Talk:Deakin University
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
Deakin University is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Geelong. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
For a university there is a sincere lack of information on the academic institution itself and a lot of info about the student union and the clubs and societies. I would suggest splitting the DUSA4U info to another page (probably with the info about the clubs and societies) and expand the article with more information about the university itself -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 
04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ick. The DUSA4U stuff is just puff, and I think needs to be fried and a decent Deakin University Students' Association article written. The clubs and societies stuff could just be fried as well, I think - I really don't think anyone cares enough about individual campus clubs and societies to warrant splitting them off anywhere. And unfortunately, that doesn't leave much left. Ambi 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Although I beliebe DUSA4U looks after the clubs and societies. So for now, I'll split the article to Deakin University Students' Association. I'll see if I can dig up more info on the university institution itself, apart from where it is -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- In the meantime, I've just taken an axe to the fluff. Thoughts? Ambi 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Removed
motto =Doctrina Perpetua ("Forever Learning")
Deakin university does not have a motto at the current time. It may have had one in the past, but certainly not anymore --Maverick05 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And just how have you removed it? It is still there, and the history page does not show any attempt to do so.
Now that makes me feel almost as stupid as the person who put it there in the first place!!! --Maverick05 10:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleeeenuppp!
Does Deakin Unversity still need a cleeeeenuppp?
[edit] Modifying Infobox University
I added profess= to Template InfoBox:University yet it is not showing up in Deakin University's infobox. Why is that?
Also, I added doctoral= to Deakin, yet, when saved, it shows..."Doctoral Students"...where does the word "Students" come from?
Ta.
[edit] Useless, irrelevant information
There seems to be a lot of stuff on this page that is irrelevant and useless. I think some people are starting to lose site of the purpose of Wikipedia. If someone is coming to the Deakin page they aren't looking for information on criminal alumni. This page is about the university. If someone is looking up a criminal they can look at his page. A criminal alumni has no relevancy to the University. Other Alumni, celebrities, academics, politicians. They are people in the public mind, that is information that is relevant to the University. Did Craig Minogue get a degree from Deakin? sure, but who wants to know that when they are looking up Deakin.
Secondly a controversy section is overall a bit strange, but could we limit it again to ones that are relevant. The issues with Fraser, and Bagaric are relevant to the university at the moment. Something that happened more than 20 years ago, before the university even became what it is, has no relevancy to this page what so ever. This is a page about DEAKIN, keep info on it to info that is relevant to the university as it is today.
- I agree with you on removing that "controversy" paragraph, as it wasn't much of a controversy and was so old as to be not worth worrying about. However, as with every other university article, Deakin has a section for famous alumni, and it just so happens that a notable criminal is a Deakin alumni. For that reason, I'm reverting your removal of Minogue. Rebecca 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Im not going to remove it just yet, but i want to ask. You’ve said that Minogue was a notable criminal. I agree, but how is that relevant to the University. If someone is looking for info on Craig Minogue they will look him up. Info on the Deakin page should be relevant to Deakin. Whether a politician went to a university is relevant to the University. That information adds something to the university. Emma Alberici, Phillip Aspinall and Julie Attwood all people who are in the public eye now. Knowing these people went to Deakin is relevant is information people should know about the university. Someone who commited a crime 20 years ago who never actually went to the university and completed a course via correspondance is pretty irrelevant and not something people would want nor need to know about Deakin
- Minogue is an alumni of Deakin, and is himself notable, so he goes on that list. I really don't see any difference between that, and the cases of Emma Alberici, Phillip Aspinall and Julie Attwood, except that the latter have gone on to do slightly more beneficial things post-degree. Rebecca 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You're showing your lack of knowledge there. First of all Minogue only completed his degree a few years ago. He never actually set foot on a Deakin campus and completed his course in Prison. The difference between him and the others is that he isn't notable now. The last time Minogue did anything in the public view was nearly 20 years and even that was murdering another prisoner. So the difference that you can't see. One is on TV every few days reporting news the other hasn't been mentioned in the public domain for almost 20 years. One is the leader of a major religion in brisbane the others only achievements in live have involved killing people 20 years ago. Do you see where im going?
