923:: I wanted to respond to your suggestion that a list article is the best place for GLO content. Most of those list articles are old and do not reflect current thought within Knowledge (XXG). Around half of these articles have already been deleted after an AfD because the majority of the secondary sources do not provide extensive coverage of Greek life on that specific campus and, therefore, do not prove the notability of the data set. As a similar example, the current provost might be mentioned in a university article, but the individual may not meet notability for a stand-alone article; nor does this mean that a list of former provosts meets notability for a list article. Think of it this way--if the content has no value as part of the university's details, it is unlikely to meet notability as a stand-alone child article. If it has value as a child article, it would also have value (in some form) to the parent university article. Even if there is a stand-alone list article about campus fraternities and sororities, MOS specifies an introductory section about the topic to go along with the main article link. Meaning, there would still need to be a summary of the imporatnce of Greek life on campus in the university (parent) article. (I sometimes get my hand-slapped for creating alumni list articles without providing a paragraph or two to go with the main article link, so can assure you this is the WP:UNI standard). Hope this helps in your future edits.
1021:
national fraternity or sorority. Candidly, I think you have a distorted view about these, as an outsider to
American colleges. In fairness, these two hazing incidents are a couple of transitory events that are outliers to the experiences of some 150,000 students over the many years. Say there was a paragraph about the campus bus service, and in 2017 a student was hit by a drunk bus driver. --Would that incident merit a paragraph? Or, given the truth that thousands of students ride the busses each day, wouldn't that incident fairly be described as an outlier, and not merit inclusion in the summary? To do so would show unfair balance, and may indicate the writer is attempting to harm the general good impression of the campus bus service. This is a hypothetical, but I sense your efforts to remove the table and promote these adjudicated hazing incidents shows a bias. Your valued efforts to remove puffery is unwarranted in this case. Greeks, as we call them in our shorthand in this country, are broadly popular, and generate an enormous amount of media notification, even without seeking it. Finally, I remind you that I added several references from searchable archive sites which you may review, along with the citation of a blue-chip reference book on the subject.
1538:
chapter was closed (temporarily or permanently), regardless of the severity of the hazing incident, this information is included in the chapter list via an efn. As I understand it, WP: Fraternities and
Sororities developed this practice as an attempt to find encyclopedic balance. Hazing incidents often receive significant news coverage (meaning a source for Knowledge (XXG)), while there is little coverage of a group's good behavior (meaning no sources). As a fictional example, including a paragraph on a non-lethal hazing incident that happened 30 years ago at one of 125+ chapters of an organization that is more than 75 years old could be UNDUE. However, if it is one of dozens of incidents reported over ten years, it starts to look like systemic culture and could be encyclopedic. In general, single incidents can be interpreted as the bad behavior of lone individuals and not, therefore, a part of the GLO's culture. Although current events might have relevance to the article for a short time. Like a lot of university controversies, we have to look at the relevance of historic events to the overall institutional history. While this tragic event is a blip in the university's story, it looks like this incident should be part of the GLO's article.
1360:: Somehow I missed this post in July and did not respond. What do we need to do to incorporate this into WP:UNI's guidelines? Should we move Robminchin's text to WP:UNI's talkpage for approval? I think it is good to go but realize this discussion only included a few of us. The only additon that I would make is a link to some examples of best practices. Wish I could remember the one I worked on the last time this became an issue; it was one of the New England privates where many GLOs were formed and it the campus is still very Greek. We could also link to the University of lllinois' Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, a librarian and scholar-anmaintained secondary source for the major active groups on most campuses. Encouraing awaremess of this resource ecould help solve the unsourced issue. I know I will not be the one fixing the GLO content (my running list of redlinked colleges to write articles for is now around 100) but I would like to help improve it and direct other editors.
1483:. Links can be provided via the See Also section. As covered in a recent discussion about whether or not to include Gaza protests in university articles, sometimes events that get high-level coverage are not as important with time. As editors, we sometimes have to decide as to value to current readers. I would only consider this 28-year-old incident for this article if it resulted in significant university policy changes, such as the removal of all GLOs from campus OR the end of residential GLOs. Why? Because students (sadly) die on campus every year, hazing is historically common and not unique to Pitt (not to diminish this victim's suffering), and this incidient was not the result of something the university did. Furthermore, if there are only going to be one or two sentences about fraternities and sororities in this aticle, citing this one hazing incident falls under UNDUE.
