Talk:Australian National University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Canberra / Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian National University is within the scope of 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


I've removed this: 'In 2004 the ANU began offering an advanced four year science degree, The Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours), or PhB. This research focused degree is Australia's most prestigious science degree. [1]' from under the Science description. Both Arts and Asian Studies also offer this degree, so would require similar writeups - but it isn't really important enough to warrant front page stuff. Besides, there's already an entire page about PhB degrees in general (including those at ANU).

Rankings table[edit]

Moving this here until the entries can be sourced.

The following is a summary of ANU rankings, numbers in second row indicate ranking within Australia:

Ranking entity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg.
QS World University Rankings[1][2] 16 23 16 16 16 17 20 26 24 27 25 19 19.9
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1
Times Higher Education World University Rankings[3][1][2] 16 23 16 16 16 17 43 38 37 48 45 52 30.6
1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.6
SJTU Academic Ranking of World Universities[4][2] 49 53 56 54 57 59 59 59 70 64 66 74 77 61.3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.4
CWTS Leiden Rankings[5][2] 114 127 104 89 108.5
1 3 1 1 1.5
Global Employability University Rankings[6][7][2] 20 23 32 25.0
1 1 1 1.0


  1. ^ a b "QS(THE) Rankings All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016. 
  2. ^ a b c d e "Australian National University - Compare within Australia". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved 17 April 2016. 
  3. ^ "Times Higher Education Rankings All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016. 
  4. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016. 
  5. ^ "CWTS Leiden Ranking All Years". University Rankings. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation of Swiss. Retrieved April 16, 2016. 
  6. ^ "Global Employability University Ranking 2015 results". Times Higher Education (THE). Times Higher Education. Retrieved 17 April 2016. 
  7. ^ "Global Employability University Ranking 2013-2014 results". Times Higher Education (THE). Times Higher Education. Retrieved 17 April 2016. 

In general, tables like this are not a great idea. As time passes, they become a weird little slice of time unless they are updated. They are not really encyclopedic content in that regard. Kind of a WP:BOOSTER thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I appended the original official sources of the rankings. Actually I believe that the cite source I added yesterday (April 16, 2016) is also reliable and from authority (swiss department of education). What's more, honestly I don't think this table is a WP:BOOSTER thing. Because all major rankings are listed (QS/THE/ARWU/Leiden/THE Employability) no matter ANU ranked first, second or third. So I think it is pretty objective and fair. Rankings in the past are also a part of the university, so I think we shouldn't just throw it away. How do you think?

this is the source you added yesterday. Where in that source do I find the rankings for all those years for each of the ranking entities? Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
In this page, you can see there're numbers of years like 2015, 2014, 2013 ... 2003 below Shanghai Jiao Tong title (which is the Academic Rankings' Provider). Click one number link you can get the corresponding result of that year in ARWU Ranking. And so do QS, THE below. Just click the corresponding numbers links.
By the way, the THE ranking shared the same result during 2003-2009 with QS. Please check THE-QS World University Rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyawaki kyoto (talkcontribs) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand what it means to provide sources. What you write in Wikipedia has to be supported by an actual source where anyone can go to VERIFY the content. Providing a link to X that I can perhaps to follow to sources Y and Z where I will perhaps find the verification is not what it means. Jytdog (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I updated all links now. People can check the results easily and directly with just clicking the cite source links. If there is no any other problem, I'm going to add this part to the main article.
That's not how it works. I noticed that in this dif you made the rankings within australia a separate row for QS and Times. there is no source for that row provided. I am verifying the other rows still. Might take me a while. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I appended the source for rankings within Aussie, please check the new source added. What's more, thanks for your contribution to this article. I can't imagine how this article would be without the maintaining of you. Thanks a lot.

Proposed consolidation of related articles[edit]

Full disclosure: I am a current student at the ANU. I've read through WP:BOOSTER, and I'm confident that I can write/edit related articles using neutral, objective phrasing.

Hi there, I'd like to propose the consolidation of ANU-related articles. This would entail the merging of various articles into either the existing article – or a new article, as the case may be – of the 'college' (i.e. faculty) of which they are a part. What I am proposing is perhaps most easily demonstrated by looking at the ANU template as an example. I have recently edited the template to make it so that the university's various 'schools' and 'research schools' (as well as those 'centres' that aren't part of a school, and a few other significant centres) are listed under their respective colleges. What I suggest is that the articles related to the ANU be structured similarly (this would not extend to the ANU Medical School). For example, under this proposal, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Development Policy Centre, Indonesia Project, and Strategic and Defence Studies Centre would all be merged into a new article titled [[ANU College of Asia and the Pacific]] (with the college's schools and research schools as sections, and the centres etc. that comprise them as subsections). I propose that such an article could be structured as follows:

If there's no consensus to merge the articles, then I'd be happy to agree to creating articles for each of the colleges and using {{Main article}} etc. where appropriate. Additionally, if no one else agrees with creating articles for the colleges, I'd at least like to see articles created for the few major schools that don't already have articles. If it is agreeable to other editors, I'd like to work on the hypothetical articles about the colleges in my sandboxes and then submit them to WP:AFC (due to my conflict of interest), and to avoid the unnecessary mainspace edits caused my attempt at improving Template:Australian National University. Please let me know if I've done anything unsuitably. Doonagatha (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. We don't normally regard just being a student at a college as being sufficient COI to prevent editing in the normal way. (Some students have indeed gone overboard in splitting articles or writing individual articles about student clubs, etc. , but you're proposing the opposite, which will merge them in the way that is generally preferred) Nevertheless, it was a good idea to ask this , because of the extent of the changes. Let me know when you're done, and I'll check them. No need to use AfC or draft space for this. The main thing to beware of is to make sure nothing has inadvertently been copied from one of the university web pages. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll let you know how I get on. I'm new to editing, so it might take me a while. Doonagatha (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a COI does not have to stop editing. However the ANU page is already large. So we should not be merging in more content. If the schools and colleges are proved to be notable in themselves then they can have (continue to have) standalone articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
To show notability you will need to find references that are independent of the school with substantial content, which means pages not hosted by ANU. Currently they are not supported by these sort of references. Newspaper articles are quite likely to exist however. You will just have to find them, read them and then use the information here with a reference. TV shows and other journal articles are also potentially there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Do said references need to refer to the colleges specifically, or is it all right if they mention one or more of the schools/departments/centres etc. that comprise the given college? Doonagatha (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Does a separate discussion about the notably of the colleges need to be had before the creation of articles for the colleges, or is this something to be discussed on the talk pages of the hypothetical articles at some point in the future? Doonagatha (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Of the examples listed above, the Crawford School of Public Policy and Strategic and Defence Studies Centre should be kept separate as these institutions are (highly) notable in their own right. The ANU's other high-profile research units, such as the John Curtin School of Medical Research and ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering as well as well-known academic units such as the ANU School of Music (which has received lots of media coverage over recent years), should also remain separate. Bear in mind that the ANU's organisational structure means little to people outside the university (and even people within it - despite completing two qualifications at the ANU I have only a hazy idea how it's structured), so lumping the famous bits of the uni in with whatever their parent colleges are at the moment won't be helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind putting {{Main article}} at the top of the sections about those articles if that is what people want, but what of the other high-profile ANU institutions that don't currently have articles, such as the School of Politics and International Relations and the School of Culture, History and Language? Doonagatha (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Somewhat sceptial of the idea of making up just one page for the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific although I appreciate the approach taken here. However problems would be that (1) the page would get rather large, and (2) it would encompass too many somewhat disparate activities. One possibility would be to create what might be, in effect, a portal page labelled "ANU College of Asia and the Pacific" composed of brief descriptors of the main elements with links across to the existing separate pages. We also need to bear in mind (3) the reality that the current ANU College of Asia and the Pacific is likely to be restructured sometime sooner or later (because the ANU Management keeps restructuring the University from time to time and isn't likely to stop doing so). If and when the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific is restructured, the Wiki page would need to be revised again. (While this is obviously possible, it would seem to me to be easier to handle the changes if the current activities remain separately listed, as is currently the case.) Pmccawley (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Do you have a view on whether pages should be created for the any of the sections of the ANU that don't already have articles? Doonagatha (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops -- sorry for taking so long to reply. No. I don't have any strong view. For me, the first question is "Do we think there is enough interest out there to make it worthwhile creating a page?" I'm not sure if there is enough interest to justify having separate pages. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't. But if we think there is, then I certainly have no objection to seeing pages created. NB (1) -- One way of getting a handle on the level of interest would be to check on how often some of the existing ANU pages are accessed on Wiki. My impression is that some of them are not accessed a lot (but I might be wrong). NB (2) -- If ANU pages are not accessed a lot on Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily indicate lack of interest in ANU, of course. ANU already has a pretty accessible website. It may simply be that users looking for information tend to go directly to the ANU site. Pmccawley (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with merge proposal on the basis that many of the bits, or groupings of bits, are independent. Also, lumping everything into one very large article seems an unattractive option. I don't think I'm adding anything new here. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment I find the idea of a new tree structured article with pointers attractive. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


College of Medicine, Biology and Environment[edit]

