Talk:UST Growling Tigers, Tigresses, Tiger Cubs and Tigress Cubs

Image copyright problem with Image:USTLogo.jpg

The image Image:USTLogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:UST Yellow Jackets Logo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo

This seems to be not the official logo. The one on Facebook almost looks like the current official logo but it isn't. Currently the only logo we should use is either the one on the jersey (the one on Facebook isn't identical), or the one used by ABS-CBN (the one that shows the entire tiger that looks to be running). –HTD 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Team rosters

I've removed the team rosters from the article since and this is a general article about all of the UST athletic teams so there should never be too much focus placed on one particular team which loses sight of that. While it's appropriate to include some content about each of the school's teams, individual rosters and other excessively detailed information is more suited for individual team or individual season articles than it is for a more general article such as this. Not only will such information likely become outdated as one season changes to another, there are also WP:Namechecking, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:BLPSOURCES issues that may come into play. This article is not a team guidebook or yearbook for the school's athletic teams. Content which is properly sourced and summarizes the teams and their accomplishments is fine, but too much detail is not OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for being invited to comment but I have little to add. Stay on focus, resist the temptation to throw in everything. The team has a a roster- great, does its nature affect the performance of the team, if so include it if not just walk away. From --ClemRutter (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC) WP:WPSCHOOLS

I'd agree with keeping the current rosters at the team and season articles, but I fail to see how the laundry list of supposed policies are justifications for removing those here. If those are not appropriate here because of those, it's not appropriate anywhere else in Wikipedia, and it is appropriate somewhere else.

There's also a question on sports and seasons which are not notable enough (for example, I don't think any of the UAAP fencing teams merit a separate article). If someone wants to add its current roster in Wikipedia, and it's appropriate to be posted at this website, where should it be placed? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify my concerns about this content without resorting to WP:OMG types of short-cut links. Wikipedia articles are for the most part intended to be written in a summary style that strikes a balance between providing a general overview of a subject with certain details about the subject. So, an article starts in the lead as a broad summary of the subject matter and then expands on various aspects about the subject in more detail throughout the body of the article. The same can be said when considering the relationship of different articles about the same general subject matter; there may be a parent article which discuss the subject overall and broadly touches on certain aspects of the subject, but there also may be separate more detailed articles related to these individual aspects. The more detailed articles may be further supplemented by even further detailed articles which go in to even more detail about certain aspects about the subject. All of these related articles can then connected by Wikilinks or hat notes which give the reader a way to find out more details about the subject but also helps preserve the overall balance not only within these individual articles themselves but among the different articles as they relate to one another. Wikipedia articles are not intended be all inclusive of every single bit of information, even reliably sourced information, that can be found out about their subject; rather they are only intended to present content which is deemed to encyclopedically relevant to the readers of that particular article in accordance with the level of detail deemed to be appropriate for that particular article. This is why an article about a Wikipedia notable band may contain some general information about the band's history, members, music, and other activities, etc. but that there are often more specific articles written about a band members, albums, awards, songs, etc. where more detailed information about each of these things can be found. While it's technically possible to include all information related in the main article about the band, the excessive amount of detail often disrupts the overall balance and flow of the article and simply repeats information that is better suited for the more specific individual articles. Figuring this out involves a bit of an editorial judgement, but usually when the content about a certain aspect of the subject becomes so extensive that it can justify a stand-alone article being written about it, the content is split off from the main article into another stand-alone article specifically devoted to it. So, an article about a band may include content about its albums and eventually there might be enough content about a certain album to justify a stand-alone article being written about it. Most of the detail about the album is then moved to the new article about the album itself. In same way, an article about an album may include content about the songs found on it and as more content is added about the songs themselves, new stand-alone articles may be created that specifically cover the individual songs.

Articles about universities like University of Santo Tomas aren't too different in this aspect. The main/parent article about the university is only intended to be a general overview of all content deemed to be encyclopedically relevant to understanding the university at that particular level. As more and more content about the individual departments, people, and other things associated with the university is added, separate articles may be created which allow the overall balance of main article to be preserved while also providing a more detailed explanation of these individual aspects. So, the main article about a university may now contain some general information of its athletic teams, but more detailed information about these teams can then be found in these other articles, such as an article about the university's athletic department. Subsequently, as more article is added about a particular team to an article about the university's athletic department, an new article may be created that specifically covers the individual team. In the same way, as more content is added about a specific season to the individual team article, a new article may be created that deals specifically with the particular season. As you move through this process from fairly broad coverage of a subject to more specific coverage of a subject the level of detail that might be encyclopedically relevant to the reader for each of the articles also changes. So, the amount of detail found in article about an individual season of a team is not and should not be the same as found in the article about the team as a whole. Similarly, the amount of detail about an individual team found in an article about it should not be the same as found in article about the university's athletic department as a whole, and the amount of detail found in an article about the university's athletic department an article about it should not be the same as found in an article about the university as a whole. In other words as you move one one article to another, details should be added/removed based upon what's required for that particular article.