1206:
inform the level of detail that is appropriate for the specific article. Not all universities are the same. Some have zero GLOs and some have a really high percentage of students who belong to a GLO. I once came across a college where 90% of its students belonged to a fratarnity or sorority. If national and international fraternities and sororities were established at the college or university, that too is relevant information. This infomation is reliably found in secondary sources and, often, in the university's online archives. With regards to presentation, MOS would suggest that text is better than a table or list. Meaning, a great solution for this article is curreted content in text format (with sources). Again, there is something in between these two extremes.
868:
are LEEDS-certified, or a subsection noting controversaries or protests. I believe this meets the requirement of BALANCE. To your comment on specific significant buildings, yes, we sometimes note these but they are an offshoot. Relatively few are on the historic register of their states or on the national list. The bigger picture here is that all these chapters are normally listed in solid secondary sources, including the Baird's Manual, Banta's Greek
Exchange, and/or numerous published histories. I agree that it is preferable to hatnote a main article or list of the institution's fraternity system (including honor and professional organizations), as is often done for a college's athletic program.
1124:
consistency. You have your areas of interest, and I would leave them to your capable hands. I have mine, and am very experienced with both GLOs and with
American colleges and universities. As a Project participant, I follow our guidelines to ensure consistency. Contrary to your opinion, many summary collegiate articles note the presence of GLOs, and list them. Some of these use a hatnote linking to an article with more information. GLOs (social, honor, professional, or service) are typically popular with a plurality or even a majority of the student body, and are worthy of inclusion; far more than some transitory or niche subjects listed in some of these articles.
1017:
of the chapters in the table are listed on the references provided. (And we haven't yet gotten to listing the various professional, honor and service chapters.) At various points, a review of yearbooks will show that Pitt (that's the nickname of the university here in the US) often had over 50% of students participating, either in the general (~social) organizations or in the honor, service or professional chapters. These groups, Greek Letter
Organizations (GLOs), are far more common and popular here than you give them credit for, and I fully oppose your statement that there is consensus among editors about this.
1254:: Unless the article is otherwise perfect and well-sourced throughout, I would leave the GLO list but tag it as unsourced (already addressed in this instance) and for a copy edit (with a notation to shorten the list to text). WP UNI editors regularly use tags instead of deleting content, including tagging for academic boosterism or no references. I suspect WP: Fraternities and Sororities (or WP: UNI) would be willing to create and host a work list when editors like you could post the names of articles that need updates to the Greek life sections. First, it would be helpful for WP: UNI to settle on guidelines.
840:: lists of Greek institutions are better placed on list pages, since their content relevance for an encyclopedia is marginal. Also, there is not enough reliable documentation about them. Most Knowledge (XXG) editors agree that rote listings of Greek institutions are not helpful if there is no sourcing from outside the college's or university's homepage or the fraternity's own circle. If you can prove that one or more of the Greek houses is significant, then pls do so, but for the most part, individual houses fall under WP:UNDUE. That is, they are not significant enough for an encyclopdia. Here is an
391:
370:
168:
484:
463:
21:
644:
494:
1002:
open the comment with "excellent point" when you ignore the main point? Seems disingenuous somehow. There seems to be consensus among editors on this, since almost no university pages on
Knowledge (XXG) list GLOs in detail. And even if Jax MN did note the founding dates of very few of the GLOs, does that really make them significant? We need references from outside the GLO bubble in order to ascertain Wiki-relevance here. --
593:
568:
219:
201:
302:
281:
159:
1307:, the best course is going to depend on the overall state of the article. If it's a well-referenced GA or FA, the tolerance for unsourced information is going to be lower than if it's an article that has unreferenced sections lying around already. Here, the general list of citations given at the top of the list makes it better sourced than the 'housing' section.
105:
690:
987:
campus, and a call out noting a similar tenure for the professional, service and honor societies. A later editor or one of us on the F&S Project will certainly use these references and the campus portal listings to develop a subordinate page that may be hatlinked. At that time, our practice would be to remove the table from the main article.
