Jump to content

Talk:University of New South Wales/Archive 1

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

Main Articles for Main Falculties

I think alot of the Faculty information should be expanded. eg. Faculty of Engineering and Sub-Faculties. (NeoDeGenero 10:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree. We can be bold and expand them. Recurring dreams 11:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
i'll do that during the winter break then, too busy with my thesis at the moment. NeoDeGenero 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Group of Eight

In addition to the article's general faults (overly long, overly specific information), I find this section especially unclear. Could the "Group of Eight" be briefly summarized on this page so viewers unfamiliar with the term need not click on the link? Also, why is the Times Higher Ed Supplment ranking cited for a second time, especially since it's not the most recent version?

Rando, 129.170.90.193 07:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole purpose of links. So as not to unnecessarily repeat information. Xtra 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually that long if the plethora of lists were removed. Surely someone from the uni would be able to edit this to make it more of an article, rather then a simple catalogue of lists.Nebuchanezzar 12:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont see anything wrong with that particular section, im assuming it has been fixed since then. banno kun 3 April 2006

The page is fine.

I don't think the group of eight section is necessary. Already mentioned and contains outdated and irrelevent information.

A "Campus" section?

Perhaps a Campus section would be useful, especially with the references to "lower campus" and "upper campus", which an unfamiliar reader would not understand? --Sumple (Talk) 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some stuff, but it needs to be worked on. Nebuchanezzar 13:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Edit

I plan on re-writing several key parts of this article with a much more in depth look at the actual campus of UNSW (as the comment above states), as well as a better structure. Any suggestions, or helpers? Nebuchanezzar 12:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly help! Witty lama 13:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Once the holidays begin, I will start on this effort. Check out My Sandbox for how things are progressing. Witty lama 08:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The current image used in the university logo is somewhat inaccurate to what UNSW seems to use. https://my.unsw.edu.au/unsw/Logo.html has a nice set of logos which I feel would be better to use over the current one on this page. Any thoughts?Nebuchanezzar 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We will have to get both the crest (which is already there) and the UNSW (in their special font) up. This will come under logo policy in this context. Witty lama 05:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we please ask the University for the crest in its raw format (i.e. SVG or Illustrator) so that we can do a better job scaling it ourselves? Our userbox Template:User_UNSW looks a bit blurry right now. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
All of their logos are available at the above weblink. If what we need is not there then they are unlikely to give us a different version. We'll have to make do with what's available - which isn't bad if you ask me! Witty lama 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So do any of you guys have suggestions on how improve our Userbox? A different colour scheme perhaps? Current and Previous. Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
On that note, I'm not sure that the current userbox, with the scaled down crest, is actually allowed. As far as I can tell, Fair Use images (such as logos) can ONLY be used on the page that is explicitly about that subject. Therefore we cannot use the crest to identify ourselves with the uni. This is why userboxes do not have the Acutal logo of companies but approximations of them. Can someone remove the crest from the userbox ASAP? Witty lama 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We might need to seek clarification from the school office as https://my.unsw.edu.au/unsw/BrandGuidelines.html seems to endorse our use of the school's brand.

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but I think that the copyright laws which pertain to WP supercede the above. We've uploaded their logo under the tag of "fair use". To use it in a userbox is in violation of that tag. If the uni gave us specific permission to use their logo then it would be ok. But this will not happen as I have personally talked to the marketing director of the uni and explained the image tagging system of WP to her - she was especially concerned about the misuse of the logo. I explained the constrrains of the fair use tag and she was happy with this. Witty lama 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm pretty sure that the first and second sections of this article are a directo copyright violation. I haven't put up the notice yet, but I don't really think there's much choice in this case. The article is copied word for word out of a book, with no credit given. Nebuchanezzar 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I am gradually re-writing both parts--Unswranger 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Motto translation

