Talk:Solent University

Initial
Regarding this entry, it should be noted that a critical remark on the ranking of Southampton Solent University in the Guardian newspaper from '05 (this former polytechnical college was only very recently awarded the title of a university) was removed from the article on 22nd May 06. The current ranking is still rather low, around 100th place. One may argue that this is probably a result of the UK government's push to award many colleges the status of a 'university', giving this title a rather inflationary problem, and putting the former colleges under a lot of competition in the rankings. JPThomas, Thu Jun 8 16:36:45 BST 2006

Regarding the reinsertion of the above comment, the current Guardian rankings place this university substantially higher than last in the rankings. [Guardian_ranks]. As the statement is no longer true, it was again removed. MRM 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to get into another "discussion" here but I fail to see your ability to judge here, you have admitting that you have no knowledge of UK Academic Institutions previously. I think the facts now speak for themselves and the language is right. Ralphthebear 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a statistician with over 20 years experience. If I saw any list where an institution went from dead last to the 14th percentile, I'd call that a substantial improvement. The rankings are based on an aggregate score. SSU's score on this measure was 54.18 (Mean=61.69, SD=7.37). This is well within the 95% confidence interval of not being different from the mean. This score is significantly different from the bottom placed institution's score (Z=2.19, p<=.05). Reverting the wordingMRM 09:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't know the first thing about statistics... Are you perchance an "academic" with this "university"?

I would not describe that as substantial, if it had broken through the top 100 barrier, you may have more of a case, but its still way down there and hardly a great leap. You attempt to over complicate this basic fact with statisical analysis. This language is a far more appropriate assesment and was written by another member and I agree with it. Ralphthebear 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If we can't agree with the adjective, then let's remove it. Both statistics are in there- let the reader decide. Not sure if the WP:LIVING rule would apply here. For an encyclopedia entry, is the former rank relevant? Don't we need to go beyond just putting in facts aimed to instill a derogatory POV and instead aim at quality, relevance and conciseness? Studing WP guidelines for an answer.MRM 21:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on 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. Timrollpickering 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable alumni
I've removed most of the redlinked alumni, and will add back those that I can verify easily. A lot of the alumni listed looked like fake/joke/non-notable entries. ThomasL (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists of names
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) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

working with professional bodies
work with computer society is long established but reference to PTC needs clarification - Wikipedia has long list to resolve ambiguity but no hint here as to which one SSU works with. Can this be resolved? Carollong (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Southampton Solent University. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709035932/http://www.contensis.co.uk/CaseStudies/SolentUniversity.aspx to http://www.contensis.co.uk/CaseStudies/SolentUniversity.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524212335/http://www.solent.ac.uk/students/postgraduate/research_info/study_by_research.aspx to http://www.solent.ac.uk/students/postgraduate/research_info/study_by_research.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change: Replace logo and update motto
Information to be added or removed: Correct Solent University logo file to be added to the page and motto to be updated. (Logo file can be provided by leonora.clement@solent.ac.uk) Explanation of issue: The logo currently showing on the page is an old logo. Solent University changed their logo in 2017. In 2020 Solent University have also created a new coat of arms with an updated motto. The motto is now 'Ready for the Future'. References supporting change: To check, visit www.solent.ac.uk where current logo is displayed throughout the site.

Leonoraclement (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting an edit request, I have updated the motto in the article. You could upload the logo yourself following Uploading images or post a request at Files_for_upload, otherwise the waiting time for requested edits can be several months. If you have any difficulty you could post a query at the Help desk, or the Teahouse for new editors (I have not done an upload myself). If that works, reply here and I will be happy to update the article. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This request has been answered, so I am going to close the ticket. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section moved to history section
I reverted the edit made by to remove the criticism section from the article. The information is cited to a BBC program and I disagree that it should be removed. Mrmattu why did you want to remove this section? Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The above BBC program was directed at the old "Southampton Solent University" which is no longer active and is defunct, In turn the Critisism section should be removed but with references left on the page for historical reference. Mrmattu (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This request has been answered, so I am going to close the ticket. Mrmattu (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi as stated in the top and in the history section, Southampton Solent University is not defunct; it has just changed its name. Thus, I think the criticism section is still valid as the institution still exists. I think this section should be readded to the article.
 * Also, I've noticed that you have posted "This request has been answered" twice on the talk page. When I "closed the ticket" above, it was in reference to the request edit template that was used by Leonoraclement. This statement is not necessary at the bottom of every talk page section, and should be avoided because it stops discussion when others may want to continue. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi All fair and valid points, i'll take your criticism on board. As for the removed section you're probably right this could be reinserted maybe with the title (former university criticism) but, I still feel that it doesn't need to be due to the fact this has happend a number of years ago "2004" and the university has moved on sinsce then changing the board and "Legal" name change. It's a completely different institution. it's like saying NeXT, Inc. (later NeXT Computer, Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.) is now Apple Inc. Apple has done something back in 1980s but it wasn't really Apple it was NeXT Inc etc. Where do you draw the line. You can see my point it's not the same entity. If it was me the former University should have a completely separate wikipedia page, like there has been for other different universities in the past. Mrmattu (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi On Wikipedia we try to follow WP:DUE and removing a whole section of criticism is not appropriate in my opinion. I am in favour of moving that section to the history section (since the WikiProject doesn't have a Reception section in their suggested article structure and this is not recent) and I would consider a rewording it. However, the information the source should not be deleted. Do you have proposed text to post below, should I add the text as-is to the History section, or is there another suggestion? Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi That sounds like the best outcome, again I also see your point transparency is a good thing I guess, Go with the old text as is if you think of any edits/or refactoring with the old text let me know. Maybe add former university in there. I approve of your above edit. Thanks.  Mrmattu (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the text to the history section. I did not include "former" university because sources verify that the university changed their name, not that they became a brand new university.
 * In the future, please don't change any text in a talk page, like in the title of this section. Sometimes editors link to specific sections and if the name is changed it will break the link. Thanks for your help in fixing this article. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I’ll keep that in mind and you too. No problem at all, glad we got it sorted. Cheers 👍 Mrmattu (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m happy for you to close this ticket 👍 Mrmattu (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This conversation is all informal, so there's no ticket to close. I avoid saying I'm "closing tickets" unless I'm closing a template like the request edit template. Even though we both agree, other editors might want to give their opinion on the changes we have made (and I welcome all comments!) and therefore this conversation cannot be "closed." Let me know if you have other questions and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! Mrmattu (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms should replace top logo image in standing with all other universities
I reverted the edit made by, The Coat of arms should always be the top wiki logo, this is the same across all UK universities that has been appointed/given a Coat of arms. This is in keeping with the UK universities WIKI policy. Mrmattu (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have any issues with this please refer to other UK universities as an example "University of Southampton", "Bournemouth University" , "University of Plymouth" , "University of Reading" and "University of Portsmouth" etc. For future reference the university logo is always placed below on the side information paragraph. With the Coat of arms always placed first. Mrmattu (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This request has been answered, so I am going to close the ticket. Mrmattu (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo-solent.svg

Radio folks
Noticed that some (albeit unreferenced) names had been removed. These had been here for years prior and needed updating.

Please don't forget to remember how helpful it is to be able to find a station manager's name. Student Radio is big in the UK and often involves collaboration between institutions. ResonanceCascadeScenario (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)