Jump to content

Talk:University of Pennsylvania

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

How should we split this thing up?

[edit]

The notice at the top of the page says this thing is too long for an article, so how should we address it? I say we spin the "History" section off into its own page - it's been done before with the History of Harvard University and History of Columbia University TehSausCabe (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Student Life and Athletics need to be included in the main article? It currently reads as if these are not ordinary available at other universities. A brief overview might be more helpful here. (X is part of Y conference and has x amount of women and x amount of men sports. For more information on sports, click here) Wozal (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Student Life and athletics are sections in the other peer universities OneMoreByte (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there didn't seem to be any real opposition to this, I did separate out the History into its own article. Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separating out the history section is fine by me, just remember to leave attribution in your edit summary when copying, as I have laid out on your talk page. The history article you created needs a lead to be written for it as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info! Wikipedian339 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Academic boosterism"

[edit]

@GuardianH: This section includes a cleanup tag for "academic boosterism." Does this section need to be rewritten? Jarble (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble Not only does the section need to be rewritten, but it needs to be shortened significantly; some parts of it last time I checked read like a college brochure, which is WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images:Mobile vs. PC and Impact on Readsr

[edit]

I edit via my phone as I access via my phone. When I use my phone it is helpful to have the images present themselves close to where the body is discussing the image. When I placed the image on such locations certain editors who edit via PC revert. I defer to the Wiki as to whether editors should assume reader is. Accessing via mobile device such as a phone or PC. I welcome all guidance OneMoreByte (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magill and Board of Trustees resignations

[edit]

I added this information to the article in the controversies section. I sourced it with references to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I didn't change the infobox other than to add a reference by Magill's name. I wasn't sure how much detail regarding the circumstances, so there are just a few sentences. Others might want to rephrase, as I made these additions in a hurry. FeralOink (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think her resignation was not yet in effect is why someone else deleted it. Thanks for being a Wikipedia editor OneMoreByte (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

How do we make sections? I thought by adding ==Section Caption== a section would be created. Am I missing a step? Athletic and Student Life used to be sections and now they are not. Thanks


== OneMoreByte (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my setup, they show fine as section headings. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to demote a header to subsection level? signed, Willondon (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I read another response that there is common headings used for most universities so have deferred to the Wiki OneMoreByte (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ledes - Whether it is Appropriate to Have Summary of Notable People in Lede

[edit]

Elkevbo in comment made [ (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) ] in Columbia University talk page has persuaded me that WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, and Wikipedia SOP favor holding a discussion BEFORE deleting the summary of notable alumni, faculty and or trustees (collectively "People") paragraphs in Ledes ("Summary of People") of Ivies and other universities and colleges (collectively "Schools"). I was wrong to ask Nikkimaria to delete all the Summary of People paragraphs in all Ledes of Schools to make them uniform. That being said since University of Pennsylvania is now the only School (in Ivies and all its peer Schools) to not have this Summary of People paragraph in its Lede, I will add back in what was deleted and place in my reason that such person PRIOR to reverting should go to this Talk and then the Columbia University Talk section. By doing so all who wish to debate and discuss the issues of content of Ledes and Uniformity and related issues can better understand that we are looking to find Consensus to learn if the "Wiki" powers that be are in favor of these edits. I thank ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) and Nikkimaria for both helping me become a more sophisticated Wikipedia editor and all of you who take the time to read thia entire comment.[reply]

