Talk:University of Queensland/Archive 1

Archive 1

UQ Union

I'm deleting the part about the advent of VSU in 2006. Even Brendan Nelson has said that it isn't likely VSU will come into effect in 2006. --14:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Jimar

I've put it back in as it is very likely that at some point in the next year that it will be enacted. VSU is a real possibility and it deserves attention. Jaems 03:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole section is unnecessary - a very brief overview and a link to the UQ Union page should suffice. Also, the University runs the Health Service, not the Union. Natgoo 12:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Jimar, vindication is sweet - VSU has been enacted; but instead of putting it back in this article, I've left it out for the reasons Natgoo stated. Jaems 10:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rivalry with Griffith

The user bilous has taken it upon himself to attack the Griffith page and do everything in his power to create a mudslinging war between the two on wiki. It should be pointed out that UQ's own Student Law Society have serious qualms with the TC Beirne School of Law - http://www.uqls.com/?action=view_content&content_id=145. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Never29 (talk • contribs)

Hi there Never29, I am not sure how I missed this all the way back when. However my edits at that time were intended to modify the fairly charged accusations of theft/property damage etc into less defamatory statements. Call it defending my Uni against claims someone may have once destroyed a giant stuffed animal, call it cleaning up Wikipedia - regardless it's no longer in the article (at someone else's discretion) and hopefully this supposed rivalry can fade away. Bilious 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Australian University and Logo Updates

I've changed the Infobox template from the generic university one to the Australian University one. Additionally I've rendered up the logo of UQ and uploaded it in the superior PNG format. I think it looks quite fetching. Bilious 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Quirk Removed

The reference to the TC Beirne School of Law being currently considered to the be the best law school in Queensland has been changed to the imperfect form- "was once". This was done to remove this biased POV reference, and also to reflect the more contemporarily relevant situation, given the current GUG rankings of law schools in Australia and the poor state of the TC Beirne School of Law, which apparently is not going to be rectified any time soon.

References to the other Australian universities as having "top law schools" have also been removed, given the recent GUG rankings, which are surely more persuasive than the self serving word-of-mouth used by the elitist private school graduates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.133.215.4 (talk • contribs)

It seems to me that the Good Guides are rather vague about what they do. I have never actually read the guides myself since it requires either finding a hardcopy or getting into their pay-per-view site, but from all the big-noting I see over the place there are a variety of criteria by which a faculty/university can claim to be the "best". For example, Bond claim to be the best Law School in Australia in 2004. I know I shouldn't laugh. Perhaps in the alternative, the TC Beirne could be described as the "oldest" or having a "large number of noted alumni" and not rely on a commercial entity's analysis. Bilious 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Good Universities Guides are publications linked to the Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA), which was the body which undertook the research to give the findings- Proctor, February 2006, at Page 3. The GCCA is a very well established and highly respected organisation, with its findings linked to the ABS and Vice Chancellor's Committee of Australia- http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/hereview/submissions/submissions/G/GradCareersCouncil.htm; http://www.abs.gov.au/Websitedbs/d3110120.nsf/670754cd251ab689ca2566e1000501f2/2a26a102fee8c0acca256c2200283a10!OpenDocument I know that you are trying to discredit the findings presented in the Guides as meaningless promotions made by a "commercial organisation" (to quote one of your earlier comments, "how much does a copy of this Guide cost?"). The GCCA is a not for profit organisation, and would only be charging for use of its resources in order to recover the costs of disseminating its findings. Some of its findings may well be available without a pay-per-view, but I am too busy to run around looking for links. The findings of the Council are of far more weight than myths about the UQ Law School's quality (i.e. that it is somehow as good as it was 20 or so years ago)- myths which, repeated often enough, are almost given the appearance of truth. However, even oft-repeated mistruths will not stand in the face of the very real situation in the UQ Law School today. 144.133.214.247 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the above- the ongoing problems of UQ's TC Beirne School of Law are serious and must remain noted. Alongside promotions of the (somewhat ailing) reputation of the School, there must be, for the sake of accuracy, a description of the School's unfortunate problems. 144.133.214.101 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but it needs referencing, and so I've tagged it as such. Is there any confirmation of either these problems or that its being reveiwed? Iorek85 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Citation needed"- Citation was provided in the form of the University of Queensland Law Society 2004 report, which highlighted many pressing academic and non-academic concerns facing the school. The report is currently offline, but will hopefully be available again online soon. I possess a copy of the report, and have written to the UQLS so that they might once again provide this report to all concerned parties. This report is part of the review process. As to the implementation of any of the recommendations, we all await the school's reform and correction of the problems listed in the report with anticipation.

