This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Old Arts Building
I have the picture of the Old Arts Building that I just added, as well as a few others - I obtained them from a representative of the UNB alumni office. He got them from their web pages, but believes that the copyright is open for us to use them here. I'll refrain from uploading the others til I get confirmation. I'm not positive that where I've placed the OAB picture is the best location, and it's forced some of the other text to move. Anyway, anybody else should feel free to move it. Kraigus 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that should be fine, the old arts building is a historical structure, same as we could post photos of the Eifle Tower.Piuro 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The point isn't that it's a picture of the building itself; the point is that the copyright of the picture itself is a bit up in the air. But nobody's complained or removed the photo, so it'll do for now. (If somebody who actually lives in Fredericton could take a similar picture and post it copyright-free, that would solve the whole issue. I don't live anywhere near Fredericton any more, so it's not going to be me.) Kraigus 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got a picture of the Fredericton campus taken from across the old train bridge today, but since it was cloudy and windy it didn't turn out as well as I had hoped. I'll put it up for now, and if I can get my camera out on a better day or if someone else does it before me, then go ahead and put a better one up. Kirjtc2 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I changed that picture to one of the Old Arts Building. Your picture was terrible and grimy. This one is remarkably nicer. It would be nice to have a better picture in place of it, but this is far better than the old one and was the best I have at the moment. No offense to Kirjtc2, it just wasn't a nice day. Posted by Blazingluke 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I got a picture of the Fredericton campus taken from across the old train bridge today, but since it was cloudy and windy it didn't turn out as well as I had hoped. I'll put it up for now, and if I can get my camera out on a better day or if someone else does it before me, then go ahead and put a better one up. Kirjtc2 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- The point isn't that it's a picture of the building itself; the point is that the copyright of the picture itself is a bit up in the air. But nobody's complained or removed the photo, so it'll do for now. (If somebody who actually lives in Fredericton could take a similar picture and post it copyright-free, that would solve the whole issue. I don't live anywhere near Fredericton any more, so it's not going to be me.) Kraigus 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Citations
Citations are needed for a lot of the facts mentioned here. Where does it say that UNB is one of the top 10 universities in Canada?
- This is just a note to remind somebody in the future to add the ranking with reference to McLean's, as was mentioned in a recent edit.Son0rouS 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Misleading
This article consistantly defines UNB as the oldest university in Canada. This maybe true, however; the oldest DEGREE GRANTING university in Canada is Queen's, this should be noted, as it reduces the credibility of the misleading bragging that has occured. User:DrJamesBredden 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- That may be true, but I don't see why it needs to be mentioned here. Every university seems to have a ridiculous "first" claim, should other universities' claims be brought up whenever Queens' particular one is mentioned? How does Queen's completely separate claim have anything to do with UNB's and how is it any less misleading? If Queen's is the oldest degree granting university in Canada, add that to the Queen's page. Same goes for U Georgia also being founded in 1785: it's an interesting fact, but it doesn't affect the claim that UNB is North America's oldest public university. Regardless, the introduction to an article isn't really the place to get into this. Character 01:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
UNSBT?
The article refers to UNSBT as being faster growing, but nowhere is UNSBT defined. Should it be UNBSJ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.202.79 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Polytechnic?
Shouldn't current events regarding the propsal to convert UNBSJ into a polytechnic be included in this article? 207.179.175.235 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Probably, but it would be difficult to come up with wording that people would agree on. I think a new section mentioning the PSE report has been submitted and that the provincial govt. are contemplating making "transformational change" (their own words) would not be amiss, but it wouldn't do to provide any analysis. And I believe there are particular tags for changing news stories. I don't have time for this right now, but if someone drafts something I will certainly comment.— scribblingwoman 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:UNB logo.png
Image:UNB logo.png 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 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Content copied from another Wikipedia article
A small amount of content in the "20th/21st centuries" section was copied from Strax affair; see that page's history for attribution.HazelAB (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Article's quality lowered
Hey @RetroTetra, the article was re-reviewed by somebody who decided to mark it as a C-Class tier due to, like I've told you before, the article's B-Class rating being outdated. You can stop going around peoples' talk pages claiming that I'm "vandalizing" the article for simply marking where it can be improved now, whilst using the article's "B-Class rating" to excuse this behavior. It's immature of you to attempt to bring random people into what is nothing more than a simple disagreement that you chose to escalate. Please refer back to what I've said to you on my talk page, thank you. B3251 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article assessments are a relic of Wikipedia 1.0, an effort to assess and categorize articles in preparation for a printed or DVD version of a very early Wikipedia, which never really got off the ground and has been defunct for over a decade. The only assessments that are really standardized and actually count for anything are good and featured articles. Bickering about whether this page is B-class or C-class is a waste of time, it doesn't matter at all.
