This page 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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I made a few edits today, addding the heading "Centers and Institutes," as it would be beneficial to have a comprehensive listing of WUSTL academic organizations. Additionally, I added some information and liknks to a few centers/institutes, but the list is currently very small. Contributions would be appreciated, as well as any comments suggestions. This unsigned comment was added byLmbstl (talk • contribs) .
Plenty of Universities have Centers and institutes, but why are the ones here so significant? why has so much space been devoted to them? I think we should dramatically revamp and perhaps even eliminate this section. But I want to hear other opinions.Astuishin 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Because of space concerns, Centers and Institutes have been moved to their own page: Centers_and_Institutes_of_Washington_University_in_St._Louis. Please feel free to expand the page-- these organizations can be very influentual and deserve mention.Lmbstl 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll research the influence of these organizations and add anything I can find.Astuishin 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Diwali
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I removed Diwali because it just does not seem to fit the parameters for a university tradition. Its kind of like saying that Washington University annual Christmas party is a tradition. Simply put Diwali is already a tradition for over 800 million people, how is the Washington U. one unique amongst other ones? Because of the attendance records? Here's the wikipedia definition:
Diwali, also called Deepavali, is a major Hindu festival that is very significant in Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism.
This is my reasoning but I would like to here other opinions. Thank You Astuishin 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Washington University's Diwali celebration is the largest and most attended of any cultural event at the school, annually. Feel free to re-add if anyone feels this is significant.
This doesn't answer the question, it may be a cultural event but it simply cannot be classified as a tradition no matter how many students attend.- thank you Astuishin 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a WU alum, and there Diwali is not just a holiday, it is a major performance and cultural venue that reaches far beyond the Hindu community. I'd say Diwali is as big an event as the other things listed except WILD. Hundreds of students work to make the event happen, everyone is talking about it ahead of time, students line up for hours before the box office opens. In the non-Greek parts of campus, it got way more buzz than something like Thurtene, even though I never managed to get tickets (yeah, my RA's didn't seem to know I existed freshman year as we were stuck on the ground floor of Ruby). As for it being a cultural event in the rest of the world, note that Bauhaus is listed even though millions of people celebrate Halloween; in the same way, WU's "Diwali" is a major event that is associated with the holiday Diwali. Similarly for CNYF, although I do not know the relative importance of CNYF. -M
My vote is to remove Diwali and CNYF and Bauhaus. Speaking as a participant of Diwali, while it is true that people line up and there is enough buzz about it, it's not a tradition. It's just a show. Same with CNYF. Either put all of Diwali, CNYF, Carnival, Vagina Monologues and so on, or don't put any. And if we put Bauhaus, then why not put every party that happens annually (Vertigo for example)? It doesn't make sense to me at least. WILD is a tradition, the others are not. Se2131 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Se2131, M seems to be equating student attendance to tradition. I seem to remember that students, attend their graduation's, exam's, and lunch hour's, in huge numbers. Yet these actions are not listed as traditions. Why? because these events are common occurrences on college campuses throughout the world. Which is why I object to the WU "Diwali show" being listed as a tradition. Celebrations for Diwali are common occurrence across the world, so why classify a celebration in one location as a tradition unique to that location. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am a new contributor, but feel that multicultural shows in general are a staple of Washington University. The abundance, not to mention the sell-out attendance, of the vast majority of our multicultural shows is a unique aspect of Washington University. This is one thing that we publicize very clearly to prospective students and parents as events that Washington University students attend each year. While Diwali itself or the Lunar New Year as holidays do not qualify as "traditions" independently, Washington U's focus on diversity and culture is a long-standing tradition - one in which students partake in through these large campus events. Jcool155 (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed "Campus" to "Campuses"
Information on the Danforth campus is pretty thorough, although a lot of information is missing about the Med Campus, Tyson Research Center, and West Campus. I will work to flesh it out and would appreciate any suggestions and contributions. This unsigned comment was added byLmbstl (talk • contribs) .
Created "Libraries and Museums" section
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Created "Libraries and Museums" heading along with a listing of the 14 WUSTL libraries. Any suggestions and/or refinements woiuld be appreciated. This unsigned comment was added byLmbstl (talk • contribs) .
I combine this and some of the other sections to try and make them more condensed Bancham 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be very nice if people could actually add content instead of deleting it. I don't know why Bancham deleted references, further reading, and external links. I am not going to reverse any edits until they are discussed here. However, I believe that the deleted material was useful and should be reverted. Additionally, I will make suggestions for expansion of the WUSTL page, since the page needs content more than it needs rearranging. --Lmbstl 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay i'm sorry if I offended Lmbstl, but if you compare the WUSTL page with other schools you'd quickly find that the external links section is getting out of hand, I mean you don't have to provide a link to every single website for the school. and of course intend to add more content, if one examine the talk page and the article history they will find that I have been contributing to this page for quite a while. Bancham 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not offended at all; just perplexed. I am not insisting that external links be present. However, I don't know why you deleted references and further reading suggestions. Anyway, I look forward to content being added to the WUSTL page. If we are going to use other institutions of equivilent reputation as a guide, which you have suggested, the WUSTL series is sorely lacking. We can rearrange the articles all we want, but it won't disguise the fact that they are quite thin in spots. Lmbstl 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think the st. louis colleges nav box is to large, and I also agree that the futher reading section needs to be restored. As for the external links I think they were I little bit much though some of the links could be restored. Astuishin 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen any objections to a partial restoration . . . Lmbstl 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
WUSTL logos and images
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I left a request on CLyerla's talk page for some specific guidelines so we can discuss these edits.
I did find this information:
"The official logotype must be reproduced exactly as supplied by LRG or the University. It must not be separated into its various sections,such as use of the heraldic device (shield,crest) by itself.The official logotype is a federally registered trademark."
It can be argued that photos from the WUSTL campus fall under fair use-- however, I think we should respect the WUSTL guidelines that the shield not be used on its own; to do so violates the logotype design.
Thoughts?