Since you are on the St Lucia campus (I presume), you could visit the UQLS office to ask them about the status of the current report and review, maybe ask where one may obtain the 2004 report online (as it is not on the UQLS Web site at this time). That might be more helpful than prodding busy people by e-mail, as I have had to do.

Please note that the 2004 report is a review of the law school. The 2006 review of the LLB is not its equivalent.

Re: TC Beirne;To be honest I don't think any opinionative evaluation of something as subjective as the quality of a Law School belongs in what should be an Encylcopaedia. Particularly given the writer doesn't include what exactly is wrong with it, nor even a simple explanation of what a quality law school is now, nor the example of the current 'best law school'. As for Bond ... In my opinion private tertiary institutions in this country possess now and will continue to possess the stigma of a purchased, rather than an earned education, and while that persists graduates will likely be perceived as spoilt brats by the "Sandstone set" old boys' clubs. Bond himself doesn't do much for the rep either. As for the UQLS; I wouldn't exactly define their findings as scientific - they're a motley crew part-timing a social club that needs to have an agenda of educational evaluation otherwise they wouldn't get their $5 grand from the Union. I think this whole section should be excluded - whether TC Beirne is a quality law school is far too subjective, and largely irrelevant in this arena. ---Cuomo111 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been nearly a month. I can't leave a POV section like that in there without references. Yes, I go to U.Q, but I have no qualms with criticising the establishment. The disclaimer just looked wrong, and if the section needs one, then it shouldn't be in wikipedia. As soon as some referenced criticisms can be found, of course, anyone is welcome to put them in. Iorek85 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call Jaems 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Forget the Staff

Anyone editing who knows anything about notable staff (i.e. ones who'd pass WP:PROF) should feel free to add them to the "Notable Staff" section I've created. Elson, Moorhead and Sussex are there because I know that the former two are regarded as authorities and because the third has his radio show, but there must be leading scholars in the other schools/faculties as well, I just don't know a famous engineer or legal academic from a hole in the wall. Just use their pages on the UQ site for starters, or if you're in their good books you could probably get some info out of them by Email or in person. BigHaz 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Staff

I believe that Professor John Quiggin should be added to the UQ Notable Staff list. All one must do is read his wikipedia article to realise what an amazing economist this man is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quiggin http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/

Also, Dr. Carl Ungerer is a genious in the study of terrorism (which is a hot topic at the moment). He used to be the Foreign Affairs and National Security Advisor to the Leader of the Federal Opposition. Furthermore, he has appeared on the ABC program 'Lateline' on more than one occasion.

http://www.uq.edu.au/solutions/researcher/ungerercj.html

I'll add Quiggin. Ungerer I'm not sure about, but if you think he's notable enough then add him in. The bottom line is that anyone and everyone can do this. BigHaz 08:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ungerer is in fact notable (I've read up on him since I posted this) and I'll give him a skinny bio later this week once I'm free of exams). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

Who the duckins suggested that the entry for an Australian university be merged into that of a subject-specific organisation? I am removing the tag. Anyone who wishes to replace it can do so, so long as they come up with some basic rationale. Elysium 845 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's a poor application of the way these things are meant to work. The Institute's page has the same tag on it (of course operating in the opposite direction) and I think it's meant to be taken as merging the Institute into UQ itself. There are better tags which could've been applied, but that's how I read the situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

The official name of the university is "The University of Queensland", not "University of Queensland". This change was made a couple of years ago (see all of the logos on the UQ website for verification of this). This article needs to be updated (including it's entry in wikipedia as 'University of Queensland'). --20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) User:Wally

Uni structure

The whole structure of the uni's divisions will change next year.

I'll add the Departments and Divisions Later.

The listing for the Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterniary Science needs to be updated. The Faculty now only consists of four schools (School of Agriculture and Horticulture, and the School of Land and Food Sciences was officially merged on 02 January 2007 to form the School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences). See www.uq.edu.au/lcafs for verification. --20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC) User:Wally

UQ people

UQ has a lot of distinguished graduates and staff, i've started and article here, based on the other Aus. university articles in the same category. Please add it to you watchlist and help fill in the gaps.--Peta 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PAIN - Physics Association ...

