Talk:University of Tasmania

earlier conversations

Methinks a famous/notable Alumni section would help the page, as well as photos of the different campuses? -Tintin

Whoa! Isn't there better ranking statistics than those issue dby a Chinese university (Jiao Tong)????? How about something issued by an Australian authority? - WC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.97.156 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me 24.82.142.216, what makes you think you can delete whole paragraphs of my hard work and change the entire feel of this article without even consulting anyone? The stuff you got rid of was all true and verifiable on the UTAS website, and what's more it gave a lot of information about specific research. Your stuff states the obvious that is true of any university, and moreover, it seems to be all very biased towards talking up and bragging about how beautiful it is to live and study in Hobart. Are you from admin, methinks? Since you spent two days on it I'll leave it but please comment before we may change it back. -tilgrieog January 2, 2006.

Oh screw this he won't stop changing it and the article has been taken over by people who don't have very good taste. Well it's all yours, I'm abandoning it now. Tilgrieog 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

High ya folks! If you wish to remove things that I just added, please explain the reasons here. In fact if you wish to remove anything, please say why here.

If you don't provide a reason, why I might just go and put whatever it was back again.--AFA 01:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this article needs heaps more information. Look at the pages for all the other Australian universities--we need to make UTAS look like it's actually an important one. It'd be a fun job I'd be interested in. -tilgrieog

I'd be willing to help, though I don't know a lot about the Uni (despite going there for a few years!) Maybe a WP:ACOTF? -- Chuq 05:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally put more info in and changed what was there so that it made sense. I tried to copy the style so that all Australian unis have the same look to them, so if you're going to do something please help maintain that style. I'd like some piccies now (as all articles should have). --tilgrieog

describing sceneray

Tasmania itself is blessed with a clean, green environment and a safe and friendly atmosphere. The scenery is stunning and includes mountain wilderness, temperate rainforests, star-filled nights, and large, unspoiled, and wide-open sandy beaches with turquoise coloured seascapes. It therefore should come as no surprise that the state is famous for having established the world's very first Green Party. Its main cities of Hobart and Launceston offer a full range of urban services and entertainment, and reflect a high quality of life that is indicative of cities that have preserved their natural surroundings and architectural history whilst also ensuring modern amenities. The climate is largely Mediterranean, though it does receive snowfall at higher mountain elevations, and as a consequence there is a brief and rudimentary, but nevertheless, enthusiastic ski season.

I fail to see why the above needs to be in the arctile at all. It should be in the Tasmania article (and less POV). --AFA 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Tertiary Education History

The History of the University paragraph is pointless unless it reveals the Sydney Sparkes Orr case! 124.178.70.17 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic Strengths

I was surprised to see so many subjects listed here as academic strengths of the university. I don't believe this university is strong (in comparison with other australian universities) in so many areas. This is important because the those areas in which the university truly excels are hidden by this suspiciously long list. A list as big as this is the same as having no list at all. --Fatsug 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. How can that many things be UTAS's "speciality" - you may as well just say they research everything! But blame 24.82.142.216, who tried to turn the WP article into a brochure! Tilgrieog 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Couple of quick changes

Hey, new user from NW Tassie; made a quick change at the start regarding courses offered in Burnie to bring it into line; also added a short paragraph regarding Faculty of Law - but I agree that each faculty should probably have (at least) its own subject heading. MojoTas 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MojoTas, good edits- but could you add a couple of URLs (to websites, or news references) with sources? I realise a lot of the article doesn't have this, but it would be good to start the trend! -- Chuq 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I've given this article a start grade for the work that has already been done - however, there is a massive lack of daughter pages, dead links, and a lack of images (copyright promises to be a pain there, but we'll see what we can do.) Equally, I've given it mid-importance as a starting position; however, depending on the subsidiary pages, high importance may be justified. MojoTas 05:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"four original 'sandstone' universities"

Explantion of my edit 14:07, 15 January 2007:
The article read 'The university is one of the four original 'sandstone' universities in Australia, and has been established for over a century.'
UTas is the fourth oldest Uni in Australia, after The Other Place (1850), Melbourne (1853), and Adelaide (1874).
Admittedly, UTAS is over a century old. There may be something special about 100+ years old Untis Unis, tho; however, UQ (1909) and UWA (1911) count as Sandstone universities... pms pmd, aka Shirt58 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shirt58 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Oops. Apologies to all. Now to check the aricle... --Shirt58 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article. Oh goodness, not being much of a sparkling example of an Alumnus, am I? --Shirt58 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

More photos?

