Jump to content

Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:IB Diploma Programme
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 23 August 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Archiving the talk page

As the debate about debate might become a lengthy debate, this is as good a time as any to introduce the subject of archiving.

Talkpages can be archived automatically using what's called a "bot". I'd like to propose adding an archive bot to these talk pages, but first some decisions need to be made in order to set the parameters for the bot.

  1. How often to archive?
  2. How many threads to leave on the page?
  3. How to editors feel about leaving the page somewhat static during the "testing period"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. Depends on the week
  2. Depends on which threads are being responded to
  3. If you decide on a set time period and number of threads to be archived but then ask everyone to leave the talk page as is, how can you determine if the settings would be useful?

ObserverNY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Given the volume and frequency of edits that we have here, plus the fact that new threads are started rapidly and older threads are fairly quickly abandoned, I think that we could archive any thread that hasn't had new additions made to it within about 14 days. Assuming that the traffic here will eventually slow down once most editors agree to the article's content and that things will therefore stabilize a bit, I would hope that we can later change whatever settings we use for the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The markup isn't thread specific. In other words we can decide to leave 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on threads on the page, but can't set the markup to archive threads with more activity than others.
As for usefulness, the only way is to test. If the page has a lot of activity during the testing period, and if the archiving doesn't work as expected, then messages would have to be retrieved and restored from history, which is easier with less rather than more activity on the talk page. 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the two week time period suggested by Cinchbug is reasonable. It seems to me that it makes more sense to archive the defunct/settled discussions than to archive the threads still open to active discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
TK, at the moment, we have 18 separate threads on the page going back two weeks. Of these, only three are presently active. So I should think that if we set the bot to always retain at least, say, ten threads (or maybe a dozen?), then that should be sufficient. I assume that it would archive threads from the top of the page so that the threads on the bottom of the page (which are more likely to be recent and active) wouldn't be accidentally archived.
With regards to "how often to archive," I guess I misunderstood. Were you asking how frequently the bot should check the page to see if anything should be archived? If so, I would think that running it a couple of times per week would be fine, but it would probably be okay to run it daily--unless there's a down-side to this that I haven't considered.
Thanks for doing all the legwork on this stuff, by the way! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all for looking into using a bot for archiving. Great idea, as long as the one we use doesn't archive to nowhere like what happened to TFOWR and TK!
La mome (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Slander! Slanders, ah tells ye! Seriously, though, I think it would be good if we could get someone like HA or Uncle G to either sanity-check our plans, or steer us towards an archiving expert who could implement archiving for us. I suspect it's a lot easier to set up than my/TK's experiences suggest, but it'll be easier to get it right first time than fix up any mess it makes... Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I just posted a request on HA's page. I thing UG is MIA.
La mome (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
PS-sorry I let the cat out of the bag regarding your bot issues.
La mome (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries, it's bound to come out sooner or later when someone tries to use my "archives" and discovers that I use [1] instead ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoosh. Okay, first, MiszaBot runs once a day at a preset hour; you don't get to control that. What you do get to control is the maximum age of a thread (in this case, you guys said 14 days) and a minimum number of threads to keep on the page (you said 12). I think that 14 days would be fine, but you might have to tweak that if/when the editing picks up. Consider: in two days, this page has generated 50 responses and 20k of text, which is pretty staggering. 14 days of that kind of editing would be 280k, which is enormous. In that case, maybe something like 9 or 10 days would be better. And a dozen minimum threads is, well, a lot. Right now you have eighteen on here, so it seems like not a whole lot would get archived. I'd say maybe 8 or 9 as the minimum.

Anyway, what you guys have come up with is fine. Probably better than hand archiving... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HelloAnnyong for your prompt reply and advice. Should we go with 9 days and leaving 9 active threads? Who will set the bot? La mome (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more often. Four threads every 72 hrs seems reasonable. I'll have a look at the markup, and ask for help if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
TK - I just made a comment on your talkpage to TFOWR that I really don't have a horse in this race, but I'm ponying up because there seems to be a disturbing "creep" in the definition of "reasonable" from 14 days, to 9 days to 3 days. After a review of what is on this talk page, I would compromise with LaMome's 9 day suggestion, but I think 3 days is unreasonably short. ObserverNY (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
*cough* 72h is three days. How about just 7 days? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey! It's early! I need more coffee! hehehehe ... 7 days seems reasonable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Truthkeeper - why does your html at the top of the page say old=72h? Nobody agreed to that. ObserverNY (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Would you like to do this? As it happens, I copied the markup as is from its home, then left a message for somebody to check the markup. If you look, you'll see I've changed to seven days. Also just to remind you, I've manually filled most of the seven archives, and often archived more frequently than once a week, but if everyone is fine with weekly then okay w/ me.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Boy, touchy touchy! I struck my comment and even labeled my strike in history with a happy face. Geez! ObserverNY (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Perhaps you can strike the comment from my talk page as well? Somebody is carving time from elsewhere to make working on this article easier, and it's labeled diversionary. Yup, definitely touchy. Will be gone for some hours. Perhaps someone will swing by and have a look at the markup in the meantime. The biggest issue, as I see it, is setting the counters correctly, and whether or not they increment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
But of course, if it upsets you, by all means. It never occurred to me that working on editing in Wikipedia held such deep emotional meaning to anyone. And I'm sorry, but it does seem diversionary to me. (And here I thought another Barn Star banner would make you happy). ObserverNY (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The markup has been fixed as I had the destination wrong, and we can assume that from now on archiving will be automatic. Thanks ObserverNY for the minor barnstar. Also, some of you may have seen on my talkpage that I'm needed to copyedit another article, so I'll be gone from here for some time. Not emotionally involved, simply trying to get things set up to leave. If I'm needed please leave me a message. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, TK! We all really appreciate it, and the Minor Barnstar from ObserverNY was a great idea and certainly well-deserved (many times over, in fact)! Thanks also to xenotalk, who worked with TK to help iron out some of the bugs in our initial set-up of the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Decapitalization

I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone? ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's what I used to think until yesterday when I prepared the points matrix graphic. My first version had "Essay" and "Knowledge", and I was just about to upload it when I thought I should check the capitalisation. I was amazed to find that in every IBO publication I consulted everying was as lower-case as possible—so in the middle of a sentence theory of knowledge is the correct form—the only exceptions being Diploma Programme, Middle Years Programme and Primary Years Programme. The sources include: Handbook of procedures for the Diploma Programme (both this year's version and last year's), Extended essay—guide, Theory of knowledge—guide and Theory of knowledge assessment exemplars. I'm afraid these are all paid-for documents, so I hope you can believe me when I say that they are the right sources to use and that they fully support moving to lower case (each source contains many many examples). I don't really understand why I haven't noticed it before, but I'm not a teacher. Another surprise was that theory of knowledge is abbreviated TOK, and not ToK as I have seen so often. I wouldn't have just waded in and made the changes if there was anything controversial about them. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ibo.org/programmes/documents/dp_flyer_en.pdf This also supports the de-capitalization ---Pointillist is correct. I never noticed it until now. They are also removing Latin references--the Vade mecum became the Handbook of procedures and the ab initio courses will become Foundation courses.
La mome (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they're also changing their name (sometimes) IBO/IB/ibo.org/IBNA/IB of the Americas, changing locations, changing their marking system.... gotta love that CHANGE! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
That's a great source: covers the acronyms and capitalisation in the middle of a sentence too. Thanks for finding it—I felt a bit uncomfortable referring to materials that aren't easily accessible. - Pointillist (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also here on the IB DP core requirements page that's easily accessible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, ok. To me it points to inconsistency on IBO's part when you look at the page on its main public website and it still uses the acronyms/initialism: http://www.ibo.org/diploma/ NORMALLY (and of course IB is anything but NORMAL) if you apply an acronym to a phrase or title, the words in the title should be capitalized, TOK,CAS,OCC....so either IB, as an educational program(me) should be CONSISTENT with proper grammar and decapitalize its acronyms or else capitalize the words that serve to create the acronyms. http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/initialismterm.htm ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser) and EE and IBDP are initialisms (like UCLA), but I can't find an absolute rule about capitalisation. There are lots of variations in the wild, e.g. IgE = Immunoglobulin E; DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid; DoS = Denial-of-service attack; Laser = light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, Lintas = Lever International Advertising. Indeed the Chicago Manual of Style Online (15.7 Capitals versus lowercase) says that "usage rather than logic determines whether abbreviations other than those standing for proper names are given in upper- or lowercase letters." I think we just have to accept the IBO's style decision and move on. - Pointillist (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have to "accept IBO's style decision" in a Wikipedia article? This is not an advertisement for IB. If you look at the MAJORITY of examples Acronym and initialism, IBO's "style" runs contrary to common accepted usage. ObserverNY (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I mean, we have to accept how they style their own technical nomenclature—they couldn't impose their own style on established abbreviations like IgE or DNA, of course. I quite agree that the series shouldn't be an advertisement for IB, BTW, but it seems to be surprisingly difficult to find independent assessment of the IB by people who don't have their own axes to grind. Come to think of it, that would make a good TOK essay, wouldn't it? ;-) Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean a tok essay, right? Frankly, that course title always makes me think of toking on a joint, but hey, old hippies are today's Conservatives. Do you think IB is a chemical compound? Hmmmm, I wonder.... ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Joking aside, I recommend that we follow WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) when it comes to "style" of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Pointillist - Re: "I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser)" - I suspect CAS is an acronym as I have never heard it referred to as any thing but one word ie Cass. However, in European schools, TOK is pronounced as three distinct letters. I have heard a few teachers from Australasia pronounce it as a single word ie "tock". I mention this only as a note. Whether TOK is or isn't actually makes no difference to what you have written so I agree. Accept what they use and move on. They are in transition with their strategic plan and things don't change easily overnight. --Candy (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
General principles
Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k. d. lang), we follow common usage.
CAS, TOK, EE, OCC, IBIS, IBDP, MYP, PYP, etc. are initialisms. IB's "state of transition" is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles should follow Wikipedia guidelines for common usage of style, not IB's style. ObserverNY (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Opening paragraph: Students take six subjects and three core components: the extended essay, theory of knowledge, and 150 hours of creativity, action and service. If the IB idols editing this article are going to insist on following IB's uncommon grammar, IB capitalizes the word Core, each of the 3 Core components are not capitalized at ALL. This sort of inconsistency in an article is unacceptable. I would like an opinion from HelloAnnyong or TFOWR before any more changes are made. ObserverNY (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations
“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”
Incorrect (not a name)-We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology
Correct-We used digital scanning (DS) technology
Correct(name)-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
So, theory of knowledge (TOK) in the middle of a sentence, but Theory of knowledge (TOK) when starting a sentence. That could explain the alleged inconsistency in language usage here- http://www.ibo.org/diploma/
12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs)
Sorry, I don't see how that explains the inconsistency. It's either a titled course: Theory of Knowledge, in which case I would accept ToK as the proper initialism for the course, or it is not a "proper noun" at all, ever. ObserverNY (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have, yet again, been asked to weigh in on the this. From seeing the official IBDP sites - especially this one - it doesn't seem to me that "Theory of knowledge" is supposed to be a proper noun, so I'm fine with leaving them lowercase. This article should probably match what the sources state - after all, that's how we decide what gets included. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - If TOK is not a proper noun, what is it? Is the Diploma Programme a proper noun? Is it Wikipedia's intent to represent IB's uncommon grammatical usage to its readers giving credence to its sub-standard prgrammes, rather than conforming with common usage? ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Uh, what. It's just a noun. It just seems to me that we should follow their naming conventions, since... they're the ones who named them. And I'm not really sure what its "sub-standard prgrammes" (sic) have to do with anything. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. So if IB starts referring to the USA as the United states of america, that's acceptable to you and the way a Wikipedia article should read? If theory of knowledge is "just a noun", why is it acceptable to apply capitalized initialism to it? Also, you didn't answer my question about whether the Diploma Programme is a proper noun. If the title of the program is a proper noun, how do you justify claiming that the titles of the Core courses are NOT proper nouns? ObserverNY (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Yes, Diploma Programme is a proper noun. According to this page, they're not core courses, they're core requirements. And your USA example doesn't apply here, as the IB didn't create the United States. They created the core courses and named them in a specific way. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhh, so a named "requirement" instead of a "course" (n) or "programme" (n), disqualifies it from being a proper noun? I don't think so. On the page you linked:
  • Internal assessment
  • In nearly all subjects at least some of the assessment is carried out internally by teachers, who mark individual pieces of work produced as part of a course of study. Examples include oral exercises in language subjects, projects, student portfolios, class presentations, practical laboratory work, mathematical investigations and artistic performances.
  • External assessment
  • Some assessment tasks are conducted and overseen by teachers without the restrictions of examination conditions, but are then marked externally by examiners. Examples include world literature assignments for language A1, written tasks for language A2, essays for theory of knowledge and extended essays.
IF you are going to insist on using IB's incoherent, inconsistent capitalization of proper nouns, I feel the need to insist that every reference to the above bolded courses or requirements be presented consistently in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
You know, you asked me to weigh in on something, and now you're being argumentative because you didn't like what I had to say. Did you expect me to just meatpuppet for you? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I expect you to provide a straight answer to legitimate questions about article style. ObserverNY (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is nothing inconsistent about IB's use of capitalization and acronyms, as I have linked above. It appears that IB does not consider its core elements to be proper nouns (again refer to the example I linked and pasted above and to HelloAnnyong's explanations). The only inconsistency here is in the logic, or lack thereof, that you (ONY) attempt to employ. Pointillist made those changes for consistency and to follow the wiki MOS policies on acronyms and abbreviations. Once again, you (ONY) hold a minority view and refuse to accept (or perhaps fail to fully comprehend) what other editors present as support for their views.La mome (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.”
From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)
La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly, which is why I originally posted that exact clause and am seeking identification of PROPER NOUNS. IB's inconsistency is clearly demonstrated throughout its website and now this article. Your comments do not represent "good faith" and I resent your inferences that I am ignorant, illogical and attempting to "employ" some sort of tactic, other than seeking representation of common usage of the English language in a Wikipedia article. ObserverNY (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Regarding logic, I fail to follow why an article should follow the grammar of what an organization or group "thinks" it should be. Should an article on Hillbilly be written the way a Hillbilly writes, y'all? ObserverNY (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ONY-Avoiding unnecessary capitalization would require theory of knowledge, extended essay, etc... since they are not proper nouns, not according to IB, but according to general usage and Wikipedia's MOS. I did not imply that you were ignorant or illogical. My statement about your attempt to employ logic that you turned into a "tactic" illustrates my point. Your Hillbilly example also illustrates my point. I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, I am saying we should use Wikipedia's. Are you arguing that TOK, EE and CAS are all proper nouns and should be capitalized when written in their full forms?
La mome (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Why? La mome (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
To be consistent with common English usage. ObserverNY (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And just to avoid any further obfuscation of what was actually said here, LaMome states: I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, after both she and HelloAnnyong insisted that IB's style should be the one followed because IB "named" the stuff. So you either advocate IB's usage, or you advocate common English usage which, according to my interpretation, is what Wikipedia recommends. Pick your position, please. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)
It is common English usage to capitalize Theory, Of, Knowledge, Creativity, Action, Service, Extended, Essay?
La mome (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also thinks something else needs to be made perfectly clear. I don't care what IB "thinks" is a proper noun - if a noun is assigned a capitalized Initialism, it automatically makes the noun being referred to a proper noun, because why? Initials are capitalized. In headlines or acronyms which include prepositions, the prepositions are commonly not capitalized, ie: ToK. ObserverNY (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)
And this is what you said, under the new section-"decapitalization"--
"I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone?" ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY which means that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it. I am arguing that they should not be capitalized because that's what the Wikipedia MOS says. We also provided links to show that IB no longer capitalizes those words.
La mome (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations
“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”
La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
from the section you quoted, apparently you're saying that theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service are not the names of core IBDP requirements. Gotcha. What are they? ObserverNY (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
"that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it." No LaMome. That is not what I am arguing. I don't care what IB did, does or will maybe do. I would like to see the application of common English usage be consistently applied throughout the article. Please stop trying to distort and misrepresent my position. ObserverNY (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, I'd just like to point out that there are least three editors - myself, La mome, and Pointillist - who are in favor of the lower case. At this point you're just not respecting the consensus. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

I'd just like to point out that nearly 20k of talk page text has been generated over the last 24 hours - all over whether or not a few words should be capitalized. That's why this talk page gets so absurdly long. Either way, this issue needs to be put to rest, as it's very, very nitpicky. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, HelloAnnyong. The discussion page is for discussion about edits to the article. Pointillist made the initial changes. LaMome always sides with whatever IB says. And you have certainly not cited any relevant Wiki policy on the matter. I would like a different 3rd Op, please. Calling another editor "very, very nitpicky" while failing to define proper nouns in common English usage is highly unprofessional. ObserverNY (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Read what I wrote - "this issue... it's very, very nitpicky." I didn't call you nitpicky; I was referring to the discussion at hand. And with six or more editors regularly active here, a 3O doesn't apply anymore. Try WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And allow me to further point out, that within the IBDP article it states: Main article: Theory of knowledge (IB course). So - is it a course or a requirement? I am not undermining consensus - you do not HAVE consensus, nor have you convinced me of a logical argument to support this inconsistent and erroneous method of referring to the titles of courses in an article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
And since Pointillist also did some "cleaning up" over at the Theory of knowledge article, allow me to point out MORE inconsistencies: The course focuses on four ways of knowing (WoK), sense perception, emotion, reason, and language and six areas of knowledge (AoK), mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts, and ethics. The course teaches how people gain knowledge in these areas and the role that the different Ways of Knowing play in these domains. ObserverNY (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ONY-TOK is both a course and a core element, or requirement. EE and CAS are not courses. Capitalizing acronyms does not call for automatic capitalization of the name or noun it represents. It does not matter, in this case, whether IB considers it to be a proper name or noun or not. I am not siding, nor do I always side with IB, as there really is no IB side in this matter. I am siding with the conventions of the Wikipedia MOS, which calls for avoidance of capitalization. Period. Stop trying to push the "IB is inconsistent and illogical" point of view.
La mome (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am "pushing" the FACT that IB's product representation is inconsistent as clearly demonstrated above. The Wiki manual calls for avoidance of capitalization when referencing a procedure or method which is commonly recognized as words, NOT proper nouns. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. You can attempt to deny your bias all you want, just as you can attempt to deny that there are "sides" to the IB issue. Your denial doesn't change the facts. ObserverNY (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms.WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names ObserverNY (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The statement "IB's product representation is inconsistent" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Have you followed Helloannyong's advice by submitting a request at WP:RFC or shall I?
La mome (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Never mind--I submitted a request for comment. See below.
La mome (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should we capitalize theory of knowledge (TOK), extended essay (EE), creativity, action, service (CAS)?
La mome (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And, as a clarification of the question, since ToK, EE and CAS are initialisms, shouldn't the corresponding descriptors be capitalized as per: WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names? ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Please refer to the preceding section for context. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think other Wikipedians are afraid to respond... LOL! I e-mailed Ewen, but I have no idea if he is anywhere near a computer. The man has excellent grammatical skills and I will respect his opinion, (even if I may not like it), I think he can be very fair-minded, especially on something like this which is really all about what constitutes "standard" or "most common" style. ObserverNY (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Yes, I am sure your friend Ewen will be very fair-minded.
La mome (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with HelloAnnyong above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
TK - Why? Because IBO says so? You were the one who was always so precise and diligent when it came to Wiki policy. Why are you choosing to ignore it in this case? ObserverNY (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Well, this doesn't appear to be working. I respectfully request that Truthkeeper and HelloAnnyong cite the Wikipedia policy which would support using the grammatical "style" used by an article topic as preferable to common English usage. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Settle down, it's only been a day. RFCs take several days before anyone responds. See on the tag where it says that it'll be removed after 30 days? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.” From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)
La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations
“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”
La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
La mome (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
LaMome - 1. most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. These ARE initialisms in dispute. 2. Please identify which subsection you are taking the 2nd quote from, I am unable to locate it on the page. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. The quote is at the end of the first paragraph, just above where it gives one incorrect and two correct examples. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The 2nd quote you are referring to seems a bit of desperation and grasping at the exception, rather than the rule. CAS is an initialism, not an acronym. I stand by the most capitalization clause. But since you don't seem to agree with that, I will also refer to: Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If we go back to 2005, [2] you will see that Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay - are properly capitalized and as such, I recommend that the original style of the article be upheld. ObserverNY (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym
While the word abbreviation refers to any shortened form of a word or a phrase, some have used initialism or alphabetism to refer to an abbreviation formed simply from, and used simply as, a string of initials. In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging).[1] The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters.[2]
Most dictionaries define acronym to mean "a word" in its original sense,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] while some include a secondary indication of usage, attributing to acronym the same meaning as that of initialism.
Go to the style used by the first major contributor=IB. Why use references from 2005, when there are references from 2009? If you are understanding that to mean original contribution, then you should be looking way back to the late 60s, which makes no sense.
You are Grasping at Straws(GAS).
La mome (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
LaMome - The Wikipedia article on the IBDP was constructed in 2005, not in the 1960's. The Wiki policy reference has to do with a disagreement over style in an article. I think it's pretty fair to say that we disagree. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
I didn't write the Wiki rule. I was not one of the original contributors. The style of the original article refers to Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay and Creativity, Action, Service. Again, you are attempting to insist on IB's "style" and not Wikipedia rules. Defer, accept it, and let's move on. ObserverNY (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
(edit conflict)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=33256556&oldid=33229812
This is not an IB source, it is the 2005 version of the IBDP wiki article. You would use this as a model? This is what you thought they meant by first major contributor?
“Subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology, environmental systems and design technology”
So, you want to capitalize theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service, but put subjects in lower case?
La mome (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's done. Discussion over. It's not a matter of "what I thought they meant" it's a matter of what Wikipedia states. From a proofreading perspective, the article you link has one error in the heading for Subject areas, which has since been changed to Subject Groups and since Group is capitalized in every reference, so should it be in the heading. ObserverNY (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Just so we're clear, per MOS:HEAD, section titles always have their first letter capitalized and nothing else: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
ONY-There are 4 editors who disagree with you. So, yeah, I guess it's done. I was also waiting for a response from the RFC. Patience is a virtue.
La mome (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
ObserverNY, have a look at the titles of the pages as the article is now inconsistent with those pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears consistent now. ObserverNY (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We already have a consensus

I see User:ObserverNY is going back through the article restoring the incorrect forms (ToK etc.) Look, this really isn't on. We already have a consensus for the lower-case approach with all caps abbreviations:

  • User:HelloAnnyong 12761 total edits (6494 article edits, 4937 distinct pages edited)
  • User:Pointillist 3223 total edits (1800 article edits, 1184 distinct pages edited)
  • User:Truthkeeper88 2705 total edits (1722 article edits, 200 distinct pages edited)
  • User:Candorwien 1323 total edits (639 article edits, 309 distinct pages edited)

The four of us are genuine editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. The only person who opposes this approach is a single-purpose account with a history of tendentious editing. I will now revert ObserverNY's changes to the article. You are welcome to carry on discussing this on the talk page but the article should use the current consensus until it is overturned. - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A CONSENSUS is NOT a VOTE. You are a NEW editor to this article who has come in and made MAJOR changes without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I wouldn't necessarily call Pointillist a new editor. S/he has been registered for almost two years now. We don't necessarily discount their efforts here just because they recently joined the conversation here. Having said that, you're right that voting doesn't necessarily mean consensus. However, I think that Pointillist is correct that there is a majority of editors here who are all in agreement. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I note Pointillist didn't include LaMome. Pointillist is an editor who is new to this contentious article who has come in and caused a MAJOR disagreement on style without any discussion prior to his/her edits. Any reversion of the page by Pointillist from its current state, shall be considered as being done so under protest. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
HelloAnnyong - are you attempting to invoke Tyranny of the majority ? ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
...no. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Pointillist is not new to this series. Have a look at the histories. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Tyranny wins. How ironic that Jean Jacques Rousseau is quoted in Tyranny of the majority ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper - Pointillist has not edited this article once in the months that I've been here and since the article and information has been genuinely challenged. To try and infer otherwise is disingenuous. ObserverNY (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This debate about "new editor" is irrelevant. I made a series of minor changes for consistency. Renaming the TOK and EE articles required administrator intervention, which was granted because the changes were uncontroversial and verifiable. The changes were uncontroversial because there had been no previous cycle of edits/discussions about capitalization, and they were verifiable against everything I could find on the IBO's website and the many documents I checked. I assumed good faith when ObserverNY questioned my edits, and explained the changes fully and frankly. Since then, other users have supported this approach and it is now a consensus agreed by editors in good standing. I'd forgotten about it but in fact I have reverted ObserverNY on the IB series before this episode (see diff of Theory of knowledge (IB course), diff of List of International Baccalaureate people and diff of List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme). I am a neutral editor, not an "IB idol", and the only reason I am editing IB series articles is to ensure that future students and their parents will get the most useful information possible if they are considering this demanding programme. - Pointillist (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Pointillist - Your usage of the adjective "demanding" to describe IB exposes your bias. I also want to ensure that parents and students get the most useful information possible. As such, I recommend that the section which listed the "conditions" IB lists in order to earn an IB diploma be re-inserted into the article. Then parents and students can decide for themselves if a "programme" which allows a student to fail 50% of their final exams and still earn the diploma - is "demanding".
