Talk:University of Salford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial[edit]

Reel North is a phenomenon in its own right. Not-for-profit and produced on a zero budget, it is only UK television programme made by undergraduates to have been awarded Best Regional Programme (Royal Television Society North-west Awards, 2006). Nominated for RTS awards three years running, the programme has a track record that is unique, pioneering and ground-breaking in terms of the history of city broadcasting in the UK. The suggestion that it should not have its own page is like saying Georgie Best should only be included under 'Manchester United'.

Hitting Home (made by masters degree students at Salford University) is a strand of documentaries dating from the 1990's that has attracted a string of awards. It is also a brand in its own right.

I agree. The shows stand on their own merit. --RichardLetts 06:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness[edit]

This article is a mismash of promotional material, woke critique, which is not ballanced, and ommits much of the history of the University. Nothing is said about the troubles of the 80s, the recovery, lead into IT in the 90s. At present the whole article has little value. Much more input is needed and much more critique of what is written needs to be applied.

University ratings[edit]

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire[edit]

Anyone wishes to include the fire incident at the Lowrey bar? I was there, but nobody gave away anything. p.s- there are amazing pictures in circulation. I am sure I can get my hands on few. (14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Pictures of the fire accessible from the USSU page. The Lowry bar was run by the Students' Union and therefore isn't really relevant here. TorstenGuise (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here[edit]

This article has a lot of bad formatting and needs a good copyedit. The phrase... "is avaliable to see here" (with here being linked to a shop or a personal webspace) is not really permitted per Wikipedia's Style Guide. Bold text should be used sparingly, and lists should be re-written as flowing prose or converted to tables. Jhamez84 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-salford-city.png[edit]

Image:Arms-salford-city.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 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duncan edwards building?[edit]

according to Eddie Colman's page here on wikipedia, he has a building mentioned after him at the uni, which is mentioned on this page, but Eddie Colman's page also states there's a Duncan Edwards building, which i can't see mentioned here. can someone who knows the uni/the area, confirm this?? then either update this page, or Eddie Colman's page. thanks. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. end of story! TorstenGuise (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there is currently no Duncan Edwards Building at Salford University. However, it's possible that it was a third accommodation block, where Pendleton Police Station is now. There used to be an aerial photograph of the area in the reception of John Lester Court (the block of flats next to Eddie Colman Court), and this photo showed three tower blocks. I first lived in John Lester Court in 2003 and the third tower block had been demolished by then. Since Eddie Colman and Duncan Edwards were both Manchester United footballers who died in the Munich air crash, I imagine the Duncan Edwards Building (or, probably, Duncan Edwards Court) was the third building on the photo. Incidentally, Eddie Colman and John Lester Courts are no longer owned by the University of Salford - Campus Living Villages bought them in early December 2008. Jammycaketin (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This page features an old version of the university logo, which was officially replaced several years ago. Is it possible to update it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.191.11 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo there is the current corporate logo of the University. Only the Sportsclubs and degree certificates now use the original crest. TorstenGuise (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not the case. The logo was changed circa '04 after a (tedious) round of (expensive) branding consultations. The logo on the current entry is definitely 5+ years out of date. A quick look at the main site is all it takes to clarify this. I do not have a decent-resolution image available, given I no longer work there. I may remember to ask somebody to sort this out, maybe. Mongoletsi (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's really not the current corporate logo. The current one does not have the two printer's marks (those small red stars), the words "The University of" are now in bold, and the lion has been slightly altered. I don't know how to put the current one on the page though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.191.222 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the logo you were referring to? Jammycaketin (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students' Union[edit]

I think a lot of the material in the Students' Union section should be moved to the University of Salford Students' Union article - indeed, much of it is already there. I propose trimming the section on this article down and moving most of it to the USSU article - any thoughts? JCzech (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - The material posted was wholesale copied from the USSU article. TorstenGuise (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names[edit]

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section: possible violation of copyright[edit]

This section is copied from http://www.salford.ac.uk/about/history/ If it is not licensed for use here it should be rewritten or deleted. Reg porter (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.salford.ac.uk/about/history/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content rewritten and reinstated. There should be enough difference now for this problem to be resolved Zanoni (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reg porter (talk · contribs) just pointed out that the research section is a copyright violation from this source. As such I've removed the material that was copied from that page. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

With regard to recent logo changes the actual logo can be found here [1] Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And various versions of it here Unfortunately our new editor doesn't like the fact that it now includes the word "Manchester". Richerman (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons will not like that it is uploaded as own work when the 3rd-party-guidelines are pretty clear that it's under an all-rights-reserved license. Do we need to re-upload to en.wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It can go on with a fair use rationale but it needs to be a low resolution image. Richerman (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Richerman: How small do you think is necessary for a logo? Right now it's 420x314. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see someone has sorted it out using the rationale that it is text only and therefore not copyrightable. Richerman (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if that would be the case, but I didn't know how the experts at Commons would rule on that. —C.Fred (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Salford. 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:

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) 20:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Salford&oldid=1209491994"