Talk:Cornell University

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cornell University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Template:Mainpage date to come Template:V0.5

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Project Cornell

Featured article nomination
Alumni section sandbox

Gap between the history section title and section content

Is there anyway we can fix this problem? I believe that the root of the problem is the footnote section in the university info-box.Cornell010 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just dealt with it. Please comment on the List of People page, about images. —mercuryboard^talk 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Section?

See Penn's gallery section at the bottom of the article. I think it adds a nice touch and with carefully selected images the section can showcase Cornell's beauty as well as prestige. Some photos of Cornell have a way of exuding prestige and accomplishment.

--angelrendon 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endowment Numbers

There is a loose reference to "5 billion dollar endowment" in the article on the new investment chief. This would mean that the endowment grew from 3.77 to 5.0 billion (~33%) in one year, which smells of error. Nevertheless, rabid alumni post the number everywhere, inserting it in lists of numbers otherwise referring to 6/2005 values (and falsely inflating Cornell's rank). In contrast here is a specific reference to 4.4 billion in investments under Cornell's control as 0f 8/20/2006 (from Cornell itself). This seems like a more expected, reasonable growth of the endowment. It's clearly from Cornell and it's more precise. Why not use it? Or at least acknowledge it in a footnote? Or should we pick and choose what information to show to make Cornell look strongest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.68.223 (talk • contribs)

My only question about this comes from an earlier discussion of endowment. I'm no economist or investment specialist, so when "long term investment fund" (or whatever the exact lingo was) is used, I don't know if that exactly translates to the same thing mentioned by other college endowments. What we need to know, it seems to my ear anyway, is exactly what is included in the $B 4.4 number... and whether this same number is reported for other colleges, or they use a different number in THEIR discussion of endowment. Anyway, I only submit that it is really hard to tell whether we are comparing apples with apples, or some other fruit. Isoxyl 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm ok with keeping the 5.0 on this page; but I have a strong feeling the 4.4 is correct, and we'll see this come out in a month or two as schools start leaking their year end values. Anybody else?

Dear Uncle Ezra

Would Dear Uncle Ezra be worth mentioning in the article? --Kjoonlee 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the main article, but it might be worth its own separate article. I believe Columbia's equivalent service has its own article.--Xtreambar 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Endownment

Execuse me. What is the annual endownment. To be precise: What amount of money does the university spend in a year on their expenses. I think this a more interesting figure than the whole endownment. Please add it to the page.

A couple things before it goes on the main page

I'm not sure about the notable alumni section... its a lot of linkage and, when read all together (i.e. not just from a copyediting or writer's perspective), is pretty dry. Anyone else agree? Someone should find a friendlier picture than Wolfowitz, but that's just personal taste. ;)

The other thing is, has anyone ever heard of Cornell notes? Perhaps it's not significant enough for the already-extensive article, but this note-taking format is widely used and to my knowledge has been adapted to many academic programs, one of which is used throughout the state of California, so it should probably get a mention somewhere IMO. Paliku 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article will go up on the main page in the next 24 hours. I encourage people to read over the page again. Though little has changed in the past couple months, a once-over wouldn't hurt. --Xtreambar 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late - it's on the main page already. Great job folks! I've watched this page for many months now and you've made excellent progress. --ElKevbo 04:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Sun mentions FA status

The Daily Sun wrote about the FA-of-the-day-status of the Cornell University article. Again, good work, everybody! JDoorj a m Talk 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]