Also, I mentioned previously that I think the Leach quote is obscure, addressing only history and not representative of the "founding ideology" which would be better expressed by someone like Peterson. I never heard of Leach before this article - and I have researched IB for five years. ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
"Demanding" is a different debate, where I suspect we will find we are more in agreement, so I suggest we postpone that discussion until I have had a chance to work through the statistics. My impression is that consumers (students and parents) may not realize that this is a challenging course that may not suit everyone, and the article should say so, if sources can be found. - Pointillist (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Diploma conditions

I've removed ObserverNY's addition of the diploma conditions (in this edit). It's entirely too much weight on the conditions, and there is absolutely no reason to list every single rule here, especially when there's a list of them on an external page that we can just link to. Listing everything makes the page harder to read, and it's pushing a POV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, HelloAnnyong - the section as it stood had [citation needed] after it, ergo, no reference for the conditions. The article is about the IBDP. Those are IB's conditions for attaining the diploma. I would think if you were going to give anything appropriate weight in an article it would be the conditions for attaining the product. How could this possibly constitute POV? ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Adding a reference and adding a huge list of conditions are two very different things. The POV I think it's pushing is one of portraying the IBDP in a particularly negative light by showing all these intricate rules for whether or not someone passes. But I'm not the only editor here - anyone else have an opinion? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would sharing the actual rules be viewed as "negative"? Those are the rules. That you think they are "intricate" is your POV. The list is certainly no bigger than the table/list for recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The actual rules are listed in the General Regulations, which are linked. The table for recognition is not found anywhere else, at least not in that form, as far as I know. I think we should keep that and try to expand upon it. Btw, the use of "demanding" does not represent bias, since several sources use the words "challenging, rigorous, demanding, pre-university, college-prep" when describing IBDP. People need to know that it is not a walk in the park.
La mome (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me. They are linked NOW because I sourced the conditions, they were NOT linked before. And just because "several sources" use those adjectives to apply to IB, I could find you "several sources" which use very different, less positive adjectives. People need to know the FACTS about the programme, not what you "think" they should "think" it is, LaMome. ObserverNY (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Text like "which may be found in the Diploma Programme General Regulations" doesn't work here. Wiki is not a how-to. It works better to have some examples and a reference to the general regulations. If people are really curious, they can follow the ref. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh? "Some examples"? But only the ones that "some" editors think are important? Sorry, you either reference ALL of the conditions or none. I don't think it "works better" that way. ObserverNY (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Or... those examples were there before. We reference all the conditions with ref tags; displaying them all out would be, IMO, pushing an anti-IBDP POV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Humorous interlude

While doing some research, I came across the following passage in the preface of Alec Peterson’s book, Schools Across Frontiers:
“The breakthrough in the history of the IB, when it ceased to be a pipe-dream at the International School of Geneva and began to become a reality, came with a grant of $75,000 from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1965. The Fund commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools had caused quite a sensation in America, to produce a report (published by the Foundation under the title Diploma in 1968) on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide. Diploma still provides the only objective, though sometimes very critical description of the early days of the IB. In the course of a rapid tour, Martin visited the three leading schools concerned and consulted with the founder headmaster of Atlantic College, Desmond Hoare, the principal of UNIS (United Nations International School, New York), Desmond Cole, and the English headmaster of Ecolint (Geneva International School), Desmond Cole-Baker. When we first met in Geneva, Martin’s opening words were “How the hell did you get involved in this business if your name isn’t Desmond?”
