Talk:University of Alberta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Background colour

Wow, that white text with the yellow background is a nightmare to read. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

Change it like Athabasca University? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Okay, the AU one used to have different colours, but you can change it. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

---

"Sandile Basuthwe" never existed.

Wiki University Infobox

Please change the infobox to wiki-standard University infobox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.109.199 (talk • contribs)

I think it looks fine, IMHO. Ardenn 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All university pages should use the standardised wiki format. --60.49.107.223 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Ardenn 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that infobox is nicer than the standard one. Ardenn 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all university pages are using the standardised format, or are converting to it. It's easier to update the pages instead of having to look through all those html codes. Example on the right. Besides, we need to be standardising wiki formats for relevant categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.107.223 (talk • contribs)

Again I ask, why? What is wrong with the one there? Ardenn 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To standardise using wiki templates. If everyone uses their own format, wikipedia will look disorganised.

University of Alberta

Motto	x
Type	x
Established	x
Endowment	x
President	x
Undergraduates	x
Postgraduates	x
Location	x , x , x
Campus	x
Website	www.xxxx.edu

Sorry to rain on your parade, but there's no consensus to support your change. Ardenn 21:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What consensus is there needed? We are here to standardise Wikipedia. I'm reverting back.

I'll be reverting back again. Ardenn 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't want to use the standard wiki template. Please explain. I gave my explanations on using the standard university infobox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.246.86 (talk • contribs)

Because I like the current template better. It's more colourful and stands out. The template you want to use is boring. Ardenn 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the difference between your explanation and mine. It's not about what you like. It's about making wikipedia accessible to all using set standards. The university infobox was created so that we won't have a hodge-podge of different "styles".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.246.86 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you log in, and then I might take your claims seriously. Ardenn 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an account. Besides, I'm not vandalising, and what I'm doing is helping the wiki community in ensuring that the pages are of encyclopedic standard. And before you ask why don't I register an account, it's cause I rarely edit pages. I've only been editting university pages mainly to do with the styles. BTW, there is nothing wrong with using the University infobox. All university pages are already reverting to that. I'm helping out since there are still so many more university pages out there, especially the non-US and UK pages which are disorganised. Most active university pages are very much aware of the University infobox and have already converted to it. 60.50.246.86 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Create an account, I don't like dealing with IP addresses. That said, you're not even from Canada. You're from Malaysia. So really, go edit those articles, and leave U Alberta alone. Ardenn 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, you can quote every single Wiki convention you like, haul me in front of the arbitration panel, try to get me blocked, whatever - but this is really too much. There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for this despicable kind of behaviour. If you want to debate something maturely, that's fine, but to dismiss a fellow editor's worthiness on the basis of his or her locale? That borders on something I would hope is beneath the members of this project. --Ckatz 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That said, there's nothing wrong with the info box that was on the article. You claim to not be vandalizing, but you're not seeking consensus either, and that's how it's supposed to work. Ardenn 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, the reason I editted these pages was because I was looking for some info on Canadian universities. I realised that many of them are disorganised, hence, I took my time and effort to try 'fixing' them up according to wiki standards. You can look up on my edits, they're all based on styling only. Is there a need to seek consensus to wikify an article? If there is, do tell me. Cause then, practically all minor edits will require consensus or arbitration. Remember, my edits are not related to any factual ambiguation. I did not add or subtract any info off the page. What you're doing just do not make sense. And you're right, I'm not gonna bother with the UAlberta page anymore. It's ridiculous having to defend myself for such a small change. 60.50.246.86 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy in Dispute?