1236:
only internal sourcing. But let's not forget: GLOs should also be covered when they make bad headlines, that often reflects larger issues. My only question is: since your "middle ground" approach really does require rare levels of engagement, what do we do with the tables and boring prose lists? The reasonable thing it to delete them. --
1202:: I think that is the real issue here. Can we start a discussion on WP:Uni's TalkPage? Lacking WP Uni guidelines, we have one editor who regularly deletes GLO content and others who have added it, believing that to be the norm. It appears all parties are making good faith edits but could use better guidance.
1511:
I looked around and was surprised that there is no list of hazing incidents if they stop short of death. I guess it is hard to prove, to the last degree, what is the difference between hazing injuries and alcohol-induced injuries or just plain old assault. Do you know of any such lists of "incidents"
1294:
information is quite clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." If a list of GLOs is not well sourced, then any editor who objects to it may simply
1205:
I have often seen a long list of GLO reduced to "This college has fraternities and sororities". To all involved: there is a middle ground. For example, US News & World Report's review of colleges cites the number of students who belong to a GLO, which is great content for the article and can also
1071:
VQuakr, the table was deleted without any real consensus. I reverted. Lists of Greek chapters are prevalent features of US collegiate
Knowledge (XXG) articles. These organizations are notable, broadly-popular campus features with decade-long or even century-long histories. I provided the necessary
867:
without significant other editorial content on the college or university article. Certainly, with perhaps 30% of collegians and alumni regularly participating in them for 100+ years, they merit a brief mention -- at least to the degree we mention the college radio station, or a set of buildings that
1016:
Mel, I'm catching up on some notifications as real life intrudes. I indeed responded to your argument that there is too much coverage for GLOs, by explaining in the intro paragraph to the table the many decades of campus participation in these groups, some of which have existed for 150 years. Each
1001:
Thx to VQuakr. Since the two bullet points are clear, I will soon remove the table with unsourced names, it should never have been restored in the first place. Also, I find it strange that Jax MN is not responding to the most important argument: "strikes me as too much coverage for this aspect." Why
883:
make it notable. We have discussed these issues before and there is widespread consensus among editors about deleting laundry lists of frats and sororities. You will not find them on other university pages, but you will find good list articles which give all the information a reader could desire. --
1537:
If relevant, fraternities/sorority articles have a misconduct/controversies section that details major incidents, such as those with widespread or national coverage and those that resulted in death, changes to college policies, permanent closure of the chapter, and convictions of members. If the
1235:
I think
Rublamb's middle ground is a great idea. Intelligent writing about GLOs which are relevant to the school in some authentic way is completely in order. The only problem is researching and writing it. I find that few editors want to do so; they prefer to use laundry lists with no sourcing or
986:
An excellent point. I have added three references to support the claim that these groups are present and have been present for, in some cases, 150+ years. I also added a short introductory paragraph in the style common for other school articles, noting the number of chapters, the pioneers on the
809:
State-related is the actual legal designation. Period. That is not changed by the US Department of
Education or anyone else that has only binary buckets to place universities into their database. Those entities also are not wikipedia editors so it is not anyone's responsibility to convince them of
1313:
Where possible, and certainly for institutional articles that are GA and FA candidates, lists of GLOs should be replaced by text describing the role and importance of GLOs in student life at the institution. This should include the overall proportion of students in GLOs and historically important
1286:
On the first of these, there don't seem to be particularly definitive arguments. The argument for having them in there isn't great, but this is down deep in the body of a large article. For a small article with little other information, including a big list of GLOs is likely to be UNDUE, but this
882:
There is no rush to post information, so pls wait before publishing sub-par content. The problem with laundry lists of GLOs is that often the individual contents are inaccurate, badly-sourced, and don't stand up to closer examination. Also, the mere existence of a GLO on campus certainly does not
1406:
I added a paragraph about victims of fraternity hazing and Jax MN deleted it, claiming that it was not relevant because it happened in 1996. I suggest that such an extreme event goes into a university's history regardless of long ago it happened. It is an indicator of campus culture in 1991, the
1020:
Further, you added a paragraph about a couple of hazing incidents. While those events happened, our practice is to cite these against the specific chapter name on the list of chapters, or when notorious, to promote the item, and note it in a "Local misconduct" section of the article about the
1123:
Good afternoon, Melchior. We will have to disagree on your characterizations. I am a serious editor and do not participate in edit warring. Nor have I been disingenuous. You have, on the occasions where we have crossed paths, offered ad hoc edits regarding these GLOs, without process or
1287:
argument is much weaker in an article the size of Pitt's. Rublamb's "middle ground" seems a very good way forward – we want articles that give an encyclopedic overview of the role of GLOs at a university, not just a list of GLOs, where possible. Getting towards this should be the aim.