OneMoreByte (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OneMoreByte, this addition exacerbates the problem of academic boosterism that pervades the article (see WP:NPOV) and results in an overlong claim and imbalanced lead (see MOS:LEAD). Additionally, WP:ONUS indicates that the onus for achieving consensus for disputed content is on those seeking inclusion; the existence of other articles with issues is not a good rationale for reverting improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am inclined to agree that summary of notable alumni, faculty and or trustees (collectively "People") paragraphs in Ledes ("Summary of People") should be deleted from scores of Ivies and other top universities and colleges (collectively "Schools"), I reverted because I agree with #elkevbo in comment made [ (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) ] in Columbia University talk page. Elkevbo has persuaded me that WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, and Wikipedia SOP favor holding a discussion BEFORE deleting the summary of notable People paragraphs in Ledes ("Summary of People") of Schools. I was wrong to ask Nikkimaria to delete all the Summary of People paragraphs in all Ledes of Schools to make them uniform as there is no consensus . University of Pennsylvania is now the only School to not have this Summary of People paragraph in its Lede. Thus, I added back in what was deleted and refer all reading this to also read this Talk and then the Columbia University Talk section. By doing so all who wish to debate and discuss the issues of content of Ledes and Uniformity and related issues can better understand that we are looking to find Consensus to learn if the "Wiki" powers that be are in favor of these edits. I once again thank ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) and Nikkimaria and others for helping me become a more sophisticated Wikipedia editor and all of you who take the time to read thia entire comment. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If y'all agree that it should be deleted, then please stop restoring it. There's no basis in policy for the belief that the issue has to be resolved wiki-wide before it can be fixed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to making the lede of this article substantially different than the ledes of other similar articles. ElKevbo (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you hold that belief, but because it is not supported by policy it is not something that can be enforced. Conversely, the neutrality issues with this text alongside the onus for obtaining consensus support its exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk)
Though I might agree with you that deleting the summary of notable alumni, faculty and or trustees (collectively "People") paragraphs in Ledes ("Summary of People") could be deleted from Ivies and other top universities and colleges (collectively "Schools"), I reverted because I agree with ElKevbo (talk) written at 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC). I am opposed to making Summary of People paragraph lede of this article "substantially different than" Summary of People paragraph ledes of other similar articles. Please read above comments from me and Elkevbo on this talk session and others in different talk sessions. Please allow for consensus prior to treating Schools differently. If you delete Summary of People paragraph Ledes in other Ivies and they are not reverted that could be a test. Unfortunately, I believe that you would be reverted and we would see edit wars. Thanks for working this out and not just deleting Summary of People paragraph in Penn lede until we have consensus OneMoreByte (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete Summary of People paragraph Ledes in other Ivies and they are not reverted that could be a test. Unfortunately, I believe that you would be reverted and we would see edit wars. Indeed, because you are reverting despite stating you agree with removal. If you stopped doing that we'd be halfway to a fix by now. If you want to hold an RfC, go ahead and hold an RfC, but the lack of one is not a good reason to actively make articles worse. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria -
I only agree with removal IF they are all removed after consensus is reached. The more I have this discussion with you the more I am beginning to doubt my original position that notable alumni, faculty and or trustees paragraphs in Ledes should be deleted from all Ivies and other top universities and colleges. I now realize that they do serve a purpose of quickly allowing readers to understand the relative influence that each of the universities and colleges have had. I am not certain this would be my final position after debate but as of now it now is. Let's get consensus before we delete the Summary of Notable People paragraphs from all Schools. Thank you OneMoreByte (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better idea: let's remove all of them and only readd if there is consensus for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even better idea: Don't threaten to edit war against the clear consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any discussion that's arrived at a clear consensus to include the disputed material. Can you point to one? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - when you deleted the information from Brown, Penn, and Columbia nascent edit wars started as a number of people reverted the deletions. If you delete the Summary of Notable People paragraphs from Ledes of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and IF they are not reverted within a week, then I think you have a strong argument that there may be a consensus to delete the Summary of Notable People paragraphs from Ledes of all Schools.
As mentioned, the longer we have this discussion in Talk the more I am convinced that Summary of Notable People paragraphs from Ledes of Schools serve a purpose. This purpose is to quickly allow readers to understand the relative influence that each of the universities and colleges have had. I am not certain this will be my final position after debate but as of now it now is and I think there should be a debate and consensus prior to deleting. If there is consensus then I will help you delete Summary of Notable People paragraphs from Ledes of all Schools
Respectfully,
onemorebyte OneMoreByte (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the discussion. @OneMoreByte This alumni lede is far too large for the article and needs to be shortened significantly, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the section. GuardianH (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I was making it consistent with other Schools (that include info re awards such as the Oscars), I now defer to GuardianH and Nikkimaria and will not revert my additional info about entertainment. Thanks for spending your time to edit as you think is best for the Wiki OneMoreByte (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the consensus is that no Schools should have Summary of Notable People paragraphs in the Ledes I will be help delete such paragraphs from all Schools. I looked at the entertainment awards on saw that such was not present in many schools where Notable people have won those awards so will not revert until and if consensus shows to include such awards. My position regarding Summary of Notable People paragraphs in the Ledes has vacillated over time and am still not sure which path I am following. I am now leaning to include Summary of Notable People paragraphs in the Ledes as it provides reader with quick insight as to influence of each school in question. OneMoreByte (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OneMoreByte You need to realize that all articles are done on an individual basis. You wrongly assume that just because something is present on one article, that justifies the presence of similar material on another article (WP:OTHER). But that's not it at all. You're edits, broadly construed, are mostly promotional towards the University of Pennsylvania. There has been no consensus [] that [] Schools should have Summary of Notable People paragraphs in the Ledes, but there has been a consensus on providing ample and WP:DUE weight to statements of reputation and ledes (WP:HIGHEREDREP). And, again, deleting material on other articles just because this one is absent of such material is a terrible way to go about it. You might want to review WP:BOOSTER. GuardianH (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is never to edit in manner that is promotional. Please review the roughly 4000 edits I have made and delete any that are promotional within meaning of Wikipedia rules. I do lots of edits for University of Pennsylvania , Saint Joseph's University, Drexel University and items related to OneMoreByte (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are not "done" on an individual basis. We have policies, practices, habits, and even very specific advice on how to approach articles that cover similar topics. We do our readers a grave disservice if we apply different standards and practices for articles about similar topics. ElKevbo (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Other articles have problems so therefore this one should too" is a much graver disservice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elkevbo's position as expressed in ElKevbo (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) that Wikipedia editors should not be "done" on an individual basis as it has been my experience that I learn from the Wiki. Wikipedia has numerous policies and practices that provide us editors with advice about how how to edit articles and encourages Wikipedia editors to apply similar standards and practices for articles about similar topics. If you know of Wikipedia policies that encourage similar articles be treated differently please share. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by going to Wikipedia policy on Universities and colleges I found the below policy language regarding Ledes:
".....The lead should not include information not covered in the main body of the article. Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article – not simply an introduction."
Accordingly, since Notable People are sections on all Ivy League and peer schools it makes sense why each of them have Ledes that include Summary of Notable people paragraphs. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to see source of above quote click below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice OneMoreByte (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OneMoreByte, that essay doesn't support the lead as it currently stands. The relevant policies and guidelines - the sitewide standards with broad consensus - are WP:LEAD, more specifically MOS:LEADREL, and WP:NPOV. The article has a section on notable alumni, but the representation of this section in the current lead is way out of proportion to what it is in the article body - ten times longer and far more detailed than would be appropriate. That's true whether or not it's the only article with this problem.
Let's consider an analogy that may help clarify the situation wrt "done". There are currently over a thousand university/college articles that have been identified as being unsourced or undersourced. Clearly this is a problem that is widespread among these articles. But if I add sources to one, it's not because I'm applying a different standard to that one versus the others; it's because all of these articles should eventually meet that same standard, but they aren't perfect yet. And if you revert that edit solely because I haven't fixed the other thousand articles, you're putting process preference ahead of improving the encyclopedia - and that's the opposite of what we should be doing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many different editors need to tell you that opening a broader discussion is the right approach before you'll listen? ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly won't stand in your way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you many times by multiple editors, the onus is on you as you are seeking to remove material that has been in the article for several years. Your refusal to acknowledge this as you continue to argue with multiple editors across multiple articles is becoming wearisome. ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the matter with other interested editors to seek consensus, as you proposed I do in the diff you link. If you want to jump to a RfC, go ahead; I'd be happy to help you draft it if you like, but don't want to step on your toes since it was your proposal. But either way, let's both try to turn down the temperature and focus on the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria
I agree with what you last wrote [ see content. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)] that we should try to turn the temperature down.[reply]
I found myself getting upset for 1st time during our back and forth when you wrote [see (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NikkiMaria]
that University of Pennsylvania
"....article has a section on notable alumni, but the representation of this section in the current lead is way out of proportion to what it is in the article body - ten times longer and far more detailed....."
I just took the time a few minutes ago to reread Penn article section labeled "People" and found that Lede paragraph on Notable People was 20 to 25% of the size of the content on People section NOT 1000% you claimed when you wrote it was "ten times longer".
I assume that there might have been a typo and /or you meant to say something different.
I look forward to reaching consensus with you and the other editors who will do part of the "Wiki". OneMoreByte (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: what it is currently in the lead is 10x what it should be in the lead. The section represents 3% of the article body yet is 30% of the current lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria
Thanks for clarifying what you meant I now understand what you wrote. That being said, over the weeks we have debated the issue I believe the Summary of Notable People is indeed one of the more important part of the Ledes and worthy of getting higher percentage as it explains why Ivy League and peer schools have a large I pact on society when you see how many of their alumni occupy positions of power. Nikkimaria thanks again on replying to the (talk) at 03:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC). OneMoreByte (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Length and neutrality

[edit]

@Flemmish Nietzsche: Regarding your edit summary here: the article is still over 11k words despite having lost the history section. WP:SS indicates that "50 kilobytes of readable prose (8,000 words) is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified." That hasn't happened here, and the level of detail provided is in excess of what is needed to provide a high-level overview of the subject (eg. library addresses). As to boosterism, significant portions of the article read like a school brochure ("Penn basketball is steeped in tradition", "Penn was also the cradle of other significant developments" etc). See also GuardianH's point above regarding the religious section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the unnecessary and non-exceptionary content — I agree the article is too long in some aspects, but as we just cut down one of the largest sections by a tenth I don't think we still need the tag broadcasting to everyone who comes here that the article is too long, as I think we should only really have the tag when the length is over the breaking point (15,000 words per WP:SIZERULE). The academic boosterism tag is fine, and I see your point, I just wanted clarification over what the actual problem was as it initially seemed you were adding back the tag just to add it back. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate that. Given that there are multiple sections to which {{overly detailed}} would apply, I'd suggest it would appropriate to have that as an article-level tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Penn Quakers Rugby Its Own Page?

[edit]

Since this page is still running a bit on the long side, I was looking for ways it could maybe be shorter. It seems the rugby section is particularly long and some of the other sports have their own pages.

I don't know if anyone is in agreement and passionate about rugby and maybe wants to separate it out? I initially tried, but got a warning that some of the sources in the rugby section were flagged as self-promotion. I didn't feel I knew quite enough about rugby or article creation to go it alone, so I'm stepping back, but just pointing this out in case this is up anyone's alley! Wikipedian339 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style revert

[edit]

@Katyazag: Regarding this edit: (a) see MOS:LINK - only the more specific link should be used; (b) see WP:AUDIENCE: Wikipedia has a global audience so we cannot assume that readers know where "Pennsylvania" is, and we should strive to make the article as accessible as possible; (c) see the reference template documentation - website names should be included within |website=, not |publisher= or |title=. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=1231594299"