Is the factual accuracy of this page actually in dispute, or is this just because of the dispute over the infobox? If the latter, I think there's a different tag needed there. --Bdoserror 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to that dispute over the info box... Ardenn, as someone who actually attends the U of A, I support the usage of the standard info box. There's no need to use anything else; besides which, I find the green and yellow version to be quite hard on the eyes. Cheers! Khamsin 06:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to keep the green and yellow version, at least make it easier to read. --Usgnus 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the standard info box is much easier on the eyes. If I were aware of its existence I would have changed it myself. Eecon 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been reverted back to Usgnus' last edit (with the standard info box) as that seems to be the direction people are leaning. It's probably worth a proper discussion, though, so as to avoid an edit war. --Ckatz 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the yellow and green box works fine. Ardenn 00:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then let's have a proper discussion, rather than an edit war. --Ckatz 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Except the default was the yellow and green box, that's what was there before this started. Ardenn 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, why did you revert again? You mentioned above that we should have consensus, and so far nobody has supported the use of the box that you reverted to. What would it require to avoid an edit war with you? Khamsin 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is wrong with the current info box. However, I reverted it because it's typically put in the original format while discussion occurs. However, if you really want it the other way, then go ahead and change it back. I don't really care at this point, because as you said, everyone else seems to want it the other way, despite the fact the standard template is ugly and hard on the eyes. Ardenn 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To explain why I prefer the standard box: First, I agree with the previous poster near the top that we should standardize, or else everyone with a personal opinion will turn Wikipedia into a tragic visual mess. If you don't like the standard box, take steps to have the template changed; don't start a war on individual pages. Second, the design of the box that you prefer is very hard to look at. The colours are a touch ... garish, and the text of the hyperlinks is completely unreadable against the choice of background. The standard box may not be the most exciting thing I've ever seen, but I believe it to be the better choice of the two. With that said, though, thank you for understanding. I'll revert it to the standard info box. Khamsin 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I agree with Ardenn about the box, I think this one is much nicer, and should even be adapted with the respective colours to the other Canadian universities. That being said, I also see Khamsin's point about having standard boxes for all the similar pages. Either way, I don't think this is a big issue, and everyone seems to be getting a little over-excited about it. - pm_shef 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The box is not a big issue. If it comes to a vote, I'd go for the standard version. It certainly could use some improvement, but I do feel that it is important to have a unified look to the pages, as it feels more professional. I've no desire whatsoever to get into an edit war about this though, and certainly won't participate if one starts. I'm still disturbed, however, by the earlier comment to the (anonymous) editor who made the initial change. --Ckatz 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Which comment? 2) If we were to make them all the colourful version, with the colours being changed to go with the schools' colours, would you go for that? - pm_shef 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to 1), it's the comment Ardenn made in the previous section: "Create an account, I don't like dealing with IP addresses. That said, you're not even from Canada. You're from Malaysia. So really, go edit those articles, and leave U Alberta alone." As for 2), I'll go with whatever consensus is reached. My thoughts as to colours would be to do something in the top of the box to reflect the individual university's colours. Having the entire box coloured creates problems with legibility, as well as esthetics. Thanks for asking! --Ckatz 02:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm entitled to my opinion that he should create an account. It's not an attack. Okay, I could have been a bit nicer about his being from Malaysia. Ardenn 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn - the problem wasn't with your opinion that he should create an account. That's perfectly reasonable, albeit rather bluntly stated. What I find offensive is the idea that someone's opinion isn't valuable just because they're not from Canada. This is a discussion about an issue of esthetics. Where one is from has no bearing whatsoever on it. The article's subject might be Canadian, but that doesn't mean that Canadians are the only ones entitled to contribute to it. (For all you know, by the way, it could be a Canadian filing from a Malaysian IP.) Please, please take a look at what you wrote, and try to put yourself in the recipient's place. How would it make you feel? --Ckatz 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Asking is the only way to get consensus ;-). Anyways, that's probably a better idea. I don't know how to code that kidn of thing, so if you know how to do it, I'd say go for it. Regarding the comment, if you want to take it up with someone, you can either try Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents or Request for Comment/User. Not that I'm saying you should or that I endorse such a thing, but just so you know your options. - pm_shef 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the level-headed advice is appreciated. --Ckatz 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, my main concern was with the legibility of the text in the main section of box; if someone were to create a template for all of the universities with variable colours in the top of the box as Ckatz suggested, I'd support that. Khamsin 03:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Dispute

OK, I'm the 'Malaysian' that started this whole debate/argument. I still don't understand what's the issue here. Anyway, you guys should look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities, Infobox, Infobox Templates, and Template_talk:Infobox_University (for those interested in using the University infobox template). BTW, ardenn, I'm not offended but you should really think about what you said. Says a lot about you as a person. That said, I see many wikipedians acting as if wikipedia is their little playground of sorts. They don't realise the importance of wikipedia, that is to eventually be an .. encyclopedia. Not your virtual space to edit as you see fit, or edit as how you like it. It's a community project, and hence, many of you tend to take advantage of its leniency when it comes to issues like these. Standardisation is being done through many Wiki Projects. There is a reason for standardising articles, not only factually but aesthetically, that is to ensure that it is accessible to all. The debate specifically for UAlberta's page started since last year (refer talk above). It shows the inherent problem with not using standardised formats. --60.50.251.239 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox University

