Talk:IB Diploma Programme

Curriculum

Is it possible to create different articles that explain the various courses offered by the IB Diploma Program similar to how there are various articles about the courses offered by the College Board's Advanced Placement Program?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on IB Diploma Programme. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203040730/http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group3/ to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203034850/http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group6/ to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721184310/http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/additional/ to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/additional/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203034850/http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group6/ to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324043655/http://www.ibo.org/diploma/recognition/directory/index.cfm to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/recognition/directory/index.cfm

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) 00:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Six subjects: one each from Groups 1–5.

Shouldn't it read instead one from each of (the) Groups 1–5? https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/374207/one-each-from-plural-noun/374208#374208 JMGN (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

IB Diploma Programme

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Zero feedback received; nominating editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There are lots of primary sources and there could be more secondary sources. History section is pretty small and there have been a fair amount of changes to the IBDP since 2010. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

Redoing the subject groups

Don't know where else to put this; here seems like the most appropriate place.

All of the articles from IB Group 1 subjects to IB Group 6 subjects suffer from severe problems. I wonder if they should even exist. They are largely regurgitations of primary material (IBO subject briefs/guides) without independent analysis (WP:INDISCRIMINATE requires such data to be contextualised using independent sources, none of the articles are written in an encyclopedic manner). And because of the overreliance on primary sources, I doubt whether the articles should even exist as standalone articles per WP:PRIMARY and WP:GNG.

(Also, much of the material is badly outdated and poorly maintained including signs of LLM writing as seen in IB Group 4 subjects#Physics (2023 onwards) and substantial chunks of WP:OR)

I think the best thing to do is to rewrite and modestly expand the Subject groups section of the current article, then turn all six aforementioned pages into redirects. (A standalone mega-article on the subject groups probably won't meet the notability guidelines.)

If I have the motivation to, I'll probably do it myself. This should be noncontroversial, but this discussion is still warranted given the extent of the issue. 皮斯恩丘0〇零玖 · talk/留言 11:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)