Talk:Pre-service teacher education
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Name
editThis article is really about teacher training at VU, not teacher training generally. It ought to be re-named appropriately. Avalon 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The fact that it is NA-centric does not necessitate a move, and no real further arguments were made. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Pre-service teacher education → Pre-service teacher education in North America – The text of the article refers only to US and Canadian pre-service education programs. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC) CBloomie (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see anything about the US, either. But why not expand the article to represent a worldwide viewpoint instead of moving it? Where would the redirect from this title point? Dekimasuよ! 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 and the last paragraph reference the US. The worldwide viewpoint on this topic is extremely diverse in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBloomie (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't see why what is currently in the article doesn't currently fall under the scope implied by the title. Why not expand the article instead of renaming it? Is the current title a subtopic of Teacher education? Dekimasuよ! 23:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and oppose on the grounds that the article can be expanded at its current location. Dekimasuよ! 23:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good topic. Yes, the article is currently US-centric, and has been flagged as such for some time. It should be expanded rather than accepting the current unsatisfactory state of the article. (Reminds me of one of IBM's favourite problem close codes of past days... document as a restriction. Or in other words, we know it's a problem that affects our customers but we can't be bothered fixing it. I think we at Wikipedia can do better.) Andrewa (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.