Talk:University of Sydney

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.
Note icon
This article was a past Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject Australia / Sydney / Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon University of Sydney 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 Sydney (marked as High-importance).
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.

Sports clubs[edit]

In the Sport section, it looks like a lot of sports clubs are trying to insert a little plug for themselves there - there are a lot of them, and it's already grown quite a bit, and it's unsustainable if more gets added. I suggest we delete any references to specific sports clubs (unless they're particularly noteworthy in the history of Sydney Uni) and make general references to the types of sports and activities available. Comments? enochlau (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think clubs competing in first grade competitions in major sports deserve specific mention, but apart from that specific clubs shouldn't be mentioned. JPD (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Do Australians wishing to apply or attend Uni have to complete an exam or test in high school and have substantial grades from post-high school years to be accepted, or is just if you've completed year 12? The section doesn't make it quite clear. Please advise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel2001 (talkcontribs) 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

See Universities Admission Index and Higher School Certificate for the general case. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Latin name[edit]

Admin Enoch. Your recent edit summary is quite ironic. Arbitrarily and repeatedly removing valid and accurate information on nothing more than the basis that you don't think it belongs there, then protecting the page when several unconnected editors restore it is anything but mature. If anything, perhaps you should grow up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Accurate? Give me a reference for it. enochlau (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It may not be appropriate, and it would definitely need a reference, but it isn't too hard to check that it is accurate with some OR. Go to Fisher and find a book that's been in the library long enough. There are stamps in some books using that latin name for the university. JPD (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I somehow think that isn't sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia, unfortunately. enochlau (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's why I pointed out that it would be original research. This isn't jsut a case of silly vandalism, though. JPD (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how citing the authority of the university's own library in asserting its own name (and prior use thereof) counts as academic "research", original or otherwise. It's not an endeavour to determine an as yet undiscovered principle, merely the verification of an institution's name. The very nature of academic Latin makes use of the internet for verification (or lack thereof) unreliable, and so turning to real world sources such as this is not merely advisable but inevitable. If in your opinion this authority is "insufficient" for the purposes of wikipedia (we're swimming in obscure and nebulous requirements tonight) then I doubt anything will be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Rubbish. The internet is irrelevant. Real world sources are always appropriate - but they need to be real reliable sources saying that the Latin name is so and so, not merely someone's personal observation that the name appears on old library stamps. Once a source is provided, there is then the question of whether a name that is no longer used is relevant to the article. JPD (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I think that if it was once used, but it is no longer actively used, it is misleading to place it in the infobox because infoboxes are for summarising the current state of the subject matter. It may, however, be appropriate to place it in the text of the article, if we can find a reference as JPD mentioned. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair points. I put forward for consideration, however, that if the stamps are in books which are still in active circulation (ie available for use and loan in the fish rather than just locked up in archive) then they are still objectively "in use" as an identifying mark of the university. This could also be important in identifying historic documents, particularly formal and/or international correspondence (typically conducted in French and Latin) wherein the identifying of a person frequently entailed stating his credentials and qualifying institutions. 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Name of the university (Universitas Sidneiensis) is quite clearly, prominently, and continuously attested by the exhibition on level 2 of the Fisher Library (USyd's primary library) on the foundation of the University and the grant of its Arms. In this exhibition are presented for popular examination the original Royal Bull clearly stating the name and arms of the university in Latin, several seals of the university (in Latin) at various stages of development, and significant pieces historical of Australian academic, literary and popular history bearing the Latin name of the University. It may be argued that verifying this information requires original research (though I have photographs of some pieces on display should they be necessary) that is beside the point of proving the validity and centrality of the Latin name to Sydney University's formative history. Such basic information is far from irrelevant to anyone with more than a passing interest in the development of the university, thus any suggestion that the name be deliberately excluded is simply preposterous. 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rather than even pretending to be impartial Enochlau has simply reverted any changes to the entry of the university's Latin name without any attempt to even address the comments made above. Despite repeated public and private requests he has refused to give a clear indication of acceptably "verifiable" evidence of the existence of a Latin name. Thus I include a photograph of an original Testamur ("diploma" for you Americans) issued by the university, presented on display in the Fisher Library (Rare Book library display alcove, level 2) taken two weeks ago. The first four words "Nos Senatus Universitatis Sidneiensis" mean "this senate of the University of Sydney". click for image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:50:44, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that isn't evidence that the university has a Latin name. The entire document is written in Latin, so of course, the name is rendered in Latin. If I produced a document in Chinese with the university's name in it (written in Chinese), does that instantly mean that the university has a name in Chinese that should be mentioned? No. My point is that the university has a name in every single language that can express the concepts "University", "of" and "Sydney", but there is no evidence that the university has ever considered itself to have had such a name. enochlau (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually you are very gravely mistaken. This is a testamur, arguably the most important document a University can possibly issue. It is a declaration of conferral upon an individual of attainment of a degree qualification. The fact that this document is issued in Latin (and is presented by the university herself as typical of all testamurs from the seminal period of the institution) indicate the centrality of the Latin name. This is not just a bit of paper that some hackneyed website administrator has scribbled in a hurry, it is an exceedingly important document issued by the institution herself (and later, produced as a model of all such documents). Please stop trying to misrepresent the issue and just leave the name up already, you are looking more and more fickle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:39:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The argument here seems to be whether the University has ever recognised the Latin name, or whether it is merely a translation. Has anyone contacted someone at the University who might actually know? Kewpid 