Jump to content

Talk:Bandung Institute of Technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:PEACOCK

[edit]

I have read WP:PEACOCK and concluded that mentioning the level of prestige of ITB is valid and appropriate. It is backed up by a valid reference and it is very specific (i.e., from the student selectivity standpoint). According to the guidelines, there are some instances where the important facts of the topic should not be disparaged (under the heading of 'Don't hide the important facts').

In this particular case prestige is one of the important attributes that define ITB in Indonesia. Per the argument established in the reference, the prestigue comes, in part, from the fact that it is the most selective school to get into and that the top X number students in the national entrance examination chose to go straight to ITB. The fact might be a little difficult to comprehend by those who are more familiar with the multi-faceted/subjective admission systems such as those of US and Australia. Yet the pecking order is easier to establish in countries with national entrance examination systems such as China (Peking/Tsinghua University) and Japan (Tokyo University) and to certain extent French, to name a few.

There are many other attributes, even in Indonesia's context, that ITB is NOT (or may not be), such as:
the most productive research institution (e.g., measured by citation index)
the university with the largest research budget
the lowest student to faculty ratio
the best value
etc
Prestige-driven mostly by student selectivity-is indeed an important (and unique) fact to establish because, sadly, without it ITB is no more than yet another underfunded higher education institution in Indonesia's poorly managed education system. Anyone who can come up with better wordings to convey the message above is more than welcome. Wongjerang

A source can advertise any subject, but this is encyclopaedia, not an advertisement agency. So remove any peacock words, per WP:PEACOCK. Let the reader concludes themselves, whether any subjects are prestigious, or brightest, or famous, etc. Remember, Wikipedia is not an advertisement. — Indon (reply) — 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is "prestigious" important to ITB? I don't think so. If you say "ITB is the oldest university", then it is the important fact. Or if you say "ITB attracts XXX students, as of 200X.[cite]", then it is important fact. — Indon (reply) — 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "prestigious" is important to ITB. Indeed I wrote it in my original discussion, at the very bottom. I can explain it further if you want. Cheers

Wongjerang

Then, please explain it further. I'm still not convinced that "prestigious" is important to a university. It is not a quantitative value. It is an advertising term. It is not exact fact. It is also inexact in time domain (see that your source is 1991, 14 years ago!! is it still relevant in the present time, esp. for the prestigious term?). — Indon (reply) — 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me address your questions one step at a time this time, since you didn't seem to read my earlier notes very carefully . Yes I do work in an industry/function where we quantify attributes such as "prestige" through various surveys and market research, etc. Also a quick search on prestige will uncover some academic papers that use prestige as an attribute of an academic institution such as this one: Changhui Kang, 2004. "University Prestige and Choice of Major Field: Evidence from South Korea," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 544, Econometric Society. Or this one
Farnum, Jr., Richard. “Prestige in the Ivy League: Meritocracy at Columbia, Harvard and Penn, 1890-1970.” In Paul William Kingston and Lionel S. Lewis, eds. The High-Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and Stratification. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990, 75-103
Let me know if you are with me thus far before I move on to the next steps of my explanation. Cheers Wongjerang

Wongjerang, it seems that you did not read also my response very carefully. In your examples of references, yes there are qualitative terms, but those papers explain about qualitative study. Are qualitative studies appropriate for encyclopaedic item? Remember that Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a scientific paper. That is why there is a guideline about peacock words.

And you asked in my userpage that I cut the sentence into something that does not mean anything. Okay, let's compare. Here's your edit:

According to a study in the 1990's, the top 200 students in the national entrance examination at any given year preferred and enrolled in ITB, made it the most prestigious university in the country from student selectivity standpoint[1]

and here's my edit:

According to a study in the 1990's, the top 200 students in the national entrance examination at any given year preferred and enrolled in ITB.[1]