963:
The above two bullet points refer to policy/guideline issues. Moving to stylistic assessment, the table looks blocky to me and strikes me as too much coverage for this aspect. I see that many other university articles, when they mention Greek orgs at all, do so my stating the
1025:
Deletion of the table is reverted. I captured one of the two hazing citations you found, and have appended it against the chapter name in the table, giving it proper weight in the article. The other was 30 years old, and is no longer current enough for this summary article.
1040:
To me is seems like there is consensus that the in-prose table listing a bunch of GLOs is not warranted in this article, the subject of which is a
University and not these GLOs. I suggest either removing the table or holding a RfC to get broader input. As a reminder re
1321:, with regard to the overall size of the article and the importance of GLOs at the institution. This is particularly important if the section is simply a list of GLOs, which can take up a lot of space in a small article, giving undue weight to the importance of GLOs.
1456:
from Chronicle of Higher Ed (they say victim "had to be placed on a kidney-dialysis machine last week after he was beaten severely in what city police said was a fraternity hazing incident" -- there is no report of his death). Then we have the incident in a
1171:
But you've been asked to produce any result of centralized discussion that might indicate that this project's alleged "policing" (yikes!) has consensus and have provided none. So what these project participants have done isn't relevant to our discussion.
120:
1458:
1597:
1156:
We're probably at the stage where we need an RfC on this. Project participants have added and policed numerous such lists as sections of student life subheadings. I don't agree at all that there is consensus to omit these.
863:. I agree that separate list pages or articles with lists are preferable. Those of us on the F&S Project simply have not yet gotten to them all. Our practice therefore has been to list the organizations that are
172:
1104:
Since he devotes a lot of time to writing about GLOs, he knows very well that they are not listed on most Wiki pages about major universities. Go ahead and make a list, that would cover all bases. The news coverage of
1220:
Agreed that percent of student body membership in Greek orgs would be a good thing to include. A prose list of dozens of orgs has the same issue as a table: it doesn't convey meaningful information about the subject.
772:
university, and that is the actual legal status of the institution. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit neatly into the binary world of some editors, thus they have forced the article to contain misleading information.
1587:
841:
737:
The University of Pressure isn't exactly a public or private university. It's hybrid. It's a state-related higher education institution of Pennsylvania so it's privately run with designated state support.
1434:, which is not a great source. For this reason, I don't think it should be included in the article. An argument against it that it was a long time ago was also given, but that is not a good argument per
767:
You are, of course, 100% correct. It is inaccurate for the article to describe the University of Pittsburgh as a public university, because it is not a public university and it never has been. It is a
1142:
other university articles that sport a similar table, there are by no means ubiquitous or a standard. You don't get special dispensation to ignore other editors because you're a "Project participant".
1602:
1176:
Your agreement isn't necessary for a consensus to exist: it does. Feel free to start a RfC if you want to see if the present consensus changes with more participation; the onus is on you to do so.
352:
1622:
342:
1627:
318:
32:
1314:
GLOs on campus, particularly national or international GLOs that were founded at an institution, but will not normally include a comprehensive list of all GLOs that are present.
247:
1438:. A short paragraph ending with "soon following in 1918" is plenty of coverage of this aspect of the university; the large table and the additional prose should be excised.
1617:
1295:
remove it. This isn't always the best approach to building the encyclopedia, of course, and there is no obligation to remove it, except in the unlikely circumstance that
1072:
citations and an intro paragraph, responding to Melchior's concern. Removing them, without similarly removing vast troves of other content is arbitrary and shows bias.