Can someone verify this association exists. The material was moved onto the UQ page, but does not belong here. I have moved it back off into an article, *PAIN, University of Queensland. If it does not exist or is not a prominent and there fore notable article then please delete. Rimmeraj 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are many other organisations. can someone fill these in?

I know the association exists (and will try to scare up some hard-copy proof in the next 24hrs or so), since an acquaintance of mine has actually spoken at their Error Bars. With any luck, the proof of existence when I find it will be more than just that and we'll be able to determine notability into the bargain. For the record, though, I agree with the move - there's no point adding "biographies" of student associations to the article on the uni in question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll own up to having - as is shown in the history - moved material from what's now a redirect to a section under University based Organisations. Rimmeraj, please don't make any additional new articles. it's had two homes already and they are both now redirects back to here. Other contributors are less tolerant of retaining this level of content than I am as can be seen by what has happened to PAIN, University of Queensland. If PAIN is going to be at a different article then it needs to be able to stand as a seperate article having notability, and material attributable to sources independant of the organisation itself.Garrie 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was not aware of the original article. All I knew of was the addition of the text that should not be in the university article. So as you have already mentioned, I moved it back off the uni article and into its own page so it could either be deleted because it is not notable, or kept. I have reverted the redirect, as it is an inappropriate way to 'delete' content. I am glad to see you have already done what I was directing the original editor to do.. add the delete tags.

as a side point, it was your original edit without following the proper merge process that caused the problem in the first place. If the article has been discussed for merging it would have been made clear that putting the information on the University page was not appropriate before the merge was attempted.

Thanks Rimmeraj 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GO along to AfD and the recommendation would be split merge / delete. The page I saw is a redirect now...Garrie 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks Top Right Corner

In both Firefox and IE, the inclusion of multiple geographical references pile up over each other to render the coordinates un-readable, and only one clickable. I would remove the multiple references, but I cannot seem to locate them! Is there some sort of external reference that can insert this information? If there is, how do we remove it? Bilious 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacaranda folklore

Large tree in full bloom

University exam superstitions like this one are not uncommon and not notable enough to deserve their own articles. Deletion might be the most appropriate option but I'm proposing a merger to give it the benefit of the doubt. Gimboid13 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. I'm assuming that the article is sufficiently referenced, of course. A lot of the articles on universities in Europe and the US have sections about superstitions and odd things like this, so it wouldn't be revolutionary to include this one here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support merge or rather brief mention in the university article. The article will be deleted otherwise. --Bduke 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

a merger would be appropriate in this case. it adds a little heritage value to the uni. any big institutions with old and venerable buildings and grounds inevitably have legends and myths surrounding it, UQ can only benefit from the publicity of this superstition.--Emogrande 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the material that was in the artcile if anyone cares to add part of to the U of Q article. However it needs better sources. The first source below is possably OK but the second is not. Note I have downgraded the headings to ensure they are part of this section.

History

Jacarandas have long graced the St Lucia campus of the University of Queensland. They bloom towards the end of the academic year which has lead to the common comment within the campus that if you haven't started studying by the time the Jacarandas bloom, you're in trouble.

Myths

From this kernel of truth - you need to get studying before the exam season starts - the Jacarand has come to represent a malign Cherry blossom in the hearts of University of Queensland students. There are a number of myths and legends popular among students, concerning how the falling blossoms affect academic performance.

• If the blossoms fall on your car, you will fail your next exam.
• You will drop a GPA (Grade Point Average, ranked 1-7) for each blossom that falls on you.
• If a blossoms falls on you on your way to the exam, you will fail the exam.
• A student once articulated this in poetic prose in a message to his loved ones:

"The amazing thing about Brisbane at the moment are the jacaranda trees. They bloom in mass purple and in such abundance that students associate them directly with exam performance. There is a saying up here that if a jacaranda blossom falls on your head before and exam you will fail. I am staying indoors"

Examples of Jacaranda blossoms symbolising exams

• [1]
• [2]

--Bduke 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's not much that can be done with the sources as given, since the NUS one is more about exam preparation than about folklore of this nature. Still, I'll keep an eye out in case I find something on Google. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

faculty number in infobox

The combined number of faculty and staff should be replaced with the figures for faculty only because that is the more useful information about the university, especially in the context of determing faculty-student ratios (which is a key component of many university rankings). 58.174.100.35 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Improve Grammar, Sentence Structure and remove boosterism