With respect to the fencing team mentioned in an above post, if there's enough content to support a stand-alone article being written about it, then it seems that it might be OK to add information about the team's current make up/roster to such an article; at the same time, however, if a viable stand-alone cannot be written about the team, such content should not be seen as automatically being OK to add to the main article about the UST athletic teams anymore that in would be automatically OK to add such content to the main article about the university itself. A university might consist of lots of academic departments or schools (e.g law schools, med schools) and while it would be fine to mention these to some degree in the main university article, it wouldn't really be a good idea to try and start including lists (i.e. "rosters") of all the current faculty members of these departments/schools in the main article about the university. Wikipedia notable faculty members might be OK to mention, but even in that case it might be impossible to mention every Wikipedia notable faculty member in the main university article; so, more detailed information can be added to stand-alone list articles of notable alumni/faculty or individual articles about specific university teams, departments, or schools if such articles either already exist or can be created. If one of these teams, department or schools is simply not Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be created about it, then that's probably a good indication as to the amount detail about that topic that Wikipedia should be providing to its readers. Wikipedia is not obligated to mention any members of individual sports team by name just they are members of the team just as it's not obligated to mention the names of individual faculty members or administrators or any other employees just because they work for the university. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank. You. So. Much. For. Explaining. That. I. Did. Not. Knew. It. Worked. That. Way! Seriously though, I appreciate your effort. If you expect me to read all of that, I may have disappointed you. Your comparison with varsity team rosters with faculty members are apples and oranges though. Varsity sports are widely covered (some not as much as others), but even the least covered UAAP sports are covered in order of magnitude covered more than say, what university professors (well, most of them are assistant professors) do. Indeed, varsity athletes are covered in the newspapers for doing varsity athletics; university professors, when covered, it's usually not because of "professoring" but rather by something else, such as they are a celebrity or prominent somewhere else, or if something scandalous happened.

I'd admit that judo athletes are not that widely covered (these are individual sports, for example), but for team sports such as men's volleyball and women's football, where some of these are televised (unlike professors doing professor stuff), and if there isn't a specific season or team article, would people be removing it because it shouldn't be here, but somewhere else but that somewhere else isn't created yet? How can you invoke summary style if there isn't anything to summarize? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if my post came off as a bit patronizing; it wasn't intended as such. Moreover, I just didn't post for the benefit of you, but for perhaps anyone might want be reading this discussion. I get that sports generally receive more coverage that academics, and that among sports some do receive more coverage than others. If there's content about specific sports teams that can be verified through citations to reliable sources and can somehow be incorporated/summarized into this article without out basically transcluding/repeating information found in other articles, then that should be OK. The fact that one team has a stand-alone article written about it while another doesn't, however, doesn't (at least in my opinion) serve as a de-facto justification for trying to to this article into mini stand-alone articles about some or all of the school's teams.

Is there any real encyclopedic benefit provided by a roster full of names who are almost all non-Wikipedia notable as individuals to the general reader who knows nothing or near to nothing about this particular subject matter? Is it of particular relevance to the readers of this article to know who these players are, how tall they might be, what high school they graduated from, where they are on the team's depth chart? Does the reader need to know the name of the team physician or equipment manager, etc. All of that stuff was basically the type of information the rosters were providing? That's fine information for a team program guide or yearbook, but that's not really the purpose of Wikipedia and seems really extraneous for an article such as this. Some of the rosters even seemed to be for high school teams (boy's and girl's teams) affiliated with the university, which seems even further beyond the scope of this article. Is it really relevant to the general Wikipedia readers of this article (not just fans of the school's teams) to know the names of the members of the high school teams and the names of the grade schools they graduated from?