599:
573:
309:
286:
550:
1138:
There appears to be consensus to omit the table that lists dozens of GLOs by name. The subject of this article is the University, not GLOs. While I'm sure there are
1652:
1612:
540:
445:
243:
1582:
1637:
435:
1607:
516:
1526:
Probably the latter, although I see no reason why there isn't a list or section for major hazing incidents (those with national coverage) as part of
226:
206:
1642:
411:
1592:
661:
1647:
1100:
I know of no previous RfC, but I would certainly welcome one. Jax MN is edit warring (again) and has been disingenuous in several discussions.
795:. You're welcome to try to convince those scholars and experts to change their minds and their published documents and we'll then follow suit.
47:
1572:
507:
468:
42:
1632:
1527:
1476:
1109:
is certainly of perennial significance for this article, it should certainly not be deleted without first attaining consensus on talk. --
139:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
398:
375:
968:
of organizations on campus rather than listing out every one. That seems like a better approach here as well, and is what I suggest.
792:
38:
84:
956:
has been cited in the discussion above, but without sourcing or discussion of sourcing it is unclear how the weight of viewpoints
41:
at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
1453:
1577:
1086:
Has this kind of content ever been the subject of an explicit RfC or other large discussion among a diverse group of editors?
181:
788:
407:
116:
20:
898:
670:
314:
136:
1324:
Inclusion of information on GLOs (including lists) should follow standard Knowledge (XXG) policy on sourcing.
187:
604:
578:
1517:
1502:
1466:
1416:
1241:
1114:
1007:
906:
888:
849:
715:
1435:
1325:
1304:
1291:
515:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
410:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
317:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1329:
1300:
1057:
the table should not have been restored without consensus to do so, which you currently clearly lack.
1341:
947:
946:
The contested information was restored without adding sourcing, which should not have been done per
810:
anything. It continues to be unfortunate that you prefer unnecessary standardization over accuracy.
390:
369:
158:
132:
1452:
I agree with you about the recentism and necessary deletions. As for the 1996 incident, I now have
1431:
1407:
excesses of fraternities, administrative prevention-incompetence, and so on. I certainly think the
815:
778:
754:
739:
723:
499:
1271:
It seems to me, having read over the comments so far, that there are a couple of separate issues:
758:
743:
676:
1283:
These two overlap because the lists of GLOs included in university articles are often unsourced.
1275:
953:
483:
462:
1543:
1513:
1498:
1488:
1462:
1412:
1369:
1259:
1251:
1237:
1211:
1110:
1091:
1003:
928:
920:
902:
884:
860:
845:
800:
722:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1046:
1443:
1226:
1181:
1162:
1147:
1129:
1077:
1062:
1031:
992:
973:
873:
702:
672:
643:
231:
1332:
the information, either tagging it as unsourced or finding suitable citations and add them.
1318:
1296:
1353:
1337:
1299:
applies. In most cases, the information is likely to be accurate and it may be better to
939:
1045:, verifiability is an insufficient standard to guarantee inclusion of given content per
811:
774:
1566:
1531:
1480:
769:
1547:
1521:
1506:
1492:
1470:
1447:
1420:
1373:
1345:
1263:
1245:
1230:
1215:
1185:
1166:
1151:
1133:
1118:
1095:
1081:
1066:
1035:
1011:
996:
977:
932:
910:
892:
877:
853:
819:
804:
782:
762:
747:
674:
1539:
1484:
1365:
1357:
1255:
1207:
1199:
1087:
924:
796:
512:
1303:
the information rather than removing it. As Rublamb said, and as is also said in
1439:
1222:
1177:
1158:
1143:
1125:
1073:
1058:
1052:
1027:
988:
969:
869:
837:
592:
567:
489:
403:
235:
301:
280:
218:
200:
1328:
information may be challenged and removed, but it is often more helpful to
1497:
Thx for the good suggestion; I will add the info the hazing articles. --
1475:
I think this info is better placed in the articles about the fraternity,
1461:
published (2nd edition) by SUNY Press. This is pretty major coverage. --
1043:
Each of the chapters in the table are listed on the references provided.
1023:
Every one of these chapters in the table is listed in those references.
710:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
239:
1598:
Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
958:...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources
1268:
I'm here because of the notice of the discussion posted at WP:UNI.
733:
Accurate to call University of Pittsburgh public state-reheated?
1534:
may have been a spin-off that became focused on actual deaths.
684:
677:
637:
242:
on Knowledge (XXG). Please visit the project page to join the
152:
99:
1588:
Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Society and social sciences
1174:
I don't agree at all that there is consensus to omit these.
1310:
In terms of general guidance, I would therefore propose:
313:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1408:
144:
140:
111:
77:
1603:
B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
614:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference
511:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
402:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
327:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject University of Pittsburgh
230:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
51:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
787:That description conforms with sources such as the
901:since the discussion has come to a standstill. --
1623:Top-importance University of Pittsburgh articles
602:, a project which is currently considered to be
1530:. I don't know the history of these articles;
617:Template:WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference
112:Pennsylvania Preparedness Leadership Institute
1628:WikiProject University of Pittsburgh articles
1290:On the second, the Knowledge (XXG) policy on
844:of the lists, which are more appropriate. --
330:Template:WikiProject University of Pittsburgh
8:
256:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Higher education
753:Lol on my own typos. Autocorrect on mobile
562:
457:
364:
275:
195:
56:
15:
1618:B-Class University of Pittsburgh articles
1317:Inclusion of a section on GLOs should be
33:Social sciences and society good articles
1402:Students killed during fraternity hazing
525:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pennsylvania
564:
459:
366:
277:
197:
156:
1583:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles
1173:
1042:
957:
420:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pittsburgh
1653:High-importance Pennsylvania articles
1613:WikiProject Higher education articles
1280:2) Inclusion of unsourced information
600:WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference
259:Template:WikiProject Higher education
7:
1528:Hazing in Greek letter organizations
1477:Hazing in Greek letter organizations
598:This article is within the scope of
505:This article is within the scope of
396:This article is within the scope of
310:WikiProject University of Pittsburgh
307:This article is within the scope of
224:This article is within the scope of
186:It is of interest to the following
1638:Top-importance Pittsburgh articles
620:Atlantic Coast Conference articles
14:
1608:B-Class Higher education articles
714:] The anchor (#Tennis) has been
528:Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania
333:University of Pittsburgh articles
688:
642:
591:
566:
492:
482:
461:
389:
368:
300:
279:
217:
199:
166:
157:
103:
19:
1643:WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
545:This article has been rated as
440:This article has been rated as
423:Template:WikiProject Pittsburgh
347:This article has been rated as
1593:B-Class level-5 vital articles
1374:23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
37:nominee, but did not meet the
1:
1648:B-Class Pennsylvania articles
1107:students killed during hazing
793:American Council on Education
763:09:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
748:09:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
519:and see a list of open tasks.
414:and see a list of open tasks.
321:and see a list of open tasks.
1573:Former good article nominees
1102:The table should be deleted.
897:I asked for a third opinion
789:U.S. Department of Education
227:WikiProject Higher education
1633:B-Class Pittsburgh articles
1430:, the student newspaper at
1426:That section is sourced to
938:I am providing a requested
1669:
1411:should be put back in. --
551:project's importance scale
446:project's importance scale
353:project's importance scale
45:. Editors may also seek a
1548:14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
1522:11:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
1507:06:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
1346:16:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
893:09:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
878:20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
854:20:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
820:19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
805:18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
783:18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
611:Atlantic Coast Conference
586:
574:Atlantic Coast Conference
544:
477:
439:
384:
346:
295:
262:Higher education articles
212:
194:
143:; for its talk page, see
59:
55:
1493:19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1471:17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1448:16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1421:07:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1264:19:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1246:17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1231:17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1216:17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1186:01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1167:00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1152:22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
1134:21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
1119:17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
1096:21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1082:21:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1067:20:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1036:19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1012:07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
997:19:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
978:17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
933:20:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
911:06:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
508:WikiProject Pennsylvania
324:University of Pittsburgh
315:University of Pittsburgh
287:University of Pittsburgh
246:, and see the project's
137:University of Pittsburgh
27:University of Pittsburgh
1578:B-Class vital articles
942:. A few observations:
716:deleted by other users
399:WikiProject Pittsburgh
1274:1) Is a list of GLOs
531:Pennsylvania articles
180:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
173:level-5 vital article
39:good article criteria
131:. Its contents were
127:with a consensus to
85:Good article nominee
500:Pennsylvania portal
426:Pittsburgh articles
960:has been assessed.
