Talk:The University Transition Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Education in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
I've read all the tutorials and stuff (if briefly), and I've tried to make sure this article was as relevant, and unbias, and clear as possible, and i was wondering what it is about this article that people think could be changed to "clean it up". I think that it's fairly clear striaghtforward, and fairly well written, but perhapes i miss something seeing as most of the content was written by me. I hope that someone might respond quickly so that this issue may be resolved in a timely manner. PN123 07:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have decided that i have updated and "cleaned up" this page and i will remove the cleanup tag in a couple of days if there are no futher comments. PN123 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a student at the Transition Program, and some students are changing this article to make us seem like "slackers". While this is true, it's fairly rare that any of us hands in homework late. I'm sure that the biased part of this article was, "Might this suggest a link between smart people, and anti-conservative views?" It's not the best thing to put in a wiki.
Uh, yeah.
Cao 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well though i'm sure it may be true the thing about left-wing transies is bias that was actually added after the tag. PN123 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well. Ive fixed some of it and stuff. This will probably make it better, although initially it was pretty tight Vvolfram 9.57pm 24 mar 06
I was just wondering if the 6 instead of 7 was on purpose, and whether it's still the smallest. Also i was wondering if the fact that mrs. stewart was in the begining is true. I thought it was just she joined like the 3rd year or something, but i might be wrong. PN123 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why does this page exist?
I'm sorry, but this page simply should not exist. There is so much wrong with it, first of all: while most of the information is technically accurate, it is extremely poorly written, including jokes and subjective/irrelevant statements. Oh yeah, and the Transition Program does not deserve a Wikipedia page any more than my cat does. But even if it did, it would be a few lines at most. Even people who might care about Transition don't care what software Eddie downloads to cheat at Hearts.
It's been fixed, buddy. Cao 09:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What's been fixed?
The etremely porly written part can be edited out. I agree that those comments were stupid and took away from any credit the article had. I disagree fundamentally with your comment about you're cat, that's just a stupid thing to say. There are plenty of pages on wikipedia about people/programs that almost no one cares about. Transition is a very special place that definitly deserves mention on a site like wikipedia. PN123 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
oh yeah about the six and seven it should be seven but as i am a special person i usually dont count myself (now guess who i am)Vvolfram
Anyways i am going to remove that {{cleanup}} tag because i think it's been cleaned up enough, and is much more professional. If there is any argument please write it here PN123 08:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The "extremely porly(sic) written part" constitutes the ENTIRE ARTICLE. Just go read any article on Wikipedia, and I guarantee that this is nothing like them. It is very disorganised, there is no real rhyme or reason to what is described (why should there be a Politics section? It's completely irrelevant). I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I think I have a pretty good idea what a proper article looks like, and this is not one. A LOT of this article should be editted out. Again, I wouldn't object to the entire thing being deleted, as it quite frankly has no place in a proper encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia strives to be. Sure, there may be other articles that don't deserve mention in an encyclopedia, but then they should be deleted too. The tag should definitely be put back, and whoever removed it should pay more attention in English.
If you can find mistakes then you should edit them. I disagree i think plenty of wikipedia articles are written similarily, and i think that there is a place for this sort of article in a encyclopedia, because for some people it can be important to know. What is the difference between normal and gifted education? What is the difference between this and other programs? And i think that the politics section answers those questions very nicely. And i realise that sometime my spelling (and others too) is not up to normal standards, but that's why you edit it. That's why you edit it. I seriously don't see why it shouldn't be here. Also i find it very rude when people post on this page without signing to show who said it. PN123 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The mistake is the very existence of this article. If you think that people should know this information, fine, write a short article explaining the basics of Transition and keep the link to the Transition web site. That way people who want to know things can go there for information. In addition, you'd have to be completely delusional to believe that this is anywhere near the quality of an encyclopedia entry. It is totally disorganised and random, and POORLY-WRITTEN. It doesn't matter how many times you say that it's not, anyone with a basic knowledge of English can see that it is. This article does not need to be edited, it needs to be re-written from scratch in order to justify its existence. Just go over the BASICS of the program. One school in Vancouver that nobody's ever heard of DOES NOT deserve such an extensive article. And why does it matter who I am, anyway?
- A far more intelligent person than you are (Happy now?)
It's Andy. Dude, just stop. Cao 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this whole thing is stupid. Wikipedia is just crap anyway. I guess that's what you get for letting idiots pretend that they know things. If it really means enough to you guys that you have some bizarre and immature article on Wikipedia about Transition, fine. Maybe that should be added to the article: "Despite being accelerated academically, most students at Transition tend to be far less mature than most elementary school students." Hell, it's more encyclopedic than most of the BS in this article. I'm sorry if I sound angry and indignant, but overwhelmingly and blindly ignorant people are a bit of a pet peeve for me.
oh, Ms. Stewart came in 1998 btw. And Merriam-Webster defines an encyclopedia as:
encyclopedia One entry found for encyclopedia. Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dia /in-"sI-kl&-'pE-dE-&/ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child -- more at FEW
- a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Soooo: 1)ALL branches of knowledge, lots of knowledge, just a whole lot of knowledge, no restrictions or anything. basically a database with as much info on our society and/or other societies as we can stick in it. 2) Comprehensively, if we stuck like a sentance about Transition, there wouldn't be any point in sticking an article in the first place. Because of my first point, we can have and should have an article about Transition, and thus need a comprehensive definition of the program, and the workings of the program
And about the politics, I believe that that section was fine. It explains the programs political views, and thus the society within the program. Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better, but politics definetly plays a large role in the program and anyone in the program that denies that obviously isnt paying a lot of attention, ever.
Final point, I think that current Trans people should have priority on what gets put in this article over grads. Grads have left, so dont mettle in our affairs.
That is all
Haha, you spelled meddle wrong.
Sorry, I just had to come back to see how it's going. You know what? I don't care about this article. Really. But I have to point out that claiming that an encyclopaedia shouldn't have any restrictions is ludicrous. Obviously only relevent and important information should be included. You can't just stick every possible piece of information in. I just want to point out to you guys that you're making yourselves look stupid with this pathetic article (or you would be if anyone other than Betty actually read it). I really hate that I can't just leave you guys alone to fool around and be idiots, but it bugs me too much. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia, and even if it fails sometimes or if you guys just don't care and would rather just try to make yourselves seem important, I don't like to stand idly by. Seriously, can't someone take it seriously, at least? Having an article on Transition is fine, but it should make sense! It can't just be that whatever strikes you at the moment is put into it. If any actual knowledgeable Wikipedia members read this, they'd probably be appalled. Maybe you want to a know a specific way in which this article breaks the rules of Wikipedia? I can name several. First of all, it's basically all ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is expressly forbidden. You CANNOT write something if you cannot verify it with a source of some kind, even if you know that it's true. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, is that it is a VANITY ARTICLE. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear that something should not be here unless it is actually important information. Seriously, will somebody please see reason here? I don't want to have this argument, because it's a total waste of time, but I'd really prefer if it could be solved in a rational manner, rather than by you guys refusing to accept reason until I'm forced to give up. - Mr. X (apparently I have to sign. It's not like most of you don't know who I am, anyway)
I skimmed your argument but i couldn't read it all 'cause i found it so offensive. This article does not make us seem any more important than other school/program that has an article here, and a lot of programs do. The adding of "The University" in front of "Transition Program" (which was done by the admin.) is more of a vanity stunt than writing this article. My original intention in writting it was "hey, this other program has an article, perhaps there should be one about trans, so people can like compare them or w/e". Secondly a lot of the stuff on this site can be easily verified by looking at the trans site, and or the site of the activity. There is also plenty of proof that cannot be found online, but i won't try to argue it's relivency (don't know how to spell that). I think you just totally miss the point of this site, and are assuming that we are trying to do something that was not part of the original focus at all. The only "original research" part might be about the community. I am thinking about finding some way to improve that, because i think it makes a valid point, but it is rather biasedy. I'm contemplating deleting it. Maybe other people think that this is a way to say "rah rah rah trans.", but that's not what i think. PN123 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how my argument could possibly be construed as "offensive". All I did was point out the problems with this article. If you can't handle criticism, maybe this isn't the place for you. In addition, you totally fail to provide any counter-argument except that you disagree. That's not a real counter-argument.
"The adding of 'The University' in front of 'Transition Program' is more of a vanity stunt than writing this article." That is not a counter-argument, it is simply an attempt to distract attention. Who cares about adding "The University" (which I believe is actually the official name, by the way, not that it matters)? That doesn't make this article any less of a vanity article.