I don't think it the comparison between team rosters and faculty member list is really like apples and oranges in that the comparison is about the relevant encyclopedic value of adding a list or non-notable names to an article, not a comparison of the relative weight of the coverage that a sports team and an academic department might respectively receive in reliable sources. Anyway, I think what McVahl posted at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Philippine university athletic team articles is something worth further consideration. McVahl suggestion of examining other similar articles about university athletic departments seems like a good one; moreover, it might be helpfu to not just look at articles for Philippine universities, but for other countries as well. You could even look further at articles about high schools/high school sports team too. Perhaps doing this can help serve as kind of a guide to try and sort out what to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@NRT^530: I'm not sure trying to re-add basically the same roster information, but in prose form like you did here is the best way to to resolve this. You've posted on various user talk pages asking others to comment on this, and at least one person responded at User talk:McVahl#Talk:UST Growling Tigers by advising you to try and resolve things on the article's talk page; yet, you've not made any attempt to do so or clarify why there's a need to include the names of not only current team members at the university level, but also the names of junior (high school) team members in this article. How is that information encyclopedically relevant to the general reader and how is it not going to be outdated over time? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant to post here sooner, but I have not gotten around to composing properly the things that I needed to say. Howard the Duck has also pretty much raised the concerns that I initially wanted to raise.

I had not been mindful when I included the names of the players that are participating in the current UAAP season because I had taken it to mean that what you were opposed to was the presentation of rosters in table format. I even made it a point to include inline citation at the beginning of the lineups for verifiability. This will be the last time that I will include a roster of current players in the UST Growling Tigers article page.

The intention behind my recent edit is all in good faith (I have fixed broken links by updating inline citation to two items in the introduction article, added content to empty sections, and tried to improve appearance by updating tables with a uniformed background color and simplified styles).

I do not wish to start an edit war against any of the editors here in Wikipedia. I also do not wish to add anything more to this discussion, but to clarify, I do not believe that team lineups will become outdated with all the editors making timely updates on the article page.

On another note, I notice that you have edited the article pages of the member schools of the UAAP and the NCAA during the past month. Why are some rosters removed and others retained? I am not familiar with how editing decisions are made but I do not wish to pursue further discussion on this. It only makes me wonder as a reader and as a researcher. Rest assured, I am appreciative of all the things that you do here as an editor.

Good day.

NRT^530 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My concerns were not really about the way in which such information was being presented, but rather that it doesn't seem to need to be presented at all, at least not in this particular article. Team roster information seems more appropriate for articles specific to individual teams or individual seasons, both at the professional and university level. If there are no stand-alone articles about individual teams, then I'm not sure that information should be added here or anywhere else. In addition, I don't think the names, etc. about members of junior/high school teams are really needed in the senior team articles as well, but definitely not here. If the consensus turns out to be in favor of adding all that content here here, then that's what will happen; in that case, though I hope the reason will be policy/guideline based and not simply just to add the names somewhere.

As for the other articles, I removed the content from those article because I felt it was inappropriate, but I wasn't necessarily searching those articles out. I only came across them in the course of looking at some other issues. It's quite possible that there are some articles I didn't see or didn't read all the way through if I did. Cleanup is a never ending process and it's always not possible, particularly for one person, to do everything in one fell swoop. Stuff may get overlooked or may be missed; so, I wasn't intentionally singling out some articles at the expense of others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapsible boxes, silver and bronze medals

@NRT^530: I have comments on your recent edits:

• (1) Can we omit those collapsible boxes? Or merge them into single section? I found a good article—Michigan State Spartans and you can see Championships section where it lists all the championships in comma-separated years, grouped by sport and division. Presenting such information into a tabulated form doesn't necessarily mean it is always better than list. Please see MOS:TABLES. (P.S. As a mobile reader and editor, these are freaking me out as I see these boxes!)
• (2) Are silver and bronze medals necessary? We are lacking sources about game results during early years of UAAP basketball and volleyball. But how can we verify the completeness of UST's record for second/third place? (especially during those early years when there were only four school members?)

All in all, can we please check Michigan State Spartans as our basis for improvement? And as I mentioned in WT:TAMBAY#Philippine university athletic team articles, articles like Harvard Crimson and Princeton Tigers are also good for consideration. —  McVahl  Talk  03:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I made the tables into a collapsible format because I believe that the data that can be found there should not be the main focus of the section but the text in the articles themselves (this is also why I felt the need to add paragraphs to sections that only featured rosters and medal tallies). From my own experience (in reading in both mobile and desktop views), those tables take a up lot of space and it takes a longer time to scroll down to the next section. I found an article that instructs conversion of the collapsible tables in mobile view (Template:Collapse-mobile), but I was unsuccessful as I could not follow the instructions.

