Talk:University of Adelaide

message: Removed the bit about its law school "producing the best graduates of either law school in South Australia, the other being Flinders University," - this is purely POV... especially as Flinders' law school has been rated the far higher of the two for many years now.
:This article has a large amount of content, but also serious tone issues. I counted several instances of word usages like "long, more, excellent, one of the most, significant"... The Research Heading content is a good example of this: "who are recognised as worldwide leaders for their vision and capacity to address global research challenges." It reads not a little like a pamphlet. Guest (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Part II 

message: It is my understanding of the VSU legislation that the Federal Government has no legislative power to compel the University of Adelaide to stop collecting Student Union fees. The legislation relies on the coersive nature of withdrawing federally funded university operating grants to stop the collection of fees. All students are still currently members of the Adelaide University Union. The constitution of the Union has yet to be ammended to exclude unfinancial students (ie post 31st July).
Ozdaren 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VSU

message: No point to keep it seperate. This article is almost empty and could use the extra content. --Ultimus 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps merge with the Adelaide University Union article? Ozdaren 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. They're separate organisations, and articles on student bodies interstate have articles.--cj | talk 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in [[Students' Association of the University of Adelaide]] 

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

message: :Image:Univeristy of Adelaide around 1869.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DAMMIT I WISH THIS BOT WOULD STOP SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS Muzzamo 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: How on earth can that be 1869? The Mitchell building was built in 1881.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Univeristy of Adelaide around 1869.jpg

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

message: :   Your bot automatically deleted File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madraiwiwifatiaki.jpg) from this article when it met the following conditions stipulated for fair use:
   
1. To illustrate the subject in question (the image/file does so as it illustrates the subject as a famous graduate of the University of Adelaide)
2. Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (that is the only image available on the subject)
3.  On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (image is used only in the English-language Wikipedia)
What should be done to indicate this fair use rationale and where should the above rationale be indicated? Help.  Thank you. Jacknpoy (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked the same question at :User talk:JJMC89#Deletion of alumni photo and you seemed satisfied with the response you received. So, I'm assuming this in no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of alumni photo

message: The university appears to have quite a number of notable alumni/people associated with as can be seen in :List of University of Adelaide people, so it seems a bit undue to show two images in this particular section. While both :Robin Warren and :Joni Madraiwiwi seem to certainly be excellent representatives of the university, I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why these two have been selected to have their images displayed over other notable alumni. The Warren image appears to have been added quite some time ago, so maybe there was a consensus established to do so; the addition of the Madraiwiw image, however, is much more recent and appears to have been removed for various reasons only to be re-added again. Perhaps it might be best not to have any images of person used in this section since adding one appears to be seen as a reason to add more. If that seems to be too extreme of an approach, then perhaps it would be best to establish criteria for inclusion such as talk page consensus, and a hidden note could be added to the section explaining this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be tempted to abolish the section altogether, but a quick skim of other Australian university articles show they all have one, although without photographs. It seems like a grab-bag of whoever someone thought was "especially notable" some time. Even the subordinate List of University of Adelaide people is highly unlikely to be complete with every person who meets the criteria and could have a Wikipedia article about them, and probably doesn't even list everyone who has an article about them. --Scott Davis Talk 03:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also support removing these sections from the articles on all the universities. As Australian universities are usually huge and a high proportion of the population (and especially people who are likely to become notable for contributions to scientific, arts, government, business or white collar fields, all of whom are probably over-represented proportionally on Wikipedia) have been to university, it's hardly surprising that there are large numbers of notable alumni for all of them. The only people potentially worth highlighting in these article are those who became notable due to their connection with the university. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such lists are common with respect to articles about universities in general, not just ones about Australian universities; so, removing them across the board is probably going to need a well-established consensus via an RfC with lots of participants, even if it's something just applicable to Australian universities. Such a thing might sound a bit daunting, but it's been done before for other things like :WP:INFOBOXETH and :MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and just takes some time. Technically a local consensus could be established here to remove the section or the images from this particular article, but there might be those opposed of such a thing trying to use :WP:OTHERCONTENT, etc. to justify re-adding them.FWIW, the subjective nature of who to mention or whose picture to display is going to always lead to disagreements, and some people might simply want someone they know or feel a connection to added just for personal reasons. That's why it might be a good idea to try and establish some basic :WP:CSC for mentioning someone and using their image (assuming the total removal referred to above is not chosen course of action) in the main university article, so that there's at least something which can be used to in deciding who to leave in and who to leave out. Pretty much the most basic inclusion criteria you can have per :WP:ALUMNI (that's a :WP:WPSCHOOLS guideline, but it also seems applicable here) is for there to be a stand-alone article about the individual, but after that more specific citeria can be estabslished; for example, people whose Wikipedia notable is for the most part derived from their connection to the university can be considered for inclusion, while people who just graduated from the university and then went on to accomplish things which made them Wikipedia notable are more suited for the list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people images 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion