Jump to content

Talk:Australian National University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pruned from page

=== Recent events ===
On Friday 5 August, 2005 at 1.50pm an explosion in the Research School of Chemistry blew out three windows, burned the roof and caused an evacuation of the University. No-one was injured although it caused $1 million in damage. [1]

I have removed the above section from the article as I feel quite strongly that it is not noteworthy. The university has suffered many, many fires in the last 10 years I have been working here. Many of them much more notable that the most recent one at RSC. Add to that, that the article in the Canberra Times is wrong (Less than 1/3rd or the university was "evacuated"). If we are just including recent events without regard to notability maybe we should include the burst water main of yesterday, or the many different construction projects started or finishing around the university at any time.

If anywhere the fire should be mentioned under the article for the Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University. If anyone feels strongly that it should remain in the article please comment. Martyman 21:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It may look a bit out of context there (perhaps it needs to be part of a history paragraph encompassing things like the burning of Mount Stromlo), but I do think it warrants mention in the article. And for the record, while some of the IAS areas may not have been evacuated, to my knowledge the entire undergraduate area of the campus was. Ambi 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no article for the Research School of Chemistry, as that has been deleted, so it should go in the main ANU page.


There have been many other fires here that I know of in the past 10 years. In the past 3 years there has been 3 in our research school alone (RSPhysSE). Granted none of them caused as much damage as the RSC one but they did involve the fire brigade putting them out. Going back further almost half of RSPhysSE burt down back in the 60s. The Coombs building was quite badly burnt a few years ago. I just think trivia like this would be best dealt with in a more detailed article about the research school in question rather than the university article.
From our side of the campus you could not even see smoke. The emails I recieved on the day where:
There has been an explosion and fire in the Research School of Chemistry. The fire brigade is in attendance. There is dense smoke on campus and it would be prudent for staff and students to stay out of the smoke. Staff and students should stay away from the area while the emergency is being dealt with. The police have closed off that section of the campus. As far as we know there have been no reported injuries.
and
The fire in RSC is now under control. Staff and students should not cross safety barriers until permitted to do so. Some areas may remain closed for at least the rest of the day. So, unless there is reason not to do so, staff and students close to the affected areas may go home.
Martyman 01:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It caught the attention of the national media, and there were police going through every building forcing people to evacuate quite some distance away. Even stuff over in the law faculty was cancelled, for gods sake. It's hardly trivia, it is recent, and as you admit - none of the other fires have caused as much damage. Ambi 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it would look better at the end of the article, rather than near the beginning? Alot of wiki articles seem to have news or recent events at the end.. You could also mention the other fires you just talked about here. Cfitzart 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This would be a good idea, methinks. Ambi 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I defer to public opinion. I must say, I am amazed they evacuated Law, that is a long way away. If someone wants to try and make it fit into the article better please go ahead. For now I have reverted my removal. Martyman 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

housing listings?

Not really the place maybe, but a little help anyone? I'm moving to Canberra in a couple months. Can anybody clue me in where to find online aparment listings (bikeable to campus). Google is not helpful; either that or there's only 20 apartments in Canberra. Derex 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really the place but anyway, having connected, welcome to Canberra. Try http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=rent . The suburbs you may want are inner north; but inner south, Woden, Weston Creek and inner Belconnen are all easily bikeable too. Probably Gunghalin and Tuggeranong, while bikeable would take too long. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
For info on what is in what district see Suburbs of Canberra :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Moving halfway round the world has its little challenges. Derex 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends what campus you're referring to, but ANU has a really good housing database on their website if that's where you're going. Rebecca 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Rankings in Introduction

It seems like around 60% of the introduction to this article is dedicated to ANU's rankings rathern that e.g. location, name, founding etc. á la e.g. Cornell University. Any objections to compressing the rankings down to one short sentence?• Leon 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The ranking section below seems redundant. Perhaps after a sentence in the introduction, all other ranking data should be confined to it's own section. And more importantly, how about the ranking data be presented in a tabular format, to maintain consistency with many other pages of universities, for example : [[2]]

Peacock terms

This article is using peacock terms throughout to show off the topic:

ANU is regarded as Australia's (and the Southern Hemisphere's) leading University...

