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]

"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]