Talk:OCAD University

message: I removed a reference to Victor Papenek as former faculty. I know he had given at least one lecture at OCAD, but I can find no corroboration that he actually taught there. Anyone? 76.10.148.26 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, he was never OCAD faculty. Freshacconci | Talk 10:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Papenek as faculty 

message: :Image:OCADlogo.gif 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 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:OCADlogo.gif

message: I've removed an attempt to include some info on the recent fake bomb incident. My main reason is that the article doesn't mention other controversies and I'm not convinced that this one should be focussed on exclusively (presumably because it's the most recent). I'm also not convinced we need a controversy section. Does that really add to the over-all article. As well, the activities of students offsite is really not part of the OCAD story in the long-run. Should we also list the controversies of alumni and faculty? Or because it's news, is it valid? I'm inclined to think that this is too recent. If it stands the test of time and becomes an important art historical event (which I doubt, but you never know), maybe it could be included. freshacconcispeaktome 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: There was a huge gap in between text in the history section.  Taking away one of the images makes it look like the gap is gone.  ~~Hammertime100  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime100 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the changes. I saw no "gap" in the diffs of the history section. Don't forget that users have different size monitors. That's not really a relevant rationale for deleting an image. Also, please use the edit summaries to explain your edits. Large edits and deletions of text should be explained in the edit summary. The "fake" reference was really just outdated. I've found a new one. You should sign your name using four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks freshacconcispeaktome 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big gap in the history section 

message: I have added information about changes in OCAD's design program.  Three people have resigned, including Alan Kazmer, Peter Oliver, and Anthony Cahalan.  The main problem is the issue of full-time versus part-time staff and credentials.
Ocadman1 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking the language used is too inflammatory. We need to be careful of WP:BLP when we name names. The Marketing Mag reference is an op-ed piece written by Kazmer and can't be used as a source when it's about Kazmer, especially since this is all controversial information. freshacconcispeaktome 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the design department 

message: I've attempted to make the article more compact and focusing more on facts.  There has been one user undoing my edits without discussion on the talk page, and without providing any explanation in the history section.  To me, that smells of vandalism and of a conflict of interest.  The user is affliated with another university in canada.  I have found that university articles reek of POV and/or puffery, and that members of different universities have a wp:conflict because they mutually seek to maintain a certain POV in their articles.  If anyone wishes to discuss changes, do so here rather than simply undoing, and starting edit wars.  Anything less, especially from wiki editors who should know better, is demeaning
Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: I think we need to find references that aren't self referencing.  I've added a tag at the beginning of the article, but some editors should do some digging for something of substance.
Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going to be difficult. There's actually not much out there. The self-references are fine for basic info. For more in-depth information and anything controversial, we would need to rely on newspapers for the most part, since books on OCAD are rare. I've sent a notice to the editor mentioned above about edit summaries. freshacconcispeaktome 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self references 

message: Now that OCADU is officially affiliated with the school, maybe the article should be moved to "Ontario College of Art & Design University"?  LOctopus (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any references to support a change, and it would be to OCAD University. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to OCADU 

message: Could we find a better photo for the infobox?  The current one isn't great.  Too much interference with street lights and overhead wires, etc.  It would be fine if that's all we have, but there are plenty of shots on the Commons, not to mention lots of freely-licensed images on Flickr that could be uploaded to Commons.  Any thoughts?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: The name changes section has been streamlined.  This was the longest part of the article before.
The section in the beginning about the degrees granted has been moved to the similar section in the body.
Section about the new building has been streamlined.  Some sections without references have been removed.
References added.
Shame on the lazy editor who reverted my work rather than improving the article himself/herself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocad99 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've removed sourced text (such as the section on Roy Ascott) with no reason given you've added notes in the text which do not belong (i.e. "see infobox"). The list of alumni is valid and is typical of all university pages--the sourcing is in the individual articles linked here. Also, please only edit under one account. You've edited as Fmm99 and Ocad99. This is sockpuppetry. I will place a welcome message on your talk page at Ocad99 that outlines how Wikipedia works, the policies, the style manual and so on. freshacconci talktalk 14:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Please stop removing the lists of alumni. Each individual article is a source. Only remove those that do not mention OCAD in the individual article. Your persistent removal is disruptive and boarders on edit warring. You've deleted the list twice now. Please see WP:3RR. freshacconci talktalk 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of University of Toronto people for just one example. This of course is a separate article given U of T's size and history. freshacconci talktalk 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

text: By all means. So long as you've got the sources, feel free to WP:BEBOLD. Leventio (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to the article 

