User talk:Pomo Man

Hi Pomo. Was wondering if you could perhaps explain your philosophy of editing Columbia University. I'm trying to figure it out and be inclusive. However, putting the formal name of the university way down in the article just doesn't make sense. It should be at the top. I do agree there is too much self-aggrandisement in the front, bragging about the Columbia College aceptance rate. But I think we need some compromise in between. Fuzheado | Talk 09:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--

Hi there!

My general feeling is that in writing the intro, we should (1) approach the school from a bird's eye view and (2) keep it as concise as possible. Those who want to know more, encouraged by the brevity and clarity of the first couple paragraphs, will go on to read the rest of the article. In my opinion, the stuff about the university's legal name and how it's incorporated under "Trustees of whatever" isn't really relevant to the summary. It's just details. No one who doesn't already know what Columbia University is—that is, no one reading the overview at the beginning—is going to care. I mean, look at the University of California articles. None of them even mention that the system's legal standing is actually as the "Regents of the University of California".

I guess it's sort of the journalists' attitude towards presenting information: Sketch first, detail later.

But now that you've brought it up, I'm actually thinking of overhauling the whole Columbia University article... I think it could benefit from a reorganization (and a rewrite of substantial portions). What do you think? Want to help? Pomo Man 21:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)