I hope that we can work together to agree on guidelines/permission for image use instead of getting into a tug-of-war that benefits no one. Lmbstl 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
User Lmbstl - Thank you for your post - I was not able to reply until this morning. The information you located on the Product Graphics Web site is correct. The University logo is a trademarked symbol and as such cannot be altered or revised. Use of the shield alone, without the accompanying school name, is strictly prohibited. In addition, the version of the shield currently being used alone is incorrect - the shield does not contain the latin verse "Per Veritatem Vis" except when used within the University Seal (also a protected trademarked symbol). The University appreciates its accurate inclusion in Wikipedia, but must protect its identifying marks both within the University and in the public arena. Our Director of Product Licensing is in the process of contacting Wikipedia management to request the removal of the shield artwork, and hopes to achieve the same satisfactory response as was received with the use of the University Seal. - CLyerla
I have a couple of problems with this document, CLyerla. First I'm wondering how far this document extends, if for instance one took a picture of the campus that did not come from the office of the DPL could it be removed (Like the seal embossed over Brookings hall, or pictures of the seal at commencement). Does this policy extend to any text rewritten about the university, for instance criticism about the admissions policy, or freedom of speech concerns on campus?(understand that in the past you removed some of this information) Could a member of the board of trustees sanitation the use of the seal. Do you believe Washington University has veto power over any content in the encyclopedia that concerns it? (because the universities name is a tm we might not be able to use it) Does this policy count under old seals or university artwork whose copyright as long since passed? Would the current logo be removed if the university did grant the encyclopedia the permission to use it? Is it trademarked?
The shield happens to be carbon copy of an old alumni information packet and was not altered in any means, how is this handled? What if the TM has expired on it?
Until you have answered these question I will not revert your edits however I will remove all logos concerning the university until this matter is cleared. I am also glad of the fact, CLyerla, that you have finally realized this encyclopedia is not an extension brochure for your university. Thank you Astuishin 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problems I just want if you're really a member of the university administration, CLyerla can you please identify yourself clearly to the community on this talk page that you are a member of the university staff? Thanks Bancham 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The University has no issue with use of its logo in this manner as an identifying mark - however, the logo must be used correctly at all times or is deemed a misrepresentation of the University and a misuse of its trademarked identity. The University Seal, whether in picture form or as digital artwork, is not the identifying symbol of the University. Similarly, older versions of the logo do not represent the University anymore than a homemade or newly created original logo would. The University does not object to the absence of artwork but any artwork that is used must be accurate and correct. -CLyerla
I would like to repeat my question CLyerla can you please identify yourself clearly to the community on this talk page that you are a member of the university staff? I can of think this a bad joke. Bancham 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies Bancham - I am the University Web Editor. - CLyerla
Okay, still I have some problems. You are say that pictures of the seal cannot be used because they are not identifying, on what legal grounds can the university block that inclusion on a non-profit web base encyclopedia? And also how does this apply if the copyright has expired? Thank you Astuishin 17:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The University Seal in any form is not the identifying symbol of the University. It is artwork created for special use by the Board of Trustees only, and Wikipedia's legal counsel Brad Patrick confirmed the University's position on that matter in August 2006. - CLyerla
But what is the legal argument behind that philosophy? I understand the internal university policy, but is there a law or section in the US copyright law that you can point to back up your claims, because so far I do not see any laws that supersede the right to take a picture and use it for non commercial purposes or the right to use a photo or object whose copyrights have expired and are in public domain. Thank you. Astuishin 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I can only suggest you discuss it with Mr. Patrick, who handled the matter with the University's legal counsel office. I do not know the extent of their conversation. - CLyerla
I would actually like to get in touch with University's legal office, because I've already emailed Dan and he saw no legal problems with the posting of the shield. Is there anyway you could direct me to them? Preferably by email, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank You Astuishin 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also I have another question, earlier you stated any artwork used must be accurate and correct, what does this mean? No dated pictures or designs of the University? Thank You Astuishin 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Astuishin if this doesn't clear it up I don't no what will, here is the entire guideline for the use of the seal that I found on the Wash. U. website, I would direct you to look closely at question number 14:
1. Why does the University have a trademark licensing program?
Creating and maintaining positive relationships with suppliers benefits the University community in two important ways. First, it allows the University to do everything possible to make sure that all promotional merchandise is purchased from companies who treat their employees fairly. Second, it allows the University to protect and promote its name(s) and symbols in a positive manner. Having a formal licensing relationship with suppliers of imprinted merchandise helps the campus community address these two important areas.
2. Does the licensing program support fair labor practices?
Washington University in St. Louis is affiliated with the Fair Labor Association (http://www.fairlabor.org) and the Worker Rights Consortium (http://www.workersrights.org/). When you use licensed manufacturers, you are helping to encourage fair treatment of workers nationally and internationally.
3. Who needs to obtain a license?Any individual (including students) or organization (including University departments and student groups) wishing to use the University’s name, marks, or logos on apparel or novelty items should hire a company licensed to reproduce the University's marks. Any supplier wishing to provide imprinted merchandise to any University client should obtain a license to reproduce University marks. This includes all uses of the University’s names and symbols on products, including those for promotions and advertising.
4. How does a supplier become licensed?
'To become licensed, a supplier must submit an application to Licensing Resource Group (LRG). LRG serves as the University’s agent for the administration of license agreements. To obtain an application packet or learn more about licensing, please contact LRG: 426 Century Lane, Suite 110, Holland, Michigan 49423, Telephone: 616-395-0676, http://www.lrgusa.com.
5. Whom can I contact at the University with specific questions or to obtain forms?
Director of Product Licensing, Office of Public Affairs, Campus Box 1177, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899. Phone: 314-935-8154. Fax: 314-935-8358. click here to send e-message
Waiver of Royalty or Art Approval Request forms are available as pdf files or in hard copy.
6. How do I obtain approval for artwork?
Because University graphics and guidelines have recently been updated, it is important to find out if your artwork is current. To obtain feedback on and approval for artwork, please send the proposed graphic (via email, fax, or hard copy delivery) to the director of product licensing (Director of Product Licensing). Graphic artwork should be accompanied by a description of the product and of the colors, placement, and size of the logo(s) to be used.
Your artwork may be submitted by the licensed supplier that you choose. Graphic artwork submitted by licensed suppliers should be accompanied by an artwork approval request form.
7. How do I submit artwork for approval?
Fax, mail, or e-mail the request form with the artwork to the Director of Product Licensing.
8. What guidelines are available for use of the University's graphics and name?
See “Graphic Standards for Licensed Products,” available as a pdf file (click here) and in hard copy from the Director of Product Licensing. See also FAQ #10.
In addition, the director of product licensing is available for consultation on a case-by-case basis.
9. What artwork is available online?
First of all, see the Product Graphics page of this Web site, where the artwork pictured in the “Graphic Standards for Licensed Products” is available. In addition, all versions of the official University logotype are available (clink here for the official logotype Web site).