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That image it of an original issue Testamur, therefore it's a moot point (since by definition the original issue of any document is not a translation but definitive). However, I can see that this is not made clear in the image itself. The testamur is still on display in Fisher library, I suppose to prove that it is an original issue I (or someone else) could provide a photograph of the rest of the document, showing the university's watermark seal. In any case, that goes beyond establishing the verity of the name itself and into the territory of hoops to jump through. I am deeply concerned that Enochlau has not shown good faith at any point in this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:08:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinction between not assuming good faith, and showing how someone else is wrong. enochlau (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that this was the name used by the university in documents in Latin. The question is whether the fact that the university once issued documents in Latin using that name means the Latin name is relevant for this article. Now we realise that that fact that all the evidence given so far is original research is actually to some extent relevant, since if the Latin name is at all important, it should be easy enough to find a third party source describing it. JPD (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't seem to be able to find any such third party sources. enochlau (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We therefore have no reason to include a Latin name in the infobox. JPD (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Te United Kingdom identified itself via a Latin name back when it used to issue documents in Latin. Do we put the Latin name right at the top of the page in Wikipedia? No. End of story. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then explain the prominent latin name on the pages of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. "End of story" indeed. 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The University of Oxford used latin for all offical documents including degree certificates right up to well after I graduated in the early 1960s. Knowledge of latin was a rerequisite for entry. Cambridge was the same. Sydney is not the same. --Bduke 23:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And when did Sydney stop? You say that "Sydney is not the same" but do not back up the implied claim that Sydney has not used her Latin name for much longer with any facts. It has already been conclusively proven by the University's own authority that this is an extant, official name for the institution. The onus therefore now shifts to those who wish to prove it should not be included to show cause as to why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I really do not want to buy into the main argument. Oxford used latin on its degree certificates for hundreds of years. If Sydney used latin in the same way for even a few decades there should be plenty of references. Nobody seems to have found a source that makes the Latin name notable and that others do not think is OR. --Bduke 10:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Except for the fact that whatever has "been conclusively proven" (I didn't see anything about it be an extant official name, anyway), has been proven by original research, and definitely doesn't prove that the name is of sufficient relevance. Please address the issue, rather than resorting to invalid arguments by example and claims about the onus shifting. Is there any third-party evidence regarding the Latin name? JPD (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying that taking a picture of something to verify a simple fact is OR is stretching the rule too far. We have many articles that mention plaques at buildings and monuments and what the plaques say, sometimes with pictures. In those cases the plaque can be regarded as a primary source, and despite popular belief, primary sources are not forbidden on Wikipedia, especially to verify simple facts. They are only disallowed for creating an original synthesis or novel interpretation. The same situation applies to library seals and degree certificates. The question remains about whether the university still uses its Latin name for anything nowadays (I have no idea), but absent solid proof that it changed or disavowed its Latin name at some point, we should assume that it is still valid. The Latin name is a piece of valid, verifiable, and even potentially useful information and I see no reason to exclude it from the article. --Itub 09:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely a primary source. Any interpretation of a primary source requires a secondary source. The most that we can verify with the primary source (and by the way, taking the photograph is irrelevant - it is enough that the testamur exists and is accessible in Fisher library, and if it weren't, the photo would need to be published in a reliable source), is that testamurs at a certain time were issued in Latin and used that name for the University. The notion that it is "still valid", whatever that might mean, is some sort of interpretation, partly about fact and partly about editorial matters. I'm not sure anyone is arguing for complete exclusion of the verifiable facts from the article, simply saying that it is not important enough to be presented simply as "the Latin name" in the infobox. Secondary sources concerning the name may not be entirely necessary, but they would help establish both verifiability and notability. JPD (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not every single fact in an article needs to be "notable" as in WP:N, which is a guideline meant for articles. Therefore no secondary sources are necessary at all. For an analogy consider the infoboxes used for chemical compounds, which have fields for the molecular weigh, melting point, etc. If any reliable source says that the melting point of compound X is 54 degrees, that's it, it's a fact and we put it in, unless the fact is disputed (for instance, because contradictory values were found in other sources). No need to find secondary sources discussing how notable it is that compound X has a melting point of 54 degrees. BTW, I agree that the photograph is not indispensable, but it is certainly helpful for readers who can't go to the library in person. ;-) --Itub 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, not every fact needs to be notable, but we shouldn't give undue weight to anything. The decision of what to put in an infobox is an editorial decision, but it should be informed by sources. Things like melting points of compounds are widely accepted as key facts concerning the compound which can be presented well in an infobox. The Latin name of a university is not. Even the fact that someone has decided it is appropriate to include it (as the first information you read in an infobox!) for some universities in another country does not automatically mean the same decision should be made here. We definitely don't need a secondary source discussing its notability, but secondary sources mentioning it (such as the secondary sources telling us the melting points) or even using would be one way to demonstrate its significance, and their absence is also telling. JPD (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with that. If the consensus is that this piece of information is not relevant for the infobox it can certainly be excluded as an editorial decision. (I'm of the opinion that it doesn't hurt and it doesn't have undue weight--at least on my monitor, it has a tiny font!) What I could not accept were the claims that the Latin name is original research or inaccurate just because it comes from a primary source. --Itub 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, let's find consensus. So far we've only had shouting back and forth with reverts left, right and centre (especially by one particularly unscrupulous admin). Time for a vote? 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. I think it has earned its place there. --Bduke 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:-/ enochlau (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Can we add links to each faculty's website and add a page on wikipedia for each department within the university. I would like to create a wikipedia page for Sydney's Faculty of Dentistry similar to how Harvard has done theirs.