As for things being easily verifiable, sure, some of the information is, but that sort of raises a question: What's the point of documenting something here when you can simply provide a link (which there is)? If you look at other Wikipedia articles, most of the sources tend to be those not easily accessed or that are so full of information that it is inconvenient for anyone to go through it to find basic info. If all this can be found out on the Transition site, why not simply give a brief summary of the program here and then a link to the official website?
I miss the point of Wikipedia? I was basically quoting official Wikipedia rules. Sorry, but unless you specify, I'm pretty sure that YOU'RE the one missing the point. - Mr. X
Most of the article is wrong. For example, "commonly referred to as Trans". By who exactly? Oh that's right, by Transition students. In other words, no one else. By the way, this program is not unique, it's modelled after THE SEATTLE PROGRAM THAT'S ALSO ON WIKIPEDIA. Maybe you asshats need to look at how they wrote theirs. See? No miscellaneous BS that no one cares about. An encyclopedia is not a place to put "Anyone can join, and unlike Reach, there are no "Junior" and "Senior" teams; Model UN is for everyone. The purpose of Model UN is to hone one's debate skills in a hypothetical UN setting, utilizing a "ripped from today's headlines" format for the setup." No, anyone already in Transition can join. This makes that information absolutely worthless for 99.99999% of the population.
HEY GUESS WHAT? Betty wears a thong. That's not useful information. That doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia.
Mr.YUM
I would have to agree with all that, really, even if I don't really like the TONE. All good points, however. - Mr. X
I'm too tired from fasting to argue right now, but one thing i'd like to say is that EVERY PERSON I KNOW refers to it as "trans" not just people at trans, so don't write lies about it being only people at trans who do that. I might also mention that anyone who cares about something like [Homestarrunner]already knows the stuff that's on there, but no one's shitting on that article. And trans. is unique, just because it's based on something DOESN'T mean they're the same. So my main point is edit it, write your points on here if you want to, but call it miscellaneous BS, 'cause someone spent a while writing that, and they thought it was important, at least i hope they did. PN123 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the people who know of the program refer to it as "trans". But the same thing can be said of the University of Washington Transition School (where "trans" got its name). This is like saying "the language of United States is commonly referred to as 'English'", without regards to the fact that "English" comes from "England". And I never said the programs were the same. HOWEVER, the article states "What makes this program unique from other enrichment/early university entrance programs lies in that there is a special agreement between UBC and the administrators of the program." which is not true, as THERE ARE MANY EARLY COLLEGE ENTRANCE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE THE SAME AGREEMENT (University of Washington being one of them). I've taken the liberty of deleting out that part anyways.
If you want to add it back in, despite the fact that it's a lie, hey, whatever suits you.
Mr.YUM
Hey, that wasn't me! Stop using my secret name, jerk. Anyway, I've noticed that either my imposter (who I shall from now on call Mr. Y) or someone else has removed most of the stupid stuff, which is nice, but just adding a disclaimer saying that something is a personal anecdote doesn't allow it in Wikipedia. It must be removed if it is not a documented fact. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Still, some progress is being made, which is nice. - Mr. X
I'm not sure what you're refering to when you say "just adding a disclaimer saying that something is a personal anecdote", because i never say anything like that, maybe i missed it. PN123 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) PS Mr. X could you change anything you did not say to Mr. Y just for ability to tell the difference between your thoughts and theirs? if you don't wan to then i can't really force you.
The personal anecdote was in response to a version a short time ago which kept subjective claims with a "disclaimer" that they were personal anecdotes. It's been fixed now, so never mind. And I pointed out where it was really Mr. Y. This article is close to becoming acceptable now, though I think that the sections should be eliminated (or at least the Location section, which only has ONE sentence) and placed in the first paragraph. That first paragraph could also use a bit more organisation. Still, it's on its way to becoming a real Wikipedia article, so good job to everyone. - Mr. X
I am Mr.Y. Sorry, I put "Mr. X" cause I thought someone was referring to me, but they were not. I've fixed all the places I appear (which is like, 2). I didn't mean to "trick" people or anything. Furthermore, I hereby declare myself Mr.YUM to further distinguish myself.
-Mr.YUM
[edit] Stuby-ness
Since this has become a stub, i was wondering if anyone would like to review the previous content to be re-added. I still think that the stuff about the reach team is a core part of the program, but i will not move until i get opions on this. Please make suggestions about what should be added as well/instead of. Please no more arguing about whether or not the article needs to exist. PN123 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