The first one has qualitative POV term, the second one only sticks to the fact. Does the second one has no meaning? Of course, not. It has the same meaning of the first one, except it is more neutral. Let the reader decides whether accepting top 200 students is prestigious or not. Do not assert it. If you are still confused about peacock terms, read Example 1 of this: Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid_peacock_and_weasel_terms. It is exactly similar with the case above. — Indon (reply) — 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I half agree with Indon and half with Wongjerang. We do indeed need to be careful about introducing so-called peacock terms, and simalarly, we need to be careful that this is fact-based. BUT, just because qualatative judgements are harder to prove does not mean that they are necessarily incorrect or unimportant. it is simply incorrect to say that "prestige" of a university (whether perception, calibre of students, teaching quality, etc) is unimportant. It is extremely important, and this article needs to comment that particularly for technical subjects ITB is one of the most prestigious in Indonesia (as a former ITB student I am biased and suggest for engineering, it is the most prestigious). BUT, i do agree that this must be backed up in the article. It is not enough to say "it is the most prestigious". If it is true it must be expalined how. It is often, for example, ranked as the highest Indonesian university in surveys of Asia-Pacific unis (higher than most Aussie unis). Ask anyone in Indonesia who knows anything about ITB and they all say it is prestigous - although of course, we can't write that, it does mean that it is significant and can most likely be backed up better than it has been so far in the article. --Merbabu 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, I'm a former one, but I try to push myself out of context and reading the article, as if I'm not related to the subject. I'm still not convinced that by asserting "prestigious", the article has a huge different. The only difference is that it has strong POV. It is different if we're saying something like this: "According to XXX study, ITB has attracted more top students than other universities in Indonesia. [cite_to_comparison_study]". Honestly, the term "prestigious" is unencyclopaedic. — Indon (reply) — 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, just to say "it is (one of) the most prestigious" is a problem, but its reputation as (one of) the most prestigious is important to an article ITB. it can't just be ignored. Can you see the difference between the two statements? Yes, it is a subtle difference, but it is very significant. I think it would be fine to state something like "it has a reputation of being (one of) the most prestigious in terms of...." with of course, adequate back up to the claims in the article.
Although I agree completely that peacock terms add no real value, on the other hand, without some qualatative descriptions, there is also no value if there is no distinction in the articles on say an institution like ITB and some other dodgy sh*tty institution. We all know there are real differences between institutions - I am guessing that you (like most ITB students) didn't go to ITB because it was the most convenient or the cheapest or the easiest. Rather, you went there cos of some aspect of its reputation. But i agree, more work needs to be done.--Merbabu 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. I think we have some differences. I only like to stick to facts (figures,numbers,statitics), when adding to Wikipedia. However, I agree with you if the qualitative term can be asserted if it is in a comparison context, but I prefer to compare quantitave values. — Indon (reply) — 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - i know quantitave measures are safer and easier, but there can be a appropriate time and place for the quantitative if expressed properly. For the record, although i don't think it is currently perfect, the article IS better in terms of POV since the edits of the last few days. --Merbabu 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And last thing, the reason of me studying to one university is irrelevant in writing here. — Indon (reply) — 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah sure, whatever you say ;-) --Merbabu 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indon, pls be specific on each point. I was only referring to this one when I commented on your cutting sentence into something that does not mean anything. Originally it was written this way (again I did not write it)

Today, with the annual supply of Indonesia's brightest students, the university boasts itself as the country's center of excellence in science, technology, and [1]

That's before you went nuts (kidding) and deleted everything with superlative words into something like this:

Today, with the annual supply of Indonesia's students, the university boasts itself as the country's center of excellence in science, technology, and [1]

With the annual supply of Indonesia's student?? what does that suppose to do to the whole sentence?? Off course ANY school in Indonesia will have the benefit of annual supply of Indonesia's student. btw thanks to Merbabu for deleting the whole phrase.Wongjerang