10. When is TM or ® required?
All names and visual representations of Washington University in St. Louis are the exclusive property and trademarks of the University.This includes all word marks, service marks, names, name variants, nicknames, logotypes, logos, insignia, shields, seals, designs, devises, or symbols that refer to Washington University in St. Louis. Also included are any words, phrases, or images that imply association with the University.
'The ® must be used with federally registered marks. The University's federally registered marks are: the versions of the official logotype," Washington University," "WUSTL," official University Seal, the historical, interlocking WU. TM must be used with all other trademarks, including the complete name "Washington University in St. Louis."'
'Please direct any questions regarding use of ® or TM to: Director of Product Licensing
11. What are the University’s PMS colors?
PMS 342 Green
PMS 466 Tan (coated)/ 467 Tan (uncoated)
PMS 193 Red (coated)/ 186 Red (uncoated)
PMS 202 Deep Red (for new bear)
12. What guidelines are available for use of the official University logotype?
See “Guidelines for Logotype Use and Applications,” available as a pdf file (click here) and in hard copy from the Director of Product Licensing. The logotype is a federally registered trademark.
13. Where and how may the University Seal be used?
Use of the Official University Seal (a federally registered trademark) will be limited to authorized University documents (such as diplomas and certificates) and high-end, substantial, formal objects. It cannot be used on clothing, printed materials, or for any other less-than-formal purposes. Note: Each use of the Seal requires special permission of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs.
14. Where and how may the University shield, or crest, be used?
The University shield may be used only as part of the official University Seal or logotype (both are federally registered trademarks). The shield, or crest, may not be used alone.
15. Are there special guidelines for use of athletic symbols?
Special Note: Each use of the athletic symbol requires special permission of the Director of Athletics, which may be obtained through the Director of Product Licensing. The Washington University athletic symbol was redesigned in 2006 to create a new, unified "look" for the Athletics Department. The symbol is designed to be applied to materials that relate directly to or convey messages about the athletics programs at Washington University in St. Louis. The athletics symbol is not designed to be used for endeavors related to the University research or teaching missions; the official logotype of the University (and its guidelines) is to be employed for these purposes.
The athletic symbol may not be modified in any way. Every use of the athletic symbol must be accompanied by the complete, correct University name. Artwork and guidelines for use of the athletic symbol are available through the product licensing office and at productgraphics.wustl.edu.
16. What are the guidelines for use of "WUSTL" and "WU?"
The preferred wordmark of the University is "WUSTL," and the preferred configuration of "WUSTL" is the University Monogram (see the graphics page of this Web site). All configurations of "WUSTL" and “WU” must be accompanied by the complete, correct name “Washington University in St. Louis.” The historical, interlocking WU is a federally registered trademark.
17. What are the guidelines for use of “Wash. U.?”
The configuration “Wash. U.” may be used, but only in combination with the complete, correct name “Washington University in St. Louis.” In addition, periods must be used with the abbreviations, after “Wash.” and after “U.”
Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
No I'm sorry Bancham that FAQ does not clear things up, I actually read it several months ago when we where having the previous discussion about the placement of the seal. I assumed that, the policy the FAQ was a explaining was for those wishing to use the university's logo for commercial proposes. In that case there are plenty of obvious legal precedents that the university can use to comply third parties to follow those guidelines. However this encyclopedia as I have stated ad nauseum is not a commercial enterprise it is a non-for profit website with the propose of spreading knowledge to the wider world. And because of that as I have also stated ad nauseum that wikipedia is entitled to use images under the U.S. copyright laws fair use policy. To my knowledge (yes I have read the law in its entirety) the university has no legal right to control what images and pictures are placed on this website, so long as they comply.
I decided against pushing the seal on to this page before, because after reviewing the university's policy I believed it seemed to be rooted in a long held traditional. However in this case I felt the FAQ was simply a guideline for the university's merchandise suppliers.
To be courteous Bancham I did again read over the FAQ, and found nothing new. In regards to question 14 it states quite plainly The University shield may be used only as part of the official University Seal or logotype (both are federally registered trademarks). The shield, or crest, may not be used alone. However Bancham I obtained the shield from an alumni pamphlet produced years before, this policy was introduced, or you were probably even born. This is why have been asking these questions, you must realize that this website its not just about practicality its about principal. We as a community on this talk page must realize that any institution which wants to change things cannot simply use an internal policy, it must use laws. So to answer your post no things are not cleared I want to know the legal reasoning behind removing the shield, and how far reaching it is. Thank You Astuishin 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay Astuishin I'll stop changing it but if you want to contact CLyerla, all you have to do is look her up on the Wash U Directory she already identified her self as the University's web editor in the department of public affairs and you can email her at Collen_Lyerla@wustl.edu. I don't think you should wait for a response, the page can't just not have a logo for weeks . Bancham 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested course of action: make this simpler
I don't see why these interactions have to be confrontational or complicated. CLyerla has spent a reasonable amount of time explaining her position, and she is representing WUSTL. It is not her responsibility to explain the legal rationale; I am sure she is just quoting the "rules" as she knows them. Therefore:
1. Which logotype or image is available to use for the WUSTL article on Wikipedia? I am certain that CLyerla can provide us with guidance in this area. Perhaps permission can be granted from WUSTL. Instead of fighting for rights to use an image, let's try to get a concensus first.
2. Who at WUSTL manages logos/images and can grant permission for their use? Someone named Dan was mentioned earlier. Whoever contacted him previously may want to do so again. Once again, let's try to get a concensus.