20:48, 6 August 2008 The tone has been edited and more neutral now. But can someone improve the grammar and sentence structure of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.84.153 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC) "and is internationally recognised for its research in a number of fields including the biosciences, nanotechnology, sustainable development and social science". On the basis that it is biased; the source contains peacock terms such as "state of the art", plus it is clear that it was written by the university ("our" identified strengths). Also statement cannot be directly verified by the source, ie the list of "research strenghts" is not directly linked to the assertion of "international recognition". In need of third party verification. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Look, I have nothing against the univeristy itself, I am just a strong believer against the use of Wikipedia as some form of advertising platform. I am willing to compromise, ie re-introduce the information as long as it is worded in an appropriate manner and does not contain peacock terms. To the two anonymous IPs, "Selvin Vu" and others, please do not continue your current editing style, it is highly disruptive. Put in neutral content, don't use misleading edit summaries and actually acknowledge the problems instead of simply reverting. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected this article for a few days to encourage discussion here about the dispute. Content disputes are to be solved through discussion by seeking consensus, and not by reverting, which is disruptive and can be seen as an edit war. Those types of behaviours will not be tolerated, so please get talking and sort it. Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a promotional medium, it's meant to be neutral, with facts backed up with sources. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think that Selvin Vu has been trying to address complaints in their latest couple of edits, addressing the copyright violations from the university's web site. I'm not experienced with the world of copyrights, but how much does the original have to differ from the version here? It looks like Selvin took information from History of UQ and changed it slightly, maybe one word per sentence. That makes it not a literal copy, but it's pretty obvious where it was derived from. -- Atama^chat 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A copyright violation is a brick wall here (offending material must be removed immediately, and WP:3RR does not apply). See WP:C and WP:PLAGIARISM. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to include constructive input to make the article more original and informative instead of nonconstructive removal of whole sections of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munrostreet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections that were removed weren't constructive to begin with. To fix an old house you have to remove the rotten wood first. Copyright violations have a zero tolerance on Wikipedia and will be removed, and people who insist on reintroducing the material will be blocked. That's policy. -- Atama^chat 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:PLAGIARISM, it seems pretty clear that the entire history section has been plagiarized from this page. It's significantly identical, and should be completely rewritten. Selvin vu's repeated reinsertions of the text is not acceptable. -- Atama^chat 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the entire section? I'll try and do a complete re-write of it, but it'll take some time. -Reconsider the static (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal of blatantly slightly altered plagiarised section. I've warned Selvin Vu. the edits are of major concern. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the 2 sections on the article that were just lists of the colleges and groups associated with it. These lists do not improve a reader's understanding of the subject in any way, and actually cause the article to look messy. Other schools/universities do not have these lists on the main page. Netalarmtalk 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Advert

Reads like an advertisement, please address the tone so that information is presented in an objective manner-Reconsider the static (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. No other university Wiki page I have seen produces so much puffery. UQ already survives by virtue of its Marketing Department alone. Let's not allow that here. 119.12.226.70 (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more glaringly obvious pamphlet-esque sections that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, others I've reworded to replace some peacock words. There is still lots more to be done to make this anything like a neutral article.

Reads like a college ad

KBurchfiel (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) If I were given the first section of this article in plain text, I would have thought I was reading a school-published pamphlet. Could someone go through and neutralize the language?

Agreed and tagged. A Nobel laureate and a cancer vaccine are both notable but do they belong in the intro? "Breakthrough" is a bit of a peacock word. Rees11 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that information from the lead and cleaned up some of the unnecessary peacock language. I've also noted where references are lacking. -- Atama^chat 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

link to facebook community page

can anyone link this to the relevant facebook community page "University of Queensland" so that the info and emblem may appear, as with qut, griffith, and just about every other Australian university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Current corruption allegations

Where is the mention of the ongoing corruption allegations and CMC investigation? Whilst these should be noted as current events, it would be useful and informative to include and update information about these things on the main page of the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.4.1 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Scandal and VC