- I'm sure more people have heard of Minogue than have heard of Attwood, a low-profile backbencher in the Queensland state parliament. That, however, is beside the point. You admitted yourself that Minogue was notable. Just because someone is well known for something that happened twenty years ago, and just because that something happens to be negative, does not mean they are not alumni, does not mean that they are not notable alumni, and thus, means that they go in the alumni section of their respective university article. Rebecca 08:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
He was notable, but that was 20 years ago. He has done nothing of note since then. Secondly his notable for something that is negative not something i think needs promoting. Attwood is notable NOW. Minogue has done nothing of note for 20 years and that thing was a negative and that thing had nothing to do with Deakin since it occoured almost 20 years before he enrolled in a correspondance call from his prison cell.
- To my knowledge, Attwood has had nothing to do with Deakin either since her degree. You yourself have admitted that Minogue is notable enough for an article. As such, there is no reason to remove it. Rebecca 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Difference - Attwood completed degree then became notable. Minogue became notable, 20 years past by, he stopped being in the public eye, then he completed degree. His time at Deakin had nothing to do with him being notable where as Attwoods time at Deakin was relevant to her life later on as her work in parliment is in the present and happened after her time at Deakin. My point is that Attwoods success and noteriaty is linked in some way to her time at Deakin. Deakin certainly had nothing to do with Minogue's noteriaty. Im not claiming that what Minogue did was something that should be forgotten. Im not saying that what he did was not notable. However if we look at the past ten years, which includes with generous margins his association with Deakin he has done nothing of note. In that time he is just a worthless criminal who just happened to be studying. Is he notable? yes. Is his notability in any way relevant to Deakin? NO
- All of this is irrelevant to the issue of whether he should go on this list. He is a notable person. He is a notable person who graduated from Deakin. He is a notable person who graduated from Deakin who has a Wikipedia article. These three criteria would qualify anyone else for a mention in the alumni section of their respective university, and I see no reason to make an exception for Minogue. Rebecca 06:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allan Lim
Is Allan Lim actually notable, in an encyclopedic sense? 22 is young to have a PhD, but I'm sure he's not the only one in the world. Thedangerouskitchen 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I've removed it before, but it keeps coming back. Rebecca 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Number of Students
The 100,000 students claim comes from adding 65,000 professional students to the 32,000 award students. Seeing as these students are not studying for a registered award course of the University, I do not think they should count in any way, except under "DeakinPrime". I don't think it is reasonable for a person taking a six week night course in Excel to be counted the same way as a fully enrolled full time PhD student. The 65,000 are largely made up of short, workplace related courses, which hire Deakin for its computer labs, or to give supermarket employees a accounting up to a cash register standard. PfkaH 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fourth University Commission
I recently changed the article "Fourth University Commission" into a redirect, and put its content in the "History" section of this article. I also de-linked bare years, based on a previous version of WP:MOSDATE that discouraged frequent linking of years, preferring to link only full month-day-year combinations. I see since the last time I had read that guideline, that it has changed and now says, There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.
An editor reverted the merge on this page, but did not revert the merge in Fourth University Commission, which is still a redirect. The edit summary stated that the merge was "badly done" and that de-linking years was "against" WP:MOSDATE.
I'm curious as to what specific objections there were to how I did the merge? I would like to fix any mistakes I made. Also, do other editors find that year links are useful in that section? As the relevant guideline appears to not address this issue, I guess year-linking works on a page-by-page consensus. Lyrl Talk C 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Costa Hall
As no one has actually started a discussion about this merger...I'm all for it. Costa doesn't need to be in a separate article; it isn't THAT notable a hall. Comments? --Stretch 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Totally agree. PfkaH 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done --Stretch 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
