Talk:Engineering Science

Specific programs
Perhaps information on specific programs should be moved to their own, or a relavent page? I removed it, will make it consistent with the consensues in Engineering Physics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.92 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

advice
The Toronto program does not belong here, and it will be removed. it sort of overbalances the article. So will the list of notable programs unless some documentation can be provided. We cant just make even sensible value judgments of our own here.

Almost no individual academic department in the world in any subject has a separate WP page, and if you create one, it will inevitably be nominated for deletion,and almost certainly deleted unless you can show that it is notable separately independently of the college. I suggest you make a page for the various engineering departments at Toronto, giving them each a section. This hasnt really been tried yet, and it would be interesting to see it. I think it could probably be defended.
 * as a practical matter, you should probably make it off line or in a user sandbox, and add it when its complete and well sourced. you know the way people are around here (smile) DGG 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

bias & references
Firstly, I would like to point out that the Toronto section includes many bold statements without any external references (i.e the dropout rates). Overall, it sounds as though the authors of the section were biased which leads me question the credibility of the article. (comment by anon.)

Question
If this is an article about a specific program at a specific university, then the first section is not relevant, being general background only, and the article can and will be challenged as non-notable.
 * If this is an article about the subject, then the Toronto part should be removed.
 * I ask the editors to choose.
 * If left to myself, I'd choose to keep an article, by deleting the over specific part. The edit comment on the article asked that this be discussed on the talk page, so let's discuss it. DGG (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hearing no objections, I've just removed it. P{lease discuss objections here, do not revert. DGG (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)