Talk:University of Ontario Institute of Ontario/Archive 1

uoitaccounting.com
This is the official site of the UOIT Accounting Association, an official on-campus club. If you want to verify this, contact the Faculty of Business and IT at UOIT. You can also visit the CA (chartered accountants) university website at https://www.ca2b.biz/U/links/acctgClubs/BOA/UOITAccountingAssociation.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipbeat (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia isn't a links repository. Ardenn 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not an SA (student association) club, so it will not be posted on their clubs page. This is part of the Faculty of Business and IT and is an official school club. It is not purely social, it is an academia club for those taking the accounting specialization, and should be posted. This should not be affected by the "links repository" rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.192.156.45 (talk • contribs)

Links
What's so bad about having the links there? Seems pretty informative to me. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind a link to a general clubs page, but not to each club or faculty seperaterly. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. Ardenn 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've even gone and added such a link. Ardenn 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the links of the departments to their department webpages. Those seemed valuable, to me. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There aren't all that many faculties at UOIT, I suppose those could go back in. Ardenn 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no main pages (directory pages) that link to the UOIT Accounting Association from the UOIT website or SA website. It is not an SA club, because it's not a social club. Ardenn, do you even go to UOIT? By the way, looking at other universities, there's no reason this link should be denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.21 (talk • contribs)


 * WP:OWN No, I don't, that doesn't mean I cannot edit it. If it's not a SA club, then perhaps there's another resource that it does link from where there's other similar clubs that aren't being included. I just don't want every student club (SA or not) listed here. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. Ardenn 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't any pages that link to it, other than the CA (Chartered Accountants) website. No school sites link to it, and it is an academic club, which is DIFFERENT than the social clubs that the SA link to. We are not part of the SA, we are part of the Faculty of Business and IT directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.136 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no reason why SA couldn't link you. There will be more academic  clubs in the future.  You should take that up with them.  The economics department should also have a link.  in the meantime, wikipedia is not the place for it.  If you really wanted to link, you could perhaps include some info on the activieites of the club, ect. then it might be acceptable. notenderwiggin


 * Also the sociology club at trent has a link from the SA club and is a SA club. You could apply to become an official SA club and recieve funding, other academic clubs have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.156.237 (talk • contribs)

Hi
I am a new author at Wikipedia. I made some changes today. I tried cleaning up the article and I added some information on the buildings, programs, and the universities fast facts. CD7 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a semi-new user, and trent student at UOIT. I think that the info on buildings is too much, also it reads like an advertisement for the school.  perhaps we should note the negatives of a laptop based university as well as the posititives.  Information on each buildiing is totally unnesariy, as is detailede infomation on the programs offered.  The point of wikipedia is not to duplicate the universities website but to be a more objective source of information.  Anyway, when i have more time I will come back and work on this page.  Also, we should include information about the universities unique relationship to Durham college and Trent.  Fast facts like "UOIT is the fastest growing institution in ontario" is kindof silly, as we know that is only growing so fast because it is brand new, and without that context, the fast fact is rather useless.

--Notenderwiggin 05:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CD 7, I've deleted the information about each building on campus as that is totally gratuitous and unnessary, as I student on campus I am not aware nor do I need to be of the name and date of each building. Also I am removing the seciton on every undergraduate program that the University offers.  the function of a wikipedia article is not to duplicate the universities website but to provide a seperate source of information.  Thanks a lot for your efforts, I hope you continue to contribute, but what we need is more orginal information about the school.

--Notenderwiggin 02:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reworded the laptop information againg removed the words "being a special service". I think we should just state the facts on the laptop issue without taking sides either way.  I mean, personally i think that the laptop fee is extorionate, seeing as i just bought my own laptop for 800$, but some people are exited about it.  I think in this case we should just provide the facts without taking sides either way or trying to justify it. Also I think this page is improving in quality, do we want to remove the notice on it?

--Notenderwiggin 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Notenderwiggin. I wonder if we've ever passed one another in the halls. I'm a DC student. Anyway, in reply to the above (wondering about removing notice), I think it's too soon. Half this article still sounds like an ad for the school. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the contributors who have put a lot of this stuff on either work for the university or just cut and pasted most of it. It really doesn't read well yet. Let's keep working on it. Here's an idea: Maybe we should look at other well-established articles on well-established universities, to see how they have been written. It could at least offer a reference point on what this one should look like.Derekwriter 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks Derek for your help. Ya I'm sure we do pass each other every day.  i do honestly think that someone from the PR department wrote the article, or someone so thouraly brainwashed by the propaganda that they can't see straigt.  Not that it isn't an ok university, but this is supposed to be an excyclopedia.  I think that this article should probably stay pretty short, as there isn't much history to write about.  --Notenderwiggin 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to rewrite the "fast facts" section. It's a direct cut-and-paste from the university website (a section that is also called "fast facts"). It's also unnecessarily wordy. Derekwriter 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the cleanup tag. There is really nothing wrong with this article anymore.  It's not great, but it doesn't require a tag--Notenderwiggin 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm redoing "Fast Facts" some more. It's still just an advertisement and some info like that the solar car club is the newest club is pointless and difficult to keep up to date. OpenBook 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I think this section is very badly worded, and POV. It's awful, and not verified. Ardenn 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to this, we could simply remove it instead of tagging it, but we're giving the original editor the benefit of the doubt (assuming good faith). -- Usgnus 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I already removed a very offensive sentence recently. Ardenn  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we need a "Disadvantages" or "Criticism" section, or else the article sounds POV. Every university has some disadvantages for prospective students. And yes, the old criticism section was terse and unreferenced, but so is the rest of the article right now.  Neon    Merlin   03:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent News
Removed this entire section for copyright violation. Some quotes can be taken from it, but not verbatim. Flibirigit 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the text from this page. Link: Conscious 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The dispute