None of this requires a dramatic showdown with WUSTL legal counsel. --Lmbstl 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually you know Lmbstl I'm surprised but after giving it some thought over break, I actually do have some problems with what CLyerla wants, I agree that she's representing Wash U. but still I think there might be a need to clarify Shield use. I went and do some research and found two examples of the shield used stand alone, here at the Wash U model UN site: http://sugroups.wustl.edu/~wumun/index.htm
The the policy that I posted earlier seems to govern a licensing process of some sort, not these organizations and wikipedia. Oh by the way Lmbstl I think you should read the wikipedia fair use policy that we have all been talking about because it will tell you that CLyerla does have cite laws if she objects to an image already approved by wikipedia. She can't barge in veto placement of images and then cite some university policy to back it up, because as we all know Wash U is not affiliated with its wikipedia article, and it must use some type of law to back up what they want. Is that to hard to ask for? Bancham 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is, all of this blustering may be a moot point if CLyerla can provide a logotype that falls within everyone's guidelines, legal or implied. If not, then let's refer to the "Dan" gentelman who was mentioned. Why get into a shouting match over fair use and the letter of the law if we can find a mutually agreeable solution? I would think that quoting copyright law could be postponed until we can extablish that the people at WUSTL intend to be extraordinarily difficult. Right now, it appears that there may be an amicable solution. --Lmbstl 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize Lmbstl for giving the appearance that I wanted a showdown, for that was not my intention at all. I attempted to be as cordial as I could, however considering that I have clashed with the university administration prior to this, some may feel that I am acting a little to aggressively towards CLyerla. As for an amicable solution, I admire your idealism however I doubt that will happen. I emailed university administrators dozens of times and I received no response, while on the other hand Dan Patick, wikipedia's legal consul, signaled to me that he did not a problem with the placement of any image so long as that follow the fair use guidelines. Lmbstl, I thank you for warmly inviting Bancham and I to state our parameters for a proper image to be featured in the info box. My parameters are simple, whatever image is featured must be consistent with those of the major articles collegiate articles on wikipedia. For instance Yale features its crest, and Brown its shield, Northwestern features its seal. It does not seem appropriate for this page to place a logo designed for marketing proposes in the info box. First that would further the notion that the article is a brochure for the university, and secondly it is wholly inconsistent with the other major collegiate articles on wikipedia. Also thank you Bancham for the research you have done, I glad to know you're taking this issue seriously, yet your findings raise even more problems, if the shield has been used outside of the logotype, how is CLyerla applying the "rules as she knows them" and why?
Now, I ask you to read CLyerla's post closely, she states that the seal cannot be displayed in any manner on this page, that is a bold and sweeping statement, no photos nothing. I would like to know the "letter of the law" CLyerla is using because I would like to use that seal. If she can provide it, I will look else where, If she cannot I will precede with an attempt to place the seal up again. You seem to be fairly comfortable with talking to the university administration, Lmbstl perhaps you can email them? After all, you were the only user whom she responded to from the talk page. I've already spoken with Dan so now I would like to see some type of contact with the university, something I have unfourtunatly be unable to establish. Thank You Astuishin 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you e-mailed the University yet? If so, have you gotten a response? I don't have a problem trying to contact them. I agree that it does not see to be a problem for other major universities to have their shields/logos displayed (look at the Cornell page). Anyway, I think we have a few options as far as what can be displayed for WUSTL-- the University can easily give permission to use something. I would rather WUSTL choose, but if it comes down to it, I am sure there is ample precedent for fair use. --Lmbstl 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To your first question Lmbstl yes, I did many times 4 months ago, and I did once two days ago, from neither have I received a response. I think it would be a good idea to try your idea of trying to get "permission" of some sort. I'll to email the university again, to see if I can get a response Thank You Astuishin 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a logotype was added to the page. Does anyone know anything about it? --Lmbstl 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, but it looks it might be someone from inside the university though, for them to be able to get their hand on such a high quality image. I removed it again. Bancham 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts: The WUSTL article has never displayed the shield alone. It has always been clearly associated with the text "Washington University in St. Louis." Food for thought.
I am inclined to suggest that we return the logotype to the infobox as it previously stood. By WUSTL's standards, it is by no means a violation of standards of presentation.
Thoughts anyone?
No Lmbstl I have not heard anything yet, but the administrators might not have gotten back from break so I will wait a little longer. However Lmbstl I'm sorry, but I must object to the placement of the logotype. First, skim the page history (you might have to delve far) you will find that the university shield remained on this page for about four months without objection, so image precedent seems not to be valued in this debate. Second, I have long believed that the logotype was ill matched for usage in the Washington U article, one could simply look (as many of us have suggested time and time again) at other college and university pages, a couple simple clicks on the AAU template box would do, and one would find that all of the colleges featured use their shield's crests or seal's of some sort. I'm sure that if 61 other universities can manage to use their shield's crest's or seal's the Washington U page can use its well.
When comparing the page to the other colleges it is obvious that the logotype is inadequate. Its purpose is marketing, and that is not suitable for this page. We are not to decide the content that goes into this page by WUSTL standards but by wikipedia standards, unless there is some outstanding law that says we can't. Which is why I firmly believe that we should wait to hear from the legal department before we move forward. However I know there will be compelling dissenters from that view, and I understand some will say that the page must have something in the info box but I for one believe that understanding and clarity is more important than expediency. I wish to seek a consensus something the talk page is far from. Astuishin 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry-- I think I have been misunderstood. When I said logotype in the above statements, I was referring to the shield image. As I said, the WUSTL article has never displayed the shield alone-- it has always been clearly associated with the text "Washington University in St. Louis" in both the infobox and the name of the article series. I am inclined to suggest that we return the logotype (meaning shield) to the infobox as it previously stood. By WUSTL's standards, it is by no means a violation of standards of presentation. Thoughts? --Lmbstl 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I’ve kind of be off this discussion page but I agree with Lmbstl, we should put the image back up I just don't know who was able to produce the shield. Bancham 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the images have been restored. I do not see where this is a violation of WUSTL's own usage guidlines. This is not for commercial purpose nor does it misrepresent/damage the image of the University. I think the contibutors at Wikipedia are open to debate on this issue; however, it does not appear that interested parties from WUSTL wish to pursue this issue any further. Therefore, I do not see how it is improper to display the WUSTL logo in an appropriate way, as there is ample preccedent for such use. Thoughts? --Lmbstl 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Campus buildings
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
An extensive listing of Danforth Campus Buildings has been added. We may want to consider moving this to a sub-article. Additoinally, the images that have been posted are licensed as fair-use; however, the images can easily be obtained by anyone living in the St. Louis area. Given the already confrontational nature surrounding image use, I kindly ask that the images be replaced by free-use images. --Lmbstl 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you write the content on the sub page or did you get it straight from the Wash U website. Bancham 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write anything, I simply moved it. It is very clear on the history page that user:jefwun added the content.--Lmbstl 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks a bit like a list to me and it really does not belong on wikipedia but others might think it has uses Astuishin 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Goals and standards: improving the article series
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think we can agree the WUSTL series can be improved. Why don't we look at this in a more systematic way?
They provide great examples of tight, well-referenced articles. Why shouldn't the WUSTL series aspire to this standard?
It would be nice to submit the WUSTL articles for Wikipedia peer review. However, I think there are some things that can be tightened.
