Talk:Independent University, Bangladesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Too many images[edit]

Photographs have already been included in the article. NAHID 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many photographs. Is it necessary to showcase all the buildings the university owns? The provide little information of value, and cramped into a short article doesn't look good either (it looks like a poorly designed pamphlet ;)...). Aditya Kabir 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I doubt whether the university owns most of the buildings. These look like rented apartment buildings (as usual with most universities in Baridhara, Banani, Gulshan). --Ragib 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are too many photographs. One image per campus should be enough already. Arman Aziz 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Advertisement like sentences[edit]

Please give verifiable links for claims that you make. Links to a news should direct to the newspaper. Esha Karim (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

List to prose[edit]

I have just removed two List to prose tags. This tag should be used when there is a list which needs to be converted into prose because list style is inappropriate. Example can be a list of events in someones life etc. But in this article, the use of list (for faculties and clubs) seems appropriate and infact they are more readable than a prose type format. There is no indication in Wikipedia manual of style that lists are forbidden in articles. Arman Aziz 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists that simply state that this university has an IT course or a debating club is better suited material for brochures that attract students looking for so and so. If it remains just a directory or a laundry list, difficult to turn into prose then it may be considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia and be removed. Wikipedia is not a directory, a manual or guidebook or an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also not free advertising space. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The list of a department in an university is quite relevant and useful information for an encyclopedia and I don't understand why list format is inappropriate. the article on Cornell University, a featured article on one of world's most reputed University, also has a list of departments. List of clubs - may be a bit advertisement-like - but if that's the concern, that section should be deleted or tagged for rewrite. If it has to be retained, a list-style is equally acceptable as a prose-style. So, list-to-prose tag seems inappropriate. Arman Aziz 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Cornell University does have a list of schools on that article, all of them serving as links to a stand alone article. In that way it serves the same purpose the "See also" section does. And, even at that it is formatted mighty differently. Does this IUB article list really compares to the Cornell article list, in design, purpose or content?
I am not putting the tag back yet, as I'd really want a discussion here, not just an explanation of why I've put it back. If it seems alright here, then we'll be facing other consequences like most Bangladesh university article remain in listform rather than proseform. That may in turn breach a hole into the very effort to standardize Wikipedia. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I do completely disagree Aditya's above two statements. You should check this good article Ateneo de Manila University for better understanding.--NAHID 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For Good Articles, the editors' guiding principle is that "some editing will clearly be helpful" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Assessment). I find the above statement a bit strange, as I can see that the Ateneo article clearly has loads of redlinks in it. Are we then to understand that Wikipedia articles should ideally be full of redlinks? Generally experienced editors do not use precedence as proof of an argument. Use other articles as examples, not validation tools. Besides, the Ateneo article provides 60 citations, a very long reading list and quite comprehensive bits on its schools and campuses. Is it possible that the good qualities of that article is emulated, not its flaws? Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do completely agree with Arman Bhaia. List isn't forbidden at Wikipedia. A list of departments or a list of Nobel Laureates (for a university) is far better than a prose segment describing them like a story. Unless and until it looks weird or like an advertisement, I think, it's quite fine to use a list.
Though it may seem irrelevant but I can't stop pulling this issue. Star Campus article was merged because different sections of the same newspaper would not be encyclopedic and I agreed. Would you please (both of you) tell me why don't you put a merger tag at this article - Cornell_University_Graduate_School? WP has a policy that if an article crosses 32K size, it should be broken down into manageable sections. Even a Law school can have a separate section (Cornell_Law_School) or a debating may have its own article (University Philosophical Society (Trinity College, Dublin)). You may point out those articles as high importance or famous. But important and famous is a vague term as it varies from person to person. A scientist may not have any interest in the definition of democracy but may consider genetic algorithm as an revolutionary invention in the history of computer science and vice versa.
So let me sum-up what actually I tried to say. It is quite fine to use list if it is not an advertisement or a weird looking section. When parent article will become too large (32K+), those list may be converted into some standalone articles also. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied to Niaz on the more relevant page. Also, I fully agree with Ragib bhai that the main problem of this article is on tone. Still wanted to add a bit about the general concern on: having list of departments in most of Bangladesh university articles. This is exactly why I am removing the tag. Because of some excellent contribution from NAHID and Niaz we now have articles on (almost) all universities of Bangladesh. Of course, if the tone of some of those articles are inappropriate for wikipedia, or they have POV or factual accuracy concern, we should either clean them up or tag for immediate attention. But is there really a need to put tag on all these articles to convert the list of departments from list to prose? My opinion is, it would be a pointless waste of time, which will divert a lot of time and energy from some of the very few active editors of WP:BANGLADESH to an almost zero value adding activity. So, I suggest, let's live with the list of departments for the time and focus on serious issues. Arman Aziz 07:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if you really believe so. But, all of these universities are on my watchlist, and I haven't seen much being done to them since the private university navbox ceased to have a redlink. With so much enthusiasm put into it (in fact, a whole wikiproject has been created to handle the task), it's about time some time and energy was devoted to develop the articles beyond laundry lists (the fact that WP does have lot of laundry lists passing for articles, and I'm not referring to stand-alone lists, shows that enthusiasm alone is not all that is needed to create an encyclopedia). Long lists are easy to copy from websites, with a few strokes on the "enter" button and putting a few asterisks. I really believe sincere contribution should demand more time and energy (of course I don't dare to forget that all the good here has been initiated by pure enthusiasm, even including those quite misplaced). Preserving time and energy never got an article developed, let alone a whole bunch of them. The best way to develop an article is not probably defending an endemic flaw. (Note: I wrote this post in two installments. I hope nobody minds.) Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Post Script I have turned some part of the section that looked so good in listform into proseform as an example. I hope the improvement is noticeable. I also hope to improve the rest of the list in a similar manner, time and energy won't be a problem, I guess. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work. But list is appropriate in dept. section along with the prose.--NAHID 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have learned that converting a list into prose is waste of time and energy. But, don't you think converting a prose into list is even more waste of time and energy? I have reverted it back. Luckily that action of turning prose into lists has got the point illustrated more than anything. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in this meaningless edit war. Either format works for me. But my strong support will be with the list format as it is more readable. Niaz is absolutely right saying that a prose section should supplement the list, not replace it. Even in the article on Rajshahi University the list is retained, not replaced. Arman Aziz 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Your strong opinions are highly appreciated, though they seem to be a bit misplaced. Check the MoS, especially WP:EMBED. Rajshahi University retains a tiny list inside a box inserted into a longish bit of prose, and may not be a proper examples. If you found this "edit war" meaningless then you should have seen what Nahid has been doing to a lot of my edits not a long back. Look more closely before you support, defend, reject or degrade something or someone. And, you'll find that your opinions or feelings may not be the only thing that matter (like the matter of standardizing Wikipedia). Anyways, I have left a request to you in the next thread. I'm off here. Nice work you done here, and thanks for all the fish. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link of WP:EMBED. I was looking for it, but couldn't locate it. Please, note the style guideline does clearly mention that, "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence"; and that's exactly the point myself and NAHID are trying to convey. Arman Aziz 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Some parts of the following comment has been moved to a more appropriate space - User talk:Armanaziz
I really don't think 6 departments make a long sequence. What that sentence referred to was sentences carrying really and bafflingly humongous, truly and enormously mind-boggling, clearly and ridiculously extensive, staggeringly and startlingly protracted, marginally and vaguely defendable, indisputably and incredibly absurd and abysmally infinitesimal long sequences that served no purpose (did I make the sequence here long enough?). It is really impossible to spell out every bit of explanation in a guideline, and therefore it depends much on the understanding of the editor. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Post Script Generally lists serve as referral points, not content actuale (which is somewhat the case of Cornell University), or an annex to the prose, ideally in a series box format (which is exactly the case of Rajshahi University), or a springboard for later expansion into prose. The need to cleanup both embedded and stand-alone lists is great in Wikipedia, and a large number of editors are dedicatedly working at it. Since the fast growth of WP increasing most backlogs, it is highly advisable to attend to problems whenever one meets them, and identifying a problem as a problem is the first step towards a solution. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, Tone issues[edit]