The scandal this year meets notability requirements IMHO but I also know some people are very against recent events as wikipedia is not a news website. My logic would be that any scandal big enough to scalp a VC will remain significant in a university's history, I imagine a well written paragraph on it and the VC/DVC's resignation would still be notable enough to be in the history section in 10/20/30/40/50 years time to warrant inclusion, after all losing a VC in that manner is a pretty rare event for a university! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.7.239 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a source for this scandal so we can judge it? I have not heard of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bduke, this is but one article about the recent scandal: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-10/uq-vice-chancellor-enrolled-underqualified-relative/3656556 Google will easily reveal more, as will the ongoing investigation. I am surprised you have not heard of it - it has made news even in Melbourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.81 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bduke - a statement by the Crime and Misconduct Commission (state corruption watchdog): http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10814&cid=5201&id=1376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.81 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Museum and Theatres

I have added a short paragraph that outlines the Antiquities Museum and the Anthropology Museum. There are other museums on the campus; apparently a Geology museum. Maybe someone can add details about those? I left the paragraph about the UQ Club (aka Staff Club) as its web page is there there BUT ... it definitely shut down in December 2011. The UQ Union runs the other facilities such as the Schonell Theatre. So that paragraph needs light editing, I don't have the time right now (gotta take care of research!) GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland)

• Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just came across this new article, and I am not sure that it passes WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article are primary sources, and so can't be used to show notability, and I couldn't find any likely-looking sources online. What would people say about merging that article here? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I support that suggestion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• I also support it. The program doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article from this one. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a separate institute, with its own director 48 years. A large chunk of their services has been removed from the text of the article.[3] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that I removed that. It seemed overly promotional to me, but I wouldn't mind putting it back in if it can be sourced and rewritten neutrally. The main problem is that I couldn't find references to support notability, however. Notability doesn't depend on age necessarily, or on being a separate institute - WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITEXISTS spring to mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Oppose. I'm not convinced it cannot stand alone as its own article. Its still a little promotional, needs a tidy and some more references but I don't think it should be merged. I have been convinced there is a lack of reliable sources establishing notability. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  The point is I couldn't find any suitable references to prove notability. If the references existed, I would have added them to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just spent a bit of time scouting about for some more references with a view to using them to add citations (as has been requested). I did a quick Google search and I did not find any newspaper articles although there was a group interview done by the ABC which someone from the Institute participated in. However, obviously the University of Queensland site could be a source http://www.uq.edu.au/ . The Institute itself features at http://www.iml.uq.edu.au/. The University's annual report (the most recent available is 2011) has a bit of information which is located at http://www.uq.edu.au/about/docs/annualreport/annual-report11/UQAnnualReport11.pdf - see page 51. I hope this helps. --PinkAechFas (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland) (diff) by PinkAechFas (talk⋅contribs) 07:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  Hi PinkAechFas, and thanks for having a look for sources. Unfortunately, sources linked to the University can't be used to prove notability - sources must be independent of the article subject to be useful for notability purposes. See this simple guide to notability on Wikipedia for more information. (Sorry if it's a little in-your-face.) If you have any other questions about this process, please don't hesitate to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks Mr Stradivarius for the comment. --PinkAechFas (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

PS I thought I would just mention I was looking for citations (as requested) separate to the notability issue. I do note that articles (eg Telstra, Westpac and BHP) do have citations to their annual reports and to their own websites for bits and pieces. It was in a similiar vein that I noted the above. But I do appreciate and take board the comment made by Mr Stradivarius. Thanks--PinkAechFas (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's perfectly ok to use these kinds of sources for article details. However, they don't have any bearing on Wikipedia's definition of notability. If you want to see the policy on using primary sources, it's at WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--PinkAechFas (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable alumni/staff

I noticed that there's already an article called List of University of Queensland people that contained nearly all of the information in the "Notable alumni" and "Notable staff" sections. I moved the information in this article that was missing from that one to be sure that nothing was lost, then reduced both sections to a single section with a hatnote. I think that the section can later be expanded to a more thorough summary, but it shouldn't be restored to the long lists that were there before. The advantage of a spin-off article is that you can reduce the amount of text here to keep the article managable. -- Atama^chat 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Financial Review newspaper of Monday 28 October 2013 says that before 1946 no Australian university awarded Ph.D. degrees. Is that true? When did the University of Queensland award its first Ph.D. degree, and to whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwen (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a search through the digitised historical newspapers for the words"doctorate philosophy university australia" and (while I didn't check every search result -- too many), the random sample pre 1946 all had the PhD awarded from an overseas university. The first one I found that related to a PhD at an Australian university was this 1948 mention of a first group of PhD candidates at University of Melbourne] which is consistent with the degree being introduced into Australia from 1946. So, while this is not definitive proof, the evidence seem to support the claim that there were none pre-1946. Kerry (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First PhD at University of Western Australia in 1950. Kerry (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