 * 1) Mobile Learning Program - POV & propagandish.
 * 2) Residence - Not cited. Not notable.
 * 3) Innovation and successes - Propaganda.
 * 4) Addition of "notable" professors - They're really not notable. GreenJoe 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my response, going point-by-point:
 * MLP needs citations to back up the assertions, especially that it's "one of a kind."
 * The Residence section is not unlike content in other university articles. But for the claim that all incoming freshmen get spots, I'd let the section go as okay; I'd like to see a source for the claim.
 * Innovation: I agree, this reads of propaganda. The geothermal well on its own is interesting and a good addition; however, the lead-in to the paragraph pushes it over the top. If discussion weren't open, I'd just delete that sentence right now. "Only" laptop-based campus? That needs an independent source. The facts alone (WiFi, power drops, scanning support) aren't propaganda; the unsupported assertion that the campus is unique is.
 * Faculty: I think Grami and Goodman might be notable, if independent sources can be found for their work, esp. Grami with the cell network. The others fail miserably. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reason I'm disputing it is because I can't remove the material without violating 3RR, and a new user is trying to own the article. GreenJoe 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's be serious: None of the noted faculty members are notable as per wikipedia's standards. having a couple of grants does not make a faculty member "notable", specially for people at the assistant professor or lecturer levels. I note that none of these "notable" faculties have wiki pages in their own name. (Ghlobe 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I couldn't agree more. I removed the disputed material that you didn't. GreenJoe 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Current projects needed
As a sophomore member of the science society student at UOIT I think more detail is needed on the current projects going on and the technology available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.136 (talk • contribs)


 * Please feel free to add more relavent information. I've been working on this article, but I've mostly deleted stuff I consider extranious. (like the adjective "amazing" used to describe the rez)  --Notenderwiggin 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is still much work that needs to be done, there needs to be more mention of proffs, and there have been tons of events at UOIT that are not mentioned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahands (talk • contribs)


 * this page should help in building more data:

http://www.uoit.ca/EN/main/11260/15075/construction.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahands (talk • contribs)


 * Why do we care about each building on campus? No site for any other university has stuff on each building.  I just don't think it's important.--Notenderwiggin 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to wiki editing, but if there is going to be information on the new automotive centre, someone might also want to add information on the new Centre for Cybercrime Research. More info can be found here: http://uoit.ca/EN/main2/about/news_events/news_archives/news_releases/267332/20080319.html Tedhead2k (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

@GreenJoe: Deletion of Residence Criticisms?
Hey GreenJoe, I'm just wondering if you could elaborate a little more on why you deleted the Criticisms section I made:

"Many students have voiced concerns regarding the quality of residence[4] and off-campus housing[5], specifically because the City of Oshawa has enacted a controversial ByLaw[6][7]."

Yes, references 4 and 5 are essays that are hosted on student blogs. However, references 6 and 7 are not blogs. They are in fact very reliable sources. #6 is a legal document published by the City of Oshawa (the local government). #7 is a letter written by the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If you want to get rid of references #4 and #5, so be it. There are many many Wikipedia articles that have blog posts are references. I think this section is justified with reference #7 alone. For now, I'm going to put the Criticisms section back in. Chrisjf (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the sourced you added have anything directly to do with the material you added. Only the blogs do, and those aren't reliable sources, thus I removed them until we get a 3rd party verifiable source. GreenJoe 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be patronizing, but what do you mean by "directly"? I clearly said that people have voiced concerns about the housing bylaw and students have voiced concerns about the residence. I gave solid references for the off-campus housing bylaw (reference #7). I guess, I didn't give solid references for the residence claims which is fine. Like I said before, I'm fine with removing the references to the blog posts. Reference #7 is solid. That letter was printed in a bunch of newspapers. Please read the letter again before you reply. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/oshawa Thanks. Chrisjf (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2010-2011 Enrollment
I don't know how to add footnotes or references in the side info box, but I edited the enrollment numbers to be up todate with 2010-2011, according to an article that UOIT.ca posted today:

http://uoit.ca/EN/main2/about/news_events/news_archives/news_releases/2010/20100929_1.html

So if someone who knows how to source things in the side box, please do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.150.86 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion
I removed the section on criticism as it seems to be more of a personal opinion than anything else. The statements in it requires source(s). (Sahands) Jul 29, 2006

How come we can't have critisim, but we can have lots of stuff on this page lauding how awesome the school is? It's true that students have classes in a tennis dome, but you don't exactly find that on the university website. The stuff about the laptop fees is taken directly from the academic calender, so i don't see why it should go. The rule is to put "citation needed" if you arn't sure about something, not just delete it. -notenderwiggin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.130.207 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)