Talk:University of Stirling

Scotland Start‑class High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Loch

Y'know, I'm not sure this page's assertion that Airthrey Loch is artificial is really true. Certainly it's been messed around with quite a lot, but I do believe there was a significant body of water there before the univerity was built. Perhaps someone can find some documentary evidence, either way? -- Finlay McWalter 01:07, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pic, I put it low because in the future I'll dig out some other pics I have of the uni and put a more general one at the top. But of course I can move the loch one down when I do that. :) I'll see what I can find out about the loch... Fabiform 20:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I found several refernces to the loch being man-made. There is some running water (otherwise it would stagnate), and I've seen some references to springs also, but I think that it's fair to say it was man made - the park was extensively landscaped by a pupil of C. Brown apparently.

university PDF shown as HTML Uni. PDF describes it as man-made
Robert Haldane's improvements to the estate
History of the Airthrey Estate

I've been meaning to work on this article, maybe I'll get to it soon. fabiform | talk 20:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. It's obvious that it's been extensively landscaped (they didn't seem to try too hard to disguise the fact) but I was always unclear about where the water came from, or to where it went. We do need an overview photo showing the campus as a whole (which would, it seems, entail my climbing Dumyat on a cold day). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, it's working again!

I've had a look through my old photos, and I don't have one of the uni that would be useful. I hearby invoke Wikipedia:nominations for freezing to death. ;) (I suppose the uni might have a promotional pic they'd let us use?). fabiform | talk 00:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am a current student of this university, the geography department describe the loch as natural, not man-made.

Thanks. Do they (or the uni in general) have a webpage or offline resource that says this? We're bound by the rules of WP:CITE to get sources which backup our articles. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In the book "The University of Stirling, Beginnings & Today" by R.G. Bomont (University of Stirling, 1995) (ISBN 185769025, Library Code K 8.941 STI) there is a history of the Airthrey Estate prior to the university development. On page 5 of the book the man-made nature of the loch is mentioned twice...

'Robert Haldane built Airthrey Castle in 1791 to a design by Robert Adam and devoted much time over a ten year period in beautifying the estate, transplanting many fully grown trees and excavating the loch covering some 23 acres which still adorns the estate."

'The Gardners' Magazine of 1842 describes Airthrey as having "a beautiful varied park and large artificial lake"'.

University ratings

(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 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reassessment

References can be a bore, but whilst many of them will pass muster at GAC, some will not. The first should read:

Financial Statments 2006-7 (2007)(pdf) University of Stirling. Retrieved 4 January 2008.

The are typos in the last two.

You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment/FA helpful, although you don't need to be quite as fastidious as this for a GA.

Ratings and alumni are lists and need to be turned into prose per previous comments.

Take a good look at other relevant GA's like East Carolina University (there is a list at WP:GA).

When you have done all that either ask for a 'peer review', or if you are confident just take it to WP:GAC. The article is nowhere near an 'A' rating yet and WP:SCO reviews cannot provide GA status. Hope that's helpful. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelled by Alcohol

Should this not be quoted, I haven't heard of alcohol being the main driver for the protest. It was a political hot-potato at the time, and the controversey started before the Queen had agreed to the visit. I think this needs more research. Stirling Uni libarary would probably be a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.226.67 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this stuff?

Looks like the marketing department at Stirling spent a lot of time here... This is not Wikipedia at its best. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldson

Please address the removal of the paragraph on Donaldson here. The paragraph was well supported with a reliable source. thanks Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request sent to OTRS that justifies its removal pending the resolution of that request. Please contact any of User:AlisonW, User:Daniel, or User:Swatjester for further details. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the correspondence concerned and whilst I concur that the paragraph should remain absent for the moment I believe this is likely to be a short-term measure whilst clarifications are sought. --AlisonW (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeking clarification of the issues for the OTRS complaint I have now re-instated the paragraph - with amendments - which I believe correctly interpret the facts. It now reads "The university chose not to defend a claim at an employment tribunal in 2009 in which it was argued it had unfairly dismissed a researcher who had complained that a member of the psychology department, Dr David Donaldson, had removed her name from a grant application and submitted it under his own. The university rejected the researcher's complaint, however it subsequently promoted Donaldson to a professorship." --AlisonW (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from willing to accept "OTRS ticket applies" without knowing precisely what the problem is. This can be discussed in the normal way. "However" is original research, taking account of what the source here provides, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence was received from a legal representative of the University which, basically, asked for the removal of the paragraph. Whilst Wikipedia, being based in the US, is not subject to Scottish/UK law we always seek to be accurate and verifiable. There were two elements here which I felt, as a volunteer respondent to the request, which could be amended to provide greater accuracy. Firstly that the University didn't defend the claim, and secondly that the promotion of Prof. Donaldson wasn't contingent upon the rejection of the researcher's complaint. As such the use of 'however' notes the two events without making a statement of cause and effect between them, which clearly there wasn't though they happened to be close chronologically. To accept the other requests for changes which were received were, I felt, not in the best interests of the article. The University has not, to date, commented on this re-instatement and do not have a veto. Whilst it is, of course, open for any editor to amend the content of a Wikipedia page I would hope others would note this review and maintain the standards WP seeks. --AlisonW (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- and I also want to express my gratitude for the fact that you/we are not simply rolling over in the face of the university's request. I'm still concerned about "however" -- and I suggest simply making two separate sentences, using a full-stop in place of however. As far as I'm concerned this is very much a standards/policy issue, to avoid original research. As far as accuracy is concerned -- I am not sure what to make of this given our usual approach to WP:V. I used the word "conceded" because that was the word used in the source -- isn't that the right approach here?

University Logo

Would someone more familiar with the nuances of WikiCommons be able to correctly upload the proper crest and motto of the University of Stirling, so it can be displayed in addition to the stylised logo on the infobox? A source for the image is at the following URL: http://www.medinfo.dist.unige.it/asiaresist/_borders/UOS_logo.jpg Sweenato 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with University of Stirling School of Applied Social Science

Insufficient material for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student Life

The Student Life section appears to be written almost like a promo-piece for the Uni. I've added a tag to the section in the hopes that someone with more recent experience of Stirling than myself could take a look at it and re-word it. --Connelly90 13:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]