Would this be possible?

Thanks Jwri7474 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll need to find enough information to write about each faculty and have everything referenced. Also remember that the faculties at the university are currently under a state of flux (mergers in the works?) so I'm not sure if it's a good idea at the moment to write separate articles about them currently... but go ahead if you want. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Student representatives/Union/Sports Union[edit]

I think it is more orgranised and logical to have subheadings for student representatives, student union, and Sydney Uni sports Union under the heading of "Student organisations, clubs and activities". I have taken the liberty of modifying the page. I have also created the page for Sydney University Sport (SUS), and will start to move information currently on the page to the SUS page and expand the SUS page. Hopefully this will resolve the questions of which clubs should be on the page and which clubs should not (in fact I think all clubs deserve a place in the history and in Wikipedia, if storage allows). --Wpliao 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of intro spent on rankings, law school(?)[edit]

The introduction puts far too much emphasis on rankings and, like most other universities, uses peacock terms. Overall, the introduction needs to be shortened.

Consider rewrite of introduction:

The University of Sydney, established in Sydney in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. It is a member of Australia's "Group of Eight" Australian universities that are highly ranked in terms of their research performance; it is one of the country's largest and most prestigious educational institutions. In 2005, the University of Sydney had 45,966 students and 2,300 (full-time equivalent) academic staff making it the second largest in Australia.[3] The University of Sydney continues to rise in global rankings, confirming its place within the top 40 universities in the world. The UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings published in October 2006 ranked the University fifth best in the world for the arts and humanities, nineteenth for the social sciences and twentieth for biomedicine. [4] [5] The University as a whole was ranked 35th in the world in that same publication's league table, ranking third among Australian universities.[6] In the Newsweek global 100 for 2006, the University of Sydney (together with the Australian National University) was one of two Australian universities placed in the top 50 in the world [7].