ANU is particularly strong in research,

In 1960, ANU began offering undergraduate degrees, beginning another era of national leadership — this time based on excellent teaching.

ANU graduates hold top positions in government, business and academic fields, both locally and abroad.

The ANU College of Asia and the Pacific focuses on study relating to Asia and the Pacific region, and is the leading school of Asian Studies in Australia.

The ANU College of Law, established in 1960, is one of Australia's top law schools. The College is a leader in International Law and Public Law.

The ANU College of Science is the largest of the ANU's Colleges, and is widely considered to be the leading institution of scientific education in Australia, and one of the finest in the world.

It should'nt be a promotional page for ANU, but a factual, informative article. Excessive and unsubstantiated use of words like leading, finest, excellent, top, etc diminish the factual basis of the article. Rather than simply saying a College is one of the finest in the world, give information about faculty, publication record, notable achievements and let the reader decide. Although peacock terms may be unavoidable in some instances, this article relies on them too much (c.f. Stanford University, which is a 'leading' university but the article does not state this). 

:The article certainly does seem compromised, and almost worthy of a POV label. I'll see what I can do to bring the article into line with those on other leading universities. Mostlyharmless 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Way too showy. There also seems to be a lot of emphasis on the rankings especially the THES ones. Most of the top American universities' wiki sites have completely dropped THES rankings as it has been recognised as an uncredible source. In the 2007 rankings, the ANU was ranked above Stanford, Cornell etc. Doesn't this call for suspicion in the methodology? Fredreck (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see the value of the stubs for the halls of residence or the redlinks for the precincts. I think we should only break the information out of this main article when it is too big and cumbersome. I would be surprised if anybody would wish to write an article of more than a paragraph or two on say the Baldessin precinct. I cannot imagine there is much to say on Burton and Garran hall either. I used to live in Burton - fine hall of residence but really ... an article? Happy to be proved wrong.--AYArktos 11:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fenner Hall and Ursula Hall articles were quite detailed, I thought the other ones might get to something like that eventually. But youre probably right about the precincts Cfitzart 11:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for the precincts to have articles, as I can't imagine them containing anything of interest to even the ANU community. Do you know if there's any reasoning behind them (i.e. is there a law precinct, a science precinct, or are they just random?). If so, it'd be nice to note which faculties are in each one, as opposed to buildings (which probably have no relevance to anyone outside of ANU).
The hall articles are another matter - they can be quite interesting. There is some precedent at other universities for having them (such as at Monash), and I think they're helpful to have if they're done well - the Fenner article being a good example. Ambi 16:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression the precincts where a recent invention used to break the uni map up into fairly equal sized parts. I don't think there is much thought into what goes where within the University, apart fromt he fact that the undergraduate stuff is mainly contentrated in one half of the university and another side is mainly halls and colleges. Martyman 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I've did alot of work on the Bruce Hall page over the past couple of years. I think its worth having a page for them. I also think its worth having pages for the individual colleges and research schools. They are redlinked on the template, waiting to be filled out. Khing (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary college

http://www.anu.edu.au/secondarycollege/ should we add this?? Shinigami Josh 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour. Khing (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

I think the massive chunk in the beginning on the ANU's world ranking is rather embarassing - particularly for those who embrace it are some of the most educated people in the world.

The chunk seems like an over-justification/compensation for something that really isn't true. First of all the sources that have been quoted use arbitary primitve statistical survey methods. Newsweek simply combined the results of of the Times and Shanghai - a monstrosity in survey/statistical terms!!!

In addition anyone who is insightful enough to pay close attention to the rankings would surely question why the ANU ranks higher than known research and undergraduate/graduate powerhouses such as Dartmouth, Brown, Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, University of California San Diego etc?

It just goes to show that not merely quoting sources is enough. The sources that you quote need to be valid in themselves. Otherwise, you'll simply attract dismay instead of well deserved admiration. Fredreck 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Dartmouth, Brown, Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, University of California San Diego etc" are no longer as good as the ANU. TImes change. Maybe they were 10 years ago, or whenever you were at college, but today, ANU is surely a more research intensive institution. The rankings give a good indication - eg oxbridge, harvard still at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.35.13 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Kim Sterelny needed

Apparently he is headed over ANU way. Could someone there take a photo of him for his newly created biography? Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should do that. He's down the corridor from me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANU People photo requests?

While we're at it, are there any other requests for photos of ANU professors? Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are not notable enough for their own articles

Chancellor of the Australian National University

If no-one objects I will merge Chancellor of the Australian National University to here. No point splitting off the list. - Randwicked 11:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

...and the same for Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University. - Randwicked 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't. Large lists are inappropriate for an article of this size, and would have to be de-merged if were ever to try and get this featured. Ambi 11:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, has this been done before? So it has. My apologies, but if two or more editors come to the same conclusion independently maybe they are on to something. Nevertheless I won't merge it, but I think there should be a more prominent link to these lists in the article than JUST in the infobox. How about a paragraph or two about governance? As it is there's more prose in the lists than there is in the main article. - Randwicked 12:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A section about governance would be really good; it would help highlight these pages, which are a bit too hidden at present, and could incorporate some of the text here. It's mainly the lists which really don't fit in the larger article, yet I think are helpful to have on Wikipedia. Ambi 12:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that all Vice Chancellors since 1991 have refused to acknowledge letters of complaint regarding misconduct by staff of the ANU (criminal defamation, hate crime, discrimination, persecution, inciting mobs to cause severe injury, students being asked to falsify data to 'up the publication rate', etc).

It is impossible to have such matters investigated, as there are no independant bodies that the ANU is answerable to (for example, Chub is a past head of the Australian Vice Chancellors committee, the Science Academy has been chaired by a past Deputy Vice Chancellor, etc). Because of its special position, the ANU cannot be touched by ACT Human Rights or the Commonwealth Ombudsmen (in fact, the ANU legal office has boasted 'the Commonwealth Ombudsmen does what we tell them to.')

In 1991, the Vice Chancellor formally withdrew all rights of students to file complaint regarding workplace discrimination and bullying in response to an horrific incident in which a student was mobbed and severely injured at Ursula Hall. The change in regulation was effected immediately (within 24 hours) upon notification that a complaint had been lodged. 'Budget constraints' were cited as the official reason for this change of policy.[PEC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.205.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are nuts. There are many many avenues of appeal: Commonwealth Ombudsman, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, ADJR Action in the Federal Court, complaint to the Minister of Education... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the chancellors are not notable enough to have there own separate article, and should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.22.97 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Requires article consolidation

We should consolidate all the subarticles as they are not notable enough to exist, and should be merged into this one. Ive created a bug report for it. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23010 [1] 203.166.22.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

John XXIII College?

Why does this college appear separately from the others on this page, it is very inconsistent t o have it formatted this way 124.168.199.111 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove section on IAS

The institute for Advanced Studies no longer exists. Its schools have been merged with teaching areas and now function purely within the Colleges. This will require a big cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.193.14 (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Undeveloped, Needs more effort -- Compare to Melbourne or Sydney University

Please can we develop this page more? It is unsettling that ANU to have such an undeveloped wiki. Compare it to Melbourne, Monash, Sydney -- they have far more depth and interesting detail.. See Cornell University for a nice example.

Agreed. We could start by organising the Academic structure section by tabulating Colleges and Institute of Advanced Studies section (see University of Melbourne). There doesn't appear to be any need to detail each of the component colleges ect of the university on this page with PR guff. It is unnecessary detail on a broad article about the university. Any specific information like this can be forked to specific wiki pages, otherwise the ANU page turns into gratuitous advertising. Any thoughts? A nicely set out table similar to University of Melbourne? Fincle (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The IAS no longer exists, this should be merged into Colleges.--xtfer (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23010

Schools and centres

The sections on Schools and Centres are incomplete - many schools are missing - and out of date. Also, the relationships between Colleges and Schools could be better indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtfer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I've tried to reorganise the article as it was primarily hyperlinked lists. What I think the article needs now is expansion to the history section, clarification of the relationship between the colleges, schools and centres, something on current research, and some better photos. Maybe a better photo of the Law College, Sullivan's Creek, University Avenue etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.43.63 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article layout