List/prose debate aside, there are lots of problems with this article. I see a lot of citation needed tags all around the articles, and I doubt those can ever be fixed as those sentences are subjective in many cases. Also, the tone problem is yet not addressed : much of the latter sections still sound like a brochure. I urge the editors to take some time away from the list/prose issue, and solve the tone/cn problem first. Thanks. --Ragib 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the second part of the article to reduce these problems. Someone with access to university publications etc. can help with all the citation requests. Arman Aziz 08:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Arman, dear, can I request you to do the necessary? Whatever I do to any of "my friend" (according to you) Nahid's articles usually faces a bit of resistance. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

  • Aditya, don't remove contents and blanket citation with false edit summary (as you did here). It's considered as Vandalism. I suggest you to cool down. Removing them wouldn't be good for you.--NAHID 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone provide a year of publication to the Prothom Alo citation? Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First party refs[edit]

Please, don't take Wikipedia policies and guidelines as jokes that you can interpret at you whim. Out of the 20 refs given, only two are third-party. One dealing with a perfectly irrelevant trivia on a government act, the other is about campus location. Not too hot either. With only 5% of refs coming from third-party sources, it shows a sheer ignorance about Wikipedia policies to remove a tag that calls for such refs. It's very unfortunate that an experienced editor was involved, who takes much pride in tagging articles for refs. I am afraid if Wikipedia is increasingly run by this kind, this beautiful project may eventually come to a complete mess. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Disagreed. 9 ref+ from Prothom Alo and some other third party ref+ should not be ignored here. So the template is not applicable according to the presence of 3rd party reference. Template asked to provide 3rd party ref+ and that's been provided in article.--NAHID 10:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree as much as you want. But, 11 refs among 28 is still about one third, and that's not too much. A little advise here - try to replace first party refs with third-party cites. That is the acceptable way of doing this. Removing a maintenances tag without valid reason is highly not recommended. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tagging article after the presence of reference/3rd party ref+ is nothing but illustrating Point.--NAHID 11:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If you call a handful of third-party refs against loads of first-party refs appropriately citaed, then you are right, and Wikipedia is wrong. If you claim that asking for third-party references is WP:POINT then you are right, and Wikipedia is wrong. You may even take a look at WP:COI and WP:OWN to find that Wikipedia is not too excited about you editing this page, not at least in a disruptive manner. But, may be you are always right and Wikipedia is consistently wrpng about your actions. Learn some appropriate editing manner from User:Niaz who has added appropriate third-party sources and made you disruptive editing look good. A bullyboy with a big stick reverting others edits and tagging everything that comes, often mindlessly, is not what Wikipedia is about. It is about increasing knowledge. Remember, if people like User:Niaz feels the same way as people like you then you would not have anything to revert or tag. How sad would that be! Aditya(talkcontribs) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. If it was not you, where would I get the right kind of advise! Aditya(talkcontribs) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)