Jump to content

Talk:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Article name

[edit]

Why is there no 'at' in the article name? "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign" rather than "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"? The latter is stated as the official name of the institution, and seems to be the widely used version. Should it be changed? I am not directly familiar. Onanoff (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Our Name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://illinois.edu/about/index.html branding has changed to not include at. Here's a good blog post: https://aaronson.org/blog/whats-the-name-of-this-university Dipthong01 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

This is probably one of the most outrageous RM outcomes I have seen. This goes directly against our MoS, which ignores how institutions brand themselves and what sources use. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I missed this RM somehow, and I never noticed the change. It seems many people were unaware, given how few participants there were for a discussion involving a major university. I'd certainly support somebody reopening it. I find this blog post (linked above) unconvincing. CWenger (^@) 23:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RM should have been overturned per WP:RMNOMIN: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. But it's been so long (two years), MR is no longer a noption, so a new RM would have to be opened. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]