950:, which is policy.
250:for useful advice.
182:content assessment
115:was nominated for
60:Article milestones
1512:(not deaths)? --
730:
729:
705:in most browsers.
683:
682:
636:
635:
632:
631:
628:
627:
561:
560:
557:
556:
456:
455:
452:
451:
408:metropolitan area
363:
362:
359:
358:
274:
273:
270:
269:
248:article guideline
151:
150:
98:
97:
94:
93:
1660:
1409:deleted material
1056:
724:Reporting errors
692:
691:
685:
678:
646:
638:
622:
621:
618:
615:
612:
595:
588:
587:
582:
570:
563:
533:
532:
529:
526:
523:
502:
497:
496:
495:
486:
479:
478:
473:
465:
458:
428:
427:
424:
421:
418:
393:
386:
385:
380:
372:
365:
335:
334:
331:
328:
325:
304:
297:
296:
291:
283:
276:
264:
263:
260:
257:
254:
253:Higher education
232:higher education
221:
214:
213:
207:Higher education
203:
196:
179:
170:
169:
162:
161:
153:
125:06 February 2013
107:
106:
100:
80:
57:
23:
16:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1563:
1562:
1404:
1050:
834:
735:
726:
708:
707:
706:
689:
679:
673:
664:
651:
619:
616:
613:
610:
609:
576:
547:High-importance
530:
527:
524:
521:
520:
498:
493:
491:
472:High‑importance
471:
425:
422:
419:
416:
415:
378:
332:
329:
326:
323:
322:
289:
261:
258:
255:
252:
251:
177:
167:
104:
78:August 31, 2009
76:
12:
11:
5:
1666:
1664:
1656:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1640:
1635:
1630:
1625:
1620:
1615:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1575:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1535:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1322:
1315:
1308:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1272:
1269:
1233:
1203:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1049:. Regardless,
1018:
981:
980:
961:
951:
936:
935:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
833:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
734:
731:
728:
727:
721:
720:
719:
703:case-sensitive
697:
696:
695:
693:
681:
680:
675:
671:
669:
666:
665:
660:
657:
656:
653:
652:
647:
641:
634:
633:
630:
629:
626:
625:
623:
596:
584:
583:
571:
559:
558:
555:
554:
543:
537:
536:
534:
517:the discussion
504:
503:
487:
475:
474:
466:
454:
453:
450:
449:
442:Top-importance
438:
432:
431:
429:
412:the discussion
394:
382:
381:
379:Top‑importance
373:
361:
360:
357:
356:
349:Top-importance
345:
339:
338:
336:
319:the discussion
305:
293:
292:
290:Top‑importance
284:
272:
271:
268:
267:
265:
222:
210:
209:
204:
192:
191:
185:
163:
149:
148:
123:was closed on
121:The discussion
108:
96:
95:
92:
91:
88:
81:
73:
72:
69:
66:
62:
61:
53:
52:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1665:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1621:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1536:
1533:
1532:Hazing deaths
1529:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1481:Hazing deaths
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1401:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1054:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
983:
982:
979:
975:
971:
967:
962:
959:
955:
952:
949:
945:
944:
943:
941:
940:third opinion
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
832:Lists of GLOs
831:
821:
817:
813:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:state-related
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
752:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
732:
725:
717:
713:
712:
711:
704:
700:
694:
687:
686:
668:
667:
663:
659:
658:
655:
654:
650:
645:
640:
639:
624:
607:
606:
601:
597:
594:
590:
589:
585:
580:
575:
572:
569:
565:
552:
548:
542:
539:
538:
535:
518:
514:
510:
509:
501:
490:
488:
485:
481:
480:
476:
470:
467:
464:
460:
447:
443:
437:
434:
433:
430:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
395:
392:
388:
387:
383:
377:
374:
371:
367:
354:
350:
344:
341:
340:
337:
320:
316:
312:
311:
306:
303:
299:
298:
294:
288:
285:
282:
278:
266:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
223:
220:
216:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
198:
193:
189:
183:
175:
174:
164:
160:
155:
154:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
109:
102:
101:
89:
87:
86:
82:
79:
75:
74:
70:
67:
64:
63:
58:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1514:Melchior2006
1499:Melchior2006
1463:Melchior2006
1436:WP:RECENTISM
1427:
1413:Melchior2006
1405:
1326:WP:UNSOURCED
1305:WP:UNSOURCED
1292:WP:UNSOURCED
1252:Melchior2006
1238:Melchior2006
1139:
1111:Melchior2006
1106:
1101:
1022:
1004:Melchior2006
965:
937:
921:Melchior2006
903:Melchior2006
885:Melchior2006
864:
846:Melchior2006
835:
736:
709:
701:Anchors are
698:
648:
603:
546:
522:Pennsylvania
513:Pennsylvania
506:
469:Pennsylvania
441:
397:
348:
308:
236:universities
225:
188:WikiProjects
171:
128:
124:
110:
83:
48:reassessment
46:
31:
30:
26:
1330:WP:PRESERVE
1301:WP:PRESERVE
838:User:Jax MN
662:Before 2012
141:its history
43:renominated
1567:Categories
1354:Robminchin
1338:Robminchin
948:WP:PROVEIT
417:Pittsburgh
404:Pittsburgh
376:Pittsburgh
244:discussion
90:Not listed
1428:The Eagle
812:CrazyPaco
775:CrazyPaco
176:is rated
1454:sourcing
1432:American
1276:WP:UNDUE
954:WP:UNDUE
861:Melchior
791:and the
755:Murielgh
740:Murielgh
649:Archives
605:inactive
579:inactive
406:and its
240:colleges
117:deletion
1540:Rublamb
1485:Rublamb
1366:Rublamb
1358:ElKevbo
1256:Rublamb
1208:Rublamb
1200:ElKevbo
1088:ElKevbo
1047:WP:VNOT
925:Rublamb
865:present
842:example
797:ElKevbo
718:before.
549:on the
444:on the
351:on the
178:B-class
68:Process
1479:, and
1440:VQuakr
1319:WP:DUE
1297:WP:BLP
1223:VQuakr
1178:VQuakr
1159:Jax MN
1144:VQuakr
1126:Jax MN
1074:Jax MN
1059:VQuakr
1053:Jax MN
1028:Jax MN
989:Jax MN
970:VQuakr
966:number
870:Jax MN
859:Hello
238:, and
184:scale.
133:merged
71:Result
29:was a
1356:and @
899:WP:3O
165:This
135:into
129:merge
1544:talk
1518:talk
1503:talk
1489:talk
1467:talk
1459:book
1444:talk
1417:talk
1370:talk
1342:talk
1260:talk
1242:talk
1227:talk
1212:talk
1182:talk
1163:talk
1148:talk
1140:some
1130:talk
1115:talk
1092:talk
1078:talk
1063:talk
1032:talk
1008:talk
993:talk
974:talk
929:talk
907:talk
889:talk
874:talk
850:talk
816:talk
801:talk
779:talk
759:talk
744:talk
699:Tip:
541:High
145:here
65:Date
436:Top
343:Top
119:.
1569::
1546:)
1520:)
1505:)
1491:)
1469:)
1446:)
1419:)
1372:)
1344:)
1262:)
1244:)
1229:)
1214:)
1184:)
1165:)
1150:)
1132:)
1117:)
1094:)
1080:)
1065:)
1034:)
1010:)
995:)
976:)
931:)
909:)
891:)
876:)
852:)
818:)
803:)
781:)
761:)
746:)
234:,
1542:(
1516:(
1501:(
1487:(
1465:(
1442:(
1415:(
1368:(
1352:@
1340:(
1258:(
1250:@
1240:(
1225:(
1210:(
1198:@
1180:(
1161:(
1146:(
1128:(
1113:(
1090:(
1076:(
1061:(
1055::
1051:@
1030:(
1006:(
991:(
972:(
927:(
919:@
905:(
887:(
872:(
848:(
836:@
814:(
799:(
777:(
757:(
742:(
608:.
581:)
577:(
553:.
448:.
355:.
190::
147:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
