![]() | 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. |
There is no information where the name Duke comes from? Washington Duke? James Buchanan Duke? -- Rlbberlin 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, somebody should fix this and I dont know how.
The most popular activity of Duke students is certainly NOT rape, but I can't figure out how to edit that line out
Please protect this page from being vandalized again.
Eh? Isn't this a bit an odd thing to specify in the first line? Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Fix the bug!
I hopefully corrected some additional vandalism: someone added the phrase "Singapore is a dictatorship". Yay.
Joe V. 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
After about 150 edits, here are the changes: changes. Excluding the two added refs (one by User:DukeEgr93 and one by me) and picture layout changes, there is a whopping total of 6 minor edits (2 misspellings, addition of "Latin for" for the motto, wikilink to William Preston Few and a short phrase following it, addition of the ranking of the physician assistant program in "notes," and a new wikilink to The Chronicle).
Anyways, I was wondering what others thought of the picture layout changes. Here is how they used to be: old layout. Specifically, look at these sections to compare the old and new: Undergraduate, Rankings, Libraries and Museums, and Football. The new version places the photos under the headings of the sections, which makes sense since they belong under those headings. However, it causes the heading to be on the left with no text beneath it, which I personally think looks bad. With the photo beside the section (the old way), it is still obvious which section the photo belongs to (there is really no difference), but the placement of the heading is above the text instead of above the photo. Thoughts? - Bluedog423 Talk 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Duke University Wiki Project has now been underway for over 6 months, with only a few regular contributors and very few contributions from expert wikians. We still need help building the global reference for Duke University.
I guess I am asking the many extremely dedicated people who continue to work on this particular article if you won't also contribute an article to Duiki every once in a while. We could certainly use the help.
Yes. Anyone disapprove? -- Jesse Harris (Blacice) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although cute, someone has vandalized this page (again) and changed all references to "Duke" to "Dook"... Can someone competent please fix? Wikipedalist 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Duke Blue is Duke's official color, while royal blue and white are for athletics. This DUMC page specifies that Duke Blue is Pantone 287. Can somebody change it?
The football section of this article is incredibly biased. The way it is written, it comes off as that duke used to be a big time power, but they have only recently done bad. Not true. Duke is one of the worst programs of all time. The last time Duke finished a year RANKED was 1962. Not exactly "in the last ten years" as the article states. They have only finished in the AP Polls top 10 5 times in their history and they aren't even one of those old programs like Minnesota that won big but as football became more modernized couldnt do anything. Somebody needs to fix this to show how bad of a program Duke football is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.145.30 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, March 8, 2007
Your argument is certainly fair about the top 25. However, lets examine Dukes yearly records. they have never had ONE ten win season. The article insinuates that Duke has just recently fallen on hard times. In the last ten years, they have 2 winless seasons. Last 20 years-3 winning seasons. 5 winning seasons in the last 30 years. That is the mark of an awful football program, and not one that has just recently fallen on hard times as this article states.
"Otherwise, we need to refrain from trying to make our own judgments based on statistics and comparisons of win-loss records"
What other "citable evidence", do you suggest, when judging a programs football team? I would love to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.162.55 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, March 12, 2007
The men are out in the first round, the women are the number one team in the nation, and barely a mention about the women's program that I can find here, let alone an article. For shame! Wahkeenah 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Image sizing on this page violates WP:MoS. I'm trying to get other articles up to GA status and I'd like to know the rationale for that. — BQZip01 — talk 04:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to step in here, because there seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings. Bluedog423 talks about designing the page for screens, but that's not the job of the editor. That function is built into the software, so that each user can decide for himself/herself what size the images should be. That's under the "User Preferences" tab. By manually sizing images, you're deliberately disabling the User Preferences function, meaning you are dictating to everyone else that they should view things your way. That's somewhat rude. Actually, that's more than just rude, it borders on arrogance, because you're saying that you know better than I how things will look on my screen. As far as ignoring all rules, that is for the rare situation when following the guidelines causes more harm than good. IAR is the exception, not the standard, and you need to have a good reason - and justify it. Your personal view of how the article looks is not sufficient justification. So, please be respectful of the system and respectful of others and allow each person to decide how images should look on your screen. AKRadecki Speaketh 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of paragraphs without references and they are REALLY specific claims. I believe that as one of the few Universities that is a featured article, they really should have references. I added fact tags to show what I am talking about. — BQZip01 — talk 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The photo needs to be removed from Wikicommons and needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the Template:Non-free 3D art tag. As peculiar as it may sound, pictures of statues are considered derivative works since statues are works of art. For pictures of public buildings, though, there is an exemption. It looks like Charles Keck was the sculptor of the statue, so adding his name to the photo description would be a good idea. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the sources. It looks a lot better. Make sure the dates in the references conform to
WP:DATE. The ones that show up as 1-12-2007 are not formatted correctly. Using this example, it should simply be either
[[12 January]] [[2007]] shows as
12 January
2007
[[January 12]], [[2007]] shows as
January 12,
2007
Note that each will change from user to user based on their settings, but if you notice, they all appear the same on your screen. In short, please get rid of the hard coding; it overrides user defined features and is not in compliance with WP:DATE. Once again, GREAT improvements overall!!! — BQZip01 — talk 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I look at Duke's often for inspiration, so I was wondering if I could get advice. I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university. I am here because Duke, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, research university, and should have basically similar article styles. Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like Duke. How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved? Who/where is good to ask for assistance? What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.-- Patrick 19:59, 24 July 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. |
There is no information where the name Duke comes from? Washington Duke? James Buchanan Duke? -- Rlbberlin 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, somebody should fix this and I dont know how.
The most popular activity of Duke students is certainly NOT rape, but I can't figure out how to edit that line out
Please protect this page from being vandalized again.
Eh? Isn't this a bit an odd thing to specify in the first line? Bwithh 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Fix the bug!
I hopefully corrected some additional vandalism: someone added the phrase "Singapore is a dictatorship". Yay.
Joe V. 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
After about 150 edits, here are the changes: changes. Excluding the two added refs (one by User:DukeEgr93 and one by me) and picture layout changes, there is a whopping total of 6 minor edits (2 misspellings, addition of "Latin for" for the motto, wikilink to William Preston Few and a short phrase following it, addition of the ranking of the physician assistant program in "notes," and a new wikilink to The Chronicle).
Anyways, I was wondering what others thought of the picture layout changes. Here is how they used to be: old layout. Specifically, look at these sections to compare the old and new: Undergraduate, Rankings, Libraries and Museums, and Football. The new version places the photos under the headings of the sections, which makes sense since they belong under those headings. However, it causes the heading to be on the left with no text beneath it, which I personally think looks bad. With the photo beside the section (the old way), it is still obvious which section the photo belongs to (there is really no difference), but the placement of the heading is above the text instead of above the photo. Thoughts? - Bluedog423 Talk 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Duke University Wiki Project has now been underway for over 6 months, with only a few regular contributors and very few contributions from expert wikians. We still need help building the global reference for Duke University.
I guess I am asking the many extremely dedicated people who continue to work on this particular article if you won't also contribute an article to Duiki every once in a while. We could certainly use the help.
Yes. Anyone disapprove? -- Jesse Harris (Blacice) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although cute, someone has vandalized this page (again) and changed all references to "Duke" to "Dook"... Can someone competent please fix? Wikipedalist 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Duke Blue is Duke's official color, while royal blue and white are for athletics. This DUMC page specifies that Duke Blue is Pantone 287. Can somebody change it?
The football section of this article is incredibly biased. The way it is written, it comes off as that duke used to be a big time power, but they have only recently done bad. Not true. Duke is one of the worst programs of all time. The last time Duke finished a year RANKED was 1962. Not exactly "in the last ten years" as the article states. They have only finished in the AP Polls top 10 5 times in their history and they aren't even one of those old programs like Minnesota that won big but as football became more modernized couldnt do anything. Somebody needs to fix this to show how bad of a program Duke football is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.145.30 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, March 8, 2007
Your argument is certainly fair about the top 25. However, lets examine Dukes yearly records. they have never had ONE ten win season. The article insinuates that Duke has just recently fallen on hard times. In the last ten years, they have 2 winless seasons. Last 20 years-3 winning seasons. 5 winning seasons in the last 30 years. That is the mark of an awful football program, and not one that has just recently fallen on hard times as this article states.
"Otherwise, we need to refrain from trying to make our own judgments based on statistics and comparisons of win-loss records"
What other "citable evidence", do you suggest, when judging a programs football team? I would love to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.162.55 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, March 12, 2007
The men are out in the first round, the women are the number one team in the nation, and barely a mention about the women's program that I can find here, let alone an article. For shame! Wahkeenah 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Image sizing on this page violates WP:MoS. I'm trying to get other articles up to GA status and I'd like to know the rationale for that. — BQZip01 — talk 04:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to step in here, because there seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings. Bluedog423 talks about designing the page for screens, but that's not the job of the editor. That function is built into the software, so that each user can decide for himself/herself what size the images should be. That's under the "User Preferences" tab. By manually sizing images, you're deliberately disabling the User Preferences function, meaning you are dictating to everyone else that they should view things your way. That's somewhat rude. Actually, that's more than just rude, it borders on arrogance, because you're saying that you know better than I how things will look on my screen. As far as ignoring all rules, that is for the rare situation when following the guidelines causes more harm than good. IAR is the exception, not the standard, and you need to have a good reason - and justify it. Your personal view of how the article looks is not sufficient justification. So, please be respectful of the system and respectful of others and allow each person to decide how images should look on your screen. AKRadecki Speaketh 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of paragraphs without references and they are REALLY specific claims. I believe that as one of the few Universities that is a featured article, they really should have references. I added fact tags to show what I am talking about. — BQZip01 — talk 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The photo needs to be removed from Wikicommons and needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the Template:Non-free 3D art tag. As peculiar as it may sound, pictures of statues are considered derivative works since statues are works of art. For pictures of public buildings, though, there is an exemption. It looks like Charles Keck was the sculptor of the statue, so adding his name to the photo description would be a good idea. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the sources. It looks a lot better. Make sure the dates in the references conform to
WP:DATE. The ones that show up as 1-12-2007 are not formatted correctly. Using this example, it should simply be either
[[12 January]] [[2007]] shows as
12 January
2007
[[January 12]], [[2007]] shows as
January 12,
2007
Note that each will change from user to user based on their settings, but if you notice, they all appear the same on your screen. In short, please get rid of the hard coding; it overrides user defined features and is not in compliance with WP:DATE. Once again, GREAT improvements overall!!! — BQZip01 — talk 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I look at Duke's often for inspiration, so I was wondering if I could get advice. I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university. I am here because Duke, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, research university, and should have basically similar article styles. Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like Duke. How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved? Who/where is good to ask for assistance? What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.-- Patrick 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)