message: The problem with controversies sections is that they usually violate WP:UNDUE and certainly in many cases WP:BLP. These sorts of sections also attract listcruft. We always have to ask ourselves, how significant is the incident? All institutions have these sorts of stories attached to them. However, how much real impact have they had? Things happen and then they fade in significance. A student planting a fake bomb several years ago is not significant. The Roy Ascott period is. We need to discuss these things on the talk page to avoid overly emphasizing things of little importance that may violate WP:BLP. And titling it "Controversies" is highly problematic as this is a non-neutral term. A significant situation (such as the Roy Ascott period) would have its own section without non-neutral designations such as "controversies". In other words, who is saying a particular situation is controversial? freshacconci talktalk 14:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand what an edit war is? You have reverted without discussion several times. It is a poorly written section, not to mention the problems I address above. It may violate WP:BLP because it mentions names of living people. Listcruft means it invites further listing of every minor incident that ever happens. That's the problem with these sorts of sections. These incidents are minor and do not appear to have any lasting impact or importance, this WP:UNDUE. I am going to remove the section one more time and place it here on the talk page for other editors to discuss. Do not re-add it. It may violate WP:BLP and therefore cannot remain in the article as it is. Let other weigh in. (And don't go crying "bully" -- I've tried to engage you in a discussion and you have only now decided to actually discuss these issues). And please sign your name. freshacconci talktalk 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm placing this here for other editors to weigh in on. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I've outlined the problems with this section above. None of these incidents are particularly notable. The last section on faculty resigning perhaps could go under the history section or the section on curriculum. The others? Reworded, the textbook situation could be inserted elsewhere as there was a great deal of coverage. The fake bomb is not significant. Many things like that happen at any art school. This one event is not notable and per WP:NEWS has not had any lasting impact. If an editor want to reword the other sections and add them into proper areas in the article, I wouldn't object. I would like to hear for other editors however.freshacconci talktalk 14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this material is very problematic and needs significant work before it can be added to the article.  Some of it doesn't belong in the article regardless of how much it's edited.  ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Common courtesy would have been to respond right away and not to edit war.freshacconci talktalk 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: You're missing the point. You continued with your disruptive editing without discussing it. Finally deciding to register a comment is hardly being communicative. And I would appreciate if you kept the discussion civil and not made comments about me personally. Please see WP:CIVIL. As well, going through the list of articles I have created and blanking sections for no reason but clearly based on your anger about this dispute is needless to say, inappropriate. I am glad other editors have now witnessed your behaviour and you have been warned about it. Finally, part of discussing contentious information is to actually discuss it. You have continuously re-added the material even when you were asked not to. This is a collaborative process. And now that another editor has weighed in, you still re-added it without discussing it further The proper course of action is to leave it out until a compromise is reached here. What you have added is poorly written; they're not even complete sentences. Now other editors still have to go in and clean up a mess -- after cleaning up the mess with your other disruptive edits to several other articles (other editors should see Mobility99's contributions to see what I am talking about). Please also read WP:POINT as well as WP:SOCK. I would suggest sticking with this one account from now on. And I just saw that despite being warned, you're continuing with your disruption on other articles. Nice. freshacconci talktalk 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies (again) 

message: Another editor, now indefinitely blocked, has been trying to post the following text:
::In 2012, over 300 students at OCAD signed a petition asking for a refund for the money they spent on the course Global Visual and Material Culture: Prehistory to 1800.  This was because the textbook for the course did not have any pictures of art.  Instead, the textbook had large blank spaces where the pictures would have been.  It also had links to websites.  The websites had pictures of art in them.  It was reported that students did not like having to go back and forth between the Internet and their textbook.  By comparison, the University of Toronto had a similar book, pictures inclusive, on sale for $151.20.  
::Students complained about the high costs of the textbook, the inconvenience of having to go between the textbook and the Internet, the book's poor resale value, and the environmental impact of printing textbooks with large spaces of blank pictures.  OCAD offered to give students a free copy of the textbook.
Obviously the text itself is not appropriate but since this was well covered in the news, should the basic info be included in the article and where should it go? freshacconci talktalk 22:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art textbook controversy 

message: This section is too long compared to the rest of the article.  How should it be reduced?
MapleBleafs (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s the wrong way to look at the problem IMHO. The rest of the article is too stubby, so the solution should be to expand the rest of the article.—Al12si (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on OCAD University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528023429/http://www.peqab.ca/completed.html to http://www.peqab.ca/completed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130051257/http://www.studentgallery.ocad.ca/gallery-76-project to http://www.studentgallery.ocad.ca/gallery-76-project
*Added  tag to http://www.canadianart.ca/art/features/2003/09/14/130/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on OCAD University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182606/http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-welcomes-the-inclusive-design-rese to http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-welcomes-the-inclusive-design-rese
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203080421/https://www2.innovation.ca/pls/fci/FCIENREP.resultats?mecanismeSel=Tous&provSel=ON&typeEtabSel=1&etabSel=145§eurSel=Tous&discSel=0§euraaSel=Tous&dom_appSel=0 to https://www2.innovation.ca/pls/fci/FCIENREP.resultats?mecanismeSel=Tous&provSel=ON&typeEtabSel=1&etabSel=145§eurSel=Tous&discSel=0§euraaSel=Tous&dom_appSel=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831183602/http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/orf/ri/documents/Ontario%20Research%20Fund%20-%20Research%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf to http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/orf/ri/documents/Ontario%20Research%20Fund%20-%20Research%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182708/http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-opens-inclusive-design-institute to http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-opens-inclusive-design-institute
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified