Talk:Victoria University (Australia)

message: While much of what was in the article was uncorroberated, that doesn't mean it wasn't true. I'd feel better about it's deletion if someone was proposing even the most fleeting evidence to the contrary.
The 2002 study mentioned *did* exist, but it was never intended to be made public. The uni is indecisive at the highest level. Every year stats are published that show that VU gets a very low number of first preferences. 
And as for removing facts like the uni producing the best TAFE students in the country two years in a row, I hope that was just sloppy editing. 
The Echuca campus isn't just someone's opinion, it does exist. See http://www.vu.edu.au/Faculties/Arts/Undergraduate_Subjects/AXS2013/ for instance. If you've ever in Echuca, look out for a big VU logo. The St Albans campus started out in a shop too.
matturn 01:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echuca campus 

message: I see the infobox has changed from 44000 undergraduates to 15000. That's a big change, and I'm guessing that the previous figure included non-degree and diploma students. The current figure is only university students, according to the same edit. Perhaps this distinction should be expanded a little in the text. Andrewa 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Student numbers

message: Newport Campus is closing as of the end of 2006.  Courses based there are being moved to Sunshine  campus, along with some courses from Footscray Nicholson.  If someone wants to add or verify this info, they're welcome to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.64.140 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: *Propose that Student Village (Victoria University) be merged here. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: If anyone would like to read about the history of the institution, and the various campuses of it's antecedents, have a look in "View History" for 2010. At this time MCDVU appointed themselves executioner to a large quantity of material with references. They appear to be one of the legions of egocentric vandals that are making Wikipedia worse by the day. It is one thing to move material to a more focused article, but it is another just to delete it. 180.150.113.72 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've re-rated the article from 'B' to 'C' as the rating dates from exactly seven years ago and relates to a substantially different version of the article. Under the current criteria, the article falls short, especially in terms of diversity of references; I count eleven references now from four different sources, including press releases from the university itself, which make up most of the reference list. There is a fair amount of content, but as per the tagging at the top of the article, the key challenge is expanding the article with referenced and independent information. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-rating of article 

message: I have removed again some of the lead summary that Aloneinthewild restored following my last edit. I don't see the point in packing the lead summary with detailed information that is repeated elsewhere in the article. (It also contravenes the style manual (" identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."). I can see that it makes sense to mention VU's multiple campuses and other facilities en passant, but I can't see any justification in listing them all in the lead paragraph when they are listed in detail elsewhere.
Equally, I don't see any justification in listing all the countries in which VU has partner institutions when they are listed in detail elsewhere.  But then I realized they weren't listed in detail elsewhere - I had inadvertantly deleted them during the copy edit.  I still don't think the list belongs in the lead paragraph though and so have put the detailed list further down in the body text
I'm quite content with the rankings box being restored since I've suddenly noticed it on the pages of more and more universities and hadn't before. I have, though, removed the heading that was attached since the ranking is in a right-aligned frame and the heading was left floating around on the left with no content beneath it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeekeeyMisha (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can agree with your reasoning here. I was just suprised to see the lead shrink from multiple paragraphs to one. Looks ok now Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad you approve.  I have corrected the typo I'd inserted - must have been editing without my specs again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeekeeyMisha (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of article and copy edit October 2016