How about photos of the Launceston and North-West campuses?

144.137.22.88 10:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

UTAS - AMC Integration

http://www.utas.edu.au/unity/integration/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.33.97 (talk) 13:37, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Number of campuses

Isn't the Art School part of the Uni and thus a fourth campus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.253.88 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing of clubs

Wikipedia does not contain everything and is NOT a directory of clubs as per WP:NOTDIR. It's also not a guide for what's available on campus. WP:NOT#GUIDE. As per WP:LIST, Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies all these extra clubs mentioned must satisfy to some extent WP:NOTE. the fact they exist is not enough to prove notability for inclusion in the article. There must be some verifiable evidence that there is some significant notability or achievement of these clubs.Michellecrisp (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The listing of clubs could easily be incorporated into the Tasmania University Union article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uni Ranking

UniTas is never ranked in the top 7 or even in the top 10. can somebody either provide a source for this claim or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.148.185 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversions - Oct 2009

There seems to be a bit of reversion going on at the moment, in particular involving Ah6 (talk contribs) and Canyonbridge (talk contribs). From what I can observe on the edit history, on 16 Oct 09 in this edit Ah6 significantly improved the article by reorganising some sections, adding references and cleaning up some of the content. There were a few edits introducing new content to the Alumni section of the article, before Canyonbridge reverted the content back to what it was on Oct 15. Ah6 has then reverted Canyonbridge, which Canyonbridge then reverted. I would encourage both editors to discuss their edits on this talk page and resolve their issues rather than reverting each other. In particular, Canyonbridge please do not revert multiple revisions without posting a message. This is disruptive as per WP:DIS, particularly when this article is in need of good editing and original content. 1manfern (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1manfern's assessment of my edits is basically right. Large parts of the article's content were copied straight from the UTAS website and unsourced. I've tried to start on the path towards making the text of the article more encyclopedic. In particular, the Rankings information was not written neutrally and the Campus section didn't really match the precedent set by other university articles. Ah6 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"The Tasmania Scholarships program supports the University’s commitment to offer students an exemplary learning environment. It attracts talented students, both locally, nationally and internationally. Industry contributions now make up the backbone of the Tasmania Scholarships program. The development and growth of this initiative into one of the most successful sponsored programs in the country is exceptional by any standard". Blatant NPOV violation. 220.253.136.174 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnd (talk • contribs) 06:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It should read "The Tasmania Scholarships program supports the University’s commitment to offer students equal learning opportunity. It assists talented students, both locally, nationally and internationally. Industry contributions now make up the backbone of the Tasmania Scholarships program." The use of the language used in the previous version uses subjective and misleading terms such as "The development and growth of this initiative into one of the most successful sponsored programs in the country is exceptional by any standard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.111.1 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Does that clear this up? --Trevj (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

International focus

The same goes for the section on the university's 'International focus'. This is an encyclopaedia not a piece of marketing for the university. - ⌘ torpy (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Torpy - I think this section can be removed and I will do so, unless admin (of the University) has an objection, as I assume they wrote it? Meansallow (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

how many graduates?

There is a currently unreferenced claim of 50,000 graduates, but to me, for a university of this size/age, that number actually seems rather low. The current enrolment is 27,000 students. Their alumni page says the university is in contact with 52,000 graduates. Both of these figures suggest the total number of graduates is a lot higher than 50,000. Kerry (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reads like a Brochure

"It was ranked in the top 10 research universities in Australia and in the top two per cent of universities worldwide in the Academic Ranking of World Universities."

It may have been ranked in the top 2 percent of Uni's, but only in some really niche research field. So while it could be considered a valid comment, it's not providing context and instead parroting the Universities marketing lines. 14.2.155.17 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)James

RS-covered material deleted

An editor sought to delete RS-covered material, referring to the long and multi-concept WP:NOTNEWS, without explaining what part of NOTNEWS he/she felt applied. This text satisfies GNG, let alone WP:NOTNEWS - the subject matter is widely covered by RSs, in different countries. I ask that if the editor still disagrees, he/she take the discussion here, and not edit war with continued reverts. --2604:2000:E016:A700:5507:AF8A:6B1D:BC20 (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)