Following are some areas where I think we can begin "tightening"-- we can explore the main WUSTL article heading by heading. Please feel free to add suggestions and topics. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Most of the other major university article that have been cited above have somewhere between 20 and 30 pictures. Tbese pictures pertain to important buildings, people and events in the university's history, among other subjects (statues, fountains, monuments, campus plans, historical pics). While the photos should be integrated as the article naturally expands, we must make sure to include them to maintain visual interest. The current handful certainly don't suffice. caz | speak 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Penn even has a gallery devoted to pictures of the campus, perhaps that can be replicated here. Is there student or person who lives close to the campus who would be willing and able to take pictures? Perhaps we could come up with a list of what is needed. I have tried in the past to use pictures from flickr but those always seemed to be removed. Astuishin 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a current student, but I have no camera since it was stolen over the summer. If you replicate the pictures from Flickr here and they are clearly Creative Commons (& you put that in the Wiki info tag), you shouldn't have a problem. Otherwise, we need to expand our ideas on how to get pictures. I know there're a wealth of books w/ pictures of WU, but I doubt most are open to reproduction. Do you know bychance how the other articles got their pictures? caz | speak 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Caz, I went to flickr and saw many pictures that would be suitable, however none were under the CC license that you mentioned. I know you don't have a camera but perhaps you could borrow one? Both Cornell and Uchicago seem to have gotten some of there pictures from flickr, as well as the university's website, but I doubt that Clyerla would allow that. Most of the pictures from penn's page were taken by students or someone close to the university, and I think that a couple of the pages authors requested specific pictures, I have several pictures in mind for a “wish list” so to speak.
Brookings Hall from a western angle (to show on the history section)
Graham Chapel from a straight angle (section discussing the campus)
The village house from the eastern side of the quad ((housing and residence)
Queeny Tower in the Medical campus which I believe is the third tallest medical building in the western hemisphere (on the medical campus page) perhaps a picture of Olin library although I cannot think of a proper angle to take it from. - thank you Astuishin 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is Graham Chapel:
Here is a good shot of Olin: --Lmbstl 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should try messaging people on Flickr whose pictures we like & asking if we may use them for the article. I know a lot of students take pictures and I'm sure most would be more than happy to provide some. The worst that could happen is a no, the best is a good picture & an expanded article. I can try to ask a friend to borrow a camera and try taking some of these picture (though I can't help but think a lot of them would look better in the Spring), however I don't have a compass so I need more detailed descriptions of what you'd like. Brookings from western angle is from inside the quad or below the steps looking in? For Grahm, you want the doors? And you have to excuse me 'cause I don't live in the village, but Village house is the residence hall, correct? And which side is eastern? I'll try the tower, but I don't know when I'll be able to get down to the med campus. If there's a page on the med school, perhaps it might be better to ask someone there. Also, I know this isn't the section, but what's going on w/ the shield/crest? I really think we should press ahead & leave WU in the defensive, having to cite actual laws. Their editing of the article has approached vandalism and the lack of the shield seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. caz | speak 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have images of Crow Observatory at Crow Hall? I just added a little article on it, andd it would be nice to have an image of the telescope or dome. --Lmbstl 15:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I found a nice picture through Google search: here
Undergraduate Research might be more friendly than some other WU representatives. It's worth contacting them to ask. caz | speak 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the Images already posted on wikimedia particularly the one of McMillan hall, Crow Observatory looks good as well, however I still think we need a picture from the village quad. Caz, this would be facing the front doors of the village house right across from Lopata hall. The picture of Graham is sufficient, thanks for contanting Bai Ling Min Lmbstl, however Caz perhaps you could take a higher quality picture of Brookings. - thank you Astuishin 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Also concerning your other post Caz, I am prepared put the shield up again, and to put it in your words press ahead & leave WU in the defensive'. Personally believe that the university, or rather zealots in the office of public affairs, is only interested in controlling the images associated with the page for identity campaign proposes. I thank you very much for your earlier post Lmbstl and apologize for misreading your comments. - thank you Astuishin 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a current student as well, and I would also, be willing to take some pictures, from what angle to do you want the picture of Brookings to be taken. Bancham 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add your image requests here. The requests will appear on the WikiProject WUSTL project page. --Lmbstl 13:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Kemper Art Museum Photos
I was on campus yesterday and took a bunch of photos of the Kemper Art Museum. They are posted to my Flickr account under a Creative Commons license; if you all want to decide which you like best, I can upload a full-size version to Wikimedia Commons. My Flickr pageChrestomanci 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments5 people in discussion
Infobox
I suggest that we decide how the infobox will appear. This also involves the logo/seal issue. Let's use an infobox on this page to "tinker" with its appearance, and then we can arrive on a concensus as to how it should appear. Right now, I think ot looks a little unbalanced and thin:
I placed the shield at the top section, maybe the talk community can come up with some alternatives for it, Norte Dame uses an older archived crest, and I placed the logo back in the rightful logo section. Perhaps we could add a section for a total students figure, though I do not believe the info box should be expanded any further. I believe we should cease placing the seal in the info box as the university seems to have a vested tradition of not placing it on anything but documents of high importance. Astuishin 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the look of the infobox now. (Although, isn;t there a logo that has a left alignment of the shield? It might look better at the bottom of the box.) I also agree-- we should not use the seal at all. As for the shield, the text "Washington University in St. Louis is clearly is associated with the shield, per WUSTL guidelines. Any other improvements? I suggest we place it on the main article page as it appears here. --Lmbstl 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added the other logo version to the bottom of the infobox. The centered version seemed too thin. Thoughts? --Lmbstl 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the info box its most suitable as well, although I changed the of the logo to make it smaller. I agree wholeheartedly with sentiments expressed by caz and Lmbstl, and I think we should post the box on the main, however what actions should this page take if the administration were to remove the box again? - thank you Astuishin 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
We should put the info box back up, see no reason why we should not, and if the administration as a problem force them to show the laws that give the them power to have the shield removed. Bancham 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Astuishin, I know you hate that logo, but can we make it a little bigger? How about an intermediate size (smaller than the shield, but bigger than the Bear)? If we can agree on the appearance, we should restore the Infobox. What do you think of this one: {{xremovedx}}Lmbstl 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of the current WUSTL info box? --Lmbstl 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
First I would like to thank you Lmbstl, for taking the initiative to improve this page, the wikipedia project Washington U is a great idea for us to focus on specific pages and I think in time this article might be prepared for featured article status. I like most of the box but I’m opposed to the address of the campus being included, the coordinates are actually on the top of the page and the very bottom under External links there are maps of the campus. I don't believe the info box such be that detailed, and if one wanted to find that information they could just go to the maps section on the page. I believe the enlarging the logo is fine, I would prefer that is was smaller however the size that it is right now is fine. - thank you Astuishin 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No thanks needed-- I think we all would like to see the WUSTL series improve! As for the infobox, I only inccluded the address info because it was on the Univ. Infobox Template. It seemed to fit a set standard, so I included it. I am fine with leaving it out. As for the logo size, I prefer it as it is now.--Lmbstl 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The image of the logo at the bottom of the info box seems to be far to high in the resolution, I think is should be changed. It also appears that another individual has been placing new images in the wikimedia commons page. So far so good. - thank you Astuishin 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That image was uploaded by Clyerla; it is ok for us to use (responsibly, of course). --Lmbstl 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Returning infobox to the WUSTL article
So, are there any objecctions to returning the infobox to the WUSTL page as it appears here? Please, list your responses! --Lmbstl 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The medical school is one of WUSTL's more noteworthy components. The medical campus section should definitely be expanded. Suggestions? --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
North Campus
Should this section exist? Is it relevant enough, and is there enough info to warrant keeping it? I place it there with the hope that it would get expanded, but it seems that North Campus isn't really a "campus." Please let me know what you think. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I work up at North Campus, and I expanded the section earlier today (forgot to log in). It's mostly an administrative building; if you would like an expanded list of University departments which are located there, I can make one next time I am up there. Overall, I think it might be better to collapse all the minor outlying campuses (West Campus, North Campus, Lewis Center, the Community Music School building, etc.) into one section. Chrestomanci 05:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribs! I don't know anything about Lewis Center and the Community Music School building . . .
