Jump to content

Talk:Doctor of Philosophy

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

Several of the countries on the 'PhD Graduates in the workforce' graph (x-axis) are incorrect.

[edit]

Several of the countries on the 'PhD Graduates in the workforce' graph (x-axis) are incorrect.

e.g. UK and US are indistinguishable, New Zealand is just 'New'. One label states 'Slovak'.

Fully protected edit request on 27 January 2024

[edit]

A protected redirect, PhD, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Doctor of Philosophy]]
{{R from initialism}}
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Doctor of Philosophy]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from initialism}}
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, * Pppery *! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

[edit]

I changed the image at the top of the article. On 13 Feb 2023, the lead image was changed from McGill graduates wearing doctoral robes to an image of a 1973 PhD diploma from the University at Buffalo. The imagine seemed entirely arbitrary, as U.Buffalo was not the first university to offer a PhD, nor was U.Buffalo mentioned anywhere in the article. The year 1973 is also not noted as an important year in the development of the PhD. The individual listed on the 1973 degree is an active wikipedia editor, so I suspect whomever made the change did so as a thoughtful mark of respect. A better image would be a scan of a PhD diploma from an early 19th century German university, but being unable to find one I instead used an 1861 Yale Diploma, as it was the first university in North America to award PhDs. An image of a ~1800 diploma from Berlin or Bonn would be even better, if a user can find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:3D00:1EF:8CA3:F342:D8E4:A8F8 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those factors really apply here. An antiquated diploma is better left in the body, but its less relevant to readers than a more recent PhD diploma. GuardianH (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree - I think our unregistered colleague has it right. Unfortunately, the specific image they added is a particularly terrible one even if the subject of the image is much, much more appropriate. I think it's completely okay for us to not have an image in the infobox at all until we can find a better one. ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo What makes the image so bad in your view? GuardianH (talk) 06:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the "new" image added by the unregistered editor, my objections are simply to the image quality. I imagine that someone proficient with image editing and restoration could clean up some of that. I also think that it's not ideal to use an image with a watermark (or whatever we should call the metadata that is included in the image by the organization who holds the physical artifact). For what it's worth, I also agree with our colleague that a photo of an older German diploma would be better both because it would be more historically important but also because it would be good to not continue to overrepresent the U.S. in Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep the full name for consistency with similar articles and that PhD is not a universal abbreviation of the term. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Philosophy → PhD – Per WP:COMMONNAME the abreviated form without dots is the most common in ngrams, more than twice as common as "Ph.D." and much more common than the full name, which doesn't seem to be very widely used in comparison ([1]). The proposed term is also more common in google scholar, with 18k results since 2010 ([2]), compared to less than 17k for "Ph.D." ([3]) and less than 8k for "Doctor of Philosophy" ([4]). Vpab15 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it matters very much but "PhD" is an abbreviation, not an acronym. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK both follow that guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain on where I stand. I think that making an empirical argument based on common usage, especially automated tools like Google ngrams, is very difficult because the abbreviation is very frequently used as part of titles and signatures for recipients of this degree. This article, of course, is about much more than just how the abbreviation is used in those instances. ElKevbo (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Google ngrams and that is not the case. JLCop (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT, given the title of every other article about an academic degree (including, e.g., Bachelor of Arts, which is frequently referred to by its initialism). Graham (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "consistency does not control" JLCop (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The full sentence you appear to be quoting from is: "There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control". This is obviously in neither of those areas. Graham (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the current title is more consistent, it is less concise, natural and recognizable. So per WP:CRITERIA, it is a worse choice than the abbreviation, which is also more common as has been shown. Vpab15 (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My "Doctor of Philosophy" from Oxford University is a D. Phil., not a Ph. D. Clearly the full name covers more ground. Bduke (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is no more than a personal anecdote. I understand you prefer to use the full term, but per policy, the abbreviation should be used if it is more common and better satisfies WP:CRITERIA. Vpab15 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. PhD is merely an abbreviation of Doctor of Philosophy. As a encyclopedia, we should be using the full name of the topic as our title. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACRONYMTITLE says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. This is exactly the case, so per ACRONYMTITLE, the article should be moved. Vpab15 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is widely known both by its name and its abbreviation(s). It's not a question of counting. Abbreviations will always greatly outnumber a thing's full name. That is their purpose and nature. Once a name is established, its abbreviation is used to avoid countless unnecessary repetitions of that longer name. It's rare that abbreviations are used exclusively and to such an extent that their origins become obscure. Station1 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the term "Doctor of Philosophy" is more exact. PhD only turns up more often in Google Scholar because it is used as an abbreviation in titles, the fact that "Doctor of Philosophy" manages to show up even half as often despite (presumably) only appearing in prose indicates that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Psychastes (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that "Doctor of Philosophy" manages to show up even half as often despite (presumably) only appearing in prose indicates that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. I am not sure I agree with that logic. The fact that "Doctor of Philosophy" appears half as often shows it is used half as often as "PhD". How can it possibly show that it is the common name? I am sorry but that is a ridiculous suggestion. Vpab15 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as others have already noted, Ph.D. is a not a universally used abbreviation and the article should reflect that (eg. D.Phil. etc) Ppt91talk 15:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not the case JLCop (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some better Google Ngrams searches. SilverLocust 💬 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support PhD is a much more commonly used term than "Doctor of Philosophy". Also officially the PhD I am currently doing is titled Doctor in Philosophy so not even Doctor of Philosophy is universal. Nathantf (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Checking google scholar results for "Doctor of Philosophy" ([5]), almost all of them are actual dissertations or PhD thesis, rather than proper academic papers about PhD degrees. It seems the full name is almost never used even in an academic context. Vpab15 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose on the grounds that redirects are cheap, and academic titles are generally spelled out. BD2412 T 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, @Vpab15: brings up a couple good points, that WP:ACRONYMTITLE supports the move, and also that "Doctor of Philosphy" is quite rarely ever used in place of PhD, even in an academic setting.(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACRONYMTITLE says "if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title", which does not appear to be the case here, so it's definitely a stretch to say that it supports the move. Robminchin (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Google scholar results, the only time the full name is used is in actual PhD dissertations or thesis. Outside that very narrow use case, the full term is almost never used. Readers somewhat familiar with the term PhD (pretty much all of them) will most likely have only come across the abbreviation. Only people that read or write PhD dissertations will be familiar with the full name. Vpab15 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not the case. A simple Google search shows dozens and dozens of other uses. The large majority of readers will know what Ph.D. stands for, and there are redirects for those few who might not. Station1 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is already a redirect from PhD (usually used without period abbreviations as ‘Ph.D.’ nowadays). Moreover, there are other doctoral degrees whose abbreviation is for the same type of Doctor of Philosophy research degree. This is a “water is wet” common knowledge, so we shouldn’t choose just one of the abbreviations. Refer also Ph.D. (Wiktionary) and existing PHD. Chrisdevelop (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for several of the reasons above, such as WP:CONSISTENCY per Graham. Since the alternates already redirect here, the full name provides both encyclopedic coverage and information. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is consistent with PhD-MBA. In any case, per WP:TITLECON: Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination. The proposed title is clearly more recognisable, natural (the most widely used in academic sources and the only one used in non-academic ones) and concise. It is as precise also. Overall, the proposed title better meets WP:AT. Vpab15 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to the strong arguments laid out by others about consistency and abbreviations being inappropriate for titles, I would like to add the new argument that moving to PhD would be excessively US-centric. Simply scrolling down Degrees around the globe, you will see that many countries have PhDs (and a wide variety of equivalents) that are not called "PhD". I don't think you can call "PhD" a "COMMONNAME" if it doesn't even apply to a vast swath of Doctors of Philosophy! Toadspike [Talk] 03:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the name in non-English speaking countries is relevant to determine the common name in English. Evidence provided so far (ngrams and Google scholar results) show "PhD" is much more common in English. Do you have any evidence that contradicts that? Vpab15 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_of_Philosophy&oldid=1242190972"