merge UQ Club and Staff and Graduates Club sections

As far as I am aware (I was a member for about 20 years), these two are one and the same organisation. It was originally the University of Queensland Staff Club, later became the University of Queensland Staff and Graduates Club, then closed down. I don't think it was ever called the UQ Club, other than as a short form. Unless anyone has any evidence of the existence of a separate UQ Club, I'll merge the sections. Kerry (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090913170638/http://www.acrf.com.au/plugins/newsfeed.cgi?rm=content&plugin_data_id=27540 to http://www.acrf.com.au/plugins/newsfeed.cgi?rm=content&plugin_data_id=27540

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's get this lede back to being a summary

The Manual of Style tells us that the lede pragraphs should be a summary of the article, covering the main points. However, much of the content of the lede paragraphs does not appear elsewhere in the article. I have relocated some of the material on the global rankings and alumni into the sections that already existed for that purpose. But the lede still contains a lot of information e.g. membership of Group of Eight etc that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It also lists a campus in New Orleans which is not mentioned in the later section on the campuses (nor on the UQ web page for its campuses! it would appear to be an affiliate relationship relating specifically to the UQ medical school). Try and think about it from the reader's point of view. What is a reader coming to this page most likely to want to know from a summary section. If it's too cluttered with "irrelevant to me" information, people will stop reading it. Kerry (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is to exclude from the article the statement:

UQ's main campus has been ranked as one of the most beautiful campuses in the world by New York's BuzzFeed.

This is without prejudice against discussing the inclusion of a statement like the one proposed by Timtempleton:

The campus has been recognized for its beauty

There is no consensus that http://www.worldstopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/education/most-beautiful-college-campuses-world-top-10-largest-list/ passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, so I recommend either finding more sources that recognize the campus for its beauty or holding a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard about whether that source is reliable.

Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To avoid becoming involved in an editing war I'm asking for other opinion on statements that IP addresses keep adding. I have previously removed these.

UQ's main campus has been ranked as one of the most beautiful campuses in the world by New York's BuzzFeed.

• I removed this because I don't believe buzzfeed is a reliable source, this is just an editors opinion and drawing the conclusion that it is "one of the most beautiful" is subjective. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that such a vague statement from a non-reliable source should not be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed - It is a subjective claim and the fact that it is from Buzzfeed is even more of a reason to remove. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed, but... summoned by bot - I would instead write "The campus has been recognized for its beauty", and source it with this [[4]] AND the buzzfeed source. The statement is true, and two sources are better than just the buzzfeed one. Win-win. Love the shots, even if they are missing Cornell.Timtempleton (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I agree this shouldn't be added, but I'm warming up to Timtempleton's idea. After all, this isn't an isolated occurrence and I'm sure more sources can be found to substantiate such a neutral claim as proposed. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Absolutely, that should not be included in the article. It is considered promotion which is not only not permitted in Wikipedia articles, but the statement is not true nor is it supported by any legitimate references or citations. If the offending editor continues to add the text, we'll need to look at an IP ban. Damotclese (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok so the consensus seems to be remove. Timtempleton I'm a bit confused by your suggestion. The other source you provide is hardly reliable since it has last than 100 page views, I think we would need citation from a major news source Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • There are two sources that say the campus is beautiful. Because of that, no matter how you personally feel about the validity or popularity of those sources, the campus has been recognized for its beauty. Someone had to take a photo(s) and write some text. That's why I thought the statement should be "The campus has been recognized for its beauty". It seems harmless - the source gets added - yet the simpler verbiage is undeniably accurate. With apologies to Groucho Marx, what are you going to believe - these remove votes or your own eyes? But I also agree with User:Elinruby below. Nobody really cares except UQ alumni or prospective students - I'm just participating because I volunteered to help in these situations and was also summoned by a bot. Life will go on, but I thought I was clever enough to find some middle ground to satisfy everyone. Isn't that more the spirit of the site?Timtempleton (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Bottom line, @Timtempleton: this is not the hill I would choose to die on. But, to take the issue seriously for a moment, look, if the statement is common knowledge it almost doesn't need a source, at least not according to journalism, which, ok, is not wikipedia. If someone says that this is not common knowlege, especially if they say it isn't true, then either an acceptable source must be found or the statement can't stay. But I see no reason why you couldn't cite the UQ web page for some statement like "UQ is proud of the beauty of its campus"... if it absolutely has to be "one of the most beautiful" then yes it needs a source and I'd say a buzzfeed listicle is slightly worse than nothing. Hope that helps. Going back to the police officer murder trial article I was working on. Just mentioning that to explain a little my rather rude remark that nobody cares ;)