Please see Template talk:Infobox University#wiki-only table and cleanup. I proposed added options to customize the look and feel of a university infobox. An infobox is great for standardization of data and making it easier for people to find similar info among many articles, but certain customizations can make infoboxes more interesting without sacrificing standards. As it is now, with so many optional fields, the boxes end up looking pretty different anyway. --Usgnus 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox - Mascot Information

I just wanted to point out that in the infobox, under the mascots category, the female's mascot "patches" goes to a link of actual patches... the kind of patches you wear on clothes. The actual mascot is not a 'patch', its name is 'Patches'.

I'm not sure how to remove the link, but it should be changed.

• Done. Thanks for the tip. -- Chabuk 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Faculté Saint-Jean at the Campus Saint-Jean

Sorry, I'm very new at this, and it might seem like an obvious thing to anyone who lives in Edmonton or attends the UofA, but for the sake of people who aren't as familiar with the University's operations I was wondering if it would be appropriate to mention something about the relationship between the Faculté Saint-Jean and the Campus Saint-Jean under the Campuses Section, in a similar way that the Augustana Faculty is mentioned in the section about the Augustana Campus? RAult 11:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very appropriate. We need some more content about the campuses. Yury Petrachenko 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Augustana Athletics part of UofA?

Just wondering if the Athletics program at the Augustana Campus (which is mostly ACAC and totally separate from the Golden Bears/Pandas) should be given any mention under the Athletics section of the UofA page, or if that should be reserved for some future Augustana Faculty page? RAult 11:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it certainly should. The athletics section is very weak, please expand it. Yury Petrachenko 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People

I think all the people associated with the University should be moved to their own list. GreenJoe 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

With that, how is Tony the Tiger associated with the U of A, or is that a weird joke someone's playing? I think it needs either to be clarified, or to be removed. Opendestiny (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Campuses (Campi??)

There's a South Campus as well, about 2km south of the Main Campus. Not sure what it's purpose is, I just commute past it every morning. Miken32 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

South Campus hosts the U of A research farm. It also hosts some advanced Faculty of Education classes (for students to complete their APT), and includes the Seville Centre, where University curling courses are held. (Also its campuses, just like its grammatically correct to say octopuses and hippopotomuses) Opendestiny (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reputation section

The reputation section seems like a sprawling mess right now. Whats more, a lot of it is out of date. Would anyone like to take a stab at taking it out of list form and putting it into a coherent couple of paragraphs? TastyCakes (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried updating the Thes-QS Ranking in 2009. But although I could update the new references for the rankings in the text, it would not let me update the info box references. Junaidasm(talk) 15:20, 11 October 2009

Ah I see, that's because the reference is built into the template... I should make a new template for 2009 rankings... TastyCakes (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Current Faculty" section

I'm inclined to think this section should be deleted. None of the other university articles I've looked at include current faculty, at least not faculty that aren't exceptional in some way. I'm going to delete a big chunk of the list, please let me know if you object. TastyCakes (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"faculty will attempt to unionize"?

Aren't faculty members already in a union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.173.77 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

new logo and new slogan

Hi, recently the uofa redesigned the institutional logo, they also added a new slogan that reads "Uplifting the whole people". The new slogan though, only appears in a promotional video, and I cant see it anywhere else. anyways, a think that slogan is kinda gaaay. Also I dont like that much the new logo, which is pretty similar, but it drops the quaecumque vera. anyways, I thing wikipedia should change it, cheers :)[[File:promo video displaying the new logo and the new slogan]]. Danielfc.mx (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

HDR Photos

I feel that these photos do not belong in an encyclopedia. The excessive post+processing makes them feel fake and unprofessional. While their artistic merit is open to debate, I don't feel they are appropriate for Wikipedia. I will take new, properly exposed, documentary-style photos if the community doesn't object. Moneyswears (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1