Ah, you didn't tell me, which sentence that you mentioned (you're not specific). The above is very clear of peacock word. I just removed the word. If you feel it's uncomplete, then complete it without mentioning the peacock word. I would suggest to remove the line completely, because the source is irrelevant in time with the beginning of the word "Today...". It is not today, isn't it? It was 15 years ago!!!. The current lead section - edited by Merbabu:[1] - is also inexact, as it says today. Which today? the present time? or 15 years later when my kid is going to read this article? — Indon (reply) — 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indon, you've made a fair point re peacock terms and the article is ceratinly better after your editing. Just remember though that peacock policy is a (good) guideline and in this case, it has shown us not where the article is "wrong" but where it is "lacking" in sources/backup. Also, IMO, the very term "peacock words" is a misnomer as it is not the actual words but how they are used in the context of a phrase. You are correct in changing it, but the whole phrase needed to change.
As for the word "today", i can see your point, but i still think it is fine cos (a) it sets up a sentence to contrast it with the previous one, and (b) it is very common to use this context of the word - ie, the context makes it clear that it actually isn't hari ini, rather it means akhir akhir ini or dewasa ini. using nowadays sounds worse still. Look at the options, i don't think they are better. BUT, now that i seperated the paragraps, maybe we can just remove it - lol. --Merbabu 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better now. Well, the whole article itself is still bad, not only the lead section. The content is still listy and it's not good, because this article is no a list article. I'm going to edit sporadically, when I've a mood to write. ;-) Oh, about "today", I've had experienced before. I used the word "soon" after an event, but it was objected by reviewers, as "soon" is an inexact term to state time. — Indon (reply) — 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol - re inexact times, yes some editors incorrectly treat language like maths with strict rules (rather than guidelines), and they have no concept of context. It drives me nuts, but that is just my opinion and everyone's brains work differently. Usually, there are always solutions that everyone can be happy with. --Merbabu 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more intermezzo. This word "today" reminds me of a sticker in an angkot, when I was still in Bandung. It said: "sekarang bayar, besok gratis", :-)) — Indon (reply) — 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did tell you Indon. pls check your userpage again..:). btw the sentence has nothing to do with the 15 yrs old reference in question, but sure feel free to remove the word 'today'. Now, moving on to the gist of my point: Prestige may be a less important factor of a school in some countries but more so in others where the role of national entrance examination system is dominant such as in Indonesia (and I mentioned China, Japan and French too). It serves as a filtering measure in the job market. That's why in some countries you find certain job positions (private/public) are more accessible to graduates of certain schools. Again I don't know how much you read into my original discussion post.

  • No. I was the one who inserted the source to ONLY meant for the selectivity and prestige portion of it. The notion about ...the annual supply of students..etc is not sourced Wongjerang
  • Now, I'm lost. Are you saying that the "prestigious" word, that you asserted, is something related to the job market? Then it is definitely a term to advertise the text. I'm more than happy to eliminate it. — Indon (reply) — 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have lost me big time here. I was just trying to bring up a broader context of an example why the prestige attribute is important. Now here again you made a very simplistic inference that anything the goes with the word market = advertisment. Have you ever consider context in a logical argument?. And for the umpteenth time: the term prestige is NOT my assertion, it is what the source said---Wongjerang

I was very specific in qualifying the prestige in terms of student selectivity, i.e., how hard it is to get in and how much it was preferred by top students. The reference provides the supporting quantitative results at length. Not sure what you meant by 'inexact in time domain'. You may say it is outdated, but still unless you can come up with a counter reference the fact is undisputed. Nor did I understand you referring to any 'qualitative studies' as non-Wiki. So I don't see anything wrong with saying something along the line of: "so and so mentioned in his book that ITB is the most prestigious university from selectivity standpoint because of X Y and Z". Neither you nor I can decide whether or not the readers should take the statement made by a properly sourced publication into their consideration (unless the source is an advertisement material which is not the case). If needed later someone can simply come up with another reference to counter it, such as "However, the most recent study in XYZ publication stated otherwise" etc. That would be my proposal.

  • I think Merbabu has explained it in a greater extent on this point, where qualitative and quantitative words go hand in hand. I think I even have sent you an excerpt from WP:Peacock Don't hide the important facts: The opposite fallacy is to disparage the importance of a topic. that illustrates the point
  • Compare these words: "soon", "today", "nowadays", "lately", "recently", with these words: "as of 2006", "in 1991", "in the 19th century". Do you get my point? The first ones are inexact in time domain, the latter ones are exact at a specific time. Read this: WP:MOS#Date_and_time. — Indon (reply) — 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again. wrong reference. Pls reread again your original post on 17:07, 24 October 2006 . You made the point about inexact time when you talked about the source being 15 yrs old, NOT about today vs etc.. sigh..---Wongjerang
  • It is a borderline case at best (fact about opinion). Here's an illustration from the WP:NPOV guideline So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," . Furthermore the guideline says But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. hence my proposal above (if you care to look at it again few lines up) still follows the guideline ---Wongjerang

Let me know what you think. First I want to make sure that you understand what I am getting at, then perhaps you can offer your suggestion for improvements. Simply making a blanket statement that 'prestigious' is an unencyclopedic term is plain ignorant to the fact that there's a nuance and context in language. Cheers ---Wongjerang

Above are what I think. — Indon (reply) — 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Indon. I already commented them as well above. Also I wanted to let you know that I echo what Merbabu said that your feedback thus far has been contributed to the making of this article better. It got me thinking. Also apologize if you find any of my remarks are becoming harsher..:) none are meant to be personal. sometimes it was just my frustration, in part, by the difficulties in explaining some important details online (wrong reference, each talking about two different things, etc) Cheers---Wongjerang
Wongjerang, I agree with Indon that the phrase "ITB is the most prestigious university" is inappropriate. It would be fine IMO to state that "ITB is regarded as the most prestigious university in Indonesia, in terms of a, b, c, " and then provide good backup to what you are saying. if you can find the sources, and they have to be fairly bullet-proof and varied in this case, i see no problem with it. But, you can't just find any old source. The sources have gotta be good. --Merbabu 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Merbabu I don't disagree with you. However, I am not the one who asserted, or is wanting to make my own statement, that "ITB is the most prestigious university" . I was just trying to source it in a proper context-you can trace the history-. My first attempt might have been very poor so it was not clear which one was being sourced. (the supply of students, etc was not meant to be sourced) hence my proposed solution now is simply, as i stated above "so and so in his book mentioned that ITB is the most prestigious university in terms to student selectivity, due to the fact that x, y, z". if someone else has another fact they can simply add "however, in other publication so and so says otherwise" Cheers---Wongjerang
Wongjerang, I suggest (this is my relieve to your frustation ;-)) that the line is rephrased as this: "ITB was once said to be a prestigious university in 1991.[cite]" No doubt that it is neutral. Your proposal is still wrong, because you want to assert that "ITB is the most prestigious" with outdated 15 y.o. source. — Indon (reply) — 07:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken about the 15 yrs old source, Indon. I was tempted to add that ‘was once’ words but on a second thought felt it was not neutral either. ‘Once’ insinuated that it –whatever attribute/adjective preceding the word- is no longer true. In the ITB case, we simply don’t know. Its prestige would have been better or worse if the quantitative study was to be conducted now. I agree nonetheless that we should use a past tense (was) on it. Even I often found in practice the use of 'was' begs for more negative insinuation too (hence not neutral) but hey that's the compromise that I could think of thus far. Please see my edit in the article. It is presented as an opinion fact per Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV guideline. It is bold enough that hopefully invites other readers who happen to have a better/more recent data, if any, to come forward and either to counter, support, or complement it. It is still neutral since no one is implying that the opinion fact is correct. I think it is a good compromise that encompasses the concerns that I have learned to surface thus far. (I am obviously bias to my own opinion, heh..heh). I also moved it to the ‘Reputation’ section. Reworded the current sentence (from passive to active voice, a good practice in English) and added the rest of Cardiyan’s opinion fact. I have checked a couple of other schools’ articles and that seems to be a common practice (lumped them all in the reputation section to say publication X ranked the school #2, so and so says the school's best in X/Y/Z, however other argues otherwise, etc). See if you like it better now. Cheers--- Wongjerang
Well a whole section on reputation is not ideal, but on balance, it is an improvement and a satisfactory way to accomodate a range of opinion (ie, Indon and Wongjerang at two extremes, and me in the middle somewhere - so neither like me, ha ha). I agree with most of your other musings above, except for your thoughts on active voice always being preferable to passive I strongly disagree. Although i can't actually see the specific example here, it is not always the case, that active is better: often passive is better. This is another example of where people cling onto a so-called "rule" and apply it in every case without thinking. It bugs me cos it is just another example of how the English language is getting out in a straitjacket and standardised to lose all subtlety and nuance. I guess it is inevitable with globalisation. OK, i will get off my soapbox now. --Merbabu 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said active voice is ‘always’ better. Yes there are cases for the opposite, intransitive case being one, and the other one being of logical sense, e.g., ‘the vaccine is injected to the body’ (the body can not inject the vaccine by itself). In most other cases active is ‘usually better’ since it is less wordy. In the article in question it also flows better with the next sentence-as opposed to abbruptly shifted from passive to active. Cheers---Wongjerang 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

[edit]

I have some nice pics I took of the beautiful engineering buildings and hall. remind me if i don't put them into the article soon. :-) --Merbabu 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-organization

[edit]

I've made a skeleton based on FA article Michigan State University. I suggest that we formulate list of faculties and departments in a floating table. Please expand and don't forget your reliable sources (I don't have). — Indon (reply) — 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy question: what is a floating table?..;) If you could point me to an example may be I can take a stab on it. If I were you I would use the University of Michigan one instead. It is also an FA article. Being very familiar with both schools (U of M and State) I can say that U of M to Michigan (or to the US) is closer to ITB to Indonesia than Michigan State to Michigan or to the US. It will affect the tone, style, sequence etc for the same content facts. Please read on and let me know what you think. Cheers---Wongjerang 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating table -> it's just a table with "float" CSS style. And for the rest of your message, honestly, I don't get it. :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look pal, I won't pretend I know something that I have no clue about..;) what is float CSS style??. I am an industry analyst and not a computer techie but I am willing to learn. Just give me an example, will ya?? As to the rest of it I will show you in the edit directly when I have time. The point being U of M is a flagship university in the state and the nation and the article fairly presented it that way. Cheers---Wongjerang 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSS is a simple mechanism for adding style (layout, typesetting, etc.) in a (usually) web document. "Float" style is a style that makes an element of a page (such as tables) appears "floating". See the faculty table in the article to see it in effect. Hope it helps. CMIIW. Roberto.ea 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and reputation

[edit]

With all due respect, i want to edit the article of this University... ITB is the second most prestigiuos University, the first place is University of Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.237.250 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I just created this section as a place holder to discuss the Quality and reputation section. The section is obviously much improved, providing a place for more balanced view(s). Yet I encourage others to make it even better. I noticed a couple of things. Some are minors/grammaticals while others are more substantial. I will start with a minor one:

However, preferences of high school students in Indonesia to enroll top national universities have shifted along tougher competition among them

This sentence needs to be reworded for a less ambiguity (who are "them"? the schools or the students?) I will come back with other things once I have more time. Cheers---Wongjerang 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you edit it directly, instead of throwing out here if you said that it is a minor one? — Indon (reply) — 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I frankly don't know who do you mean by "them". pls don't take it personally. I also saw your recent edit on the 200 students. It still does not convey the right meaning (all 200 chose to go as opposed to some, and yes it was an observation of multiple years) and I'd avoid long sentence. Cheers---Wongjerang
Okay, if it was multiple years, then give the period of the study. By asserting "at any year" implies that it goes continously until the present time and again it is inexact in time domain. — Indon (reply) — 15:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. I will get back to the specific of that and bring my edit. Meanwhile you are still going to edit on the text quoted above yourself ("..among them"), correct?---Wongjerang
I think it's already clear that it points to the students, of course. If you want to rephrase it, then please do so. — Indon (reply) — 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would have thought it was among the universities to attract top students instead. So if it is among students then how does increase competition among them affect their school preference? so they would spread their choice to more 'safer'/easier to get in schools/hence more realistic? Anyway I made the changes, but somewhat mild this time (no longer minor) cause I also introduced a new substance.---Wongjerang 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March/Hymn

[edit]

Is it appropriate to include information about ITB's March and Hymn to the article? Roberto.ea 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not critical to the article, but would help the article if incorporated appropriately. Be bold! --Merbabu 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is temporarily placed under Trivia section. I'd propose to move it into student's life section just like the one in University of Michigan's article. A minor problem though: in the U of M article, its alma mater song is placed under "Fight song" section. AFAIK, ITB has no fight song, so the section name has to be renamed. Any suggestions? (BTW, some "unofficial" so-called campus' songs are way more popular among students, as informed by a senior ITB (ex-?)student in his blog (see the external link to the university's tunes lyrics in the main article). I'll write more about this later when I have time) Roberto.ea 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ITB.JPG

[edit]

Image:ITB.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Wizardman 21:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bandung Institute of Technology → Institut Teknologi Bandung — real native name Mfa fariz (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose: The reason is simple, and bit similar like others, there is official English name given from the institute itself, so there is no need to rename it to native one. Native name should be used only at article name without available English translation, name of person, or something similar like that. Ivan Akira (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Student organization section

[edit]

In my opinion, this section should contain a summary of the various student organizations in ITB, instead of list and links of the organizations themselves. I have visited several "student organizations" section in various wiki pages for universities, and they contain summary instead of list.

If other wiki-ers here think the list in necessary, maybe it could be placed in a different section called "list of student organizations", and update the section with other organizations as well, not just the HMFT and GAMAIS.

What do you guys think? Wikislemur (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English name

[edit]

We've had this discussion before - please see the defeated rename proposal above, and also http://www.itb.ac.id/en/about-itb/ Davidelit (Talk) 03:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bandung Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bandung Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bandung_Institute_of_Technology&oldid=1213101777"