Talk:University of Adelaide

POV Part II

Removed the bit about its law school "producing the best graduates of either law school in South Australia, the other being Flinders University," - this is purely POV... especially as Flinders' law school has been rated the far higher of the two for many years now.

This article has a large amount of content, but also serious tone issues. I counted several instances of word usages like "long, more, excellent, one of the most, significant"... The Research Heading content is a good example of this: "who are recognised as worldwide leaders for their vision and capacity to address global research challenges." It reads not a little like a pamphlet. Guest (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

POV

Was there from 93 to 01. It was great in the earlier days. I think was terrible when I left - so dumbed down, doesn't even deserve to be in 8.

the two 'notable orators' were removed because they are current students not particular well known for public speaking.

Needs fleshing out by current students

Needs to be more stuff about campus life, politics, history etc. in line with other university pages.

Pictures

Does anyone have any pictures they can post of the campus? All there is at the moment is a picture of a sign, and a building which belongs to UniSA (Since the two campuses border each other).

VSU

It is my understanding of the VSU legislation that the Federal Government has no legislative power to compel the University of Adelaide to stop collecting Student Union fees. The legislation relies on the coersive nature of withdrawing federally funded university operating grants to stop the collection of fees. All students are still currently members of the Adelaide University Union. The constitution of the Union has yet to be ammended to exclude unfinancial students (ie post 31st July).

Ozdaren 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge in Students' Association of the University of Adelaide

No point to keep it seperate. This article is almost empty and could use the extra content. --Ultimus 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Students' Association, even though it functions within the University, is a seperate body and should have its own page. --Toowoo 13

24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps merge with the Adelaide University Union article? Ozdaren 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. They're separate organisations, and articles on student bodies interstate have articles.--cj | talk 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible hoax

While reviewing articles at Category:Category needed, I came across Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies. The wording is suspect ("The inaugural Wood-Bright Professor is Dr Nic Frost, who was appointed to the position in recognition of his years of dedicated servicing of some of the most desperate women in Australia"), and an anonymous comment on the talk page suggests that the article was created as a hoax. At the moment, the only article linking to it is here from the University of Adelaide, so I have flagged the appropriate section. Can anyone confirm or deny the authenticity of the professorship, and/or the existence of the British naturalist Frederic Wood Jones? --Elonka 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Blatant hoax. http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Nic+Frost%22+site%3A.adelaide.edu.au and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies%22+site%3A.adelaide.edu.au] return zeros. [http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Frederic+Wood+Jones%22+site%3A.adelaide.edu.au does seem to have actually existed though... I have removed the nonsense from this articel now. 68.39.174.238 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you find out anything about Frederic Wood Jones? Is he real, or fictitious? What about his associate Wilfrid Le Gros Clark? The bio looks plausible, but it also claims notability related to the Piltdown Man hoax, but there is no link from Piltdown back to Clark's bio. --Elonka 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PubMed knows about him, Clark University hosts something that mentions him several times in concert with Piltdown. He's definately real (Although the articel may still be suspiscious. Since the subject of this articel mentions him and has pix of him here, I'm going to say that he's real. 68.39.174.238 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Digging into various page histories, here's the list of involved IP/users that I have discovered so far:

• 220.238.23.46 (talk · contribs) (added false information in January 2006) [1]
• 203.122.205.180 (talk · contribs) (added false information in January 2006) (may have just been unrelated edits) [2]
• 203.35.19.139 (talk · contribs) (added false information in September 2005 [3] and June 19) [4] (This user is probably also Baaaibsnrjp)
• Baaaibsnrjp (talk · contribs) (added false information, such as creating article on June 19) [5][6]
• 220.253.102.151 (talk · contribs) (On July 16, attempted to remove [7][8] false information, and placed alert on talk page [9])
• Tawkerbot4 (talk · contribs) (added false information, by reverting someone else's attempt to remove it)
• 60.226.253.68 (talk · contribs) (re-added false information in August 2006) [10]

It is also worth noting that on June 19, Baaaibsnrjp (talk · contribs) also created the Adelaide University Law Students' Society article (without any references), so I have flagged that one too as a possible hoax, until references can be provided (and yes, I know I can go Googling myself, but right now I'm concentrating on finding the extent of the hoax, so assistance would be appreciated). --Elonka 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of diffs on the above list, but the Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies article was speedy-deleted, which means that I can no longer access its history without admin assistance.  :/ For anyone curious, here is the related AfD discussion. --Elonka 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(update) I think the investigation is complete at this point. False information has been removed/deleted as appropriate, and the IPs have had warning templates placed on their talk pages ({{verror2-n}}). The most recent attempt at vandalism was a few days ago, but hopefully this will stop it. If not, further information can be collated here, and if necessary, we can contact the University to try and obtain further information and/or warn the students involved. Thank you to everyone that assisted with the investigation and cleanup.  :) --Elonka 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should add a bit about the Barr-Smith Library. I would but I don't know how and I can't really be bothered.