I have begun to organise the article in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on articles describing universities. I chose to incorporate the ANU Library, CPAS and E Press sections under the Acton campus section for better organisation, I also intend to add in a description of the National Film and Sound Archive here -AlcanderFrancis (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a multi-article merger — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose that several articles about separate components of the university be merged with the main article on Australian National University. A lot of the information has been duplicated, and believe that the parent article would be better for it if they were all consolidated. Examples include:

Bezza84 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we need to carefully consider these separately. I might agree with a merge for the first five, but disagree strongly about the last one. The ANU library is clearly notable in its own right. There is no need for table, so I have edited it. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the article about the football club could be merged into the main article - its rather detailed and is of questionable notability. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bduke, thanks for your feedback. I have had a closer look at the library article per your objection, and was hoping that you could elaborate on why you strongly believe the library should have its own article. I can concede that the library has an important role within the university, holds some rare collections, and was the first university library in Australia; however the article has been marked as an orphan since Feb 2009, and a lot of the good university articles have information about their libraries incorporated within the main article (refer to the University of Oxford and Yale University as two examples). Thanks also about the bullet points - I'm still learning the finer details of Wikipedia formatting. NickD, thanks also for your feedback. I have had a look at the Wiki articles for a number of leading universities, and most of them provide only a snippet of information about the sporting teams and links to dedicated articles. As such, I retract my vote to transfer that article also. I'm hoping to try clean this article up during the university break, and hopefully help raise it to a GA+ level. Bezza84 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a graduate of Oxford University and you are simply wrong. The Oxford University Library is the Bodleian Library. which, as you see, has its own article. As a copyright library in the UK, of course it is notable. The ANU library is similarly notable, as the library of the national university. Of course there should be some information about the library in the university article, with a pointer to the article on the library. You are also wrong in saying it was the first university library in Australia. The universities of Sydney and Melbourne had libraries before Federation. The library article needs work, but it notable and far too long to merge into the University article. In contrast, as suggested above, the article on the soccer club should probably be deleted with the merest mention somewhere else. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The ANU library isn't a legal deposit library so that comparison isn't really valid. The ANU also isn't 'the national university' - it's actually a fairly standard university, albeit with a much stronger emphasis on research than teaching than is the case in any other Australian university. On the other hand, the ANU's library system is fairly extensive so it might be notable in isolation, but some sources are needed to establish that. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a legal deposit library. Originally I thought it was. I think you are wrong about the importance of the ANU. The Research Schools are quite different from the Faculties, so while student teaching in the Faculties in subject X is fairly standard, the research in the Research School of subject X is certainly not. There is nothing "fairly standard" about the Research Schools - look at the number of Fellows of the Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science just for a start, and then look at their success in obtaining ARC grants. ANU was set up as a national university with only the research schools. The Faculties, teaching undergraduates, came later from a merger. The presence of the research schools makes the library one of the best in Australia and there should be sources reflecting that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Bduke, my mistake with the info on the library - that'll teach me for relying upon a single reference. I concede your point, but still think some more information about the library should be added to the main article. Bezza84 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no good grounds for merging at least the Student Association and Union articles; almost every student union in Australia has its own article, and merging would result in an inevitable (but unnecessary and unhelpful) loss of content or undue weight on that topic in the broader article. I think forcing all these articles into the central one would make GA status for this article very difficult to obtain. Rebecca (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
As the creator of the Academic Structure article, I was actually trying to remove the information from the main article; the information could possibly be reintroduced, but not as the original mess of hyperlinks.--THobern 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been some great feedback here. Does anyone have any opinions on the Academic Structure and Medical School articles? Bezza84 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I couldn't agree more with Nick. Merge all three of them. It would be much better to have these as three separate articles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rebecca the Student Association and Union articles, although small, would probably be less if they were merged into a larger university page and useful information would be lost. Also, it is important to remember that the student representative bodies are distinctly separate entities to the university and are separate but connected institutions. Its ok to have fairly short contained Wikipedia pages ongoing connected organisations so long as they have enough content and weight to be of public interest. Fincle (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (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.

COI - promotional edits by IP from ANU

150.203.192.147 is an IP address at ANU, per this and has been making promotional edits, doing all the usual things described Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Am seeking page protection to end this, and have filed a case at COIN Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Header Changes

Hi Jytdog, I have noticed that you seem to have a beef with this page in particular. Do you have a COI on this? What is your intent? Personally I am not affiliated to the ANU but I have seen that your striking reverts have consistently reduced the information on the page.

Also if you will note, the existing and far superior line now is:

ANU is a member of the Group of Eight and the International Alliance of Research Universities. As Australia’s only member of this association, ANU enjoys close relationships and exchange partnerships with the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of California, Berkeley, Yale University, Peking University, National University of Singapore, University of Tokyo, University of Copenhagen and ETH Zurich.[14][15]

This is well substantiated and I have offered a concession by removing the word prestigious from IARU. This is critical information to any prospective student as exchange life and reputations vis a vis other universities is a critical factor. I am a 3rd party not from the ANU on this but i feel this would be critical in helping me decide over other Universities. To me this is factual enough and does not possess any element of academic boosterism.

Even if you do not respect the University please respect others who are looking to make the best possible choice since wilipedia will likely be their first stop. If you'd like id be happy to cite the various IARU GSPs available to signify the close partnership within the universities— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.173.168 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, i am willing to leave some of this there, but i removed the prestige-by-association listing and the dead link. please do read WP:Avoid academic boosterism Wikipedia does not exist for promotion! Please read WP:PROMO. ANU can create its own marketing material. that is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thank you for seeing reason. As mentioned, I am a bystander with no interest in this and have no interest in furthering the marketing of ANU. However I feel the above focus on the IARU which is a unique tenet in every country be it the UK or Singapore a key deciding consideration. Thus it is extremely useful information to have. I agree the prestigious term might have been boosterism and thus i have removed it for good. I will update the links accordingly as consented. Thanks and have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.173.168 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I feel that the "prestige by association" is something that is implied from the reputation of all the universities inside the IARU, ANU included. However, citing the members and the close exchanges is fair game. While I can concede your movement of the section to the bottom of the package. i feel that critical part should be included. Let's face it, most laymen have no idea what IARU is but this is a factual statement showing how these universities within the association interact and provide opportunities. Cooperation is a two way street, concessions have to go both ways

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian National University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Australian National University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Australian National University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Rankings table

Moving this here until the entries can be sourced.

The following is a summary of ANU rankings, numbers in second row indicate ranking within Australia:

Ranking entity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg.
QS World University Rankings[1][2] 16 23 16 16 16 17 20 26 24 27 25 19 19.9
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1
Times Higher Education World University Rankings[3][1][2] 16 23 16 16 16 17 43 38 37 48 45 52 30.6
1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.6
SJTU Academic Ranking of World Universities[4][2] 49 53 56 54 57 59 59 59 70 64 66 74 77 61.3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.4
CWTS Leiden Rankings[5][2] 114 127 104 89 108.5
1 3 1 1 1.5
Global Employability University Rankings[6][7][2] 20 23 32 25.0
1 1 1 1.0

References

  1. ^ a b "QS(THE) Rankings All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d e "Australian National University - Compare within Australia". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved 17 April 2016.
  3. ^ "Times Higher Education Rankings All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
  4. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
  5. ^ "CWTS Leiden Ranking All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
  6. ^ "Global Employability University Ranking 2015 results". Times Higher Education (THE). Times Higher Education. Retrieved 17 April 2016.
  7. ^ "Global Employability University Ranking 2013-2014 results". Times Higher Education (THE). Times Higher Education. Retrieved 17 April 2016.

In general, tables like this are not a great idea. As time passes, they become a weird little slice of time unless they are updated. They are not really encyclopedic content in that regard. Kind of a WP:BOOSTER thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I appended the original official sources of the rankings. Actually I believe that the cite source I added yesterday (April 16, 2016) is also reliable and from authority (swiss department of education). What's more, honestly I don't think this table is a WP:BOOSTER thing. Because all major rankings are listed (QS/THE/ARWU/Leiden/THE Employability) no matter ANU ranked first, second or third. So I think it is pretty objective and fair. Rankings in the past are also a part of the university, so I think we shouldn't just throw it away. How do you think?

this is the source you added yesterday. Where in that source do I find the rankings for all those years for each of the ranking entities? Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
In this page, you can see there're numbers of years like 2015, 2014, 2013 ... 2003 below Shanghai Jiao Tong title (which is the Academic Rankings' Provider). Click one number link you can get the corresponding result of that year in ARWU Ranking. And so do QS, THE below. Just click the corresponding numbers links.
By the way, the THE ranking shared the same result during 2003-2009 with QS. Please check THE-QS World University Rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyawaki kyoto (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand what it means to provide sources. What you write in Wikipedia has to be supported by an actual source where anyone can go to VERIFY the content. Providing a link to X that I can perhaps to follow to sources Y and Z where I will perhaps find the verification is not what it means. Jytdog (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I updated all links now. People can check the results easily and directly with just clicking the cite source links. If there is no any other problem, I'm going to add this part to the main article.
That's not how it works. I noticed that in this dif you made the rankings within australia a separate row for QS and Times. there is no source for that row provided. I am verifying the other rows still. Might take me a while. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I appended the source for rankings within Aussie, please check the new source added. What's more, thanks for your contribution to this article. I can't imagine how this article would be without the maintaining of you. Thanks a lot.
Full disclosure: I am a current student at the ANU. I've read through WP:BOOSTER, and I'm confident that I can write/edit related articles using neutral, objective phrasing.

Hi there, I'd like to propose the consolidation of ANU-related articles. This would entail the merging of various articles into either the existing article – or a new article, as the case may be – of the 'college' (i.e. faculty) of which they are a part. What I am proposing is perhaps most easily demonstrated by looking at the ANU template as an example. I have recently edited the template to make it so that the university's various 'schools' and 'research schools' (as well as those 'centres' that aren't part of a school, and a few other significant centres) are listed under their respective colleges. What I suggest is that the articles related to the ANU be structured similarly (this would not extend to the ANU Medical School). For example, under this proposal, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Development Policy Centre, Indonesia Project, and Strategic and Defence Studies Centre would all be merged into a new article titled [[ANU College of Asia and the Pacific]] (with the college's schools and research schools as sections, and the centres etc. that comprise them as subsections). I propose that such an article could be structured as follows:

If there's no consensus to merge the articles, then I'd be happy to agree to creating articles for each of the colleges and using {{Main article}} etc. where appropriate. Additionally, if no one else agrees with creating articles for the colleges, I'd at least like to see articles created for the few major schools that don't already have articles. If it is agreeable to other editors, I'd like to work on the hypothetical articles about the colleges in my sandboxes and then submit them to WP:AFC (due to my conflict of interest), and to avoid the unnecessary mainspace edits caused my attempt at improving Template:Australian National University. Please let me know if I've done anything unsuitably. Doonagatha (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. We don't normally regard just being a student at a college as being sufficient COI to prevent editing in the normal way. (Some students have indeed gone overboard in splitting articles or writing individual articles about student clubs, etc. , but you're proposing the opposite, which will merge them in the way that is generally preferred) Nevertheless, it was a good idea to ask this , because of the extent of the changes. Let me know when you're done, and I'll check them. No need to use AfC or draft space for this. The main thing to beware of is to make sure nothing has inadvertently been copied from one of the university web pages. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll let you know how I get on. I'm new to editing, so it might take me a while. Doonagatha (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a COI does not have to stop editing. However the ANU page is already large. So we should not be merging in more content. If the schools and colleges are proved to be notable in themselves then they can have (continue to have) standalone articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
To show notability you will need to find references that are independent of the school with substantial content, which means pages not hosted by ANU. Currently they are not supported by these sort of references. Newspaper articles are quite likely to exist however. You will just have to find them, read them and then use the information here with a reference. TV shows and other journal articles are also potentially there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Do said references need to refer to the colleges specifically, or is it all right if they mention one or more of the schools/departments/centres etc. that comprise the given college? Doonagatha (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Does a separate discussion about the notably of the colleges need to be had before the creation of articles for the colleges, or is this something to be discussed on the talk pages of the hypothetical articles at some point in the future? Doonagatha (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Of the examples listed above, the Crawford School of Public Policy and Strategic and Defence Studies Centre should be kept separate as these institutions are (highly) notable in their own right. The ANU's other high-profile research units, such as the John Curtin School of Medical Research and ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering as well as well-known academic units such as the ANU School of Music (which has received lots of media coverage over recent years), should also remain separate. Bear in mind that the ANU's organisational structure means little to people outside the university (and even people within it - despite completing two qualifications at the ANU I have only a hazy idea how it's structured), so lumping the famous bits of the uni in with whatever their parent colleges are at the moment won't be helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind putting {{Main article}} at the top of the sections about those articles if that is what people want, but what of the other high-profile ANU institutions that don't currently have articles, such as the School of Politics and International Relations and the School of Culture, History and Language? Doonagatha (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Somewhat sceptial of the idea of making up just one page for the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific although I appreciate the approach taken here. However problems would be that (1) the page would get rather large, and (2) it would encompass too many somewhat disparate activities. One possibility would be to create what might be, in effect, a portal page labelled "ANU College of Asia and the Pacific" composed of brief descriptors of the main elements with links across to the existing separate pages. We also need to bear in mind (3) the reality that the current ANU College of Asia and the Pacific is likely to be restructured sometime sooner or later (because the ANU Management keeps restructuring the University from time to time and isn't likely to stop doing so). If and when the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific is restructured, the Wiki page would need to be revised again. (While this is obviously possible, it would seem to me to be easier to handle the changes if the current activities remain separately listed, as is currently the case.) Pmccawley (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Do you have a view on whether pages should be created for the any of the sections of the ANU that don't already have articles? Doonagatha (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops -- sorry for taking so long to reply. No. I don't have any strong view. For me, the first question is "Do we think there is enough interest out there to make it worthwhile creating a page?" I'm not sure if there is enough interest to justify having separate pages. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't. But if we think there is, then I certainly have no objection to seeing pages created. NB (1) -- One way of getting a handle on the level of interest would be to check on how often some of the existing ANU pages are accessed on Wiki. My impression is that some of them are not accessed a lot (but I might be wrong). NB (2) -- If ANU pages are not accessed a lot on Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily indicate lack of interest in ANU, of course. ANU already has a pretty accessible website. It may simply be that users looking for information tend to go directly to the ANU site. Pmccawley (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with merge proposal on the basis that many of the bits, or groupings of bits, are independent. Also, lumping everything into one very large article seems an unattractive option. I don't think I'm adding anything new here. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment I find the idea of a new tree structured article with pointers attractive. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

