Talk:University of the Philippines, Diliman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of the Philippines, Diliman article.
Article policies
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Noted Alumni and Professors

Does "noted" mean "notable"? IMO, they are not notable. =) --Prem Vilas Fortran Rara 07:02, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed a bunch of external links that weren't very helpful to the article. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. Coffee 15:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed some redundant links as well. Sunbursts 13:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

The whole history section of the article was removed because it's a copyright violation. Someone please rewrite it with original material to fill the void... a good school deserves a good article. Coffee 21:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of the Philippines, Diliman or University of the Philippines-Diliman?

Anyone? --Howard the Duck 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also getting me stumped. Back then in our Department's official publication, we used "University of the Philippines Diliman", without the comma. But if restricted to choose bet. the comma and the hyphen, I'd go for the former. Not to 'copy' the styles of Western universities, but "University of the Philippines, Diliman" and "UP Diliman" looks just right and comparable with "University of California, Berkeley" and "UC Berkeley". What do you think? -- Corsarius 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


The "Philippines-Diliman" is more prevalent in the Philippines. I think only Wikipedia uses the "Philippines, Diliman" convention. However if acronyms are used, it is "UP Diliman", with no hyphens and commas. --Howard the Duck 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a little late, but my two cents. The dash is what I see more, especially for other UP schools, i.e. UP-Visayas (when not UPV). However, Wikipedia seems to use the comma for all the UP schools. For UC Berkeley (California) and UMass Amherst (Massachusetts) there is neither a comma or dash. So what to do? I would lean towards the common usage, the one that people are more likely to search under, or use the same convention UP Diliman and UP Manila use, nothing at all. They have on their websites just a space. UPV has U of the P in the Visayas which is wordy.--Bruce Hall 11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Organizations

Hmm...how about:

  1. cleaning up this list,
  2. trimming it, or
  3. giving it its own article?

The list seems to get longer by the day, with more student organizations raring to see their names on this Wikipedia article (and I haven't even checked the write-ups for NPOV). This isn't the case with other articles about other universities. For example:

  1. Harvard University and Harvard College---the organizations are not listed under the University article, and then again not all organizations are listed in the College article, though they are grouped by purpose (acad-related, fraternity/sorority, athletics, music...).
  2. Yale University uses a different approach; the organizations are listed on a separate article. What's more, like the Harvard College sub-section, the student organizations article is neatly categorized (e.g. all acads-related orgs go together, all athletic organizations go together, all fraternities and sororities go together, all musical orgs grouped together...)
  3. Oxford University lists less than ten organizations on the main article, but references a link to a separate category (actually, two categories) for student orgs.

Just my two cents ;-) --- Tito Pao 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trim it, clean it, and put in its own article. Looking back on local examples, Ateneo has its organizations on their Loyola Schools article, which was presented short and direct to the point while DLSU-Manila and UST has theirs as a simple list. Having that huge list on this article is a big eyesore. --Mithril Cloud 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Done! ;-) --- Tito Pao 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems that the "Organization" section needs serious trimming as well. It's too huge that it doesn't even look encyclopedic anymore. --Mithril Cloud 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But it's the main UP Diliman article that needs to be cleaned up first, so taking the orgs to its own article was the first step in doing this. But I'm also thinking of how to clean up the page. Maybe we can revise/delete most (if not all) of the descriptions. Then re-organize everything by category, though I'll need to read all names from top to finish to give me an idea on how these should be categorized. Based on a preliminary survey, I'm thinking along these lines: 1.acad-based (e.g. UP Cursor) 2.culture-based (the UP choirs, performing arts groups, visual arts groups) 3.geographic-based (e.g. UP Lakan) and 4.civic/advocacy/politics-based (UP Babaylan) --- Tito Pao 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tito Pao's push for categorization makes sense. On the descriptions, some of the orgs already have their own Wiki pages, and thus do not need further description on the org List page. However, for the orgs that do not have their own Wiki pages, maybe we can allow 1-2 lines each. Also, is it just me, or are the red links on the orgs' names adding to eyesore? Maybe we can remove the Wikilinks from them for the meantime.-- Corsarius 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to be fortright with this one...I'm actually working on the categorizations (off-line, of course, since it's a long, long page). I removed all red links and reformatted links, if available. I have also deleted the original descriptions since some of them read like blurbs from press releases. I'm expecting to get a lot of flak or (worse) vandalizations from members of these orgs who will be disgruntled with what I did to their original text, but I had to do this for the sake of making the article more encyclopedic (or else face the risk of having it deleted). On the safe side, I'll just leave out a short description of what college is the org based on (to use a fictional example, "UP Widgets Association is based in the UP College of Widgets"), or a short note on what it does or what is it (e.g. "UP Widgets Association - an association for BS Widgets majors"). I'll try to post them as soon as I have completed the first draft. Just to be sure, I will include comments inside the (revised) article's source code, as well as a few notes on the discussion page, so that future editors (most likely anonymous) will know how to make their entries more encyclopedic. --- Tito Pao 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Done! In anticipation of possible violent reactions, I've posted a not-so-short explanation on the Discussion page. --- Tito Pao 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work, man! The next problem now is to watch out for insistent org members. I admit, I once listed an org there with 2 lines of description, but I was looking forward to writing a full-fledged article on it in the future anyway. I guess orgs that had verbose descriptions in the first place have enough material for a Wiki article, or at least a stub, right? ;) Btw, considering that the Madrigal Singers already have their own Wiki article, shouldn't the org's description be somewhat shortened? Not to mention the org appears twice in the list. -- Corsarius 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point on the Madz, I'll have it changed in a short while. As for the insistent members, I make it a point to check my watchlist every now and then, so I'll keep an eye on this article every now and then. --- Tito Pao 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oks. I'll guess I'll help you with the 'patrol', considering that this list is bound to really grow in the future -- there are lots of UPD orgs that aren't in this list yet. Actually, I'm not sure if some of the listed orgs are already University-recognized (as opposed to College-recognized or strictly Department-based), though of course there's no way to verify that unless we check up with UPD's Office of Student Affairs :P -- Corsarius 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UP's standing at the THES-QS rankings

Should we include it in the article? --Mithril Cloud 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Though where would it be best to place the info -- a new paragraph after the lead, a new section after/before the "National Centers of Excellence, or somewhere else? -- Corsarius 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As of now, I don't see a suitable section. It could be added in the "Academics" section, but the article lacks that as of now. --Mithril Cloud 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm. If it makes sense to you guys, maybe we can create a new "Academics" section, and move "National Centers of Excellence" under it as a subsection. -- Corsarius 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I believe that the article should have a major revamp first. Adding the rankings would come in second. --Mithril Cloud 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Up centennial logo.jpg

Image:Up centennial logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University Info Box

Please don't make the University Info Box too small in font. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.80.79 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some qualms about the format of this article. As a current member of the University, I am quite concerned that the layout of the article is quite detrimental to its presentability. Unfortunately, I am not the best judge to revise and add information to the article since I am not conversant in the history, academic programs and services that the University has. As a concerned "Isko", I wish to help represent the university in a better light, but since it has not undergone any revision and reformatting for such a long time, I'd like to request someone to at least reformat this article in a more presentable form. Ulaire (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)