I think we gave North Campus and West Campus their own sections because the are specifically called campuses. If everything were aggregated into 1 section, what would it include? So far, we have:
West Campus
North Campus
Lewis Center
Community Music School building
Any others? --Lmbstl 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are the only ones I know of, unless you want to include the Tyson Research Center as well. Lewis Center is used mostly for art studio space, although I think there may be residential usage in the same building as well...not sure about that. http://www.wustl.edu/tour/lewiscenter/ .
I think at the very least, it would be best to combine the W. and N. campus sections--the current sections on them are adequate as far as I can tell, but they are still only a few paragraphs each, despite the "Campus" denomination by the University.
The Lewis Center and Community Music Building are probably more interesting for the history behind the buildings than they are with respect to their funtion within the University, so I think these also could go in a combined section, with links to other articles about the buildings themselves if anyone wants to do the research. Chrestomanci 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather leave Tyson as its own section, since it is distinct enough and it has its own article already. Ok, what would the section be called? "Peripheral Buildings"?Any suggestions? (I just want to get the form worked out here, before we change the main article. . . ) By the way, Chrestomanci: do you know sources of information on Lewis Center and Community Music Building so this new section could be fleshed out? Thanks, Lmbstl 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
When the Community Music Building is incorporated into regular campus life in a year or two, it will be included under the "Danforth Campus" moniker, even though it is slightly separated. This is similar to the case with the Academy Building across Forest Park Parkway on University Drive?? (I think it is on U Drive)... it is included on Danforth Campus though it is a tad removed. Jcool155 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I combined the West and North campuses sections into one. They are both extremely similar in that they house non-student focused administrative functions. They are also similar in that the MetroLink has stops at both campuses. It is repeating the same information twice, just changing the word from "North" to "West" in a new section. Also, I believe that the University treats both of them as ONE cost center (with Danforth campus and Medical campus being the two other cost centers) for fiscal purposes. For the casual reader of Washington University in St. Louis, it is almost nonsensical to separate these two entities. The fact that they are both administrative and irrelevant to what 99% of readers' are looking for is something else to consider. If one were writing an extremely detailed guide to the University, then there might be reason to separate them. However, for a WikiPedia entry, given the purpose of these entries and what we want to convey in a short amount of space, it isn't terribly useful to separate the same information into two sections. Jcool155 (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
West Campus
This seems sufficient. Does it tell the whole story? --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Tyson Research Area
The main article Tyson Research Area definitely can be expanded. This section should then included a decent summary. I will work on expanding the Tyson Research Area article. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Academics Section
This section is not a pleasure to read. It has too many factoids. Am I the only person who starts to tune out when reading it? Can we work to distill relevant information? Do we need to talk so much about rankings? Do we need to list the Deans of every school? --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps focusing on the impacts the schools and academic divisions have on the respective communities, and their historical accomplishments, it seems that is what the other university articles do, however maybe the Washington university article should distinguish itself. Astuishin 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I won't list each subheading of academics yet, until we can get a cconcensus on the appearance/"feel" of the entire section. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Student Life section
This should be a good summary of the article Student Life at Washington University in St. Louis. I think it reads pretty well. The "Athletics" and "traditions" section could be expanded. I know WUSTL has more traditions than are listed. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Notable Washington University People
This section looks slim. What can we do to improve it? --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ropcat and I have been trying to expand this article a little bit more however I can work on a good main article summary. Astuishin 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
References
I mention this section because many things are not cited. The Cornell and Duke University pages are loaded with citations. The material is out htere-- we have to make sure the WUSTL series is credible. --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I think this is important to mention because the upcoming Olympics will generate possible interest in past Olympic venues. Any thoughts on this? Any additions to the Francis Field article? --Lmbstl 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps a student or some one who lives close to campus get a picture from the university archives, and research the history of Francis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astuishin (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC). Astuishin 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I added an image of Francis Field gates and expanded the article a bit, but I know a lot more info is available. --Lmbstl 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Cerated a template box for the field, for now I have been getting most of my inspiration from the cornell, uchicago, and harvard pages however am going to look at some other sources. - thank you Astuishin 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm put a request for a new picture of Francis Field on the project page, I feel that the current pic while quite good, does not suite the page; the sunsetting on the main Washington U sports complex, might send a negative subconscious message no the state of Washington U sports. - thank you Astuishin 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The image that appears is the only one available right now. I think it should be included in the article, although perhaps as a secondary image. And, the state of WUSTL sports is pretty dismal-- people don't need a picture to spell that out. ;) --Lmbstl 08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think "dismal" is a pretty unfair term - both the mens' and womens' basketball teams won their conference titles this weekend (UAA, D-III). But Francis and the associated buildings will, obviously, never be Doak Campbell Stadium or Cameron Center. 128.252.34.10 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think the picture should be included as it is quite good, however It should replaced be another picture in the template box, i feel there should be a more comprehensive image in the template, however if I'm not particularity attached to this opinion so if you feel the pic remain I don't mind.- thank you Astuishin 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Created a WUSTL project page
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Are the schools colors simply red and green? I believe I read somewhere that the schools colors are really myrtle and maroon. Perhaps this is cretinous of me however, does anyone on this talk page have a source of information on the schools colors? - thank you Astuishin 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all cretinous. Please check here: [4] --Lmbstl 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, so they are red and green that clears it up. - thank you Astuishin 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Was Fumihiko Maki ever a faculty member at WUSTL? I thought I heard mention that he was, but it isn't noted in the WUSTL series. Does anyone know? --Lmbstl 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I believe he was, he joined the faculty in the 1960s and left shortly afterwards for Japan- thank you Astuishin 05:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Was Maki ever a full professor? Also why does Bancham keep removing the logo? is there something that I am not aware of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astuishin (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Returning the infobox to the WUSTL article
Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Am I overlooking any potential issues? --Lmbstl 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WMF Legal has been contacted (again) about the seal. I have myself deleted numerous attempts to upload the official university seal, due to the complaints from the administration. However, this time, I am not sure I agree that the University's attempt to protect the shield alone is proper. I have asked for further information. I'll let you know what's happening. But I did delete the latest incarnation of the seal. --Brad Patrick 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's be sure to continue to distinguish between the seal and the shield.
Seal. I think we have agreed that we would not present the seal, in respect to WUSTL's request.
Shield. However, we have not seen the logic behind the shield request. WUSTL's internal guidelines stipulate that the shield cannot be displayed sperately from the text "Washington University in St. Louis." This makes perfect sense, since the shield alone is not recognizeable to everyone as an entity of WUSTL without the accompanying text. We argue that the shield, as displayed in the article infobox, is accompanied by the text "Washington University in St. Louis." We have not and do not intend to orphan the shield from the designation "Washington University in St. Louis." Therefore, since the image is not being abused and WUSTL is not being misrepresented, we argue that the shield falls under a "fair-use" designation.
We have not returned the shield to the WUSTL article yet, since we want to avoid the edit-warring that has taken place in the past. We await your update before proceeding. Kindly, Lmbstl 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
WUSTL indicates they are willing to let the shield be used, if the image can be watermarked in some fashion to indicate it is trademarked. They are concerned that they will be seen as relinquishing control over their trademarked shield if they allow it. Concerns?--Brad Patrick 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for a watermarked or other fashion of the shield, I don't think that will be to much of a change for the image. Bancham 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have any concerns displaying the image with such restrictions? Wikipedia certainly displays other corporate logotypes, albeit under a "fair-use" rationale. I think WUSTL's desire to indicate image ownership is reasonable. How can this be accomplished? Does Wikipedia have experience in the sort of "watermarking" WUSTL refers to? What category of use or copyright restriction would accompany the shield image? I assume this information would be displayed on the image description page?
Thanks for your help. --Lmbstl 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The infobox as posted above should be returned to the article. If we feel we must buckle to WUSTL's will, a mousever & info on the picture page should be enough. If not I'm sure we'll be hearing from someone. caz | speak 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We haven't heard anything else about the matter. I suppose I will do the honors and returrn the box. Let's hope all is in order! --Lmbstl 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"You referred the shield issue to Wikipedia Legal and WUSTL Legal, correct? Until the issue gets resolved, please stop reverting the WUSTL article. We are open to communication, but you are not communicating, andd it is obvious that everyone is stalling. Simply reverting the article won't do at this point."
If she's going to act like a baby & revert every little thing in the article that doesn't meet Wash. U. PR goals, we need to block her from editing the article. Changing things everytime we do anything w/o responding to anyone else's comments is both unconstructive and vandalism. caz | speak 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad Patrick stated Washington U's willingness to stop removing the seal so long as the image clearly states the university's trademark; we've done that. And since CLyerla has not been participating in the discussion, nor has she even told us the university's concerns, I believe would continue to revert her edits and seek to ban her from this page for causing continuous disruption. - thank you Astuishin 12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
WUSTL image colors
Could we use images that have the same background color as the infobox? Ryancarnated 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by images? You don't mean some type of picture? Bancham 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the seal and the shield and what not have white backgrounds, but the infobox has a non-white background, so you can see the white background of the images poking through. Check out Harvard, their shield/seal or whatever has the same color background as the infobox, and it looks better. I'm suggesting we change the background colors of the images of the shield and seal and whatever else go in the infobox to the same background color as the infobox, or alternatively make them transparent. Ryancarnated 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This most likely has to do with the format of the image. I happen to think that beggers shouldn;t be choosers-- let's get permission to use these images first. --Lmbstl 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobel Laureates Section? Is it necessary
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Why is there a section specifically for these people? Shouldn't that be included in the Notable Washington University alumni article instead? If there is no objection, I will remove it soon. Se2131 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Before we remove it, we should decide if it goes on its own page or if it gets merged into the Notable Alumni page. I was preparing to move it to its own article, using a table to list the Nobel Laureates and their affiliation to the University. Thoughts? --Lmbstl 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be no need to have this list on the main Washington U page. It could be moved to its own page or perhaps a article about the Notable faculty of Washington University could be cerated.- thank you Astuishin 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could do a "scratch list" of notable faculty before making the article? Please see below! --Lmbstl 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that would not be to difficult cerate a daughter article, the University of Michigan has a good faculty page we could draw from. There all ready a number of reputable faculty members listed on the Main page. On the main page, however, would we maintain a Washington University People page? - thank you Astuishin 15:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
WUSTL faculty page and Nobel list
There are already articles for individuls who are noteworthy WUSTL faculty , so it most likely will end up being a list/aggregation instead of an actual article. I had started making the following table for 2 reasons: to include in a WUSTL-specific article, and to include in the article Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation. The table looks like this:
^ An affiliate is a Nobel laureate who can be classified as attendee, graduate, researcher or faculty at Washington University in St. Louis. Laureates who qualify for several categories are only counted once.
^ The academic entity or any affiliated institution (for example: Hoover Institute and Stanford).
^ A laureate who received a degree from Washington University in St. Louis.
^ A aureate who attended at least one course or conducted research at the WUSTL, but did not receive a degree from it.
