suggested, very few other pages external link to the athletics website in the infobox. Practically speaking, I also think it's probably more useful to link to the school's athletics article in the infobox.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The external link for the mascot was inappropriate per WP:EL and I have removed it along with many other inappropriate inline ELs scattered throughout the article.--ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To Prisencolinensinainciusol, First, with regard to changing MIT's infobox (which I'm sure they appreciate), have you changed Calteck's and RPI's as well? If this argument was not about a distinction without a difference, I would spend an hour or two trolling colleges for other infoboxes you could "fix". Also, in MIT's case the change you made differs from what I did only in method, not result, (although what I did is more convenient). So am I to take it that we are lawyers too? Assuming that what you did in MIT's case is "the right way", I take it that what I just did for NJIT is legit as well - since I did exactly what you did. Moreover, since the approach you implemented is correct for "nickname", it must be the right way to go in the case of other infobox parameters that would benefit from direct external links. (NO INTERMEDIARIES WHERE NONE IS NECESSARY!!!!)

Hello to ukexpat, I assumn you have checked what Prisencolinensinainciusol did in MIT's case. And I am going to hope that you agree with his approach. (If you don't then we can engage in a 3-way silly pissing battle in which we all waste our time.) following his lead I intend to re-establish the mascot link using the Prisencolinensinainciusol sanctioned method. Wrrsimone (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by Prisencolinensinainciusol to the MIT article, so I have no clue what the "Prisencolinensinainciusol sanctioned method" is, not that it counts for anything unless there is consensus that it is appropriate. In any event, the situation is clear here. If there is a Wikipedia article about the mascot link to it, if there isn't, don't. Using an external link is inappropriate per WP:EL except perhaps as a reference. Same goes for all the other ELs that I removed.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Wrrsimone continues to make unhelpful edits. Most recently the internal link was removed and the reference formatting changed to a less informative one, both to match MIT's format. First, MIT does not have an article on their athletic program, and that is why there is no internal link. If there were such an article it would have an internal link in the MIT infobox. Second, I do not understand the reason for removing the citation formatting that uses a template to a less informative one. A citation is not needed there as there is an internal link, but at least it should be formatted properly. Bahooka (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rankings infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I added a rankings box using {{Infobox US university rankings}}. As I said in my edit summary, this box is fairly standard in the articles for U.S. universities. The box supports only nationally recognized rankings and is informative to at least some readers. I have no particular interest in this school or any other school; I have never even attended college except for a few night school courses at several schools. I have added the same box to a few dozen other articles in the past few days, working top-down in the list of Washington Monthly rankings, and this is the first removal so far.

User:Tonystark171993 removed the box, stating that it is "unnecessary". I'm not sure what that means, being that the box is unnecessary, strictly speaking, in any article. I note that this user has not edited any article other than this one, implying a specific interest in this school. Who's more objective? Perhaps the user would like to explain why this box is not an improvement to this article? Any other comments regarding this? Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No response in two weeks so I restored the rankings infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Downsizing & partial rewrite of NJIT lead paragraphs.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’ve compared NJIT’s lead paragraphs to those of about a dozen other technological universities and several things stand out: First, all are shorter than NJIT's, and some dramatically so. Second, NJIT’s lead includes info that should probably be placed in the body of the article, e.g. McNair Scholars Program. Regarding NJIT‘s ‘high research’ classification, I linked to the Carnegie list under ‘research university’ in the first line of text and under ‘Research’ in the infobox. With these and other issues in mind, I wrote a shorter version of the lead paragraphs and would appreciate feedback. My draft can be viewed at: User:Wrrsimone/sboxnjit2. I should add that I am the primary author of the lead paragraphs as presently written. Lastly, please don’t edit my sandbox version; instead post any comments on the NJIT Talk page. Thanks. Wrrsimone (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on New Jersey Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

checked by Wrrsimone (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on New Jersey Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on New Jersey Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

P. S. TAMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.132.39 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)