Irishroyalty
|
I try to do the right thing and strive to improve Wikipedia. If I make a mistake, please let me know. |
University of New South Wales articles
editHey friend. Why are you creating so many articles with just a template? You should add content, or someone will probably delete them.--Pattont/c 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's quite a big template box you've created. I like the idea of combining all of the various boxes into one, but I don't know that it needs to contain the names of all the schools; shouldn't the faculties be enough? Tim Bennett (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm slowly adding content to those pages and should be done by the end of the day. I thought that the schools were probably too much and was looking for a way to code it so the faculties could be expanded and closed. Any ideas? Irishroyalty (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, not really my strong point! Tim Bennett (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- All solved now!Irishroyalty (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, not really my strong point! Tim Bennett (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm slowly adding content to those pages and should be done by the end of the day. I thought that the schools were probably too much and was looking for a way to code it so the faculties could be expanded and closed. Any ideas? Irishroyalty (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- As one of the administrators dealing a good deal with university articles, I suggest that you not try articles on the individual schools. Terminology varies by country, but I think your schools correspond to American Departments -- Department of English, Department of History, etc, and your Faculties correspond to what an American university would be more likely to call Colleges or Schools within the university. If so, the "School" level for USW is greater subdivision than is usually called for -- check the articles for the University of California or Columbia for examples of how it is generally done. We do have a few articles for individual academic departments, but only the very most famous--articles about others are almost always deleted. If you do have one or two such departments, that's one thing, but not all the departments at USW -- or anywhere else -- are likely to be at that level. So what I'd like to have done is combine the articles and turn the present School articles into Redirects. I can help you do that, if you like. And, by the way, you really ought to read our FAQ (on businesses and other organisations). Additionally, we don;t generally list individual people in the university template--rather, you ought to do an article "Vice-Chancellors of the USW", in which you can list them with links to their individual articles DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your much valued input! I can understand what you are saying about our schools and indeed in some cases these schools are not worth noting. However UNSW is a very "school" based university as compared to somewhere in Australia like the University of Sydney which is a more faculty based university. At UNSW the faculty is not generally famous whereas the school is. Except for cases like the faculty of law which is in effect the school of law plus the school of taxation, very few faculties are well know. It is their schools such as the School of Computer Science Engineering that get credited in the press and journals with discoveries. In my opinion the faculties, except for the small ones, are often purely administrative. This seems to differ right across Australia with Sydney having Faculties, UNSW having Schools and RMIT having Colleges and Schools. I probably don't have anywhere enough experience to decide whether to go with individual school articles or not but at the moment i think the redirect idea, at least until a school can have enough information to be a viable article, is great. Also point noted on the Vice-Chancellors in the template point. Thanks for your adivce! Irishroyalty (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- As one of the administrators dealing a good deal with university articles, I suggest that you not try articles on the individual schools. Terminology varies by country, but I think your schools correspond to American Departments -- Department of English, Department of History, etc, and your Faculties correspond to what an American university would be more likely to call Colleges or Schools within the university. If so, the "School" level for USW is greater subdivision than is usually called for -- check the articles for the University of California or Columbia for examples of how it is generally done. We do have a few articles for individual academic departments, but only the very most famous--articles about others are almost always deleted. If you do have one or two such departments, that's one thing, but not all the departments at USW -- or anywhere else -- are likely to be at that level. So what I'd like to have done is combine the articles and turn the present School articles into Redirects. I can help you do that, if you like. And, by the way, you really ought to read our FAQ (on businesses and other organisations). Additionally, we don;t generally list individual people in the university template--rather, you ought to do an article "Vice-Chancellors of the USW", in which you can list them with links to their individual articles DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:OFGS Signature Shot 2001.jpg
edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OFGS Signature Shot 2001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of UNSW School of Education for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UNSW School of Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNSW School of Education until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of UNSW Chancellors for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UNSW Chancellors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNSW Chancellors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of UNSW Vice-Chancellors for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UNSW Vice-Chancellors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNSW Vice-Chancellors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair Use in Australia discussion
editAs an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Orphaned non-free image File:Oxford Falls Grammar Emblem.png
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Oxford Falls Grammar Emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