Hello all,

The article as it stands translates UNSW's 'motto' as: 'Knowledge by Hand and Mind'. In fact, the 'Knowledge' bit of this phrase ('Scientia') is part of a charge on the shield, not part of the motto proper. The motto is actually the shorter, 'Manu et Mente', 'By Hand and Mind'. This distinction is reinforced when one looks at the actual grant of arms, Argent on a Cross Gules a Lion passant guardant between four Mullets of eight points Or a Chief Sable charged with an open Book proper thereon the word SCIENTIA in letters also Sable which mentioned the 'Scientia' but actually omits reference to a scroll and motto. According to [1] the 'Manu et Mente' motto was adopted by the University when from its predecessor, the Sydney Technical College. I therefore think that the translation of the motto that appears in the article should be the shorter, 'By Hand and Mind'.--138.130.104.226 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. 'Knowledge' shouldn't appear.210.23.145.230 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Name technicality

Currently the article calls UNSW "the University of New South Wales", ie. suggesting that "the" is not in the University's actual name. However, section 5 of the University of New South Wales Act 1989 states:

The University is a body corporate under the name of the University of New South Wales.

Unless someone objects I think this should be adjusted - it's only minor but it was raised on the University of Sydney article. --ajdlinux 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the issue was raised here. --ajdlinux 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, I think it should be adjusted so that body text refers to the university's name with a "the". enochlau (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the Act, it's ambiguous as to whether "the" is part of the name, because it's not in quotes and "the" is in lower case. However, if you go to the university home page, they include "the" as part of their name. enochlau (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right - in the USyd Act "The" is capitalised. It's sorta ambiguous. --ajdlinux 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding the "the" in as according to a certificate on my wall, it's "THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES", which I think is enough proof. --ajdlinux 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

The stabilising techniques of the 1980s provided a firm base for the energetic corporatism and campus enhancements

What exactly does this refer to? Needs clarifying.Osakadan 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it refers to synergistic delivery of stakeholder-orientated value-adding while maintaining core competencies. --Sumple (Talk) 05:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ten faculties to nine faculties

I wish to summarise my recent changes to the UNSW article. Firstly, as you may or may not know, UNSW has gone from having ten faculties to having nine faculties. And before you think about crying foul and saying "that's not true Just James, this webpage: About UNSW says you're wrong Just James", let me just say that the UNSW homepages have yet to be updated. How do I know that? My dad is the senior manager of Human Resourses at UNSW. He has been intimately involved in the merging of the Australian Graduate School of Management with the Faculty of Commerce and Economics to form the new Faculty of Business. So these are the changes I have made to Wikipedia:

  • AGSM faculty has been deleted from the UNSW article.
  • The Faculty of Commerce and Economics has been moved to the UNSW Faculty of Business.
  • The UNSW Faculty of Business now provides a link to the AGSM article.
  • The Faculty of Business section of the UNSW article now provides a link to the AGSM article.

If you are concerned that the removal of the AGSM section of the UNSW article has reduced the content of the article too much, you can provided a synopsis of the AGSM within the Faculty of Business section of the UNSW article. But there isn't any point to doing this because we don't do that for all the other schools within each faculty. Remember, the AGSM is now a school not a faculty.--Just James 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a summary of the merger within the Faculty of Business section.--Just James 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For more information, please see what was written by other users on the Wikipedia articles for AGSM and the UNSW Faculty of Business.--Just James 00:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Aha!, please see the AGSM's external website, which states that "AGSM offers a full suite of MBA and Executive Programs and is part of the Faculty of Business at The University of New South Wales".--Just James 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The Faculty of Business website states its full title as "Faculty of Business incorporating The Australian Graduate School of Management". Do I have enough evidence yet?--Just James 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, it's probably the correct option. enochlau (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The UNSW home page now confirms the change from 10 faculties to 9 faculties on the about page.--Just James 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

I think the paragraphs on the university's world ranking by the THES is rather unnecessary and embarassing - (esp. those who embrace it are some of the most educated people in the world) Hence I figured it would be a good idea to remove them.