The University of Sydney, established in Sydney in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. It is a member of Australia's "Group of Eight" Australian universities that are highly ranked in terms of their research performance. In 2005, the University of Sydney had 45,966 students and 2,300 (full-time equivalent) academic staff making it the second largest in Australia.[3] The University of Sydney has been ranked amongst the top 40 universities in the world by various sources. The UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings published in October 2006 ranked the University fifth best in the world for the arts and humanities, nineteenth for the social sciences and twentieth for biomedicine. [4] [5] The University as a whole was ranked 35th in the world in that same publication's league table, ranking third among Australian universities.[6] In the Newsweek global 100 for 2006, the University of Sydney (together with the Australian National University) was one of two Australian universities placed in the top 50 in the world [7].

This removes peacock terms, and also removes superfluous information about Law School in introduction. I'm not sure why Law School information is in introduction, it does not belong there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakashi10 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

Sandstone universities[edit]

There should be a reference to the universities membership of the Sandstone universities.Sandstoner 07:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Ranking[edit]

It would be really nice if active Wikipedians working in this article put this template at a suitable place, preferably in the article related to student activities or debating activities.

Template:World Universities Debating Ranking

Niaz bd 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this template. There isn't an article which really covers specifically the debating activities, so this article is probably as good a home as any. enochlau (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging reply. I have a plan to organize debating related articles with proper citations and references. I have already started working on them and this article is one of my such initiatives. Niaz bd 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this meant to mean?[edit]

I suppose the person who wrote the following sentence must be doing a law degree. I certainly hope they are not an English student!

"Centred on the Oxbridge-inspired grounds of the University's Main Campus on the south-western outskirts of Sydney's CBD, the University has a number of campuses as a result of mergers over the past 20 years." Amandajm (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Oxbridge-inspired Main Campus is situated on the south-western outskirts of Sydney's CBD. The University has also acquired a number of other campuses as a result of mergers."? JPD (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rankings discussion[edit]

I'm not sure about whether this article needs a massive section on rankings at all, given that every ranking system, without exception, is close to worthless for comparison of universities, but if it must have one it should be in its own section in the body of the article. Currently it's bogging down the intro in an impenetrable discussion that no one will read. Nasica (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess[edit]

Isn't there any student at Sydney University who can grasp the niceties of Wiki formatting well enough to tidy it up? Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

A user has introduced the new University logo to the wiki page but is asserting that the coat of arms has been abolished or made obsolete. This is grossly innaccurate. Not only does the grant of arms, which incidentally was issued in 1857, remains valid but it is stated implicitly by the Vice-Chancellor that the coat of arms is retained while the logo is used for marketing, publications and website purposes: "You will notice changes to the University of Sydney website as well as to our print and digital publications. Importantly while retaining the coat of arms our University logo has been refreshed, making it more modern while retaining our heritage." - Media release

On another point I don't think I've seen any usage of this 'crest' logo with the "The University of Sydney" text removed. Is this just your invention?

Media release: [1]

Grant of arms: [2]

actual Arms grant here: [3]

Since the coat of arms is retained it belongs in the infobox as the ultimate and formal representation of the University. That being said the logo also represents Sydney Uni and also belongs in the infobox but I must stress that the coat of arms is not obsolete, that would be an insult to the great history and traditions of sydney uni. I do believe that as testamurs are the most formal statement from the university that you can get then the 1857 arms will be used. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that you have confused this new logo with the actual coat of arms which is actually granted by the Royal College of Arms (and did so in 1857), and the logo which incorporates elements of the coat of arms and replaces many functions, however regrettable, in which the Arms originally appeared. So it still exists but to a lesser extent and is still the most formal representation of the University. I think if they used the new logo on everything including testamurs, there would be a big backlash. Sydney Uni prides itself on its history, being Australia's oldest, and having a motto which roughly translates as the "stars have changed but we remain the same". Saying that while they are an australian Uni, they still use the traditions of the classical universities such as Cambridge or Oxford. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: this specifically, although I do not really know, I do not think it has real relevance now because the system of government and administration of universities is done differently than it was in the 1850s prior to Australia becoming a federation. DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think there should be a new section on the page about the Coat of arms and logo, describing the coat of arms history and the logo introduction to clear up some of the assumptions and unclear nature of the university symbols. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that you have read that press release and come up with the interpretation that you have.
"You will notice changes to the University of Sydney website as well as to our print and digital publications. Importantly while retaining the coat of arms our University logo has been refreshed, making it more modern while retaining our heritage."
to me means that the coat of arms, which I thought was specifically the lion and the open book effigy etc that they were specifically mentioning here (which is admittedly a somewhat narrow interpretation of "coat of arms", as you'd think it's the whole thing, but to me this seems to be clearly what they're saying), was retained within the new design. I find your interpretation unmotivated.
Yes, I created the image with the coat of arms separated from the text "The University of Sydney". The fact that you cannot readily find such an image on the website yourself means nothing. If you check the Internet Archive and look at the University's front page with the old design ( ) you will find that an image with the crest separated was also not readily available back then. So what? The crest is still the crest.
Also, going from a simple common-sense approach as opposed to referencing sources (even though I think the press release is already quite clear), you could think like this: why on earth would the University use a crest design on their testamurs (or anything else for that matter) different from that which they use on all their official digital and print publications. It simply doesn't make sense. This is their identifying mark. Think some decades down the track, when people have forgotten the old design, wouldn't it cause confusion?
DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear in what I was saying. There is a clear and important difference between a crest and a coat of arms. The crest, or the shield in this case has been transposed to this new logo and redesigned but the "Coat of arms is retained" i.e. the crest, the motto, and the original design as it was first used way back in 1857. It just happens that the coat of arms was used as the 'logo' for all marketing purposes as well as all formals uses. Now its uses have been reduced and that role is now shared by a logo that incorporates elements of the the original arms while also being modern in design. This state of affairs occurs quite a lot, local councils and some universities use a logo for most uses but also use a coat of arms for formal purposes. Just because some roles of the arms are not carried out does not mean that they are redundant.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having read up a little on coats of arms it seems that this is the case: the whole thing is often erroneously in English called the crest, however this originally only referred to a protrusion from the top of the shield. The Arms is specifically the central bit and is also called simply the shield. The surrounding part is the mantling - this is what the USyd heraldry has removed now. See: Also see: coat of arms.
In light of this I am reverting back the article, and adding rewording the coat of arms explanation to specifically refer to the change in mantling and that the coat of arms have been retained. DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin motto[edit]

Sorry to have to write the obvious, but the Latin eadem means "same"--absolutely nothing else. Thus User:Tone.itdown1901 was simply incorrect to revert my literal translation of Sidere mens eadem mutato. The university certainly carries a freer variant translation on its website, but refrains from describing this as a literal translation. To satisfy both viewpoints, I have now fully spelt out the difference. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The University-adopted translation is official. It is quoted in Faculty/School Handbooks and the University Calendar (one of the highest University documents publicly available) <>. The University has not 'refrained' from using the word 'literally': Please refer to external sources before contributing to this article. Tone.itdown1901 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks at least for eliminating the gross 'literal' error. Nonetheless, your view tends to confirm that the motto is actually a misepresentation, i.e., that there may be a quite different mentality beneath the Southern Cross, one in which expediency edges out plain speaking. So, to appropriately cement that difference, let's have it your way, and to hell with what the Latin means. Incidentally, my cited [official SU source] pronounces If a literal translation is required, then The constellation is changed, the disposition is the same is perhaps appropriate. Please consult provided external sources in future before arrogantly presuming to tutor a more experienced fellow WP editor. And, if you have no Latin, please accept that the internal WP source for eadem fully accords with elementary vocabulary taught to junior school pupils, and cannot be faulted in any way. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Though Bjenks has proved his point beyond dispute, I second what he is saying as a latin scholar myself. It is saddening when the bureaucracy of an organisation like Wikipedia gets in the way of fixing obvious mistakes. Tjpob (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird image[edit]

Can that bulbous, fishbowl image of the main quadrangle be replaced by something less garish? Tony (talk)

Sorry you don't like it. That's a pretty standard projection for showing the inside of something that surrounds you. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there an undistorted image available? You could walk out and take one (parorama shot). Stitch together, upload to commons, and it can be presented as a horizontal scroll as the fishbowl thing is now. I have to wear shades to view that bulbous Luna Park wobbly-mirror one. Tony (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)