^ A laureate who served on the faculty of WUSTL before or during the reception of the Prize.
^ A laureate who served on the faculty of WUSTL only after receiving the Prize.
Clearly it isn't finished. I don't have info on all 22 affiliations reported by WUSTL. Specifically, I don't know how the following are classified:
Thoughts? Help? Criticisms? --Lmbstl 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Shield Reversion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seriously, this is annoying. Hasn't it been established that we are in fair use to use the shield as long as the copyright is stated on its info page? Putting words on top of it is annoying, obtrusive and violates our right to use an unobstructed image as long as we acknowledge the owner. Having to revert the picture back daily makes this seem like a game of cat & mouse and tramps on Wikipedia's standing as an independent resource, not a university sanctioned press guide. Is there a way to lock the image in? caz | speak 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The shield (again)
Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
This long running saga has come up again to the office; see this OTRS ticket. Whilst the image can arguably fall under fair use, is it worth all the trouble this image is causing? It doesn't add much to the article's quality, but its continued use causes a long running dispute with the organisation. By replacing it with the image deemed "acceptable", the disruption to this page and elsewhere is ended. I've deleted the image, and stand by this action for the reasons I've stated.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The copyright/tradermark owner of the shield has requested its takedown in that ticket. At this point the fair use of the image becomes unfair use. At this point we take it down. Cary Bassdemandez 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the ticket, so it's not my place for me to comment on it. However, while it may be a pain to defend our use of the image, I feel we are in our right as every other article about a university (or at least those that have acheived FA & good article status) uses an image of either its crest or its shield. WUSTL's deprivation of the article of these images prevents it from providing comparable information, and IMHO, sets a precedent for us to buckle when we're clearly in the right. Other images that are not plain shields/crests are not equivalent simply for not being shields/crests. Obviously, as you two are administrators this is your final call, but I feel that bowing to their takedown not only depreives the article of valuable information, but also sets a precedent for the university, as well as other organizations, to demand the removal of information they do not like present or does not fit in with their arbitrary codes. caz | speak 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not the case at all. "Information they do not like" is not copyrighted - their crest/shield is. It's a matter of ensuring that Wikipedia is not liable for copyright violations. It's that simple. FCYTravis 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet every other college in the Association of American Universities has a shield or crest in their infobox. It appears it is clearly fair use for us to display the image while we are backing down to over agressive lawyers and threats. Again, if you want to obey their takedown, so be it, but I feel it is dissapointing to beckon to the will of another even when our case is strong. caz | speak 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How much have you donated to the Wikimedia Foundation to make sure it can pay the legal bills when/if we do get sued? FCYTravis 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha, now support from Wikipedia is based on financial contrubutions? Well, I guess it didn't take too long to become a beauracratic entity. I did donate during the last campaign drive, but either way, I feel we need to back ourselves up when we are being bullied and clearly have the upper hand. I do hope we take this stance now. caz | speak 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel this is absolutely inappropriate, the university has acknowledged that the image was fair use and then attempted I put enormous watermark on the image which of course was absurd, and now wikipedia caves because the university complains loudly and threatens legal action. There was obviously no copyright violation, other than the image did not fit in under the university's marketing campaign, otherwise the university would have never have conceded to Brad Patrick that the image was fair use. However it is really not my comment place to comment as i'm a not a lawyer, only to say that wikipedia has now set a preceded and given the university a veto over anything in this article. and seeing as they have a history of removing anything that is remotely critical of the institution, it makes it that much harder of us regular contributers to this article to suppress the university's tendencies to attempt to make this article a extension of there marketing effort. - thank you Astuishin 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The university has not vetoed anything related to the article text. The use of its image, however, is not debatable. A copyright holder can refuse the use of their copyrighted images or logos. The University has refused the use of their copyrighted image. Therefore <inserted text> I do not believe </inserted text> its use is not allowed. Period. Cary Bassdemandez 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Cary, you're out of tune with, well, just about everything here. Neither the copyright law nor Wikipedia's unlicensed media use policies grant the rightsholder's consent any significant weight when it comes to usage in this manner. I think it's quite clear that the use of this image on the Wikipedia article is defensible legally as "fair use" under US law, and its use is, as far as I know, also consistent with Wikipedia's policy on the use of unlicensed media. Nor am I aware of any Foundation policy (such as the recent unlicensed media policy statement) that mandates projects give any special weight to the wishes of the rightsholder. So I must ask, where are you getting this from? Not from anything I've seen, personally.
Let me be clear: I'm one of Wikipedia's most fervent advocates for abolishing all use of unlicensed media from Wikipedia. I, personally, don't see why this image needs to be used on this article. But at the same time I fully believe that its use is permissible both in law and in current Wikipedia policy. I don't think this is the time or the place to create the exception you seem to be trying to carve. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm reading the above and it seems that there is a logo that is not the shield that the university has no objection to. Cary Bassdemandez 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The last thing Brad stated was, "WUSTL indicates they are willing to let the shield be used, if the image can be watermarked in some fashion to indicate it is trademarked. They are concerned that they will be seen as relinquishing control over their trademarked shield if they allow it. Concerns?--Brad Patrick 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)". Subsequent discussion ignored this. Please understand that it will encounter continuous, rigorous objections from the university, including persistent phone calls with the foundation. The very simple fact is that this article doesn't have to have the shield on top of it. Cary Bassdemandez 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't ignored at all. It was clearly stated in the info. page that the picture was copyright of Washington University and was being used in fair use to demonstrate the university's shield. Having text over the shield is disruptive, offensive to the reader and makes it look an image that came out of a trial run of some program. It was stated very clearly in the info page that the image was copyright of Wash. U. caz | speak 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, the University has engaged in repeated reversion w/o consensus of text as well as images. Most notably, anything with the chancellor's salary. You can see this on the discussion page of user CLyerla, a Wash. U. employee. caz | speak 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Umm. I've had a thought here. The University has its own WikiProject; it uses Image:WUBrookr.JPG for its banner. That looks like a pretty distinctive bit of architecture; can't the article just use that in the infobox?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with a picture of bookings is that it is inconsistent with other colleges, speaking of pictures I think maybe a picture of shield would be good.- thank you Astuishin 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So I see the university is trolling again, trying to cause mischief on this page, how unfournate. If they complain lound about pictures of the campus will Wikipeida take those down to? Astuishin click on the link to the project page at the top of this talk page on the left side you will see an image of Brookings, that is Image:WUBrookr.JPGBancham 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This page 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.