- Also I must remind you both that civility is required. You can discuss issues with the article and ways to improve those issues in a respectful manner, or you can be blocked from editing. Those are your two options. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting the importance of discussion. Indeed, none of the extensive edits that B3251 made singlehandedly to this established article was discussed in Talk. Please revert his edits to enable discussing before extensively editing. RetroTetra (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to blanket revert anything, and neither should you. We encourage editors to edit boldly; we're not a bureaucracy and don't expect every minor change to be vetted by committee and approved with all the proper forms signed in triplicate and filed with the head office before editing. If you have specific edits or content that you think should not have been added or need to be changed, either go ahead and fix it, or identify and discuss it here. Just don't edit war, please. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't believe I must quote this to a senior admin: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus(...) An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted(...) Be bold, but not rash(...)" RetroTetra (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to only be concerned about the presence of cleanup tags in the article, which if you haven't noticed have already been removed. This morning I went through the material that B3251 flagged and addressed some of it and removed some other tags which I felt were excessive. The entire sum of the changes that were made since B3251 first started tagging a week ago is here, if you'd like to review it in one place. If there are other things that either of us missed, corrections from either of us that you don't think are correct, or just other things in general that you think could be improved, you need to say what they are. You can quote policies and guidelines at me until your fingers bleed, but I am not going to just undo a week's worth of work by multiple editors just because you weren't consulted. If you would like to work on improving the article, perhaps getting it to the WP:GA level where assessments actually count for something, I'm willing to help. If you just want to keep complaining, I'll invite you to read the essay on tendentious editing instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Where in the above posts did I say tags? And so I must repeat it again: mass edits without discussing them first are the issue. As for your refusing to do your duty, note that Arbitrators have already decided on this and all like issues: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Please comply with the arbitration decision and do your duty: revert the mass edits so they could be discussed by the community. Thanks. RetroTetra (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- This will be my final comment on the matter: no. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, I've only heard rumors of this happening, but this is first hand. Milelong fancy rules, bylaws, arbitrations... exposed as baloney in an instant when an almighty "senior admin" aka invector says so. lol RetroTetra (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- This will be my final comment on the matter: no. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Where in the above posts did I say tags? And so I must repeat it again: mass edits without discussing them first are the issue. As for your refusing to do your duty, note that Arbitrators have already decided on this and all like issues: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Please comply with the arbitration decision and do your duty: revert the mass edits so they could be discussed by the community. Thanks. RetroTetra (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Ivanvector, thank you for the improvements you’ve made to the article. I can’t disagree when you say that the tagging is a bit excessive and I’m definitely not an expert at it, I only started actively editing on Wikipedia since about March of this year so I’m still learning. That being said, it was odd being accused of ‘vandalism’ as well as various assumptions and accusations about me.
- The first time they removed the improvement templates I had put up in various sections over time, the user added that I had been told multiple times regarding them in the edit reason. Because this wasn’t the case, it left me confused so I passed it off as nothing more than a troll edit.
- I find it unfair for @RetroTetra to pass me off as a vandal and that I need to ‘reach consensus’ for seemingly any edit I make, as if they have some sort of ownership to the article. I’ve spent the past few months, off and on, making various improvements to the article and I plan on continuing to do so, and I hope that I can do so.
- I appreciate you taking the time to discuss about this topic, and I don’t feel like this needs to continue on any longer so this will, unless necessary, be my last comment on the matter. Thank you.
- As for removing the comment in your talk page, I apologize for doing that; from my perspective - after receiving wild accusations about my character on multiple occasions, as well as the user bugging another admin, who had removed it due to not wanting to be involved (it’s worth noting these happened after I informed them that escalating this into an edit war will lead me to going to the Administrators’ noticeboard) it really doesn’t seem to be out of good faith, and, due to some of their comments, feels like a personal attack, which is why I chose to remove it. I apologize again for doing so, and I won’t do that going forward. Thanks.B3251 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to only be concerned about the presence of cleanup tags in the article, which if you haven't noticed have already been removed. This morning I went through the material that B3251 flagged and addressed some of it and removed some other tags which I felt were excessive. The entire sum of the changes that were made since B3251 first started tagging a week ago is here, if you'd like to review it in one place. If there are other things that either of us missed, corrections from either of us that you don't think are correct, or just other things in general that you think could be improved, you need to say what they are. You can quote policies and guidelines at me until your fingers bleed, but I am not going to just undo a week's worth of work by multiple editors just because you weren't consulted. If you would like to work on improving the article, perhaps getting it to the WP:GA level where assessments actually count for something, I'm willing to help. If you just want to keep complaining, I'll invite you to read the essay on tendentious editing instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't believe I must quote this to a senior admin: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus(...) An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted(...) Be bold, but not rash(...)" RetroTetra (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to blanket revert anything, and neither should you. We encourage editors to edit boldly; we're not a bureaucracy and don't expect every minor change to be vetted by committee and approved with all the proper forms signed in triplicate and filed with the head office before editing. If you have specific edits or content that you think should not have been added or need to be changed, either go ahead and fix it, or identify and discuss it here. Just don't edit war, please. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting the importance of discussion. Indeed, none of the extensive edits that B3251 made singlehandedly to this established article was discussed in Talk. Please revert his edits to enable discussing before extensively editing. RetroTetra (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Founding and charters cleanup
Okay I did miss one: there is a cleanup tag remaining in the "Founding and charters" section saying "cleanup and new content needed". B3251, can you elaborate? Did you mean that to apply to just that subsection or the entire History section? And what in particular needs to be cleaned up, or what new material needs to be added? @RetroTetra: inviting your input as well. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)