I'm fine with that, do you have an opinion either way about [[ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment]] being created as an article, with the JCSMR being retained as stand-alone article? With respect to the ANU Medical School, I'd like to see it remain a stand-alone article too. Doonagatha (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, and Rangasyd: Just a general request for further comment, hope I'm using {{reply to}} correctly. Doonagatha (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We usually do keep medical schools as separate articles. We rarely do this for research Institutes , but Curtin may be an exception. We should hold a separate discussion on it. I do not think the other research schools warrant separate articles. They are important, but the usual criterion for doing this amounts to world-famous. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The John Curtin School certainly deserves its own page as it is quite famous. But for example searching for "ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment" on trove: reveals lots of mentions, but no substantial content. So it would not be counted as notable in itself. The reason I search Trove, is that it lists things in all Australian libraries, so if there are any books, or websites or newspaper articles from the past it is almost certain to show up. Similarly for "Crawford School of Public Policy" you can see that there are plenty of mentions, and it is also a publisher, but there do not seem to e any writings just about the school that are not written by ANU or the school. So that means it is not notable in itself (or at least that I could not prove that it is notable). But having more than about three paragraphs in the ANU article is a bit excessive, especially as it will be verified by primary sources only.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, sometimes published as '(The) Australian National University. College of Medicine, Biology and Environment.' If the initials 'ANU' are removed from the trove search, the number of results increase to 26 books, the majority of which are theses (+4), 242 journal articles (+142), 3 AV (+1), and 220 archived websites (+112). I have not trawled through each of these items, yet on first impression, most appear as primary sources. In short, the College was established in 2008: see ANU 2008 Annual Report, page 1; previously called the ANU College of Medicine & Health Sciences. A quick Google search of 'College of Medicine & Health Sciences' (limited to Australia only) brings up a reasonable number of secondary and tertiary sources; enough to justify the establishment of an article. I'll make a start in my sandbox and when I'm ready invite input. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. Given the feedback above, I don't plan to merge the ANU Medical School into the sandbox article; however, I do plan to merge the ANU Research School of Biology into the sandbox article. Feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, is there consensus to create articles for the colleges (faculties), with the question of whether the colleges' components (aside from the med school) are to remain as separate articles, or are to be merged into the articles about the colleges, to be discussed separately? Doonagatha (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can do what Rangasyd did to find secondary and tertiary sources, and you can write more than a paragraph, then I think it should be OK to make the page. If in doubt you can use the Draft: prefix to make a proposed page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. At this stage, given the points raised by Pmccawley above, I think I might instead work on improving and updating some of the existing articles about ANU institutions, using more recent sources. That way, the information contained within them could be used if it is decided that they are to be merged, but if that isn't the outcome, then they can remain as is. Doonagatha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I will tentatively do this later on this year. Doonagatha (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, Rangasyd, and Pmccawley: Just another a general request for further comment. Doonagatha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The first step is, as is generally the case, to improve the existing articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
More secondary and tertiary sources are required; yet here is my sandbox article for the ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment. Feedback is most welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I've marked this edit request as answered since an extensive discussion is ongoing. Altamel (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed article structure rethink[edit]

@DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Nick-D, Rangasyd, and Pmccawley: Hi there. (I realise that this isn't particularly coherent, apologies).

On the topic of changing articles pertaining to the ANU, I've given it some thought and I wonder if I different approach might be better. Without wanting to come across as arrogant – or as overly focused on this matter – I've taken the liberty of drafting a (very) rough outline of how this might look:

  • Instead of dividing in the various components of the ANU by the 'College' (faculty) in they are now, an alternative approach would be to divide them by the broad academic discipline that they best fit into
    • Just using one of the 'College' names as an example, this could look like "Medicine, Biology and Environment (at the ANU)" instead of creating an article specifically about the "ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment"
      • (n.b. again, that's just an example of what I'm trying to get at here, I'm not actually proposing that 'Medicine, Biology and Environment' be used in an article name.
  • One advantage that I see this as having is that it would make it easier to update the articles whenever the university restructures itself.

I'm completely open to suggestions, thoughts, and feeling on this (I'd love feedback/input general), and I'm happy to clarify/expand any of this upon request. Doonagatha (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it best to go by the usual: the organizational unit. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 21:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why you think that would be best? Standardisation with other university-related articles? Doonagatha (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one reason. Not just with the university articles, but with the way all articles on organizations are organized. Second grouping by something other than the university does is making our own judgements, and amounts to some degree of original research.Third, grouping b themes leads to results like Programs for ... w hich is the way many promotional pages do it. And finally, I don't see any advantage DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)`

Area of the campus[edit]

The infobox used to say the area was 358 acres and Nick-D (talk · contribs) removed it with the comment "that can't be right - the ANU campus is several km long for starters". We need to straighten this out. First, ANU has multiple campuses, including one at Kioloa of 348 hectares (860 acres) and one at Stromlo of 81 hectares (200 acres). So the infobox needs to qualify the area given as that of the Acton campus only (or the total, or a list, whatever is decided). Regarding the Acton campus, [ this site] says 145 hectares, which is 358 acres and maybe the source of that number. However, in the past decade ANU has expanded a bit and I suspect this is an old figure that is no longer true. I tried to measure it using a Google Maps area tool and got around 160 hectares, but I'm not sure of the boundary of ANU's holdings near Marcus Clarke St and near the National Museum so that number could be off. We need an official source that is up-to-date. McKay (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice that this ANU page also says 145 hectares. McKay (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, if there's a source for the figure it should be re-added, with the source. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)