Merge From Notice

Merged content from non-notable article Adeliade creative writing course. See old talk page Talk:Adelaide creative writing course Kville105125 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Univeristy of Adelaide around 1869.jpg

Image:Univeristy of Adelaide around 1869.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DAMMIT I WISH THIS BOT WOULD STOP SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS Muzzamo 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: How on earth can that be 1869? The Mitchell building was built in 1881.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Student life

This heading seems to be more of a catch all for student organisations and activities. Other headings have crept into it such as Enrollments, Adelaidean, Singapore Alumni. I don't believe they belong there. Any suggestions to improve this? Ozdaren (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the headings and their content is a bit of a shambles. An entire section for an uncited alumni fund? What? May I suggest a structure thus:

• History - needs expansion and subsections, perhaps "founding", "early 1900s" (eg expansion), "late 1900s" (eg massive changes in 1960s, student radicalism) and "Present Day" (international students, greater expansion, VSU)
• Camuses - ok as is.
• Academic - include "Enrolment" here, it doesn't need its own one-sentence section. There are some serious issues with this section right now ("due to forward thinking strategies", what?? I can't even work out what this promotion is all about)
  • Faculties
  • Research
  • Music
• Student life - I actually think the heading is ok, perhaps "Student activities". Mention overarching associations here (AUU etc)
  • Clubs
  • Sport
  • Media
• Notable alumni - mention the most notable alumni like Florey, Oliphant, Bragg, etc. Link to full list

End of article. Neat, to the point, links to greater information. Suggestions?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Marine Programmes

Why is there such a focus on Marine Programs and the collaboration with UNISA? There are many programs that are done with various universities within the state and indeed the world. I feel its importance in the article is overstated and should be removed.--Duffsta (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of alumni photo

@JJMC89:: Your bot automatically deleted File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg) from this article when it met the following conditions stipulated for fair use:

1. To illustrate the subject in question (the image/file does so as it illustrates the subject as a famous graduate of the University of Adelaide) 2. Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (that is the only image available on the subject) 3. On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (image is used only in the English-language Wikipedia)

What should be done to indicate this fair use rationale and where should the above rationale be indicated? Help. Thank you. Jacknpoy (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You asked the same question at User talk:JJMC89#Deletion of alumni photo and you seemed satisfied with the response you received. So, I'm assuming this in no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable people images

The university appears to have quite a number of notable alumni/people associated with as can be seen in List of University of Adelaide people, so it seems a bit undue to show two images in this particular section. While both Robin Warren and Joni Madraiwiwi seem to certainly be excellent representatives of the university, I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why these two have been selected to have their images displayed over other notable alumni. The Warren image appears to have been added quite some time ago, so maybe there was a consensus established to do so; the addition of the Madraiwiw image, however, is much more recent and appears to have been removed for various reasons only to be re-added again. Perhaps it might be best not to have any images of person used in this section since adding one appears to be seen as a reason to add more. If that seems to be too extreme of an approach, then perhaps it would be best to establish criteria for inclusion such as talk page consensus, and a hidden note could be added to the section explaining this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to abolish the section altogether, but a quick skim of other Australian university articles show they all have one, although without photographs. It seems like a grab-bag of whoever someone thought was "especially notable" some time. Even the subordinate List of University of Adelaide people is highly unlikely to be complete with every person who meets the criteria and could have a Wikipedia article about them, and probably doesn't even list everyone who has an article about them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd also support removing these sections from the articles on all the universities. As Australian universities are usually huge and a high proportion of the population (and especially people who are likely to become notable for contributions to scientific, arts, government, business or white collar fields, all of whom are probably over-represented proportionally on Wikipedia) have been to university, it's hardly surprising that there are large numbers of notable alumni for all of them. The only people potentially worth highlighting in these article are those who became notable due to their connection with the university. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think such lists are common with respect to articles about universities in general, not just ones about Australian universities; so, removing them across the board is probably going to need a well-established consensus via an RfC with lots of participants, even if it's something just applicable to Australian universities. Such a thing might sound a bit daunting, but it's been done before for other things like WP:INFOBOXETH and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and just takes some time. Technically a local consensus could be established here to remove the section or the images from this particular article, but there might be those opposed of such a thing trying to use WP:OTHERCONTENT, etc. to justify re-adding them.

FWIW, the subjective nature of who to mention or whose picture to display is going to always lead to disagreements, and some people might simply want someone they know or feel a connection to added just for personal reasons. That's why it might be a good idea to try and establish some basic WP:CSC for mentioning someone and using their image (assuming the total removal referred to above is not chosen course of action) in the main university article, so that there's at least something which can be used to in deciding who to leave in and who to leave out. Pretty much the most basic inclusion criteria you can have per WP:ALUMNI (that's a WP:WPSCHOOLS guideline, but it also seems applicable here) is for there to be a stand-alone article about the individual, but after that more specific citeria can be estabslished; for example, people whose Wikipedia notable is for the most part derived from their connection to the university can be considered for inclusion, while people who just graduated from the university and then went on to accomplish things which made them Wikipedia notable are more suited for the list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lord Tangatatonga.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)