The paragraphs paints a picture of something that really isn't true. First of all the sources that have been quoted use arbitary primitve statistical survey methods. THES simply surveyed a handful (approx. 2500) academics from around the world. First of all the sample surveyed was ultimately biased as it fails to include many academics from established universities in South American and Africa. In addition considering that there are millions of academics in the world across countless disciplines - there's is no way that 2500 academics can effectively rank nor rate universities as a whole.

In addition, one thing the rankings fail to account for are the calibre of the students that the universities attract. That is - what percentage of the undergraduate student body graduated in the top 5-10% of their class or state. And what is the student retention rate as well as the graduation to student ratios for phd research degrees? Although universities are research institutions, it is undeniable that they are also places where knowledge in dissemnated and carried on. Universities that are unable to attract or retain the top high school and phd students in the country or state are obviously worth questioning.

From a quantitative standpoint the methodologies employed by the rankers are a clear example of lack of statistical knowledge and professionalism. For example - Newsweek simply combined the results of of the Times and Shanghai - a monstrosity in survey/statistical terms!!! For a clearer picture, it's simply equates to taking the average of two averages...

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 Institute, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of California San Diego etc? Their research enodwment and publication rate alone is larger than the Tasmanian economy.

There has been a long tradition of ranking business schools, which has proven tp be quite popular in the media. Owing to this te recent trend of ranking univsities has proliferated. However, it should be noted that ranking business schools is slightly different in the sense that you are ranking based on a very target-specific discipline and that most business school around the world employ the generalised GMAT test in the selection of students. Finally, peer ratings can be more effectively completed as you are only rating those within your own discipline - however even this still presents problems of its own let alone rating entire universities.

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. And for those whole are uninformed, invalid information such as these can cause much damage to the reputation of reputable schools.

Fredreck 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the ranking procedures to make a valid assessment of their reliability myself. However, almost every page on wikipedia about universities make a reference to them, including top ones like Harvard University, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to Australian universities: University of Sydney, University of Technology, Sydney, and Macquarie University. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find too many pages that don't mention them. In that light, as the broad consensus on wikipedia has been to include them, I think we should keep the section on rankings.

Furthermore, I think as you are advocating a rather large change, I think it would be best to keep the material until we form a consensus. Cheers. Recurring dreams 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's uncanny that I've provided a numerous amount of justification re. the removal of the rankings info - however the justification that you've provided to retain them is simply because other wikipedia university pages make a reference to them... Changes to entries are necessary in order to facilitate and proliferate the correct nature of it all - and in contingency, it ultimately sets the writer and university apart from the others by not endorsing such nonsense.

In addition, of course the universities you've mentioned would illustrate them in their pages simply because they came out on top. On the counter side many reputable universities such as: the California Institute of Technology, Rockefeller, Dartmouth, Brown etc. omitt the altogether.

Finally, perhaps you should set upon your inquisitive nature and find out more about the criticisms behind the rankings - I think you might be pleasantly surprised...

--Fredreck 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I freely admit to being ignorant about the worthiness of rankings. I've invited a couple of editors who have been involved in the UNSW page to come over and have a look (hope it doesn't violate the new canvassing policy). Recurring dreams 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to base my response generally on how material is included on Wikipedia. I think your confusion is a common one: Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, and instead, we are here to report what others have said elsewhere. The Times is a respected publication (of course, not to the same degree as say, an academic journal), and its rankings shed an interesting comparison between universities around the world. Rankings, in general, belong in an encyclopedia, because it provides information about a university that someone would be looking for if they were looking at an article about a university. Ultimately, any ranking is an approximation of the "worth" of a university, because no metric can adequately summarise an entire university into a number. Despite the flaws you mention above (which I don't dispute), the Times ranking is useful encyclopedic information - that's the test that we use to determine if something should be included. By including it, we're not saying that this is the actual university's ranking on an absolute scale: we are merely reporting that this is what the Times had to say about the university. I think the ranking should stay. (If you are really passionate about this, I don't think this is the right forum for discussing such a change, because it affects pages beyond this one.) enochlau (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

quote: " THES simply surveyed a handful (approx. 2500) academics from around the world.". Peer review accounts for 40% of the grade but there are other factors. They also include paper/citations, staff/student ratio, and something about international orientation. The only other decent ranking system is the STJU one. I think without better metrics, there's no reason to delete the current references to THES. Some universities are proud just to be in the top 100 of the THES rankings. No ranking system ever covers every possible factor, there will always contention from those who don't come off best. The problem is that as humans, a majority of people will always compare one thing to others in its subset, so there is always a need to include some form of metrics. ---Blu3d 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Folks, I apologise if I came across as being rude ealier on. However please take a look at the following journal article. It's a simple read and will explain all.

http://www.geocities.com/universities06/ajueart.pdf

The Times is indeed very respectable, however it wasn't the Times that carried out the survey - it was a contracted consulting company called QS Quacquarelli Symonds. And it appears that QS simply went for a convenient sample. I understand that the purpose of Wiki is not to be juice squeezingly tight in terms of accuracy but when you do see it, it should only be fair to omit or correct it.

With re. to Blu3d's insight that the THES uses other criteria to rank the universities - well the article also explains each one in detail. In essence, it's better to have no metrics than have invalid/crap metrics. At least that way you are not misinforming.

Indeed, why can't we just follow suit in terms of Caltech whom openly disregard the rankings altogether...

--Fredreck 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"It was recently voted the number two engineering faculty in Australia (19th in the world) by the 2008 Times Higher Education Supplement World University Ranking behind Melbourne University(16th in the world)." I doubt that the 2008 edition of these rankings is out since 2007 haven't been published yet. Please correct if you made a typo, otherwise revert to the previous version.

Minisu 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The THES' 2007 Rankings ranks the ANU above Stanford. Is there any need to question the methodology? Or should we blindly pursue information from sources that we simply "choose" to believe to be true and credible? I'm removing the THES ranking section simply because from an empircal unbiased review of the methodology reveals that it is fundamentally flawed (only 3% of respondents replied to the survey which is equivalent of asking 3/100 people their opinions of something and taking it to represent the views of the majority). Fredreck (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is best seen as a summary of what other people have said about the subject in question. In the case of university-related articles, it is usual to discuss the ranking of the university according to some publication; even if you disagree with the methodology used by THES, you must admit that it is a somewhat noteworthy publication and deserves a mention. By including it, we do not necessarily imply that we agree with the ranking - we are simply reporting what the THES said. I suggest a revert of the deletion of the paragraph. enochlau (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is simply a summary of what other people have said than it would be permissible for me to add a statement following the THES paragraph stating how controversial and uncredible the ranking system is? The answer is it probably would be deleted. Also taking on your argument perspective, the threshold for inclusion is verfiability, but the threshold for EXCLUSION is also based on verifiability. Thus here are my verifiable sources:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20877456-12332,00.html http://www.geocities.com/universities06/ajueart.pdf http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/KeyMar8-10Aug07.pdf http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-5-30.pdf http://news.independent.co.uk/education/higher/article3245492.ece Fredreck (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNSW Crest.PNG

Image:UNSW Crest.PNG 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 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 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving from B-class to GA-class

Hello! I'm interested in improving UNSW's Wikipedia presence. While it would be lovely to see this article reach Featured Article status, it's a case of first things first. What does this article need to be considered a good article? Here are my notes on the good article criteria as it applies here:

  1. Well written:
    - More readable prose would help here, especially in the sections where each sentence begins with "In 2008...", "In 2004..." etc.
    - Somebody who is more familiar with the manual of style is needed to go over the page in more detail
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
    - The article is quite well-referenced, but not all references are in the correct format.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    - The article is heavily weighted towards its 'History' section, which I believe goes into too much detail (see summary style). I would suggest a more wide-ranging article including aspects of university culture, student life and the physical development of the campus.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
    - As a University employee, I'm relying heavily on others to help improve this article so as to avoid conflict of interest issues. Many University activities have been heavily debated over the years, and there probably needs to be a discussion about which of these meet the notability requirements for inclusion, and to what level.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    - This is pretty easy to meet. The article rarely sees more than one substantial edit per week. Of course, with developing content some content disputes may come into existence.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    - Some images require better captions
    - Depending on any new content added, it may be necessary to obtain more images. I am on campus daily and can take pictures if required.

What do you think needs to be done? Tim Bennett (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Hall controversy

Is this really necessary as a section of the site? It is no doubt important to some people and an interesting part of the recent governance history but in my view it should be deleted (or reduced to one sentence) and moved to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.72.162 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This subsection was once moved to its own page (Bruce Hall controversy), but a discussion at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_30#Bruce_Hall_controversy determined it wasn't notable enough for its own page, and hence it was moved here. While it was, at the time, a major affair at the University, I am not sure that it has ongoing notability. As a current employee, I can say it doesn't seem to have ongoing impact. It might be worth keeping if it resulted in a notable change in university policy, but I have no knowledge as to whether or not it did. (Also I'm not about to go deleting stuff that might be seen as a conflict of interest!) Tim Bennett (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am more than happy to have it reduced down to a single sentence or removed altogether. I note that wikipedia is not news and it maybe that it thas no place here. It is however a well-referenced incident - so perhaps deemphasisiing. It certainly cannot be eliminated by giving it its own article as proposed above - that would be a step in the wrong direction. --Matilda talk 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given the media coverage over some period of time I htink it inappropriate to remove altogethr but I have cut down the amount of words devoted to the subject and remmoved the sub sub heading --Matilda talk 06:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to "Ranking and performance" section

Up front I'll disclose I'm a UNSW employee. Some of this information is outdated and other bits are close to WP:BOOSTER. I am proposing a reorganisation of this section:

  • Remove second paragraph, beginning "UNSW has ranked well for many years in the Good Universities Guide..." - this information is outdated and selective, omitting lower-rated areas. I propose replacing this information with complete 2011 data in tabular form - see the example here under "Ranking and performance"
  • Remove penultimate paragraph, beginning "In 2000, UNSW was ranked by AsiaWeek as 10th in the Asia-Pacific region..." - this is a 10-year-old ranking from a defunct magazine and holds little continuing relevance.
  • I can find citations for paragraph four and will do so.
  • This section might also read better if organised into a bulleted list.

If these changes are uncontroversial I will go ahead and make them. Tim Bennett (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As no objections were raised, I have made these changes Tim Bennett (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Star rating for UNSW?

Hi. I have checked the reference no. 29 in relation to the star ratings about UNSW. As a UNSW student; I sort of agree with the information provided - however there is a lack of accuracy and evidence of where those ratings are originated from. That website gives no star rating about UNSW. Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Article summary: marketing claims

Warning note for editors.

Increasingly it seems that certain anonymous users have been rewriting the summary paragraphs of this article to include marketing claims about the university's prestige. This is not consistent with the way in which most other Australian universities are presented on Wikipedia.

There may be a place for claims about elite entry scores, the number of university graduates leading major companies, and the number of students who come from high income families - but it is not in the article summary.

It's more appropriate for an article to lead with a brief characterisation of the university itself, some brief history, any recent developments that are particularly noteworthy, and any headline claims about its world or national standing.

I have previously deleted claims inserted in the summary which have been lifted directly from the university's marketing materials. Others should feel free to do so and monitor the summary for tone, style and balance.

This article will never get from B-class to GA-class while these issues remain unaddressed.