La mome (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hahahaha - gee, no mention of Harpo? ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
No mention of Harpo in this section. But, we now will have to include the other two Desmonds and Martin Mayer. I would love to read The Schools and Diploma as well. Anyone know where we can find them?
La mome (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
We will? Puhleeze. Discuss the ridiculous rhetoric-laden Leach quote, please. I think you can find something a little more succinct and descriptive of the overall nature of the diploma. ObserverNY (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I am sure that after five years of research you must have something succinct and descriptive of the IBDP.
La mome (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that's pretty rude and snarky, LaMome. You see, unlike you, I'm not so rude as to simply go and delete the whole thing. I thought I'd give you the opportunity to discuss and select something that didn't reek of propaganda and empty rhetoric. I have no one to tag team you to avoid a 3RR, a ploy you know very well. ObserverNY (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Initially Uncle G suggested the Leach quotation on the talkpage. I added it to the text without controversy; I removed from the text when it was questioned; and re-added to the text when we read the background histories and realized that Leach was notable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
ONY-Please explain how my comment was rude and snarky. I was giving you the opportunity to select and discuss something succinct and descriptive. I didn't delete the whole Leach quote, which was suggested by Uncle G and re-worded by TK. I believe it is still a work in progress, so why don't you add something here on the talk page as a possible replacement or addition to the Leach quote, instead of complaining about it all the time. I suggest you keep the conversation more focused on the article and less focused on what you believe to be the intentions of other editors. After almost a year of editing, you should know this by now. Apparently, you haven't learned your lesson, despite the numerous chances you've been given to improve your approach to editing articles and commenting on talk pages.
La mome (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A year, huh? Try four months. And why is it that a quote from someone who is clearly not notable in the Wikipedia sense of notable is allowed to stand as a "work in progress" despite criticism, yet something I add to the article immediately gets attacked and wiped? Can you say double-standard? Your gross exaggeration of my time editing thus far is ironically akin to IB's gross exaggerations about its programmes. Your condescending comment that I "haven't learned my lesson" is insulting. You weren't "giving me the opportunity to select and discuss" you were sniping at my comment that I have researched IB for 5 years and trying to get me to post a different quote for you to immediately attack. I had hoped to avoid further conflict by requesting that you and or/TK or others select something more representative, by a more notable figure, but instead you simply chose to defend how the objectionable quote got there, why it is still there and attack me further. Why don't you take your own advice and focus on the article instead of what you mistakenly believe my cognitive abilities to be? ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to the revision history statistics, your first edit was on 9/11/08.
http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=IB+Diploma+Programme
399 (207/192) ObserverNY 2008-09-11 12:36 2009-08-14 21:43
La mome (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider that "real" editing - that was when I just happened by and tried to insert TAIB into the external links. I had no idea of the, uh, er, um, "anal qualities" of those who haunt this cyberspace regularly. Quite bizarre, actually. ObserverNY (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=237698118&oldid=237697612
September 2008-UNESCO Peace education
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=299317888&oldid=299317019
June 2009-UNESCO Peace education
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=237698118
September 2008-failing conditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=308005434
August 2009-failing conditions
La mome (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
OMG! Will ya look at THAT! I attempted to add TWO FACTS a year ago to the Wikipedia article! GASP! Obviously I paid it little mind until April of 2009 when I attempted to familiarize myself with the whole wondrous WikiWorld of whackos! I'm sorry I ever bothered because it really is quite addicting, as are many online forums. Thankfully work starts soon and I'll have little time for this nonsense. But you knock yourself out, LaMome. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Early history

In reading over the hideous Leach quote again, it dawned on me, why are you starting this section with quotes from Ian Hill? Ian Hill wasn't around back then. I think the entire section needs to be re-written. It reads horribly. ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uncle G explained why he wrote the section using Hill as the source. It's in the archived talk page. Perhaps you can ask his help in rewriting? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G went AWOL months ago. I don't need his help rewriting it. I am quite capable of re-writing it except you would fight whatever I wrote tooth and nail. ObserverNY (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme/Archive_8&oldid=309542884"