Talk:Toronto Metropolitan University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Racial controversy[edit]

I propose that the information that I added to the article be added under a new controversies heading.

Here is a list of sources for the addition. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/two-students-kicked-from-anti-racist-meeting-for-being-white/ http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/16/white-students-kicked-out-of-anti-racism-meeting-for-being-white-187444 http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21646/ http://www.inquisitr.com/1927617/2-white-students-banned-from-anti-racism-group-at-university-campus/ https://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/271775-student-group-held-event-combating-racism-one-group-left/ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/White+students+barred+from+minority+support+meeting/10895907/story.html#__federated=1 http://globalnews.ca/news/1885540/white-students-asked-to-leave-anti-racism-event-at-ryerson/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/16/two-students-barred-from-meeting-at-ryerson-university-because-they-were-not-racialised/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.20.83 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these additional links!
I'm still not convinced that this is of significant, lasting importance. Several of those sources are clearly partisan and pushing an agenda and at least one of them (The StarPhoenix) is a reprint of another one (National Post). I don't follow Canadian news but I do follow U.S. higher education news (which routinely reports on Canadian colleges and universities) and this issue doesn't appear to have any lingering significance or larger impact. Since it only involved a few students and many of the reports are clearly pushing an agenda, I recommend waiting for a while to see if this goes anywhere. If it does then we can certainly add it then. Otherwise it should probably remain here in Talk as it fades into history. ElKevbo (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charges to use university athletic facilities[edit]

An article should not record prices (unless there is some encyclopedic purpose)—see WP:NOTCATALOG#5. I have asked for opinions here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The price of $499 is trivial. I don't think the article even needs to state that faculty must pay to use its facilities, but the price tag definitely doesn't belong. Jolly Ω Janner 05:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has a purpose. It shows that the university charges different amounts to different categories of its community. I will remove the price if you remove the price the university paid to purchase the facility. If prices are irrelevant, then we should also remove the tuition costs and endowment figures from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.34.31 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory (5. Sales catalogues.) "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The only source provided for the cost of gym membership is the website itself and it only mentions it. If you can provide some reliable sources (not blogs), which talk about the impacts of the $499 price tag for faculty, please do let us know. Until then, I think it's best kept out of the article. Jolly Ω Janner 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: Thanks for spelling that out. @IP: People often want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about a problem (it's called righting great wrongs), and it's obvious that the only reason to mention the charge is to alert readers about some injustice. The fact that a $60-million purchase was made for the Mattamy Athletic Centre is clearly of encyclopedic interest and cannot be compared with the fact that staff are charged $499 per year to use a facility which is free to students. The matter would be WP:DUE if independent reliable sources had written about the matter—not a passing mention, but a description of the issue as if it has some significance. Some organizations provide free parking for staff, and some don't—details like that should be on the organization website and not in an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no intent to right a great wrong. But if you are going to list the cost of producing the facility, it is fair game to list the pricing structure for the university community. Either delete the economics, or leave them in. But don't pick and choose.107.5.178.131 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered editor who insists that this material remains in the article claims that there is a consensus here in Talk to include the material. As I understand the conversation above, two registered editors believe the material should be omitted and the unregistered editor - yes, I am assuming that the two unregistered editors are the same person - is the only one who believes the material should stay. If it's not obvious by my edits to the article, I also believe the material should be removed. So my count is 3:1 to remove the material. @107.5.178.131: On what basis do you believe there is consensus to retain this material? ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One person using an IP wants the article to specify fees. I believe it started with these edits on 4 November 2015. Those edits stated twice that staff are charged $499 per year to use the university-owned athletics facility. The IP has asserted in an edit summary (diff) that "If we list the cost of acquiring the facility, then we should also list the cost of use." That is not correct as there is an enormous difference between the encyclopedic value in knowing the cost of a facility ($60 million) vs. the fees that staff are required to pay. Since the IP has kept this up for seven months, it's pretty obvious that there is an ax to grind despite their latest edit summary.
The article currently mentions these costs:
  • $15 million donation
  • $40 million worth of real estate
  • $32 million to meet future growth
  • athletic facility, at an estimated cost of $60 million
  • The Mattamy Athletic Centre is free for Ryerson students to use and faculty are charged $499 per year to access the university-owned facility.
  • $2 million of electronic resources
The fact that students pay nothing while staff are slugged $499 per year is of local interest only and is WP:UNDUE. It should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is not of exclusively local interest. That is a very strange argument. You need to establish consensus first. It is hard to claim undue weight for a single sentence.107.77.172.30 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"X University"[edit]

X University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) redirects here. It should have a hatnote for Xavier. Please add

{{redirect-distinguish|X University|Xavier University (disambiguation){{!}}Xavier University}}

"X University" redirects here. Not to be confused with Xavier University.

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 05:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022[edit]

The faculty of communication and design was changed to “The Creative School” 99.228.239.153 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Leventio (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article moved without a discussion?[edit]

It is far more known, even still, by its incorporated former name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be there still. At the very least a proper move discussion should have been held. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMECHANGES "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".
There are plenty of examples that demonstrate that the new name is being routinely used by reliable sources. Also, and I'm aware this is hearsay as a former student - many friends & acquaintances have already shifted to using TMU to refer to the university. Current students certainly have! Turini2 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2 Dec 2022, the name has been legally changed to TMU, following provincial legislation. Turini2 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student-faculty ratio[edit]

Hi @Leventio:. Thanks for finding the right spot for student-faculty ratio. I added multiple references about student-faculty ratio. I can see that you removed them, in particular these tow: one from TMU [1] and one from UOIT [2]. Could you please explain why? Also you removed the information about TMU having a very high rate (almost the worst). I think this is not inline with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If sources say something why should it not be in the article? Thanks Pirehelo (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pirehelokan: I removed the first source as its was dated, while the other Maclean's source you provided you provided was dated to the last year. I used the most recent figure for as it falls in line with WP:UNI's rationale that we are not a repository/directory for all historical rankings. In the same vein, we are not a repository/directory for all historical student-faculty ratios, so I just used the most up to date figures you provided.
As for the second source you provided, I initially removed it as I believed it was WP:SYNTHisizing a statement from that source with your first source to make a new statement. That said, having looked at the chart in the actual source, I can see its actually not WP:SYNTH/WP:OR as its stated in the chart (to be frank, sorta did a crtl+f and skimmed over the chart without really looking at it the first time). Upon review of that, I think this can be reincluded, but it should be presented in a historical context, seeing as how more recent figures are provided.
That said, this statement The ratio of student to faculty to be 45.3 in 2020, which is almost three times bigger than the best university Canada I removed as it is a clear WP:SYNTH of two different sources which presents different figures, being the Ryerson doc and Macleans (not to mention years, 2020 and 2022/2023)
As for the NPOV statement, that was concerning the wording of "best universities", which a branding name for Maclean's universitiy rankings (which are neither consolidated nor is a "definitive" measure of what constitutes "best"), and should be more explicitly stated as such. Cheers! Leventio (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to what I said with the second UOIT source, I've readded that citation and its relevant content in a historical context. Leventio (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_Metropolitan_University&oldid=1210302788"