btw wp:irs might be helpful....Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• it's not exactly news tho is it. However Buzzfeed is really not an RS no matter what, or Quora. If I google "University of Queensland beautiful campus" the first couple of pages at least are all University of Queensland. There might be something to be done with saying the university highlights the beauty of its campus in its recruiting or positioning (?) or there may be an actual source if someone looks hard enough. But if somebody is disputing the statement that it is beautiful I think you have to remove it, as there is no readily apparent secondary source, unless of course the person who wants the statement can find one I suppose. It's not however some priceless piece of knowledge humanity can't do without; I doubt anyone cares but UQ and maybe UQ alumns. Summoned by bot. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove, if the only secondary source is Buzzfeed, but anything more reliable would support inclusion. Heterodidact (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep and add citations needed tag per WP:Preserve. University_of_Notre_Dame has a similar statement:"In September 2011, Travel&Leisure listed Notre Dame as having one of the most beautiful college campuses in the United States."CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove It is a meaningless vote by the 'Buzzfeed community'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to report what Buzzfeed has voted on. If it was in The Most Beautiful Universities in the World or a similar expert work, that might be worth noting, but appearing on a listicle of beautiful universities simply isn't encyclopedic.Robminchin (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

		Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news
		8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions Inform your communities of the need for their support. Contribute in English or in your own language Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

When was UQ "founded"?

Recently it has been changed from 1909 to 1911. Both dates have some justification. The legislation creating the university was passed in December 1909 so it exists as a legal entity from that point. 1910 was spent forming a Senate to govern it and deciding what degrees to offer and then hiring the first professors. The first students commenced in March 1911, so the university commenced operation in 1911 (assuming you regard students as an integral part of a university's operations). So which was "founded" for the purposes of the infobox (we can tell the more detailed story in the text). The Free Dictionary definition of "founded" says

"To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872. See Synonyms at establish. 2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base: found a theory on firm evidence. [Middle English founden, from Old French fonder, from Latin fundāre, from fundus, bottom.]

which seems to slightly favour the 1909 date. Certainly UQ celebrated its centenary commencing December 2009 suggesting UQ favours 1909. Opinions? Kerry (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd have been inclined to go with 1911 in the absence of something clearer, but it seems reasonable to me to go with UQ's take. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Location map

Do we need a map showing where all the university campuses are? Its rather large and I wonder if it adds anything? Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am of the general view that the UQ article is too long so I would be very much in favour of bursting out some of its sections into separate articles. Specifically I would be inclined to create an article Campuses of the University of Queensland which could have the large map and all the glorious detail of each campus. In the UQ article, still have a campus heading, but just have a brief intro into the range of locations and a {{main}} article link off to the campuses article. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Advertising" tag

The user who added this tag recently has indicated that the phrases "consistently ranked first for business administration, mining engineering and life sciences in Australasia" and "admits the majority of its state's top achievers" are behind the tagging. I've left a message on his Talk page indicating that those two phrases are most definitely sourced (although the latter is only sourced to a UQ press release, I'll admit) and not desperately promotional and wondering if perhaps a rewording could be agreed upon to get around any concerns of "puffery". For my part, I'm not convinced that we're really in "advertising" territory here - there's no "all the smart kids go here" or anything like that - but I'm wondering what anyone else would think. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Discussion no longer active, as the tag has been removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on University of Queensland. 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/20091006075509/http://www.library.uq.edu.au/ipswich/uqihistory/intro.php to http://www.library.uq.edu.au/ipswich/uqihistory/intro.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720005141/http://www.cms.uq.edu.au/hirs/ to http://www.cms.uq.edu.au/hirs
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.science.uq.edu.au/facilities/mbrs-about-us
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uq.edu.au/senate/about-the-senate
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uq.edu.au/about/principal-officers-of-the-university-of-queensland
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uqsport.com.au/ovals

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Royal Children's Hospital

Have found that the link to the Royal Children's Hospital links to the hospital in Melbourne. Given that the RCH was replaced by Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in South Brisbane, is the connection still existent and thus necessary to the article? Tbyrn21 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)