The idea of dividing the teams (basketball, volleyball, football, etc.) into individual sections was also from my personal experience of scrolling (will a consensus be needed for this?). I find clicking on sections in mobile view to be more convenient than scrolling all the way down when all the different teams were lumped in a single section. Plus, in desktop view, we can always just click on a particular section in the table of contents box. For reference, I stumbled into the Florida Gators article page and saw how this method can also work for the Growling Tigers' sections.

For the championship tally table, I only modified what was originally in the basketball section (but removed schools that the team defeated and lost to). If you or other editors have better ideas, then I am all for changing this format for as long as it will improve the quality and readability of the article.

For the silver and bronze tally, I believe it plays an important role, especially in the context of "Where has this team gone all these years after winning the championship in season so-and-so?" I find it to be helpful, particularly in the boys' volleyball and the men's and women's football teams where they have not been winning championships but have been in the top three rankings for so many years.

I forgot to cite my sources for those second and third place finishes, but what I did was to go to each UAAP season articles and check the ranking/placing of UST in the overall championship tally table at the bottom of each article.

I have checked Michigan State Spartans as well as other NCCA Division 1 teams (Michigan Wolverines, Duke Blue Devils, Arkansas Razorbacks, Syracuse Orange, North Carolina Tar Heels, Texas Longhorns and Virginia Cavaliers), and found the Florida Gators to be the most suitable reference for comparison. But again, I openly support any editing format that will help improve the article.

NRT^530 (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: silver and bronze tally completeness: the season record list on your recent edit (say, on men's basketball). You started the list on UAAP Season Two (year 1939). Does that mean UST was fourth placer on UAAP's first season? —  McVahl  Talk  08:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If they weren't third placers (being that I only included medal finishes), it would mean that they ended up between fourth and last depending on how many participants there were in a particular season. But from what I know, there weren't any championship matches during those early years of single round robin competitions so ranking was based on the single round win loss results.

NRT^530 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

But your list indicates UST men's basketball silver finish on Season 13 whereas single round robin is still in effect? This now leads to confusion and incredibility (double round robin elimination started in Season 15, as per UAAP Basketball Championship).

Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If we refer to the NCCA Division 1 team articles you mentioned earlier, info on team's runner-up finishes are rarely mentioned, only when necessary. —  McVahl  Talk  10:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find my reference for Season 13 at the moment. I was making this table late last year but I cannot find the online article.

What I found instead is an entry at Gameface PH about the 1950 National Open championships. They referred to the UST Glowing Goldies and the FEU Tamaraws as the "UAAP champions and runner-up."

My point is this: if there are no championship games before Season 15, why are runners-up given recognition? Either the UAAP Basketball Championship article got it wrong or they referred to the second-seed as the runner-up?

My understanding of WP:NOTEVERYTHING is that ranking beyond 3rd place (non-medal ranking) should no longer be mentioned like how they do in other pages. And as far as taking NCAA teams as reference, we don't have to adopt everything. Only the good parts. But if you think that it is better to do away with the 2nd and 3rd place finishes, then I will not object to it.

NRT^530 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I finally found my reference for the UAAP Season 13 2nd place finish of the UST Glowing Goldies. It's an article that I found at RP Basketball Photos & Articles about the 1951 National Open championships on January 14, 1951.

"The Goldies were a pretty frustrated group. In the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP), the Goldies had lost out to archrival Far Eastern University's Tamaraws, and it was no different in their Inter-Collegiate campaign as the Tams succeeded three-time consecutive champion Mapua Tech to the throne."

NRT^530 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I take basketball as an example, but how about volleyball? Did UST get their first silver/bronze finish in 1994? I don't think so. This silver/bronze thingy will never be complete, unlike championship medals where the information we have on hand is present with the help of numerous reliable sources.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists.

Unless UAAP releases official and final team standings per tournament from first place to last place from Season 1 – and the inclusion of such information here would be beneficial, statistically and historically. —  McVahl  Talk  01:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disastrously bad name

@Bagoto: You've moved this to the current article name. The scope of this article also includes the high school teams. So, going by your argument, shouldn't this be "UST Growling Tigers, Tigresses, Tiger Cubs and Tigress Cubs" (or probably ordered differently. Are we using the Oxford comma?)? Also, the you moving the article doesn't "widen the article's scope". The scope of the article already includes all varsity teams, of either sex, in either level. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)