--GarryRasmussen1 10:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by GarryRasmussen1 (talk • contribs)

Orphaned references in University of New South Wales

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of New South Wales's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "timeshighereducation.co.uk":

  • From La Trobe University: "World University Rankings 2005: Top 100 Biomedicine Universities". The Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14/05/09.
  • From Macquarie University: "THES – QS World University Rankings 2000". THES. Retrieved 8 October 2009.
  • From University of British Columbia: World rankings - North America. Times Higher Education. Retrieved on 2014-04-12.
  • From University of Melbourne: "World University Rankings 2013-2014". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 2014-01-17.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of New South Wales. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientia at Night.jpg

Maybe something wrong with my net, but everytime i refresh all i see is Scientia at Night.jpg in the gallery section. Anyone wanna fix that up?

No longer an issue? This does not appear to be a problem for me. If no-one else has a problem with this I propose to remove this talk section in one month. -User1777 (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Entrance Cut Offs

Someone needs to check the ATAR/TER/TES (whatever it is called nowadays) minimum entrance score. Ex VC Fred Hilmer raised the minimum entrance to 85.00 in 2014 for 2015.

Witty Lama, perhaps?

Gilberticus Fyshius (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Checked. This has now been checked. See here. I will remove this section in one month. -User1777 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Endowment figure

Where is it in the source document? The endowment is listed as A$1.67 billion as at 2014. However, I cannot identify how this figure is arrived at when looking at the source cited - the 2014 Annual Report - Volume 2 (Financial). I have no accounting background so I may have missed something, but could someone identify the basis for the figure, by reference to the particular page in the report. Preferably use the 2015 report so we can update the figure. - Legal-bob (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

UNSW Flag

File:Flag of UNSW.png - Flag of UNSW? No source for the flag. The source cited for there being a UNSW Flag, and in the form pictured here, is inadequate. The website itself is not official and the only evidence of there being such a flag is this photo of some guy supposedly in the Antarctic. At best, this shows there might have once been such a flag (whether it remains so and whether it was official or not remaining unclear). There is no reference I have found on any UNSW document or website which verifies there is an official flag, and in this form. The actual image of the flag was created by a user. Can we therefore find an official record of there being such a flag? - Legal-bob (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

UNSW colours

No source. I can't find any official source for the colours listed in the UNSW template box of black and yellow. -Legal-bob (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I edited the article to remove marketing puffery, copyrighted content and unsubstantiated claims. User:Jamesprof has reverted my edits and claims no conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for now attempting to comply with the policy on conflicts, which requires you to start a discussion thread when you delete parts of an article on that basis, rather than just deleting them as you did originally and adding a conflicts tage.
In relation to your apparent concerns:
1. Your latest three edits on study abroad, selection and entry, and university rankings are perfectly proper and carefully targeted. There is indeed a need for sources. I take no issue with them.
2. In relation to the edits I reverted earlier, the reasons for those reversions are explained in the edit log, namely:
(a) Rankings statements are facts and generally NPOV provided they aren't taken overboard. Pretty much all university pages have a few of them. If you want to start removing them altogether, you might want to start policing the articles on Harvard, Oxford, McGill, Melbourne, Shanghai Jiao Tong, Heidelberg, Sorbonne, Moscow State, and Auckland - to take a random smattering of some top universities in different countries.
(b) You deleted an entire section on governance, when that section's content was on its face was reasonable and written neutrally. You should have just added a source needed flag before wiping it out altogether. Hence my reversion and my addition of the source needed template.
(c) Your deletion of the campus description statements on the basis of copyright misconceives the nature of copyright. Copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. There was about one sentence which used the exact same wording as the source, and in my reversion edit I rewrote it not to do so. But other than that, there is no real other way to describe the actual propositions in the source about the campus. There is no copyright issue there.
3. In relation to conflict of interest, I don't have any conflict.
I hope that addresses your concerns. Jamesprof (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_New_South_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=1137287898"