College of Medicine, Biology and Environment

I'm fine with that, do you have an opinion either way about [[ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment]] being created as an article, with the JCSMR being retained as stand-alone article? With respect to the ANU Medical School, I'd like to see it remain a stand-alone article too. Doonagatha (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, and Rangasyd: Just a general request for further comment, hope I'm using {{reply to}} correctly. Doonagatha (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We usually do keep medical schools as separate articles. We rarely do this for research Institutes , but Curtin may be an exception. We should hold a separate discussion on it. I do not think the other research schools warrant separate articles. They are important, but the usual criterion for doing this amounts to world-famous. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The John Curtin School certainly deserves its own page as it is quite famous. But for example searching for "ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment" on trove: http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22+ANU+College+of+Medicine%2C+Biology+and+Environment%22 reveals lots of mentions, but no substantial content. So it would not be counted as notable in itself. The reason I search Trove, is that it lists things in all Australian libraries, so if there are any books, or websites or newspaper articles from the past it is almost certain to show up. Similarly for "Crawford School of Public Policy" you can see that there are plenty of mentions, and it is also a publisher, but there do not seem to e any writings just about the school that are not written by ANU or the school. So that means it is not notable in itself (or at least that I could not prove that it is notable). But having more than about three paragraphs in the ANU article is a bit excessive, especially as it will be verified by primary sources only.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, sometimes published as '(The) Australian National University. College of Medicine, Biology and Environment.' If the initials 'ANU' are removed from the trove search, the number of results increase to 26 books, the majority of which are theses (+4), 242 journal articles (+142), 3 AV (+1), and 220 archived websites (+112). I have not trawled through each of these items, yet on first impression, most appear as primary sources. In short, the College was established in 2008: see ANU 2008 Annual Report, page 1; previously called the ANU College of Medicine & Health Sciences. A quick Google search of 'College of Medicine & Health Sciences' (limited to Australia only) brings up a reasonable number of secondary and tertiary sources; enough to justify the establishment of an article. I'll make a start in my sandbox and when I'm ready invite input. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. Given the feedback above, I don't plan to merge the ANU Medical School into the sandbox article; however, I do plan to merge the ANU Research School of Biology into the sandbox article. Feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, is there consensus to create articles for the colleges (faculties), with the question of whether the colleges' components (aside from the med school) are to remain as separate articles, or are to be merged into the articles about the colleges, to be discussed separately? Doonagatha (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can do what Rangasyd did to find secondary and tertiary sources, and you can write more than a paragraph, then I think it should be OK to make the page. If in doubt you can use the Draft: prefix to make a proposed page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. At this stage, given the points raised by Pmccawley above, I think I might instead work on improving and updating some of the existing articles about ANU institutions, using more recent sources. That way, the information contained within them could be used if it is decided that they are to be merged, but if that isn't the outcome, then they can remain as is. Doonagatha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I will tentatively do this later on this year. Doonagatha (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, Rangasyd, and Pmccawley: Just another a general request for further comment. Doonagatha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The first step is, as is generally the case, to improve the existing articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
More secondary and tertiary sources are required; yet here is my sandbox article for the ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment. Feedback is most welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed article structure rethink

@DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, Rangasyd, and Pmccawley: Hi there. (I realise that this isn't particularly coherent, apologies).

On the topic of changing articles pertaining to the ANU, I've given it some thought and I wonder if I different approach might be better. Without wanting to come across as arrogant – or as overly focused on this matter – I've taken the liberty of drafting a (very) rough outline of how this might look:

  • Instead of dividing in the various components of the ANU by the 'College' (faculty) in they are now, an alternative approach would be to divide them by the broad academic discipline that they best fit into
    • Just using one of the 'College' names as an example, this could look like "Medicine, Biology and Environment (at the ANU)" instead of creating an article specifically about the "ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment"
      • (n.b. again, that's just an example of what I'm trying to get at here, I'm not actually proposing that 'Medicine, Biology and Environment' be used in an article name.
  • One advantage that I see this as having is that it would make it easier to update the articles whenever the university restructures itself.

I'm completely open to suggestions, thoughts, and feeling on this (I'd love feedback/input general), and I'm happy to clarify/expand any of this upon request. Doonagatha (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


I think it best to go by the usual: the organizational unit. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why you think that would be best? Standardisation with other university-related articles? Doonagatha (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one reason. Not just with the university articles, but with the way all articles on organizations are organized. Second grouping by something other than the university does is making our own judgements, and amounts to some degree of original research.Third, grouping b themes leads to results like Programs for ... w hich is the way many promotional pages do it. And finally, I don't see any advantage DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)`

Area of the campus

The infobox used to say the area was 358 acres and Nick-D (talk · contribs) removed it with the comment "that can't be right - the ANU campus is several km long for starters". We need to straighten this out. First, ANU has multiple campuses, including one at Kioloa of 348 hectares (860 acres) and one at Stromlo of 81 hectares (200 acres). So the infobox needs to qualify the area given as that of the Acton campus only (or the total, or a list, whatever is decided). Regarding the Acton campus, [ https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/university-profiles/ustralian-National-University#.WfKyz3Bx0Q8 this site] says 145 hectares, which is 358 acres and maybe the source of that number. However, in the past decade ANU has expanded a bit and I suspect this is an old figure that is no longer true. I tried to measure it using a Google Maps area tool and got around 160 hectares, but I'm not sure of the boundary of ANU's holdings near Marcus Clarke St and near the National Museum so that number could be off. We need an official source that is up-to-date. McKay (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice that this ANU page also says 145 hectares. McKay (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, if there's a source for the figure it should be re-added, with the source. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Churchill statue

I have just posted a query on Talk:Statue of Winston Churchill, Parliament Square about the replica of that statue (in London) on the ANU campus. If anyone with local knowledge can provide further information – or better still, reliable references – it would be very welcome. Thanks. GrindtXX (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Email Incident

The email incident seems worth a mention. Embarrassing to some administrators, no doubt, but there is no advantage to avoiding it. Some information here.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-02/the-sophisticated-anu-hack-that-compromised-private-details/11566540
Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_National_University/Archive_1&oldid=1186884313"